Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, inspires me to join in. His reading of the refugee convention is one with which the House is familiar—we have heard it down the years—but it is not one that the world as yet accepts. It is not accepted by the UNHCR, which is the custodian of the convention. It would be rather Trumpian to propose to change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation. If we wish to see a change, there are procedures set out in the convention for proposing that change and going about it. That is standard practice. It would be a little odd for us to establish the “Murray interpretation”, as set out in the 2021 article, proving the error of the ways of so many Governments around the world, without ourselves trying to sell the “Murray argument”, if we believe in it.

I do not myself believe in it, for the following reason. Let us think about Afghanistan. If you are an Afghan, the Taliban are after you, there is a price on your head, you manage to get over the Khyber and you get to Landi Kotal, you get to Peshawar, and you then get in a plane and come here—or get here by any means—under the “Murray Amendment 203J”, we would be required to send you back immediately to Afghanistan, because, on the reading of the convention by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, you have come indirectly. You touched ground in Pakistan, therefore you cannot have asylum in the United Kingdom. If that became the general interpretation of the convention, it would completely erode the whole purpose of the convention. The purpose of the convention was to ensure that neighbouring states do not have to carry all the burden. Most refugees want to stay in neighbouring states because they hope to go home, but the convention was not intended to say that all refugees must stay in neighbouring states. There was an element of burden sharing in the thinking, and there still is.

If we were to put this amendment into the Bill and require the Government to follow what might be, and I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a very plausible interpretation of the convention—I do not know, I am not a lawyer—we would be seen by all our convention partners as acting in breach of the convention, because they do not agree with it yet. The right course would be to seek a conference at which we propose that the convention should in future be read in a different way from the way it has been read in the past—should be read in the “Murray way”. I have to oppose this amendment very strongly.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I had answers from the Government last year saying that they were not talking to allies and friends. Surely that must be the first sensible thing to do.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but that does not lead me to have any sympathy at all for Amendment 203J.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord says that it would be “Trumpian” to take the course that is being suggested. Supposing that in the Supreme Court, the majority and the minority had been the other way round—and it may be that the majority was taking the correct view—there would be a decision of the Supreme Court which would be at odds with his interpretation and general understanding of the refugee convention. Why is that Trumpian? When we have a dualist system in this country, where we are capable of legislating for our own interests, why is it Trumpian to say that we cannot do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to amendments which seek to reinsert certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act that the Government are repealing with this Bill. The intention of these Benches is that the Government justify the repeal of each section of that Act.

Amendment 105 would reintroduce the duty on the Secretary of State to remove anyone from the UK who meets all of the following four conditions: they affected an unlawful, deceptive entry, including without a visa; they entered on or after this Bill becomes law; they did not come directly from a country where they were genuinely fleeing persecution; and they lack lawful immigration status. There are protections under this proposed new clause which recognise the specific needs of those who are unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking or those protected by European court measures. The clause sets out the clear duty of the Secretary of State to remove those who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be candid about why this amendment matters. Control over our borders is not just a political imperative; it is also a moral and democratic one. We all know that our asylum system is under intolerable strain. The public expect us to take action against those who break the rules, jump the queue and undermine the integrity of legal migration pathways. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to create an unambiguous legal duty to remove those who arrive illegally after this Bill comes into force, so that the message is clear that if you enter the UK unlawfully, you will not be allowed to stay.

This summer, as we have already heard, we have seen the strength of feeling that many in communities throughout the UK have towards the illegal migration crisis that this Government are presiding over. The problem is getting worse, and without serious action now it is going to get much worse. Dismantling the legal toolbox on this point seems to us on these Benches to be a poor decision.

Further, Amendment 109 seeks to reintroduce the process element of the Illegal Migration Act for removals. This proposed new clause would make it clear that removals must be made

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

to a person’s country of nationality, a country where they obtained a passport or identity document, a country they departed from to reach the UK, or a country that is willing to accept them. These provisions would apply only when the said country is deemed to be safe.

I suggest that the amendment would do something essential: it would reintroduce the clear legal framework for the removal of individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. It seeks to set a reasonable and practicable duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that removal takes place as soon as possible after arrival. In doing so, it sends out an unambiguous message that our Immigration Rules are not optional, and that entry into the UK without lawful status will carry consequences. We cannot have a situation where people are languishing here indefinitely at taxpayers’ expense.

At the same time, this proposed new clause is far from draconian. It is structured with carefully calibrated safeguards. It distinguishes between those from designated safe countries and those who may not be. It places clear limitations on the countries to which individuals can be removed. Where a protection or human rights claim is made, the amendment would ensure that no one is removed to a country unless it is formally listed and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual falls within a lawful category for removal. In short, the system would balance our obligations with the public expectation that illegal migration will be addressed seriously and systematically, and would provide clarity. It would avoid legal ambiguity, giving operational certainty to the Home Office, and would send a signal to the people-smugglers and traffickers alike that the UK will not be a soft target.

If this Government believe in deterrence, border security and preserving the capacity to protect the most vulnerable, this amendment embodies that balance. It would not slam the door shut but would set lawful parameters. It seeks to make it clear that the UK will not reward those who undermine our rules and ignore safe routes of migration. I beg to move.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I wonder if I could put to the noble Lord the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put, which he did not answer in the previous debate? The amendment would impose a requirement to deport, but to where? Where are they to go?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I find it rather odd to read these two amendments. I am not party political. I sat through a large amount of legislation by the last Government: the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act. There was a great deal of legislation but there were remarkably few people actually deported. There appeared to be, within the last year of the last Government, even fewer people being deported. There seemed to be—if I might put it like this—almost a degree of lethargy. So listening to the way in which the noble Lord has put forward these two amendments makes me feel, to some extent, astonished. What they are asking of this Government, as far as I can see, is what in legislation they achieved but in deportation they did not achieve. They are expecting this Government to do what the last Government did not do. Sitting as I do on the sidelines, listening to what parliamentarians say and to what the Opposition say to the Government, I find it difficult to see why the Government should have to respond to this. It really seems quite extraordinary.

Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 109, there are four ways in which somebody could be returned. One is to

“a country of which P is a national”.

I understand—and they understand, and have said so quite properly—that they would not send the person back to a genuinely unsafe country. So an Afghan would not go back to Afghanistan, I assume, and probably a Syrian might not, even now, go back to Syria. That is where we start.

Then we have

“a country or territory in which P has obtained a passport or other document”.

Is that country automatically going to receive this particular person?

Number three, at paragraph (c), is

“a country or territory in which P embarked for the United Kingdom”.

Again, is that country—mainly France, or Belgium or Holland, I would expect, which are the nearest countries—going to be expected to take back every person who comes over? At the moment, the Government are negotiating a pilot scheme for a few to be taken back. I would have thought that the French would simply say certainly not.

The fourth one is

“a country or territory to which there is reason to believe P will be admitted”.

That is a sensible proposal, but where is that country? At the moment, from what we have heard, there are not likely to be many countries which would want to take the majority of people who have come to this country illegally. As I said earlier, I find these two amendments astonishing.