Lord Cameron of Lochiel:

Moved by Lord Cameron of Lochiel

105: After Clause 38, insert the following new Clause—“Duty to make arrangements for removal(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom if the person meets the following four conditions.(2) The first condition is that—(a) the person requires leave to enter the United Kingdom, but has entered the United Kingdom—(i) without leave to enter, or(ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person,(b) the person has entered the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order,(c) the person has entered or arrived in the United Kingdom at a time when they were an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments) and—(i) subsection (5A) of that section (exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person, and(ii) an exception created under, or direction given by virtue of, section 15(4) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (power to create exceptions to section 8B) does not apply to the person,(d) the person requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, or(e) the person is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an electronic travel authorisation that is valid for that person’s journey to the United Kingdom, but has arrived in the United Kingdom without such an electronic travel authorisation.(3) The second condition is that the person entered or arrived in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) on or after the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The third condition is that, in entering or arriving as mentioned in subsection (2), the person did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) a person is not to be taken to have come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened as mentioned in that subsection if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.(6) The fourth condition is that the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it.(7) In this section—“country” includes territory;“deportation order” means an order under section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971;“electronic travel authorisation” means an authorisation in electronic form to travel to the United Kingdom;“entry clearance” has the meaning given by section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.(8) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. (9) Section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 (person deemed not to enter the United Kingdom before disembarkation, while in controlled area or while under immigration control) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.(10) The only circumstances in which the duty in subsection (1) does not apply to a person who meets the four conditions in this section are where—(a) section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(1) applies to the person,(b) regulations under section (Unaccompanied children and power to provide for exceptions)(7) apply to the person,(c) a Minister of the Crown has made a determination under section (Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights)(2) in relation to the person, or(d) section 61 or 62 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (victims of slavery and human trafficking) apply in relation to the person.”

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.

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?

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.

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who eloquently set out some of the history of the most recent slew of immigration Acts.

I have a slightly more practical question for both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and the Minister, which relates to the various lists of safe countries. The Opposition will discuss their Amendment 120 later. In Amendment 109, proposed new subsection (5) states:

“P may be removed to a country or territory … only if it is listed in” their proposed new schedule. That schedule is in Amendment 120, where, for many of the countries listed, it states “in respect of men”—in other words, men will be regarded as safe to go back to that country. However, many of those countries already have severe discrimination against LGBT people, including men. In some countries, it is punishable by death and, in others, by imprisonment—but, much more importantly, society feels at liberty to attack and kill gay men. I ask both the Minister and the Opposition spokesperson: what happens to an individual in that position, where the country is regarded to be safe in general but for one group of people it is clearly not?

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will answer that question in due course.

The noble and learned Baroness suggested that the Government should not even be asked to respond to these amendments. With very great respect, I do not agree. The previous Government’s Bill that eventually fell away—the Rwanda Bill—was intended to provide a deterrent. I think it is common ground that a deterrent is necessary. The nature of that deterrent may be very much in dispute. Government thinking is still forming on the best way to deal with this very real problem.

The Government need to come up with a response. They had quite a lot of time in Opposition in which to generate what they thought was an appropriate deterrent. They have now been in power for a year, and it appears that there is more thinking going on in recognition of the very real problem that they face. In my respectful view, the Government have a case to answer as to what precisely the deterrent will be. What will prevent what we see in our papers and on our screens every day?

My second point is about Amendment 107 and the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was during the Minister’s interregnum that there was a great deal of debate about the interim order made by the European Court of Human Rights. Even the most fervent defender of the European Court of Human Rights would be hard pushed to defend the order it made, which rejected a decision by our courts. It was made by an unnamed judge, it did not give the Government an opportunity to make representations and it did not have a return date by which, in accordance with normal practice, a Government or any other party would have a chance to answer the original order. This was a flagrant breach of natural justice, as was more or less accepted.

Whatever form the Government’s policy finally takes, they would be well advised to bear in mind what is in Amendment 107. It would give the Government the chance to consider the appropriateness of the interim measure—it is a very carefully drawn amendment because it gives that responsibility to a Minister of the Crown. There were many debates about whether the European Court of Human Rights even had the jurisdiction to make these interim measures. I respectfully suggest that, whatever else the Government think about these amendments, Amendment 107 ought to be very carefully considered.

My Lords, I will just ask for two things. First, I hope that the Government will take and answer these amendments seriously. Secondly, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, will accept that it is not proper for the previous Government, who failed to answer this problem, constantly to suggest that this Government are also failing.

None of us has an answer to what is a very real problem. We do not help it by saying, “Yah boo, we thought we should do this”, particularly when, we may have thought we should do it, but it would be very difficult to argue that the previous Government were terribly successful at stopping the boats. I plead that we have these debates in a form which says that we want to find an answer to what is a very difficult issue. Both sides have to accept that. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, who is not in his place now, was a Minister and did not solve the problem. I do not blame him for that, because it is an almost impossible problem to solve, due to the whole range of issues that we have talked about.

I hope that the Committee will talk about this issue in a way where we are all trying to solve it, rather than sides trying to suggest that they are better at solving it. We know perfectly well that, at the moment, the Government have not shown themselves able to solve it and the Opposition have to admit that, in all the years of being in power, we did not solve it. Can we start off with a bit of humility on this side and a bit of acceptance of vulnerability on the other?

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—

They did not send it to the right people.

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.

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling Amendments 105 and 109. I apologise to the House: in the confusion over the vote we had on Clause 38 stand part, I inadvertently started to discuss not only Clause 38 stand part but, in the last set of discussions, some of the arguments on Amendments 105 and 109. We drifted into that inadvertently because I thought we had finished debating Clause 38, so I apologise to noble Lords if I repeat some of the arguments here.

I start with the very sensible suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. These are complex and difficult issues. We have an inheritance from 5 July last year when we took office which we have had to deal with. I am not seeking to make political capital out of this. I want to have solutions, and the solutions are to have a fair and effective migration system, to speed it up, to ensure that we deal with international obligations on asylum, to remove those people who have failed the asylum system, to remove foreign national prisoners who have abused our hospitality and the privileges of being in this country, to ensure that we have a thriving economy and to ensure that we meet the skill sets that we need for the United Kingdom to succeed. Where we can bring entrepreneurs and others who can offer skills to this country, we do so. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there are many forces outside this House which seek to divide the United Kingdom to exploit these issues. It is imperative that we find concrete solutions.

One of the concrete solutions is the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has made—and it has been echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Benches—which is how we deal with the real funnel of pressures that are coming, which are driven by terrorism, starvation, war and poverty. People who make that journey and claim asylum have very often faced challenges that I could never imagine. We need to have international co-operation, because the United Kingdom cannot solve those issues alone. That is why my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister met 51 countries in May of this year; has discussed with former European partners, which are still our neighbouring countries— France, Belgium and Holland—what the solutions can be; is working with the Germans; and wants to have some international action to stem that flow through the G7 and other bodies of people removing themselves from their home nations to seek asylum wherever it might be. It is an important issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked, “If not this, what is the deterrent?”. I do not want to repeat the issues today, but I have tried to set out the range and menu of measures that we are taking which we believe are going to add to that deterrence. However, the deterrence also demands that we take action against the criminal gangs that are leeching off that misery, poverty and desperation to ensure that they enrich themselves through criminal action. That is why we need international co-operation on a range of measures to focus on criminals who are using this to exploit people who are in a very vulnerable position. As of today, that may not be the deterrent that the previous Government potentially thought Rwanda was, but I think it is more effective.

Amendments 105 and 109 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, seek to reintroduce the duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing. I take the contribution from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, very seriously. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. That is the fundamental challenge that I put back to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.

Again, in the spirit of the instructions from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to the House to deal with this in a sensible and noble way, I am not seeking to make difficulties for the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I simply put it to him that the measures in Amendments 105 and 109 would mean that we would have to proceed with removal when there was nowhere to remove them to. That is the fundamental flaw in Amendment 109.

I repeat what I said in response to the general debate on Clause 38, that we have removed people who are unlawfully in the UK. We have seen that increase in the number of failed asylum seekers being removed. We have seen an increase in the number of foreign national prisoners removed—I have given the percentages to the House in every series of amendments we have had today, so I will not give them again now. The Government’s aim is to deliver a long-term and credible policy to ensure that we have a properly functioning immigration system. I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that, yes, it means that we are going to have to occasionally examine things in August and September that we had not considered a year ago. That is because the situation changes. Situations change, and politics needs to change. The measures in the Bill repeal an unsuccessful scheme and try to put in other measures to meet the deterrence that the noble Lord wishes to see.

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, not to press his amendments and to examine in further detail the proposals that we are bringing forward to the House to achieve the objectives that we share.

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I take very seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s comments about humility and trying to be constructive about how we approach this; however, we are also a party of Opposition. We remain firmly of the view that the Illegal Migration Act created a framework that was real and gave our border system structure, clarity and credibility. We did so because we recognised that the status quo was unsustainable, and we knew that deterrence without enforcement is meaningless. That is why we pursued the Rwanda scheme so vigorously and still defend it as a deterrent.

At the heart of the Illegal Migration Act was a simple premise: that if someone enters this country illegally and does not meet the necessary criteria for protection, they should be removed promptly and lawfully. Our amendments in this group are intended to encourage the Government to reflect on that principle again and really think before they abandon that framework in favour of something that we say is much softer and lacks precision, urgency and the seriousness that this challenge demands. That is a political decision, but it is one with consequences.

If we do not provide our law enforcement agencies with the legal tools they need, we cannot be surprised when the system fails to deliver. We legislated for that; we recognised that the UK needs a legal basis to enforce its own immigration Laws. What the Government now propose is to remove that structure without a credible alternative. That is not just a retreat—it is a risk, and it will be paid for in public confidence, in operational paralysis and in yet more lives placed in the hands of traffickers and criminal gangs. We can and must do much better. I hope the Government use this chance to make that change but, reflecting upon what has been said across your Lordships’ House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment 105 withdrawn.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.31 pm.