Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief point in addition to that one. It is interesting that we have just came out of a debate on a group of amendments that address the rule of law and legal advice. Around the Committee, there was a strong view that people should have representation, that they should be able to make their case and that their case should be heard. What we have before us now is a group of amendments in which there is absolutism without any sense of balance or proportionality. The case of coercion, which my noble friend has just discussed, makes it incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and in due process to support these amendments, particularly when we are told that the criticism largely comes from the Daily Telegraph.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will respond, with all due respect, to the noble Lord’s comments about minors. We should bear in mind that this amendment would apply to people who would be subject to the provision as adults, not children, when sent into the prison estate. They would be subject, for instance, to pre-sentence reports and background information being provided if they were young people, but, in essence, they would be adults. They would be at the top level of criminality, because they would be incarcerated in respect of a custodial sentence. In other words, they would have committed pretty serious offences; they would not have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence or for speeding. Therefore, for the noble Lord to conflate the two is wrong. This is something that the British people are looking to the Government to take action on. They look at other jurisdictions and simply cannot understand why other jurisdictions are in a position to take robust action to remove people who have committed persistent criminal offences in their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who unfortunately cannot be in her place today. In doing so, I pay tribute to her tireless advocacy for EU settled status holders. I also thank the3million for the brilliant work that it does representing EU citizens in the UK and for its support and briefing.

The amendments in this group seek to protect the rights of holders of EU settled status and ensure that the procedural safeguards provided for under the withdrawal agreement apply to them all. I should say at the outset that we welcome Clause 42, but we believe it would be significantly improved if the Government took on board the key elements of our amendments.

The problem that Clause 42 seeks to address arises from the creation of two distinct groups of EU settled status holders: those whom the Government have determined the true cohort, who had permanent resident rights or were exercising treaty rights at the end of the implementation period, and the extra cohort, those who were not exercising treaty rights but who were granted settled status based on simple residence at the end of the implementation period. The Government did not tell settled status holders which cohort they were in as they never tested for true cohort membership when granting settled status. Regardless of cohort, the grant of settled status states specifically that it is issued under the withdrawal agreement, even though the Home Office argues that that is not the case for the extra cohort. Nevertheless, the Government claimed that as they did not intend to distinguish between the two cohorts, the existence of two cohorts had no material impact. Subsequently, the outcome of litigation required that some government services could be accessed only with proof that the person concerned was part of the true cohort. This requires them to prove the exact legal status of their residence on 31 December 2020, and this is increasingly difficult as time marches on.

Clause 42 seeks to legislate to end this distinction between the true and extra cohorts, and to fulfil the Government’s commitment that they would not treat the cohorts differently. It does that by granting a separate route to withdrawal agreement rights for the extra cohort via this Bill. In intention it is therefore extremely welcome. However, there are elements of the clause that undermine the Government’s own objective and create further difficulties. It is these difficulties that our amendments seek to address.

First, Amendment 144 would delete Clause 42(2)(c), as this is foundational to the issue. The subsection gives the Home Office the power to remove settled status without affording status holders the procedural safeguards provided by the withdrawal agreement where it believes that settled status was granted in error, even if that error was the Home Office’s.

This is wrong, for several reasons: first, because it is wrong for the Government to remove status from someone who applied in good faith without committing fraud or misrepresentation of any kind and who has been building their life in the UK over many years. If the Home Office has made an error in the original decision, it is one that it needs to live with rather than visiting that error on others and potentially causing huge disruption and misery.

Secondly, it is wrong because it allows the Government to execute this decision without applying the procedural safeguards which exist to ensure that status is not unjustly removed, and which are provided under the withdrawal agreement. This is because, where the Home Office thinks status is granted in error, it does not issue a decision to remove the status; if it did, people would have procedural safeguards, as the Home Office would need to have applied a proportionality assessment and the status holder would have a right to appeal.

Instead, what the Home Office does is to allow the status to expire. This sidesteps a proportionality assessment, which would otherwise be required, and denies the right of appeal. The Home Office says that this is a helpful thing to do, to give people a bit more time before their status is lost, but in fact it is letting status holders slide off a cliff without any of the withdrawal agreement safeguards. This must not be allowed to happen, fundamentally because the Home Office may well be wrong in its assessment that the status was granted in error.

Does the Minister accept that there is no right of appeal on the specific decision to allow a person’s status to expire on the basis that the pre-settled status was granted in error? Is a withdrawal agreement-compliant proportionality assessment made before a decision is taken to allow status to expire? If it is not applied, does he accept that the Government will be in breach of the withdrawal agreement should it transpire that they wrongly asserted that pre-settled status was granted in error? The fundamental issue here is protecting people’s rights to safeguards under the withdrawal agreement.

Thirdly, the subsection could also invite any government department or public body to revisit a grant of settled status to decide whether the individual can rely on withdrawal rights by assessing a person’s legal position on 31 December 2020. That is precisely what the clause is supposed to avoid.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 142 would ensure that

“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”

benefit from Clause 42—not only those with extant settled status. This is to ensure that rights under the withdrawal agreement are maintained for those whose status is varied—for example, if they have been forced to give up settled status to access protection as victims of domestic abuse—those whose pre-settled status has expired because of a failure of the automatic extensions and those whose settled status has been deliberately expired rather than revoked.

Amendments 143 and 145 would address the situation for those granted settled status under EU derivative rights; that is, those rights which were established outside EU directives through case law, which are known as Zambrano, Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights. Zambrano rights holders are not protected under the withdrawal agreement, and these amendments would maintain that situation, but they would ensure that Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights were covered by Clause 42.

In conclusion, these amendments would clarify the law. They would give certainty and reassurance to settled status holders and would ensure that the Government’s stated intentions had effect.

Finally, before I sit down, I want to raise with the Minister a related issue of serious concern about the lack of transparency of the Home Office over the effectiveness of its digital immigration systems, which directly impact settled status holders. On 22 July, I tabled a Written Question asking how many reports had been made through the “Report an error with your eVisa” online form in each of the past 12 months. The Minister replied on 30 July, saying:

“The information requested is not currently available from published data and could only be collated and verified for the purposes of answering this question at disproportionate cost”.


The idea that the eVisa IT system cannot generate a report of how many error forms it has received for anything above a minimal cost is, to my mind, absurd. In any event, this is critical information for policymakers and those who scrutinise them. If officials and Ministers do not have this data, how can they know how their systems are functioning?

Perhaps they do know the answer, and they just will not tell us. In replying to a similar question in a letter to the 3million group, the Home Office gave a different answer. It did not claim that the data could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In fact, it stated that it intended to publish the requested data on the volume of error web form requests in due course. We all know what “in due course” means, or, more precisely, we do not know what it means at all.

I hope the Minister will address this issue in his answer and tell us when the data will be published. We cannot have faith in ministerial assurances that errors in the eVisa system are not a significant problem if the Government are not able or prepared to share the data. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this issue and to the points raised on the amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Oates. We support Amendments 142 to 145, as they would safeguard the rights of individuals granted status under the EU settlement scheme, ensure the proper application of the withdrawal agreement, prevent arbitrary removal of status, and uphold procedural safeguards.

It is worth just stating what those safeguards are. There are four of them: first, the Home Office must notify the person of the decision that their status will be removed; secondly, the Home Office must explain the grounds on which that cancellation decision was taken; thirdly, the Home Office must take proportionality into account before removing their status; and, finally, the individual would have a right of appeal against the decision to remove their status.

Amendment 142 would ensure that

“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”

benefit from Clause 42 even if they are not already direct beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement. This is crucial for some groups because there are those whose EUSS status might be varied; for example, to access protection as victims of domestic abuse under a different immigration route. It clarifies that these individuals should be deemed still to have directly effective withdrawal agreement rights.

Amendments 143 and 145 focus on those who obtain resident status by the various routes under the EUSS. While the Home Office suggests that these individuals are already part of what is called the “true cohort” of beneficiaries, there may be a minority whose grants were based on caseworker discretion and would not otherwise fall under this cohort. Amendments 143 and 145 ensure that such individuals who have built their lives in the United Kingdom in good faith are also included within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement without undermining the Government’s overall policy intention to exclude certain other routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I do not understand why one should object to protecting people with these four protections in circumstances in which it appears that the Home Office has made a mistake. It seems to me that the most unsuitable moment to remove the protections is when the Home Office has made a mistake. Indeed, if the Home Office has made a mistake, one would hope there would be greater protections because there was a mistake.

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord is correct. If the Home Office recognises it has made a mistake, then it should apply the protections which are provided by the withdrawal agreement, which is precisely the major point that is being made in this set of amendments. Amendment 144 would ensure that all actions related to EUSS status are subject to clear procedural safeguards, as laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

Taken together, these amendments reinforce fairness and legal certainty for EUSS beneficiaries, ensuring that administrative decisions respect individual rights and that the procedural safeguards are consistently applied.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I have very little to add except that I await the explanation from the Minister with great interest. The amendments in this group and Clause 42 itself concern the rights of those granted settled status in the UK under the EU settlement scheme after the UK left the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has ably explained, there are a number of avenues for an individual to apply for this scheme. As I understand it, the impact of Clause 42 is to standardise the rights applicable to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who are granted leave to remain under the settlement scheme so that they can rely on them under UK law. Subsection (2) of the clause defines precisely who this applies to, and Amendment 142 seeks to amend that. I am not quite certain of the intent behind that, because the language is very similar to the original text, so I think it is essential for the Minister to clarify what Clause 42 lacks that makes these amendments necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 203D follows from others in the group to provide for a review of the rights of people who do not have indefinite leave, who have experienced labour abuse or who, having protested or reported abuse, have lost employment as a result of that. Not to be prepared to review the overall issues around this subject would indicate an attitude which would be quite hard to justify. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151 and 152 in my name, and Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which I have signed.

I will begin by explaining to the Committee the whereabouts of the other signatories. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has had Covid—caught here, I am afraid, in meetings last week. She is very unwell but recovering at the present. It is a great shame that she was not able to speak to these amendments. Perhaps more worrying, of course, was the accident that I know most noble Lords will have read about in the newspaper, which involved the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who suffered at Victoria station from the bus that drove off the road. He has some serious injuries. I am not in a position to say whether he is making a speedy recovery, but he has replied to emails, so that says something of his perseverance. The Committee might wish to offer him every best wish in recovering swiftly from that accident.

These are very important amendments for many noble Lords around the Committee, because they concern how we can do a number of things that are currently on the agenda for the Government all in one go. Tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working while awaiting an asylum decision and are made forcibly dependent on the state for support, which is often inadequate; for accommodation, which is often overpriced; and for subsistence. Spending on hotel accommodation alone costs us £8 million per day.

The Government’s policy includes five priorities: first, to reduce the asylum support budget; secondly, to reduce or eliminate the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels; thirdly, to reduce child poverty; fourthly, to reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities of newly recognised refugees; and, fifthly, to reduce the number of people claiming state benefits. Amendment 151 addresses all those priorities. Enabling asylum seekers to work will reduce the asylum support budget and enable people to earn money, so that they can pay their own accommodation costs. Giving people this support enables them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. It would also help 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 if communities see hotels being closed. Working will help those asylum seekers who get refugee status—which is somewhere in the region of three-quarters—to stand on their own two feet much quicker than if they had been languishing in a hotel for months or years. This would be very helpful to local authorities with their obligations to homeless people and to the DWP benefit budget.

I understand what the Government’s responses to this will be. First, I am sure that the Minister will tell us that this will be a pull factor. However, having asked this question frequently, including in this Chamber, I have found that, in reality, there is no available evidence that supports the argument that it is a pull factor—that is an assumption. All the available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in determining people’s choice of destination when they are seeking safety and are largely unknown to people seeking asylum before they arrive here. Without the evidence, the UK currently has one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would bring the United Kingdom in line with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months or, in some countries, even earlier, such as in Belgium.

The second reason that the Government push back against this policy is because they believe that we are already reducing the list of people who are seeking asylum. They argue that we are improving our processing and getting appeal times tighter, so the work will not be needed at this stage. Although the Government aim to process all asylum claims within six months—a welcome ambition in a system where many people wait for years for an outcome—we must be realistic. When the current ban was introduced in 2002, the then Government made an identical argument about processing times, and the six-month target was not met. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for an asylum decision has risen sharply over the last decade, from one in four, or 25%, at the end of 2014, to 59% at the end of 2024. No matter what the Government are doing—they may be reducing the processing time—we still have large numbers and long waits.

There is also no reason that faster application processing and enhanced working rights must be mutually exclusive policies; in fact, they should be complementary. This policy would allow people to apply for work sooner. It would not only improve their lives but enable them to contribute to the economy, reduce public spending on the asylum system and bolster community cohesion. Legal working of this sort is to be entirely separated from the idea of illegal working, which the Government of course want to crack down on. The Government can contain legal working and make all the necessary provisions for it.

--- Later in debate ---

We have talked about illegal working. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, by stopping people working, we cause ourselves a problem, because we put people into a situation where they are vulnerable to those who come along and recruit them into the illegal economy. Predatory action relies on people looking for opportunity, so we strengthen that illegal economy in the country, with all the consequences for those individuals and for wider society. I ask noble Lords to consider supporting the amendment today.

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord has reminded me that I have not declared my interest as also being supported by the RAMP organisation.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for reminding us that our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been injured. We wish him a speedy recovery. He plays such an important part in our debates.

When I have talked to people claiming asylum in this country, they have had two main wishes: either they want to complete their education, which has been damaged through difficult journeys here and dangers in the countries they have fled from, or they want to work. They want to work because it is the right thing to do; they want to contribute to our society. There is this idea that they want to benefit from benefits but, frankly, I have never heard that. I am quite convinced that when they say they want to work and contribute to this country, they are telling the truth.

Then there is the argument about pull factors. I have heard that argument used about every single group of people we might be talking about. When I was discussing child refugees many years ago, I was told that if those children come, others will follow. It is the argument that Governments have used since the beginning of time, and I am just not convinced by it. There are much stronger arguments the other way.

The point about other EU countries is important. If our labour market is such that people want to come here, why is it that other EU countries which allow people to work do not appear to have a pull factor? I think we should get in line with other countries instead of being different.

The noble Lord talked about people being willing to work for lower wages. Yes, but I think that is regrettable. I believe and have argued before that it is up to the trade unions as much as anybody else to ensure that people do not work below the proper wage level for the industry they are in. It is difficult. I know that today may not be the best day to argue the case for trade unions, but I believe that it is important that people do not undercut wages. It should be done by strength and unity at the workplace.

Finally, I am interested in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about ID cards. It is becoming higher up on the agenda and we shall all have to consider it very hard indeed. I agree with all the amendments, apart from Amendment 154A. The denial of the right to work has been so fundamental for many years; for heaven’s sake, let us deal with it sensibly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

164: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Additional safe and legal routesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations to—(a) provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully, and(b) specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes under the UK Settlement Scheme, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 164, I will speak to Amendment 173, which is also in my name. Both amendments are measures that seek to address the significant gap in this Bill: the lack of safe and legal routes for those seeking protection in the United Kingdom.

While we welcome the measures in this Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel, the Bill as currently drafted is, as described by the Minister, designed to “beat” or “smash” the gangs—depending on the language the Minister was using at any given time. The Bill is therefore heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom, thereby denying the smuggling gangs their trade. This imbalance is concerning. We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system that encompasses both stopping dangerous journeys and creating safe routes to asylum.

Of those who currently travel here by small boats, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that is before any appeals are even considered. That is evidence that many arriving via dangerous routes are genuinely in need of protection, yet they currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. The path to securing our border, as described in the Bill, will not by itself curtail irregular migration. Having safe routes must be an integral part of our strategy to try to divert people from the treacherous routes that they choose.

This does not mean an open border. It means that we can more effectively control the numbers who come. The Hillmore agreement with France is a currently small-scale example of a safe route. If you want to reduce the numbers of people fleeing persecution who use smuggling networks to reach the UK for protection, they need to have an alternative route that changes their calculations and decision-making. I will return to the French example later.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that those explanations and assurances that I have given set out the Government’s position clearly. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I was fascinated by what sounded to me like illogical statements. Can I be absolutely clear? My question was whether, under the UK resettlement scheme, the quota offered to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this year—2025—is zero. I asked how many, and no answer was given to that. If the answer is zero, it is wrong to claim that the UK resettlement scheme is open, because there is no vacancy for anybody to be coming under that scheme.

It is also incorrect, surely, to say that the UK resettlement scheme is one where people can choose to get in the queue. It is UNHCR system that will choose the people who come into that settlement scheme, in discussion with the UK Government. If I am incorrect and a quota has been issued to the UNHCR for 2025, I am happy to withdraw what I have just said, but if I am correct and there is not quota yet issued, it is wrong to say that that scheme is open until a quota has been issued, because that is the way it works.

The other thing I would like to follow through in logical terms is the agreement with France—the Hillmore treaty. The Hillmore treaty, as I understand it, requires triaging of people in France who will then come to the United Kingdom. Under our law, as the Minister said, you can come to the United Kingdom only in order to make an official claim; in other words, it is a triaging point. There will be people in France, who will triaged to find the most suitable candidates to come. They then have to come to the United Kingdom and when they do they get the final asylum claim determined. If it operates in a different way from that, I am happy to be told, but everything that has been said by the UK Government indicates triaging of the sort I have described.

The humanitarian visa scheme I have described is only an expansion of that: it is one where we would determine whether someone has a really good case to make and then they are permitted to come to the United Kingdom to make that case—for a short period. If the period is too long, that is fine. The reason it is there at the moment is because that is the time span that the UK Government set for determining an application.

With those questions deeply in my mind, I realise that we will perhaps have to rephrase how we approach this and come back to it later in the course of the Bill. If, however, I have wrongly asserted what the Minister said to me, I would be happy to receive a note saying that there is a quota and that the Hillmore treaty will not triage people in France. If I am right in those two things, I would be happy to proceed. If I am wrong, I would be happy to receive a note to say that I am incorrect. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may, I first thank the new Minister for his response to the amendments that I placed before the Committee. All I can say is that one man’s flexibility is another man’s uncertainty. I raised the uncertainty for people who have disrupted their lives and are resettling their lives by coming to another place to rebuild. It is very disruptive to have no certainty, so I urge the Government to think again about this business of flexibility.

Certainly the position going forward should at least be to give security to those who have already arrived—the security of knowing that they can make plans for their children, their education and so on, and have some knowledge of what the limits are. They have always expected, after five years, to have that security of tenure.

From my contact with Ukrainian refugees here, there is absolutely no doubt that they want to return to their country. They want to see peace and justice in the settlement that reaches the end of this war, and that is the encouragement that all of us would give, but that is not what they are seeking. They are seeking the confidence of knowing that the Government will continue their commitment. I was very reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who indicated that his Government were very much there at the beginning in supporting Ukraine and were then followed by Labour in government. We are providing that strong commitment to the people and nation of Ukraine that really gives some confidence to those who are here, living in uncertainty but wanting to return, to know that they can be here for as long as it takes.

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can assist the right reverend Prelate with some clarification on what has actually happened. First, nobody who is in the system as of 1 September will have their 56-day period changed; that will still be operational. The pilot we are undertaking runs until December this year, and we will fully evaluate the pilot accordingly. Those individuals affected by the announcement on 27 August, who will change from 56 days to 28 days from 1 September, are single applicants; no families, nobody over 65 and nobody with disabilities will be impacted. We are trying to help tackle the longer-term asylum accommodation problem, but the pilot on 56 days to which the right reverend Prelate refers is continuing, and we will evaluate it and report back in due course. We have tweaked the pilot—we have not ended it—so we will continue to monitor the impact assessment issues. There will be full accountability on the outcome of the pilot when it is completed in December, but the majority of individuals to date will not be impacted by the change.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the arguments given last year for the 28-day/56-day pilot are the same as those given currently. In the Statements given to this House at the time, it was quite clear that this pilot was until the end of July and would be evaluated and the results published by the end of the summer. We are bound to suspect that, in moving as quickly as the Government have now done in shifting people from hotels into the hands of local government so swiftly, they will meet with the same problem of more homelessness that we had last year. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment so far has found a reduction in homelessness, and will he publish the interim evaluation promised to this House last year?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I repeat what I said to the right reverend Prelate: we are running the pilot until December and it will be evaluated. We have made some changes from 1 September, but not for the vast majority of people in the system—they will still be eligible for 56 days. Families, over-65s and those with disabilities will not be affected; it is single applicants who will be affected from 1 September. As this House continues to press the Government on, we need to reduce the reliance on hotels and provide a move-on period. The objective of the actions we have taken now is to relieve some of those pressures on hotel and asylum accommodation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord German]

116: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—(a) sections 12 to 65;(b) sections 68 and 69.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116 and 118 in my name. This is a bit of a reversal, because it is looking not at what is happening but at what is left behind. I am asking the Government to consider this in some detail, so I am worried that the Minister may have some difficulty answering all the questions. If it is not possible, I am hopeful that we will get the answers in writing later.

The position is this. We support the repeal of the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. What I am concerned about is what policy is left behind when you take those out. As it stands, in several places the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will become the default directive, even though this was not regarded as being something of satisfaction when that Bill went through this House, so there are concerns about what is left in that area. This amendment brings together a range of issues, presenting the Government with the opportunity to explain the continuing concerns about the aspects of the Nationality and Borders Act that they have chosen to not repeal in this Bill but to rely on in sections where the IMA has been taken out from it.

There are sections of the Nationality and Borders Act which worsen the risk of violations of human rights, build further delays into the asylum system and increase the likelihood of legal challenges and judicial reviews in the future. I will dwell on several sections, but there are more than I am speaking about in the whole of this area. Section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act is officially paused, but it allows for differential treatment between different groups of refugees, dependent on how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister explain why the Government wish to retain that ability, even though it has not been brought in yet? Why are the Government retaining this section? If it is for operational benefit again, it would be useful to know what the operational benefit is.

The main issue of concern with Section 13 of the Nationality and Borders Act is that subsection (9) could lead to people being held in accommodation centres, including at such large sites as Wethersfield, for lengthy periods of time. Before the Nationality and Borders Act, there was a limit of a continuous period of six months, which could be extended to nine months by the Secretary of State. This section of the NaBA enables the Secretary of State to increase the time. There are ongoing concerns about the conditions of asylum accommodation, particularly the large sites such as Napier and Wethersfield, and there seems to be a pattern of repeating mistakes rather than learning from them. Safeguards are therefore important and it is concerning that this section, which we will fall back on, would enable people to be accommodated at such sites with no indication of how long they will be there for. My personal experience when I visited Wethersfield was that it was quite clear that, when people understood that they were going to be there for a maximum of nine months, it reduced the concerns and increased the well-being of residents. So, having a time limit is very important.

Section 14 is about safe countries, but we have already debated that. Section 18, which is not in force, creates a requirement to provide evidence. The argument about this is that it can only lead to additional bureaucracy for the Home Office. Providing evidence is part of the existing process for applying for asylum. If evidence is provided at appeal which could have been provided at the initial decision stage, the immigration judge will seek an explanation for this, and that could impact an individual’s credibility. With very tight deadlines, it could be a short window of time to provide the evidence. Also, it might be difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to provide the necessary evidence if they are unrepresented, and more than half of asylum claimants are currently without legal representation owing to the legal aid shortage.

Section 19, which is not in force, amends the assessment of whether to treat a person as truthful. That may be a straightforward assessment, but I do not know how it might work. Sections 20 to 25—also not in force, but the Government are retaining them—relate to priority removal notices, which warn people that they are being prioritised for removal. The person then needs to respond in the cut-off period. If they respond late, it will damage their credibility unless they have a good reason.

The concern about this is that a late claim is not necessarily without merit. It can take time for people to make a claim, because they are suffering from trauma relating to torture or sexual violence. It is unclear whether these reasons could be included in the good reason element of the priority removal notice, but it builds on a culture of disbelief in a decision-making process that already exists and is widely relied on. The inference is that not providing responses in time indicates the poor credibility of a person, which could result in improper refusal of protection claims.

Section 27 creates, although it has not yet happened, an accelerated detained appeal system in the First-tier Tribunal, which can be used for any detained appeal if it is considered that the appeal is likely to be disposed of expeditiously using the fast-track procedure. At the time, of course, it was an attempt by the Government to revive the detained fast-track scheme, but the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful in 2015, and it described the timetable for such appeals as so tight that it was inevitable that a significant number of appellants would be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases. So what is the operational reason for retaining the ability to have an accelerated detained appeals system? If there is an operational reason for it, perhaps the Minister could tell us.

Section 29 makes it possible to move someone to a safe third country when their asylum claim is pending—not when it has been determined but when it is pending. In other words, while there is an appeal going on or a claim is being determined by the Home Office, you could deport someone in that process. That removes important rights of appeal. Members of this Committee will remember that, when we discussed the difficulty with the Rwanda scheme, people were going to have to make appeals from another country, and it would have been very difficult to maintain any means of correct procedure in that respect.

I am sorry this speech is quite long, but these are very important issues. Each one of them is about what the Bill does in making this the fall-back position that we are falling on.

Sections 30 to 38 require decision-makers to interpret the refugee convention in ways that do not accord with the long-settled meaning of that convention. We may already have had that discussion earlier today, and most of the interpretations concern Article 1A(2), which of course we have talked about, and we will further exhaust that when I talk about Amendment 118 in a moment.

Sections 40 to 41 relate to the criminalisation of asylum seekers. Those who arrive outside official routes in the UK, and people who facilitate arrivals, are committing an offence under this Act and are liable to prosecution. I understand the difficulties that there are with that one, but it is one that the Government need to describe so we have it on the record as to why that is important.

Sections 42 to 47 significantly expand maritime enforcement powers for pushbacks in international waters, removing the requirement to consider the duty of rescue. That is a fundamental in international maritime law; although it may not have been used yet, this is what the law will now say and it is important to understand why the Government want to retain that.

Sections 49 to 57 deal with age assessments, which we have just dealt with in the previous group, and Sections 58 to 63 exclude people, including children, from modern slavery protections if they have received a prison sentence of 12 months or more, even if the offence was committed as a result of their exploitation. The Government have distanced themselves in that respect from some, or indeed many, of these issues, so the question is why they are being kept.

I turn to Amendment 118, which is really an exploration of changes in the rates of refusal of asylum, which is particularly marked in in relation to Afghans, Iranians and Eritrean people claiming asylum. There has been a dramatic decline in the initial grant rate of asylum applications from those three countries. In the last two years of the previous Government, the grant rate of Afghan asylum claims stood at 98%. In the first year of this Government, that grant rate more than halved to 44%; the average grant rate for Afghans across the EU as a whole was 72% in Q1 of 2025. Eritrean grant rates are down by 13%; those of Iranians reduced by 26%. I do not observe any positive changes inside those countries during the relevant periods—certainly no change in Eritrea. The Taliban rule has been more oppressive and the human rights situation in Iran remains dire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed questions. At 10.19 pm, it is a great test of stamina to examine those issues in some detail. The noble Lord is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed. I should start by making it very clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, as I have mentioned before. We want it to operate swiftly, fairly and firmly, and to ensure that the rules are properly enforced. That means we need to deal with the backlog of issues that are before the House as a whole.

The noble Lord raised a number of particular issues. I am very happy to go through the detail I have on inadmissibility of asylum claims, the UK’s interpretation of key concepts of the refugee convention, and Sections 30 to 39. If he wants me to do that now, I can. If he wants me to write to him so he can reflect on it more slowly, before Report, I can do that. I am happy to take his advice on how he wishes me to respond.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. As I said at the beginning, it would be very helpful to have it in writing so that, as he rightly says, we can reflect on it in the greater time we will have available to us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have before me in my notes a full encyclopaedia of responses to the many points the noble Lord made, and I am very happy to go through them. However, it may be more sensible—given the hour and the fact that the noble Lord will not, I suspect, be pushing these amendments to a Division this evening—if I reflect on what he said in Hansard and respond to those points with clarity, using this document. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library, so that other Members can see the detail. In my view, this would speed up the response and give some clarity to the noble Lord, so he can reflect on whether he wishes to return to these matters on Report. If that is satisfactory, it would seem to be a useful way of progressing.

With that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, pending any discussion and response to the letter I will send him.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what we were hoping for from this amendment: to understand the Government’s intention in these various areas. I am grateful for his response, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 116 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

119: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“A three-month service standard for asylum casework(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework.(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.

[Lord German (LD)]

I will be as brief as I possibly can, given the hour. What is important in this amendment is to try to return to having a service standard. The amendment proposes a three-month service standard to determine asylum decisions. I know that the Minister, and others in the past, have looked at the issue and whether it might be six months. The important question here is whether there should be a service standard for dealing with these matters.

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

The reasons given by the Government at that time were:

“We have moved away from the six-month service standard to concentrate on cases with acute vulnerability and those in receipt of the greatest level of support, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. … Additionally, we will prioritise cases where an individual has already received a decision but a reconsideration is required. … the current service standard does not always allow us to prioritise applications from the most vulnerable people in the system if their claim is ‘non-straightforward’”.


That told me that there is a sort of on-off switch and a whole range of categories, and the Home Office would move the arrow to whichever one it thought was the most concerning at the time. I know that, in the context of things such as accident and emergency departments in the health services around this country, having a service standard is an important way—though it may not be kept—of having that focus.

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

I know that the Minister has dealt with this in the past in response to questions, but I would be grateful if he could say whether the Government have reviewed the potential benefits of reintroducing a service standard, what the current prioritisation is for asylum decision-making, and, of course, what the Government are doing to reduce the backlog.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. I was not proposing to speak to it until recently. I may well have it wrong, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the position. I think I read that arrangements have been put in place for bonuses for caseworkers who meet a standard. As I recall it, it was a very small amount of money, but if the Minister could tell the Committee what the standard is for asylum applications and say something about that bonus, it would be helpful. I am trying to ask that in a very neutral fashion.

I have Amendment 195, to which my noble friend has his name, relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the system. Obviously, artificial intelligence is going to be used. Asking whether it is used is probably like asking whether electricity is going to be used—of course it is these days. As this is about data as well, we start from the position that migrants are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. Immigration, asylum seeking and refugee matters are civil matters, and any interference with privacy must be proportionate and subject to safeguards. I think we would all agree that our data is valuable, it is very precious, and that generally it needs regulation and oversight, and transparency is hugely important.

When I chaired the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, every Home Secretary we questioned assured us that the human would remain in the loop. Frankly, we were sceptical about what that really meant and the efficacy of it. The data subject must know what the authorities know, or think they know, about him. There is a lot more public discourse now about training of AI, but I doubt that we are all completely reassured about that. Immigration decisions are hugely impactful; they are life changing. The amendment would ensure that no machine alone may determine a person’s immigration fate, and that personal data remained insulated from algorithmic training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that we can agree that we will examine Hansard tomorrow to determine the information required from each of us and provide it in the fullness of time.

On Amendment 202, I thank noble Lords for their interest in ensuring transparency in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. I think the amendment is unnecessary. On 15 May, the Prime Minister set out that we are actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable and what reduces the impact of migration on the British public. The hubs could facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers. It is not the Rwanda model; the return hub proposal is fundamentally different. It does not outsource asylum decision-making but targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts. Details of any agreements and associated policy would be made publicly available when the time is right. I hope that, at that stage, in the event of any schemes progressing, we could have some scrutiny and take decisions accordingly. I give him a commitment that we will publish such details in the event of any scheme progressing. In the light of those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say on the service standard that he would take that into consideration or look at the matter. I also heard him say that there is a standard already, upon which appeals would be completed. In a sense, that is what a service standard is: you are setting targets for what you want to happen. If that is the case and both those things are factually accurate—we can look at Hansard—then I think that starts to satisfy what we are looking at here. Obviously there will be some more questions on the detail, but it seems to me that it is therefore appropriate for me to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

131: Clause 41, page 36, line 8, leave out subsection (17)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the retrospective element of the changes made by this clause.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 131, I will also speak to Amendments 132 to 135 and Amendment 210 in my name. First, this amendment would provide a time limit of 28 days’ detention for persons detained for immigration purposes; secondly, it would introduce general criteria for detention to ensure that detention for the purpose of removal would be used only when strictly necessary and proportionate, and when the person can be shortly removed; thirdly, it would ensure effective judicial oversight of detention via the First-tier Tribunal, with automatic bail hearings after 96 hours of detention.

I tabled this amendment because, having engaged with the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, visited immigration detention centres and spoken to current and ex-detainees, I believe that it is a change that needs to happen. When I visited an immigration removal centre last year and spoke to detainees and staff, it was made clear to me that case progression for immigration detainees is slow and hampered by staff shortages. Further to this, detainees were unaware of the progress on their cases and when they could expect to leave detention or be removed. Communication to them was minimal and this clearly led to despair and frustration with the lack of hope for the future.

In its 2025 report on the progress of Harmondsworth IRC, the inspectorate noted that case progression was poor in six of the eight cases reviewed. The inspectorate reports common reasons for excessive periods of detention as including

“poor case progression; delays obtaining travel documentation; delays in securing appropriate release accommodation; and failures or delays in recognising high levels of vulnerability.”

With no limit on how long someone can be detained and no set time for their detention, there is no incentive for or pressure on the Home Office to make swift, accurate decisions.

A time limit set at 28 days, together with automatic bail hearings, would ensure sufficient time for the Home Office to proceed with removal in circumstances where impediments to these processes, such as outstanding legal appeals or unavailability of travel documents, have already been resolved.

In 2024, more than 50% of people held in immigration detention by the Home Office were later released back into the community under some form of immigration bail—a clear indication that the detention was likely unnecessary or even unlawful. According to the most recent Home Office annual report and accounts published on 17 July, from 2024 to 2025 the Government paid out compensation for unlawful wrongful detention in 334 cases, totalling £10.4 million. In 2023-24, there were 838 cases, totalling £11.8 million. This is clear evidence that significant numbers of people are detained wrongly or unlawfully each year. Without their having access to appropriate legal appeals or processes, the Home Office could have continued to detain them.

These amendments intend to significantly reduce the incidence of unnecessary detention and reduce the considerable suffering and inefficiency inherent in the current detention system. This would help to ensure that immigration detention is used only when a person has exhausted all appeals and removal is imminent and no viable alternatives are available. I appreciate that the Government will state that immigration detention is not indefinite. Indeed, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum recently stated:

“Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 18.]


The point here, of course, is that for the individual that experience can be indefinite, but there is certainly no straightforward answer when people ask that question.

The call for a statutory time limit on immigration detention has been made consistently by lots of expert bodies, including, of course, the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Independent Monitoring Boards, the British Medical Association, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Bar Council and, of course, the Brook House Inquiry. So against that, there is a mound of evidence in favour of these amendments.

Even in the most serious criminal cases, judicial oversight of detention is required after 36 hours and individuals must be released from detention after 96 hours if charges are not laid. Those suspected of terrorism offences can be held for a maximum of 14 days. Further to this, the statutory purpose of immigration detention is to effect removal, not to serve as indefinite detention to prevent reoffending.

Conditions in IRCs are often harsh and prison-like, with people routinely locked in cells for up to 12 hours a day. In a recent report on an IRC, the Chief Inspector of Prisons noted:

“A longstanding and fundamental problem was that all immigration detainees at Brook House, who should be held in relaxed conditions with minimal restrictions, were instead in an institution that looked and felt like a prison”.


The centre simply did not have enough space or experienced staff to manage an increasingly vulnerable population. Behind that, of course, we have the Brook House Inquiry, published in 2023, which recorded over a five-month period 19 incidents or acts of omission capable of amounting to mistreatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Reducing the period of detention is therefore important in reducing harm. When this proposal has been debated previously, the concern has been expressed that detainees will run down the clock to frustrate removal and subsequently be granted release. But the amendment permits re-detention beyond the period of 28 days when there has been a material change of circumstances which could, for example, include a situation when an individual’s appeal rights are exhausted or a travel document is issued.

There are, however, a range of criminal sanctions available under Section 26 of the Immigration Act 1971 that enable anyone seeking to frustrate the system to be prosecuted. Under these proposals, the tribunal can refuse to grant bail if removal restrictions are set and removal is to take place within the following 21 days. Further, these proposals do not impact the broad powers of the First-tier Tribunal to set conditions for immigration bail under paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. These include reporting and residence conditions, financial conditions and such other conditions as it deems fit. These proposals all exempt cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain was taken in the interest of national security.

I would like to probe the Minister on another avenue to reducing time in immigration detention. For people serving a sentence of imprisonment who have been issued with a deportation notice in prison, custodial sentences provide sufficient time for immigration cases to be resolved. In this time, the Home Office can obtain the travel documents and make arrangements to facilitate a person’s lawful and efficient deportation on release from prison—in other words, a straight-through process without having to go through the intermediary steps and the time that that takes.

As a way of reducing the cost and harm of immigration detention, will the Minister consider the merits of progressing individuals’ criminal deportation cases while they are serving their sentences? Further to this, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, following his inspection in 2022-23, stated that the Home Office was “not making best use” of the early removal scheme or the facilitated return scheme. These schemes could also reduce numbers entering immigration detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I find myself not in agreement, I am afraid, with the noble Lord, Lord German, so it is an interesting end to a long day of debate.

Immigration detention is an issue that I know noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of Clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. It is the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. Without the retrospective effect of this clause, individuals could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings.

Amendment 131 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove that retrospective effect. I do not believe that is a productive way forward because, as I mentioned, Clause 41 clarifies these powers. The Home Office already detains individuals at the first stage of deportation. Clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.

On Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, with support from other noble Lords, it is important to make clear the Government’s position that a statutory time limit on detention will not, in our view, be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK. The Government have been clear that we are committed to increasing removals of people who have no right to be here. That is what the public expect and, in that vein, I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

In the year ending March 2025, there were 8,600 enforced removals—a 22% increase on the previous year—and that would not be possible with a time limit on detention because it would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers. It is crucial that we have an immigration system that encourages compliance. Under a 28-day time limit, people who have no legal right to be in the UK—including, as the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, mentioned, some who potentially have committed serious crimes—would be automatically released after 28 days, regardless of whether they have actively obstructed removal efforts or pose a clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public, and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders, who may have committed serious criminal offences, would benefit from this amendment equally to anybody else.

Additionally, such a time limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate removal processes until they reach that 28-day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made that would potentially push people over the 28-day limit, and this would undermine effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk.

Amendment 133 requires that, after 96 hours of detention, a person may continue to be detained only if they have been refused bail by the First-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a scheduled bail hearing. This would again, in my view, place significant additional burdens on an already-stretched tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.

There are a number of safeguards in the detention process—I hope this will reassure the noble Lord—including access to the courts by judicial review; bail applications, which can be made at any point; and automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods. With these mechanisms in place, the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary.

I recognise and understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we have powers to detain people only for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose, either to examine a person on their arrival, to remove or to deport. We have a number of safeguards in place, and I assure noble Lords that, where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe, these safeguards ensure that people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I put that for him to consider today in order to withdraw the amendment, which we can return to later.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has tabled Amendment 140. Sadly, he has not managed to be here this evening, but when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day tomorrow morning, he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants. We also produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am obviously disappointed that the evidence produced by the inspectorate and many other bodies, including the House of Commons Justice Committee and our own committee on human rights, if not exactly thrown out of the window, has not necessarily received the full consideration we are speaking of. I hear what the Minister says, and I will reflect on that. I and the other supporters of this issue may well come back to it later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 131 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I suppose that was a slight defect of the Bill, but that ship has sailed. The crucial point, which I will come back to—and I respect the noble Lord enormously—is that the Rwanda deal had a deterrent, and that is what we are lacking. It may have been only for small numbers, not anywhere near the numbers we wanted, but it was a deterrent. It was one part of a series of steps that we should have taken, but, as I say, that ship has sailed.

I am backing the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray and my noble friends on my Front Bench, certainly not because I have been asked or told to, and, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said, this is not about pulling out of the ECHR or the refugee convention, nor—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was saying—about saying that we do not want to accept any refugees, but because it is about tackling illegal migration and the crossings we have had.

We have seen one so-called spectre raise its head today in the form of the elected President of the United States. There is another spectre on the horizon that we have not yet heard about, but I am sure we will at some stage: Reform UK and Farage. It is certainly not a view that I share, nor is it that of Reform voters. I am not saying that the Ministers do not know this, but I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said: outside this hallowed hall there is a genuine, deep, growing sense of unease, anger and frustration, which is building. I know that it is not unique to this Government, as it has been growing for some time, but it has grown exponentially of late because of this sense of injustice and lack of control.

As I think the Government have said—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to—crucially, we need a deterrent to tackle the crossings. We have to grip this; we have to tackle the numbers and, as I think my noble friend Lord Goschen was saying, we have to tackle the pull factor. There is no deterrent in the Bill as it currently stands. That is why I wholeheartedly support my noble friend, and the two amendments from my Front Bench.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in sporting words, this has been a game of two halves. One half has very much struck at what I would call Second Reading speeches and issues, and the other has been very specifically about the structure and place of safety issues in the Bill. I will deal first with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, supported by my noble friend Lady Brinton, on Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act.

My first question to the Government is why they are retaining this section of the Illegal Migration Act, which I understand has not been enacted. I understand that their rationale is what we call “operational benefit”. That could mean having some petrol in the car or some policy vehicle that you want to move forward. An explanation of what that operational benefit is would be helpful, because the retention of this section effectively removes the Secretary of State’s discretion in declaring asylum and human rights claims from these countries and renders them all inadmissible.

We have been talking about what is “generally safe”, and so on. I recall the 2023 regulations, on which I spoke about the inclusion of Georgia, Albania and India. I made the point that countries can be safe for most people, but not all. The context is that, as the UNHCR says, we have to note that, while a safe destination may be procedural, it does not negate the need for individual assessment, particularly in avoiding the risk of refoulement, significantly, which we have talked about here over the years.

It is down to the Government to tell us why they want to retain this section. We talked about the threshold for admissibility being negligible. As I understand it, there is only a limited judicial review route with no right of appeal, so if somebody wishes to try to appeal, it is a very thin route, and judicial review is not a simple process—it requires considerable assistance.

My colleagues have raised major concerns, particularly about Georgia. Colleagues in this Chamber will know that we have spoken to the leaders of political parties. One of those I spoke to went back the next day and was immediately imprisoned. Just think about this policy of treating Georgia as safe. By the way, Georgia is in the Government’s list but not in the Conservatives’ list, which we will discuss later—even they agree that Georgia is not safe. Let us imagine that we were commanded by the Lord Speaker to attend here at a certain time and sign a particular support motion for the Government, not as a recommendation but as an imprisonable offence. That is happening. Political freedoms, which we all think are essential, are being denigrated in Georgia at the moment.

We have heard about how changes in countries can happen frequently and rapidly. We just cannot afford to say, “This place is safe”, and then a few years later change our mind after many people have suffered because of its actions. I repeat the report from the United Nations high commissioner: we have to make an individual assessment and make sure that we are obviating the risk of refoulement.

I will simply say two things about the second half. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was absolutely right that, if you are a member of a convention and want to change it in a big way, we know from the way that conventions are placed that there is room for movement, adjustment and interpretation. I would maintain that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a severe method. Under it, the only people who could be admitted to this country, for example, would be people who took a flight directly from Sudan to London Heathrow. There are no flights—and I know that there are noble Lords here who know that. Our experience is that it is right for conventions to be examined all the time, and to try to make them move on.

I noted many mistakes. People frequently interpret the ECHR as being a body of Europe. It is actually a body of the Council of Europe. Could the Minister address this? I spoke to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the Committee of Ministers, including those from this country, and he said that discussion on the ECHR is already under way among the countries in the Council of Europe. I must say to those who say we should leave the ECHR that we would be leaving the Council of Europe as well. We as a country have signed up to 151 conventions on freedoms that we all take for granted. We have to be clear about this and take the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I do not know how far it has progressed, but it has certainly started and is under way, and I know that that discussion will progress.

I do not think that any other noble Lords in the Chamber are members of the IAC of this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked about the Hillmore agreement, where the decision was taken not to have the scrutiny under the CRaG arrangement. It is the IAC of your Lordships’ House that does it on behalf of Parliament, by the way—not just the House of Lords but also the House of Commons. We discussed this matter yesterday because obviously, it is clearly important. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, is sitting right next to the noble Lord, and she will tell him that there was an exchange of letters between the Government and the committee. We have agreement from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that there will be an evidence session, and they will provide exact details of the agreement. The committee will then report to Parliament, and there can be a debate in this House about that matter. In some senses, it is a bit of an advantage to have a treaty that is in action in this case, so we will be able to report on what is happening rather than what is proposed to happen. It may be second best, but it certainly was possible for it to happen.

So, in conclusion, I return to my first question: why do the Government want to retain this section of the Illegal Migration Act? If they do, what is the operational benefit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will continue to go through the list. Let us begin with Albania. The amendment proposes to strike from the list of safe countries a NATO member and a nation with which the United Kingdom has a formal bilateral returns agreement, signed in 2022, that has been a cornerstone of our efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised criminality. It allows for the swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK and ensures that genuine protection claims are still assessed on a case-by-case basis. According to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused. Why? It is because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning failed asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status, and co-operates with a range of international human rights mechanisms—

[Lord German (LD)]

Georgia has been suspended for reasons we just talked about to do with the way it treats people.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I still suggest that it co-operates with a range of human rights mechanisms.

India is the world’s largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner and a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitutional protections for minorities, an independent judiciary and regular multi-party elections.

To suggest that those countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound. Are there challenges in all societies? Yes, of course—that point was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. However, that is not the test, because the test under Section 80AA is whether “in general” the country poses a serious risk, so the statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise. A lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments, but the question that she has to ask herself is a general one: does that country in general pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, and would removal to those countries contravene our human rights obligations? I would suggest quite firmly that the test is not remotely met in the cases of Albania, Georgia or India.

Genuine refugees deserve our protection, and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims from nationals of safe democratic states. That is why we cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me reassure the noble Lord that this is not personal. I would welcome any suggestions from across the Committee. If we reject the amendment in due course, as he is right to suspect we will, it will not be because it comes from him; if anyone else had moved it, it would still be rejected. The noble Lord knows better than anybody the challenges of the roles that we have in the Home Office. I am grateful for his suggestions and we are trying to examine them.

The key point—maybe this will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a chance to think again as well—is that the merits of the claim could attract an appeal right, removing the possibility provided under the current system for certifying the claim as clearly unfounded. We would end up with even more litigation, which may help lawyers but would not help the resolution of the challenge at home. Without the specific further provisions in the legislation, our decision would need to explain why we considered that this measure applied in an individual’s particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised alleging that their life and liberty were threatened in what we consider to be a safe third country. It is nothing personal to the noble Lord, but we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 203E, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. It seeks to provide a definition of “exceptional circumstances” for the working of our inadmissibility provisions. It also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of generally safe countries to which inadmissibility provisions may apply in the future.

I have explained how exceptional circumstances bear on the inadmissibility process. Section 80A already sets out examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, which relate to states derogating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These examples are not exhaustive, and there may be case-by-case instances where exceptional circumstances are identified and where that inadmissibility should not be applied. At present, the question of whether a person’s evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. The amendment would replace this established approach.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. He has referred to derogation from the ECHR. I wonder what consideration the Government are now giving to Georgia, which is in clear breach of the ECHR and has taken itself out of the Council of Europe, because it knows it has to do so. This is clearly a country that has derogated. Is that something that the Government are looking at? We can do it by regulation, as we are going to talk about, but since this is the only power that the Government are holding on to, this is a country that needs to be looked at very seriously indeed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

To add to that, that is a country in which our Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual Ministers. Is there any correlation between what the Foreign Office does and what the Home Office considers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about the blame game and the importance of us all working with the Government to do what we can to try to tackle the fundamental issues that are influencing the nature of this huge crisis. As I have said before—I repeat the figure now—117 million people are displaced in the world today. That is not the fault of the previous Government or this Government, but it is the reality. People will keep on coming, including from places such as Sudan, which was mentioned in the previous group of amendments.

I attended the All-Party Group on Sudan’s meeting at lunchtime today. The situation in Darfur is absolutely horrific. It is a place I have visited in the past. Two million people were displaced from Darfur, and 200,000 to 300,000 people have died there. If any of us were in Darfur, we too would try to leave, and we too would probably make dangerous journeys. Most people who leave Darfur travel through Chad. They try to get to Libya and to the Mediterranean. Most never even succeed in making that journey—they die on that part of the journey. If they get into the Mediterranean, they probably reach the seabed. If they make it to the continent, some of them finally get to the English Channel. We talk about this as our crisis, but it is their crisis as much as it is ours.

If we do not tackle the fundamental reasons why people are being displaced—for instance, the nature of the current, almost untalked-about war in Sudan that has led to this massive surge in the number of people leaving that part of the world, as is reflected in the figures that the Government publish about the people who are in these boats, coming from places such as Sudan—and if we do not tackle the root causes, this will keep coming round again and again, whoever the Government of the day may be. That is why I agreed with what was said in the previous group of amendments, and I reiterate the importance of finding international solutions.

The 1951 convention on refugees was right in its time—it needed to be drafted in the way it was drafted at the time—but we still need that convention. Yes, it probably needs to be reappraised. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been thinking about this too, as well as looking at Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Minister and others have referred to. These things can be examined, as the Minister has said again and again today, but they can also be reformed. Indeed, nine countries, including Denmark, wrote an email to the European court and the Council of Europe—

[Lord German (LD)]

They did not send it to the right people.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, they sent an email. The noble Lord, Lord German, is right to point out, from a sedentary position, that it was perhaps not done through the most courteous of routes. However, the point is that those nine countries—Poland was another—are not illiberal countries and they are not led by people who have a hatred of European institutions. They were arguing that the time has come for international action to be taken by countries, collectively, to re-examine the things that we are signed up to, to see whether they are fit for the present time.

I want to say one other thing to those who have tabled these amendments. We have heard a lot about the Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the heart of that was the suggestion that that would be a deterrent and a safe place to which we would send people. Recently, I have been looking again at Rwanda to see what the situation there is at the moment. In its human rights assessment of Rwanda just a few weeks ago, the US Department of State said that Rwanda is raising

“arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by government-supported armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor”.

I am talking about Rwanda, and that is the US Department of State’s finding within the last few weeks. Recently, Human Rights Watch made a submission to the universal periodic review and reported on the use of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees from 2019 to 2024. I might add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on transnational repression—which is with the Minister at the present time, and I look forward to his response to that—identified Rwanda as one of the countries responsible for transnational repression. I point the Minister to those details.

Last but not least, we cannot forget about the involvement of Rwanda in atrocity crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with M23 raging on across eastern DRC. Earlier this year, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability that I chaired published a report on CRSV in the DRC and the abuses perpetrated by that group.

Let us be careful what we wish for. Let us understand the nature of those countries that we are going to send people to and that we say are safe places where people will be able to have good, prosperous and decent lives. Let us be realistic and honest about the nature of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us that we will get to Amendment 110 from the Official Opposition, which is about lists and, indeed, we can then talk more about the countries that are on that list. Rwanda is on that list that the Official Opposition are pointing us towards.

I just want Members of the House to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said: we should stop blaming one another and trying to score political points and realise that this issue is now being exploited by people who have no great love of democracy and the rule of law and are taking people on to the streets and capitalising on this crisis. If we do not find solutions to this, I fear for the stability of our communities and the dangers to law and order and to the very vulnerable people whom I think all of us in this House are trying to protect.

Borders and Asylum

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the wave of protests over the summer in opposition to the continuing use of hotels to house asylum seekers has evidently forced the Government’s hand. They have now been in office for over a year and, unfortunately, the situation at the border has deteriorated. We have seen some 29,300 people cross the channel in small boats to gain unlawful entry into the UK since Labour took office—the highest ever figure.

Regrettably, the Home Secretary did not offer an explanation yesterday as to why she thinks these figures have increased. Might I suggest to the Minister that the reason illegal crossings have reached a historic high is because the Government scrapped the Rwanda deterrent before it was even able to begin repealing most of the Illegal Migration Act and have failed to effectively implement policies to deter those who would attempt the crossing?

One major policy the Government have pursued, the returns deal with France, has yet to bear any results. The Home Secretary has stated that the Government are moving faster than the Conservatives were with Rwanda, obviously forgetting that the reason the Rwanda policy was delayed was because the Labour Party voted against it over 130 times. Although I appreciate that it is early days and this is just a pilot, can the Minister confirm when the Home Office will be sending the first people back to France? Is there yet a timeframe in place?

In the Statement, the Home Secretary stated that the Government have removed 35,000 people with no right to be here. Unfortunately, that statistic is highly misleading. The Home Office data for the year ending June 2025 shows that enforcement returns—people who are subject to removal or deportation by the Home Office—for the previous year stood at 9,072 people. The number of voluntary returns—those people who were liable to be removed but chose to leave the UK before being deported—was 26,761. It is the combination of these two figures that make up the 35,000 returns claim. Clearly, the vast majority of returns are therefore voluntary returns, not enforced deportation action by the Home Office. Is it not highly misleading for the Government to claim that they have removed 35,000 people when in fact most of those left of their own accord and they have only removed 9,072 people themselves? The figure is being used to mask the reality of failure to get a grip on the crisis at the border, smash the gangs and close down all remaining asylum hotels.

The Home Secretary—I am sure the Minister will not fail to repeat this—made the point that the hotels were opened under the last Government, and that this Government have been taking action to close them. Unfortunately, what she omitted from her Statement was that the previous Government were taking action to reduce the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels. From the peak of 56,042 in September 2023, we reduced that number to 29,585 in June 2024, but since this Government have been in office, that number has only increased. It jumped to 38,079 in December of last year and, as of 30 June, stands at 32,059. That is a 7.7% increase from when the Conservatives left government.

Furthermore, in the run-up to the election, the Conservative Government closed down 200 of these hotels. Had that rate of closure continued, there would be no hotels housing asylum seekers today. What is evident is that this Government have not continued with that pace of closure; nor are they taking enough action to deter and remove those who enter this country illegally.

The Home Secretary repeated the claim several times during her Statement in the other place that the Opposition are “resisting” and “opposing” the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill in this House. She even insinuated that we are attempting to slow the passage of the Bill. I must say to the Minister that I take issue with that characterisation. We have had three days in Committee on the Bill so far and are due to finish Committee stage next Monday—one day earlier than initially scheduled.

On a number of aspects, including the new immigration offences, we have supported the Government trying to toughen up the system. Indeed, I welcome the announcement in this Statement that the Government will be pausing refugee family reunion to tackle the large increase in the number of people applying to bring family members to the UK after a very short period. What we do resist, however, is the Government’s opposition to many of our proposals—or perhaps I should say “previous opposition”, since much of what the Home Secretary proposed yesterday has already been raised in this Chamber by those of us on these Benches.

This morning, the Home Secretary mentioned the number of students who arrive in the UK on a student visa and then go on to claim asylum, stating that she wants to “clamp down” on this “back-door” route. I entirely agree, which is why I tabled Amendment 193 to the border security Bill, which would prevent any person making an asylum claim more than one year after they have entered the UK. This would prevent precisely that scenario occurring. It has yet to be debated, but I am sure that the Minister will support it when we come to debate it.

One of the main announcements in the Statement is the establishment of a new body to deal with asylum and immigration appeals. If this is established quickly and efficiently, it may be able to help reduce the processing of appeals. However, several questions remain. Will this body deal only with administrative appeals made to the Home Office, or will it also deal with judicial appeals, which are currently made to the asylum and immigration chamber? Secondly, will the Government now be supporting our further Amendment 138 to the border security Bill, which would prevent a person appealing against a deportation order made under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act?

Finally, can the Minister confirm how these changes will be made, and when? Will the Government be bringing amendments to the border security Bill on Report in this House to implement these new policies?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the Government that the Conservatives “trashed” our asylum system, leaving the backlog spiralling out of control. We also agree that there is no silver bullet to deal with that failure. However, the Government have so far failed to get a grip on the problem as a whole. There may be a glimmer of hope that a comprehensive policy will emerge from the content of this Statement, so we will scrutinise carefully any plan that flows from it. But the real solutions lie in speeding up processing, so that those with no right to be here are swiftly returned, providing safe routes to claim asylum, and ensuring that those with valid claims can get jobs, integrate and contribute to the community.

However, the closure of the family reunion route, albeit temporarily, is a sign that the Government are responding to current events rather than laying out what the complete reform would look like. We are deeply concerned by proposals to tighten family reunion rules and by what we are told will be the reduction of the move-on period from 56 days back to 28, much to the dismay of local authorities throughout our land. The Home Office itself acknowledges that a lack of safe alternative routes contributes to small boat crossings, so cutting these routes risks making that crisis worse. Refugees are not at an equal starting point. They have been forced to leave their homes and families, often in grave danger, and family reunion is crucial for their settlement and integration. What assessment has been made of the risk that tighter family reunion rules will push more families into the hands of people-smuggling gangs?

Regarding the new independent body and fast-track appeals, how will it be resourced to meet the 24-week target, and will there be a recruitment drive for asylum caseworkers to ease the backlog? Given the similarities of these roles to those of JPs, what timescale have the Government got in mind for, first, identifying suitable candidates and, secondly, training them in the legislative framework to undertake such duties? Furthermore, can the Minister guarantee that local authorities will be properly funded by government to support asylum accommodation, rather than having it imposed without consultation? We need a humane and efficient system, not one that continues to fail vulnerable people.

The UK-France returns deal, as we apparently know now, will see its first exchange of people at the end of this month. Can the Minister give us some idea of the timescale for expanding what looks like very small numbers at the beginning?

Finally, what safeguards will ensure that the fast-track appeals process proposed does not compromise fairness or lead to more judicial reviews later? Refugees are entitled to be supported as well. It will be interesting to note what the Government propose to be the manner in which that system will actually proceed.

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

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their initial questions.

I will start, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He makes the allegation that the Government are responding to the protests that have taken place around the country in August of this year, which were relatively small in number. I reassure him that the Government have a very strong plan to remove the mess in which his Government left the asylum system, the hotel backlog and the small boats crisis. The actions that we are taking are part of a long-term wider plan, which includes the immigration Bill that we will debate further tomorrow, to ensure that we resolve this issue in a way that meets our international obligations and, at the same time, deals with the issues that we all have a common interest in removing. I remind the noble Lord that this August saw the lowest number of boats for that month for four years.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I hope that I can help him. Essex Police have issued a statement:

“There are claims on social media that Essex Police officers ‘bussed’ protesters to the protest outside the Bell Hotel on Thursday July 17. This is categorically wrong”.


Now, I can only accept what Essex Police have said: I am not on the ground there. That is Essex Police’s statement. The noble Lord will also know, because it is in the Statement, that Essex Police arrested an individual who was subsequently charged, whose trial is due to start on 26 August and who has been remanded in custody until that time. I am therefore not able to comment on that issue any more.

Essex Police have also arrested individuals in connection with the protest. Going back to the debate we have just had, peaceful protest is legitimate, but if that peaceful protest crosses over into alleged violence or other activity, the police have a right to act, and they have made arrests in connection with that incident as well. So I say to colleagues across the House and across the nation that peaceful protest is acceptable, violent protest is not, and the police walk a very thin line to ensure that they allow peaceful protest while ensuring that acts of violence or intimidation are not acceptable and are not undertaken. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support when this House rises to ensure that we maintain that message through the summer.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register; I am supported by RAMP. I also thank the police for their work in Epping in Essex. I listened to the chief constable make his statement just an hour ago. In particular, I welcome the fact that they have now arrested 10 people and referred to those “thugs and vandals”—not my words, but the words of the chief constable—who damaged a number of police vehicles, threw projectiles at officers and injured eight police officers.

We need to put these things in perspective. There is obviously an issue related to asylum hotels. I listened to the Minister in the House of Commons delivering the same Statement and to the questions asked on it. In his response, the Minister said that they will aim to not to have anybody in a hotel by the end of this Parliament. Frankly, that is too long and too late. What can the Minister tell us about the speeding up of the process for getting people out of hotels, which are dangerous for everyone and certainly do not help asylum seekers in their passage through this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The key to that objective, which I share, is speeding up the asylum claims process. Therefore, the Government have invested in roughly 1,000 further individuals who are helping to make that processing quicker. It is a long task, because there is a large number of hotels. The number in use is smaller than on 5 July last year, but there is still a large number of hotels. The way to deal with that is to speed up asylum claims and allow asylum for those who have been approved; for those who do not have a legitimate asylum claim, we must ensure their speedy removal from the United Kingdom accordingly. That is what the Government is trying to do.

The noble Lord was quite right to thank the police for their sterling work in protecting society, and to say that we must ensure that those who commit violent acts against the police—or elsewhere—and are arrested should face the process of law, where a judgment will be taken on them. The events in Southport last year show that that happened to a large number of people who went from peaceful to non-peaceful protest. The message we need to send is that peaceful protest is legitimate, but non-peaceful protest is not.

Illegal Migration: Pull Factors

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. Through the agreement with France we are trying to ensure that those who reach the United Kingdom illegally by crossing the channel have their biometrics taken and are returned to France as part of an exchange of legal asylum seekers who are being cleared by the French to claim asylum. That is a pilot scheme that is being looked at much more widely. When we have assessed it post the Summer Recess, we will look at whether it has been successful or not. It is quite clear that the taking of biometric information, in Europe and the United Kingdom, is key to identifying and processing individuals who are genuine asylum seekers and distinguishing them from individuals who are here by illegal means or who have been trafficked by people traffickers.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests and to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation. We clearly need robust information and evidence about which factors are actually influencing these movements. Current knowledge is limited and sometimes incomplete and outdated. Will the Minister commit to commissioning and publishing more comprehensive data and research, so that future policy is guided by clear evidence rather than by assertion, assumption or anecdote?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot commit to that, I am afraid, simply because the Home Office currently undertakes significant research on those very factors. Self-evidently, the English language is a pull factor for people, because English is a very common and well-understood language throughout the world. The perception of the UK as a place where work can be gained is important, but that work tends to be illegal, which is why we have had a major push in the last 12 months on illegal working. There are other factors at play in relation to that movement. We are monitoring those at the Home Office. I am happy to look at other research that is done, but this is the daily business of the office that I represent in this House.

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.