Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 March 2025.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Would all Members ensure that electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room, as well as on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct.

Clause 18 - Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 18, page 11, leave out lines 24 to 26 and insert—

“(c) the vessel in which the person travelled could not reasonably have been thought to be safe for the purposes of reaching the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an un-seaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 5, in clause 18, page 11, line 36, at end insert—

“(E1C) (a) For the purposes of subsections (E1A) and (E1B), a person cannot commit an offence if the person is an asylum seeker.

(b) For the purposes of this subsection, ‘asylum seeker’ means a person who intends to claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—

(i) the Refugee Convention (within the meaning given by section 167(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999), or

(ii) the Human Rights Convention (within the meaning given by that 35 section).”

This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 18 (“Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom”) cannot apply to asylum seekers.

Amendment 15, in clause 18, page 12, line 5, leave out “six” and insert “fourteen”.

This amendment would increase the maximum penalty for the offence of endangering lives at sea to fourteen years.

Amendment 16, in clause 18, page 12, line 9, leave out “five” and insert “fourteen”.

This amendment would increase the maximum penalty for the offence of endangering lives at sea to fourteen years.

Clause stand part.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Clause 18 creates a new offence of endangering others’ lives during a sea crossing from France, Belgium or the Netherlands to the United Kingdom, which results in the commission of an existing offence under section 24 subsection (A1), (B1), (D1) or (E1) of the Immigration Act 1971. Proposed new subsection (6) to section 24 of the 1971 Act states that this offence

“applies to acts carried out inside or outside the United Kingdom.”

The provision is necessary for this offence. Can the Minister explain whether partner countries have comparable offences to this one that can be used to apprehend people in France, Belgium and the Netherlands?

The former director general of Border Force, in his evidence to the Committee, was clear that clause 18 would be more effective if operated by French enforcement agencies, rather than in the UK, as most of the offences occur in French territory. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that, in order to successfully prosecute these offences in the UK, UK Border Force will be able to gather evidence collected outside the UK? Can the Minister guarantee that French support in providing that evidence will be forthcoming? What guarantees has the Home Office been given?

In order to be prosecuted under clause 18 for offences committed in French territorial waters, people would need to be transported to this country if they are not already here, which would have the rather perverse outcome of more people coming and being able to claim asylum. As I have not been able to find any reference to that in the impact assessment, I would like the Minister to share with the Committee what the justice impact tests showed for this new offence. How many new prison places are going to be required at steady state? In other words, how effective does the Minister think the new offence will be?

The Opposition tabled amendment 17 as we suspect that the new offence is not going to be greatly used. Amendment 17 would apply the new offence of endangering another during a sea crossing to the UK to any individual who tries to enter the UK illegally and makes their journey in an unseaworthy vessel, removing the requirement for the individual to have done an act to cause or create a risk of death or serious injury. If a person has crossed to the UK in a small boat, they have by definition endangered both their lives and the lives of others at sea. Those boats are unseaworthy, overcrowded and everyone who gets on board is responsible for that position. It is not just the lives of people on those dangerous vessels that are placed in danger, but potentially the lives of those who rescue them.

We have tabled amendments 15 and 16 to increase the sentence for the offence to 14 years. Before the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was passed, section 25 offences attracted a prison sentence of up to 14 years. The 2022 Act increased the penalty to life imprisonment in order to discourage unlawful facilitation of migrants to the UK, so why are the offences in this Bill for endangering lives at sea so much lower?

Since the Government have scrapped the Rwanda deterrent, we would like to help them to make this damp squib of a Bill a bit more of an effective deterrent to those considering making such a dangerous crossing from a safe third country. That is why we have tabled amendments 17, 15 and 16: to demonstrate that if an individual gets on an unsafe boat to cross the channel, thereby committing an immigration offence, they will be found guilty of endangering lives at sea. Then, as a foreign criminal, their deportation should be easier for the Home Office.

If the Minister is not going to accept our amendment, which would ensure that everyone arriving on a small boat should be found guilty of endangering lives at sea, I would like her to explain how people who cram themselves into overcrowded and unseaworthy vessels have not endangered themselves, others on that vessel and those who have to come to their rescue.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

It is an honour to serve under your chairpersonship today, Mr Stuart.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on average we are seeing the number of people per boat increasing each year? He alluded to that earlier, and it means that more and more people are crowding into each small boat—he is nodding, so he seems to agree. Does he also agree that, because we are seeing more and more people crowded into these small boats, it is accounting for a rise in the number of people who are crossing the channel in small boats?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Yes—it is the case that more people are coming on fewer boats. Equally, however, there is also a rise in the number of boats that are coming across. I think that both those things are problematic. One thing that we know about these boats being filled with yet more people is that they become ever more dangerous, and we have seen some of the horrible consequences and fatalities as a result of that.

Amendment 5, tabled by the Scottish National party, specifies that the offence created by clause 18—endangering another during sea crossing to the United Kingdom—cannot apply to asylum seekers. Surely, that would render the new offence even more ineffective, as it will not be possible to charge people until their asylum claim has been determined. Someone is perfectly capable of endangering lives at sea, whether they are an asylum seeker or not.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

I will respond to some of the points that the hon. Member for Stockton West has just made, starting with the point about the French. Under the last Government, we saw what amounted to Twitter diplomacy, continuous bashing of the French online and in the papers, and a breakdown of that relationship. Since we came into Government, we have seen that Keir and Yvette, who was out there in France recently, have looked to reset that relationship and rebuild it. I believe that recent visits that Yvette has made to France, including one that involved a meeting with the French Minister of the Interior, have been very productive. The French are looking at their laws and considering how they can improve things on their side—[Interruption.] I apologise, Mr Stuart. I mean the Home Secretary, not Yvette. The smaller Committee Rooms sometimes result in some informality.

As I was saying, the French are looking to readdress their laws, including things such as intercepting boats in shallow water, which to date has been neglected. That adult approach to politics and working with the French will help us to reduce the number of these boat crossings.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

My hon. Friend is making a really important point: these cross-channel operations and strategies are more diplomatic than they are legislative. Does he agree that, because the UK is unusual in that our Border Force is not a police force, whereas the French police aux frontières, the Belgian police and all other European border agencies are police forces, we have very different kinds of operations and structures, and this work needs to be done gently, through diplomacy and not through amendments to legislation?

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes the powerful point that the French need to be engaged with diplomatically rather than being bashed on social media, which damages our relationship with them. The way forward here is to continue with that gentle diplomacy to bring about the changes in their laws that may well benefit the United Kingdom. We have already seen results on that front in Germany. The Germans have changed laws around the facilitation of the kit to be used for these crossings, so diplomacy is already yielding positive results, and I expect we will see more of that.

My second point is that this amendment is fantasy land from the Opposition. We inherited a justice system that was completely broken and on its knees, with just 2% of prison places still available. Do the Opposition propose sticking all these people in prison? If so, where are those prison places going to come from, given what we have inherited?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for a second day, Mr Stuart. I rise to speak to amendment 5 in my name.

Of all the new criminalising clauses in the Bill, this is the one that concerns me most. It is the most invidious and cruel. As we have heard, the clause proposes a new criminal offence of endangering another during a sea crossing, with a proposed maximum sentence of six years’ imprisonment. The offence is defined as committing an act that creates a risk of death or serious physical or psychological injury to another person during a sea journey from France, Belgium or the Netherlands to the UK—in effect, all the sea journeys across the channel by, mainly, asylum seekers who are seeking refuge in the UK.

How that is supposed to be assessed is anyone’s guess. Any potential transgression of the clause could happen only in the most chaotic of circumstances—on a small boat where people will probably be struggling for their lives to try to get here. The only witnesses to any transgressions of this clause will be other traumatised souls who had the great misfortunate to be there at that time. The new offence is concerningly broad, and explicitly aimed at people on the move; it exclusively and directly targets those on the boats.

Which people may get caught up in this offence? The first category that comes to mind is those people who may have been offered rescue by the French but refused the opportunity of rescue. But why would they take that opportunity? These are people who have travelled thousands of miles to try to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. I am supposing that they make up the first category that the Minister has in mind with this offence.

However, it is also possible to prosecute individuals who, in moments of panic or self-preservation, inadvertently put others at risk. That means that someone who makes a sea crossing out of desperation could face a prison sentence simply because of the circumstances of their arrival, rather than any deliberate intent to cause harm. This law makes no attempt to take account of the high risk and chaotic nature of these journeys, where panic, misjudgment or even attempts to help others could inadvertently lead to criminal liability.

What makes the clause particularly invidious, and why we should think about it very carefully, is that it does not do even one thing to tackle what the Government say they are tackling: the gangs—the people who organise this foul trade and are responsible for putting people on the boats. It does nothing to target them. The only people who will be in the sights of this invidious, cruel clause will be ordinary asylum seekers.

The refugee convention is clear that refugees should not be penalised for how they enter a country to claim asylum. The clause runs a coach and horses through that obligation. It also breaches the Palermo protocol, which enables asylum seekers to claim asylum freely and honestly. The European convention on human rights memorandum states that

“parents who bring their children on the type of journeys that the Endangerment Offence captures will be excluded from prosecution in almost all circumstances”.

The key words are “almost all”: there could still be prosecutions, and the memorandum notes that that could lead to families breaking up.

There is another main target of the offence. It is designed to entrap and ensnare those who pilot the boats. Let us look at how far we have come with this new distinction and new category of people that the Government are now going after. It was in 2019 that the Government started bringing criminal charges against people identified as steering dinghies across the channel. Prior to this clause, those identified as piloting boats have usually been arrested and charged with the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 increased the maximum sentence for that offence to life imprisonment. In most cases, the second charge is dropped due to a lack of evidence—as I explained, the deeply chaotic circumstances where evidence could be acquired lead to a lack of evidence being presented in court proceedings. However, there have been some successful section 25 prosecutions. For example, they can happen when a person pleads guilty to an offence at the first opportunity before it is dropped.

Here is the thing: every dinghy must have at least one person steering it in order to facilitate safe travel. Where there is demand to cross irregularly, particularly in the absence of other safe routes, someone will always be tasked with steering that small boat. If there was no one to steer it, it would set out into the channel, go round and round in circles for a certain amount of time, and then it would sink. I do not think that is what the Minister wants, so somebody will have to take the responsibility for steering that small boat. That is usually left to the people without resources, who cannot afford to give the smugglers in the gangs the money they require to get on that boat at source. They are usually the ones left with this particular, invidious task, in order to get the boat across the channel.

I will give the Minister a couple of examples. I listened carefully to the examples she gave us in the Committee the other day, and they were pretty good examples, but I want her to respond to some of my examples of the type of people who will be caught up in this offence, and ask her whether she thinks that they are fair and just. The first is a well-known case; I am certain that practically everybody in the Committee will be familiar with the case of Ibrahima Bah, who was convicted of gross negligence manslaughter in 2024 despite the court recognising that he was not a trafficker. He was seeking asylum and was coerced into piloting a boat by smugglers. As everybody knows, in that tragic circumstance four people died as a result of being on an overcrowded and unsafe boat.

Despite Mr Bah’s protest at the point of departure that the vessel was unsafe, he was forced to pilot it. He solely has borne the brunt of the legal consequences, rather than the criminals who orchestrated and designed that dangerous journey. Because it was a tragic case that received so much attention, someone had to be found culpable and guilty—step forward Mr Bah. Ibrahima Bah is 20 years old and is now starting his nine-year sentence in a young offenders institution—I stress, a young offenders institution.

I will give another example, just to see what the Minister thinks. Fouad Kakaei—I hope I am pronouncing the name correctly—was convicted of illegal entry and facilitating the illegal entry of others in the dinghy he steered for a time and a period in December 2019. He, like all the other migrants onboard that unfortunate vessel, had paid agents to allow them passage on the vessel, and at some point during that crossing they all took turns steering the boat. Of course they took turns steering the boat; if they had not, a disaster would almost certainly have happened. Mr Kakaei denied any financial motive, a fact accepted by the prosecution. He said he was trying to reach safety and to help others in the same situation. He was doing this in order to help others in the same situation. He was sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.

I have many more examples, Mr Stuart, but I know that they would tire you and you would insist that I move on. I am happy to send on to the Minister the other examples of people like Mr Bah and Mr Kakaei, who have been caught up in all of this through no fault of their own and are now spending time in prison. These cases demonstrate the sheer cruelty and unjust nature of the clause, and the fact that we already have the powers. They were convicted under existing legislation, so what is this all about? Why are the Government using this clause to entrap even more people—to go for even more specific types of asylum seekers?

We have heard again and again—I am pretty certain we will hear it yet again—that the Government’s intention is to use this offence as a deterrent to stop people from piloting boats and from coming to the UK through irregular means in the first place. The Government could not be more naive if they tried.

I listened to the Conservative spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West—he thinks that all we have to do is criminalise everybody who gets on a boat, arrest them and jail them. Does he seriously think that that is going to have any impact? Does he really think that somebody sitting in South Sudan is thinking about what some Tory immigration spokesperson thinks should happen to them when they arrive? They could not care less about that. We know that the deterrent argument is bunkum—it is rubbish; no one actually believes that anything that we design in these ever-hardening pieces of legislation is going to have the slightest impact on people deciding whether to set out to try to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.

In 2023, 244 people were charged with illegal arrival having arrived on a small boat, 88 of whom were identified as steering. Over the first six months of 2024, 64 people were charged with illegal arrival, including 38 who were identified as the person steering the boat. The latest data shows that in the first six months of the Labour Government—I do not know whether it is better or worse under them—86 people on small boats were arrested for illegal arrival, including 48 people identified as piloting the dinghy. The Government have the powers, and they have the legislation. They could use them, and they have used them, so I do not know what the clause is about.

There are already enough asylum seekers being prosecuted without this clause. There is an over-representation of people who have come from countries such as Sudan and South Sudan, who find themselves getting caught up in this legislation—they cannot afford to pay for their trip and they are therefore coerced or forced into piloting in order to secure a place on the small boat.

The introduction of this new, broader offence raises the question of whether the Government’s intention is to punish smugglers or simply to further criminalise people seeking asylum. That is why my amendment 5 asks that ordinary asylum seekers who are seeking refuge in the United Kingdom are excluded from the provisions of the clause.

Many individuals and organisations that also provide support to asylum seekers, whether through humanitarian aid, legal advice or practical assistance, could also find themselves in legal jeopardy because of some of the issues around the Bill and this clause. They include charities offering food and shelter to those in transit, lawyers advising on asylum claims, and even friends and family members who offer guidance on when to cross the channel safely.

Under the new provisions, such actions could be interpreted as aiding and supporting irregular migration, despite well-intentioned humanitarian motivations. I do not know about you, Mr Stuart, but I am appalled at the prospect that the people who have looked at this issue, studied it and who have sent us all this evidence and information—those who support some of the most wretched people to ever to reach our shores—could be caught up in the Bill.

The clause represents a further entrenchment of an enforcement-led approach to migration that prioritises deterrence over protection. The human cost of this Bill is far too high, and its provisions risk punishing the very people who we should be supporting. Surely we need to prioritise an approach rooted in humanity, justice and practical solutions over one driven by punitive deterrence, which tries to criminalise even more of these poor souls who end up on the shores of our country.

Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)

It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Stockton West for their contributions. There are a few points I want to make. Clause 18 already outlines provision within the lines that amendment 17 seeks to remove. Naming the act of supplying an unseaworthy vessel, while removing the broader terminology of an act from the Bill, sets a precedent where we would have to outline all possible acts within the Bill. That is wholly unnecessary and not in keeping with the structure of the Bill. Although providing an unseaworthy vessel is the initial act that causes risk to life, amendment 17 would serve to de-prioritise further acts of criminality that could endanger life in a sea crossing. The wording already in the Bill provides sufficient scope to address what the amendment seeks.

Following on from this, I think everybody in this room agrees with the sentiment of amendment 5—that genuine asylum seekers are vulnerable—but it is also important to recognise that someone with the right to asylum could be involved in criminality. The Bill already establishes, through clauses 16 to 18, the provision of a reasonable excuse as a defence, creating a clearer distinction between humanitarian activity and genuine asylum seekers, journalistic or academic works, and those involved in immigration crime as well. I believe that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has already conceded that point, having withdrawn amendments of a similar nature.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, who made a very persuasive case. She has stolen much of what I was going to say, which is actually quite helpful. I want to start by reflecting on the international situation, following up on the equally persuasive points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal about the relationship between the UK and France. It is worth reflecting on where we are. The current Home Secretary was the first to visit northern France in almost five years. Using a parallel Conservative political time continuum, that was six Home Secretaries ago.

In December, we had the meeting of the Calais Group in London, which was able to agree a plan to tackle people smuggling gangs. We have seen the Home Secretary and Interior Ministers from G7 countries, Germany included, meeting in Italy to agree a new joint action plan. We have seen the French Government appoint a new special representative on migration, Patrick Stefanini. He will work closely with our new role of Border Security Commander so that we have the closest, strongest, deepest engagement and interaction.

It is worth reflecting on that, because we are not going to solve the problem of small boat crossings on our own. We have to repair the damage done by the previous Conservative Government to our relationships with our major EU allies and partners. One of the consequences of the botched Conservative Brexit deal is that the UK no longer participates in the EU’s Dublin system, which determines which countries should take responsibility for processing an asylum claim where a person has links with more than one country, and provides a mechanism to return the person to the responsible country. That is underpinned by a shared database of asylum seekers’ fingerprints. It is chaotic that we had a deal that robbed us of the opportunity to take part in that system.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Let me just finish my point. We heard in oral testimony last Thursday how the extraction of the UK from the Dublin system, under those chaotic circumstances, has created a pull factor for asylum seekers seeking to come to this country.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Mr Hayes, I am sure that, from now on, you will want to focus closely on the subject of endangering people while at sea.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I will take only one intervention.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to share with the Committee whether under the Dublin agreement we were net recipients of migrants or removed more than we received?

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I have another compelling statistic for her. Implicit in much of what the Conservatives say is the idea that the UK alone is carrying the burden of asylum seeker hosting, but the UK is actually fifth, behind Germany, France, Italy and Spain, in our receipt of the number of asylum seekers in the year ending September. The point I am making is that actually, contrary to much of the rhetoric that we hear in the Chamber and may be hearing in this debate that the United Kingdom is somehow on its own, shouldering all the responsibility for providing a safe place to asylum seekers, we are not. That is worth mentioning, because as a country we are trying to repair our relationships—

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. That has been mentioned, so clause 18 would now sensibly be the focus of your words.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Thank you for your patience, Mr Stuart. I will progress to my more substantive points.

I welcome the introduction of the new offence of endangering another life during perilous sea crossings to the UK, because we know that life is being endangered. At least 78 people died in the channel last year, and a total of 327 have died on the channel route since 2014. With your patience, Mr Stuart, I will talk about a particular case study.

We know that some of the lives that were cut short were incredibly young. A year and three days ago, a seven-year-old girl boarded a small boat in northern France with her three siblings, father and pregnant mother. The family joined six other children on that small boat, all of them seeking to cross the channel to reach the UK. Four other adults completed the complement on the boat. To describe that boat as small is a joke. It was later described as very small, no bigger than the kind a fisherman might use. It was too small for the number on board, which reinforces the point that I made to the hon. Member for Stockton West: that we are seeing the average number of people per boat rising, which accounts in part for the larger number of people trying to cross the channel to the UK.

The little girl I just talked about was pulled out of the water by rescuers. There were efforts to save her, but they failed. She could not be resuscitated. Aged seven, that child suffered a heart attack and she stopped breathing. Her family died. The six other children on the boat died. The four other adults on the boat died.

Later that day—3 March 2024—another boat crossing got into trouble. Thankfully, the 47 lives on that boat were saved. The night before, on 2 March 2024, another boat got into trouble when it deflated because it was not seaworthy. Again, thankfully, 20 lives were saved. But 327 lives have been lost on the channel route.

We know the facts of life in these flimsy boats. We know that every small boat is crowded with more and more people. We know that gangs are set on making as much money as possible, no matter the risk to life. We know that women and children are forced into the middle of ever smaller boats, so that when those boats fold and sink, as they do, it is they who are the first to be drowned or crushed. We know that the fuel is in containers that are so flimsy that they leak, and we know that when it mixes with seawater, saltwater, it inflicts the most horrific burns on the most vulnerable people.

We know another fact of life on these boats: the engines are among the weakest and the lifejackets are fake, do nothing and keep nobody afloat. And so I have to ask: why would we oppose the introduction of this new offence? It will ensure that anyone involved in physical aggression, intimidation or coercive behaviour will face prosecution and a sentence of up to five years.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been clear that this offence sends

“a clear message that we will take action against those who are complicit in loss of life or risk to life at sea.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 63.]

To hear that from a Home Secretary is really important for those criminal gangs that are contemplating criminality. This is about going after those who further jeopardise the safety and lives of others during crossings and who are actively preventing offers of rescue. It is not about, as some have said, criminalising vulnerable people and dangerous crossings. Indeed, the Home Office has already said publicly that the Crown Prosecution Service always considers whether it is in the public interest to prosecute individuals. This is about protecting children like the seven-year-old whose life was ended a year and three days ago.

I want to dwell on the point about child protection, because it is so relevant to the question of sea crossings and whether we have this offence to try to limit the loss of life. We heard in oral testimony from the Children’s Commissioner for England about the horrifying crossings that are taking place, but we also heard that the Conservatives had forced vulnerable children into horrifying situations when they arrived here in Britain. The commissioner stated:

“Children were languishing without proper safeguarding in inappropriate places.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 21, Q21.]

The Children’s Commissioner had to persistently pursue, from a Home Office that hindered her from doing her job, data on

“children who had been victims of attempted organ harvesting, rape and various other things”.––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 25, Q26.]

As she says on children who are missing:

“We still do not know where many of those children are…that is not good enough.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 25, Q26.]

I say that because we have a massive child protection issue on our sea. We have a massive child protection issue in the United Kingdom. We need the Bill to make sure that children are safe.

Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. These steps have been taken following discussions with law enforcement to be as thorough as possible in our attempts to smash the criminal gangs and disrupt an organised activity at the very source, particularly in relation to endangering another during a sea crossing, but also when it comes to supplying and handling articles for immigration crime. We must allow enforcement every opportunity to identify the causes of such crime and use the findings of any investigation to deter further crossings. If he allows me a little bit of leeway, I will refer to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who spoke about piloting boats.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Mr Stevenson, interventions must be short.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I thank my hon. Friend for his point; I agree with him.

I want to continue to dwell on the question of children’s social care. It is this Government who have been backing children’s social care to look after unaccompanied children—something so important in the eyes of the Children’s Commissioner. It is we who are seeking to protect children when they make their desperate crossings and when they are here in the UK. It is no surprise that this Government is doing the same in other areas, such as the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in this parliamentary Session, which establishes child registers to track children not at school, strengthens multi-agency safeguarding arrangements and assigns a unique identifier for each child. I say that because children’s protection is absolutely critical.

If the Conservative party, in tabling its amendment, were serious about protecting endangered life and tackling the criminal gangs that threaten children’s safety and undermine our border security, why did it do so little during its time in office and why did it not vote for the Bill? It proposed an amendment with the express intention of killing the Bill—as we saw in the Chamber, its Whips were begging Reform MPs to back the amendment that would have killed it off. I saw that with my own eyes.

This Government have increased deportations, returns and removals, which are at the highest rate for six years. We are cutting the cost of the asylum system. I beg the Conservative party and its allies in Reform to get serious about protecting our borders and protecting children and to stop blocking progress.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

I have some comments on the amendments. I will start with amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I have watched the first episode of “The Chief”, which I enjoyed and gave me some insights into the outlook—perhaps even the ambitions—of the hon. Gentleman, which were very much to my liking. Although I have enjoyed lots of the contributions you have made with such huge passion, and indeed compassion for the people you refer to, my concern is about the unintended consequences of your amendment.

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Please use “he”.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

Sorry, Mr Stuart. I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal to exclude asylum seekers from prosecution opens up a situation in which someone who has come here as an asylum seeker, and then seeks to engage in illegal activity to assist more illegal channel crossings, would be exempt from prosecution. That would undermine a lot of what many of us are trying to do. My concern is not with the intention of the amendment, which is incredibly clear, but its application, which would go against a lot of the things we are aiming to achieve.

When he moved his amendment 17, the hon. Member for Stockton West did not give a definition of an unseaworthy vessel. This is potentially another area where, despite the rhetoric—which I understand to be about appearing tougher on gangs and people who attempt to make and to assist illegal crossings—the Opposition may actually have introduced an amendment to dilute the Bill.

The amendment ties criminality to the seaworthiness of a vessel. Members on both sides of the Committee have talked about the ability of these gangs: they are fast-paced and cunning, and they move with the times. The Committee heard from witnesses that the gangs regularly change tack to keep up with and get around legislation. That is why the measures we are taking are needed. There is no legal definition of a seaworthy vessel, only that, “A seaworthy vessel is a type of boat or ship that is strong enough to handle the normal stresses of being on the water, such as waves and wind. It is also capable of carrying cargo or passengers safely.” It is about not only the use of the ship, but the conditions.

Amendment 17 proposes a reasonableness test for a vessel to be deemed unseaworthy. That could include things such as having safety equipment onboard, or having qualified crew—although we have perceptions about who the people smugglers are, it is reasonable to think that some of them could have a background on the sea, as fishermen or as people who have transported cargo, so their boats could potentially have safety equipment and a qualified crew onboard. Some of the things that could be used to deem a ship seaworthy include how many crew members there are on board, which—as we have discussed in this sitting—varies, as do the provisions on the boat, such as food, water and safety equipment, and the weather and sea conditions on the day of travel.

I would welcome clarification from the hon. Member on his particular definition of seaworthiness. I understand the narrative of trying to appear tough on this issue, my grave concern and opposition to the amendment comes from the fact that it would dilute the opportunity to be tough on those criminal gangs.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I will make a couple of points about the amendments to the clause, and the clause overall.

I have always been frustrated that people from both left and right make the same mistake on immigration policy—we forget that immigrants and asylum seekers are people. That means that, just like any group of people, they vary: some are entirely innocent and exploited, and some seek to exploit others and are criminals. We need to make the distinction between those groups.

Amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, makes some important points, and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd East is right about the passion and compassion that drive the amendment. I absolutely recognise, support and understand that passion and compassion, but we must be clear-eyed about the reality of what is happening in the channel.

Yes, people are in great danger, and they are the most exploited, most vulnerable people, but they are not there by accident. They are not panicking because they have stumbled by accident into the boat. There is a large, extremely organised, extremely well-financed criminal enterprise putting them in that position and it does not care one bit whether they live or die. We need to be able to draw a distinction between the vulnerable people who are in that situation and the people who are putting them there.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we have to make that distinction between those who have organised, orchestrated and profited from such activities and those at the sharp end of it: the asylum seekers and immigrants themselves. We need to be laser-focused on the gangs, the people who put together and design this vile trade, not on the ordinary asylum seekers, whom these criminalisation clauses exclusively focus on.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am afraid I completely disagree with him on what this Bill is doing. Being an asylum seeker is a self-declaration. It is anticipatory. Someone just declares themselves as one; the system later ascertains whether that is correct and whether they are a refugee. He mentioned earlier that the refugee convention does not penalise people for the mechanism by which they enter; he is quite correct, but that is not a blanket immunity from any criminal act committed in the process.

The hon. Gentleman talked about making a distinction. The Bill does not say, “Everybody, regardless of any other extenuating factor, will be found guilty of this offence.” We heard from the Crown Prosecution Service that guidance will be given about the evidential test and the public interest threshold. There will then be court proceedings, which can make that distinction. This clause is not a blanket catch-all, nor is it about criminalising everybody—but, equally, it cannot be about criminalising nobody, which would be the effect of this amendment. People are doing these things.

It is important to have this legislation on the statute book, because we should not be prosecuting the people who do this to the most vulnerable people and put them in this danger with immigration offences, grandfathering an offence into legislation from the 1970s. This is a new phenomenon that has picked up in the last couple of years.

In my work before Parliament, I worked with the victims of child trafficking and heard the testimonies of those who entered the UK in the back of lorries or, worse, on those kinds of boats. It takes years for those children to overcome their trauma and even to express how dangerous the situation was that they were in. It damages them forever. We have to target the people who do that to them with no compunction at all.

I return to my original point: we need to be able to draw a distinction between the exploited and the exploiters. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West and the Conservatives does not draw that distinction. It would categorise everyone as guilty, an exploiter and someone who should go to prison for 14 years. The amendment from the SNP does the opposite. It would exonerate everyone. If they declared themselves an asylum seeker, none of the legislation would apply to them, regardless of any other crimes that they had committed on the way. I do not think that is right. We can and we must draw that distinction.

I have two final points. If someone in any other walk of life—a building contractor, a lawyer, an event organiser—did something negligent that led to the death of another person, I would expect them to be held fully responsible for their culpability in that. That should also apply here. We must ensure that that also applies in these boats. The people who put the people in these boats must be held responsible.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent referred to the Dublin system. It is quite correct that we heard that the Dublin system was encouraging people to come here. It is quite correct that the UK was a net recipient of asylum seekers under the Dublin convention. However, if I were a Conservative, I would be very wary of making that argument, because it points to the fact that, even when the last Government had the ability to return people to safe countries that they had gone through, they failed to do that or to use the system in the way that they now claim we should be able to.

The amendments from both sides wreck this clause, which is really important for prosecuting those people who put people’s lives in danger.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. If, as I imagine, the wording of clause 18 will not be changed further, I just wanted to draw attention to the concerns that we will be criminalising those making the crossings and not those who organise the passage. I point to written evidence from the Law Society, which raised particular concerns that are important to consider:

“The Law Society is concerned that parents or guardians could be prosecuted for taking their children on these journeys. The human rights assessment produced by the Government for this Bill states that parents who bring their children on these types of journeys will be excluded from prosecution under this offence in almost all circumstances, but the phrasing”—

this is the most important point—

“does not rule out prosecution in all circumstances. There is a concern that this could result in families being split up.”

The Law Society asks that the Government should either

“clarify if this provision is intended to apply to asylum seekers in some circumstances, or amend it to ensure it does not in practice.”

I ask the Minister to address that point.

Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I want to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham and for Clwyd East regarding amendment 17, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West. I firmly believe that the amendment actually serves to dilute the legislation.

The hon. Member does not consider the fact that many people are coerced into boats in the belief that they will be safe, because there will be lifejackets provided. However, many times those lifejackets do not meet EU or British standards, or children’s lifejackets are provided for every person on the boat—or, when people get on the boat, there are not enough lifejackets. The gangs who are using that to coerce people on to the boats should be prosecuted for that simple act.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It has been a while since the sitting began, and it is easy to overlook that I have not been up on my feet so far. We have had an interesting debate. The amendments before us range from, at one end, the Opposition, whose amendments seek to criminalise everyone who gets in a small boat and presumably cart them directly to prison, through to the other end of the argument, represented with his usual passion by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who feels that, if someone is an asylum seeker, they should be exempt from being judged at all on the behaviour that happens on the boat.

I will deal with some of those points in turn, but I also want to compliment my colleagues who have made their own comments and some very important points in this debate. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, that we are clear-eyed about what is happening in the channel. We can be romantic about it in many ways, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire often appear to be, or we can regard all those who come over as criminals and a threat, but the truth is somewhere in between.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made a moving speech about the realities of what can happen in these circumstances; it is easy to forget, when we are sat in a nice warm Committee Room—although it is not always warm, facing as it does on to the river. Imagine ending up in the water in the channel, Mr Stuart; you can last only so long. You could easily have a heart attack in that cold water and not be resuscitated. Clearly, if you are a child, or vulnerable in any other way, then that is likely to happen—and it will happen to you first.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am pleased that the Minister talked about the length of the sentence, which we have not talked about very much in the debate so far. Fourteen years is the maximum sentence for placing explosives with intent to cause bodily injury, and for such other offences as causing death by dangerous driving. To me, 14 years is more applicable in those cases. Does she agree? I do not understand the rationale for 14 years.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Yes, and it is not for me to get into the head of the hon. Member for Stockton West. Perhaps he will talk to us about why he picked that particular number. I agree with the hon. Member for—is it Worthing? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking—I knew it began with a W, and my own constituency begins with a W, so we are there or thereabouts in the dictionary.

Similarly, amendment 16 seeks to increase the sentence from five years to 14 years where an irregular migrant or arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK and is entering without the requisite leave to enter, entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation. As with the approach taken to those who arrive in breach of a deportation order, and as discussed in relation to amendment 15, clause 18 will provide an increased sentence compared with the offences under section 24(B1), (D1) and (E1) of the Immigration Act.

Under section 24, the maximum sentence for knowingly entering without requisite leave to enter, entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation is four years. Under clause 18, the maximum sentence for journeys involving an endangering act in relation to the same section 24 offences is five years. We think that is a proportionate increase compared with the other section 24 offences. The comparison here is not section 25 of the 1971 Act, under which there was originally a maximum sentence of 14 years that the last Government increased to life imprisonment. Five years is considered appropriate for acts that endanger others during a sea crossing, so I call on the shadow Minister not to press amendment 16.

Amendment 17 would fundamentally alter the focus of clause 18. Where clause 18 focuses on acts that have caused or created a risk of serious injury or death to others during a journey by water to the UK, the amendment would criminalise any person for their decision to board an unseaworthy vessel. That would be a very wide-ranging offence. Everyone wants these crossings to stop—my goodness, anyone listening to what we have heard today and who knows what happens in the channel wants these journeys to stop—but the amendment would criminalise everybody onboard a vessel by virtue of its condition.

I have seen some of these vessels, none of which could reasonably be seen to be seaworthy. If the Opposition Members had seen some of them, perhaps they would not think clause 18 is muddying the waters. None of these vessels is seaworthy. I would not want to cross a puddle in them, let alone the channel, which is one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Stockton West, it is nonsense to suggest that the answer to stopping these crossings, an objective we all share, is as simple as criminalising everyone who arrives in the UK in this way. Imagine the real-world implications. Despite the Rwanda scheme, 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats. Over 150,000 crossed the channel when the Conservative party was in office. Are we meant to put all those people in jail? Is the hon. Member seriously saying that would deal with this difficult and complex issue? It sounds even more absurd than thinking the Rwanda scheme would actually work. His amendment is unworkable, and I hope he will withdraw it.

Amendment 5 would exclude asylum seekers from the scope of these offences. Again, I understand why the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire tabled the amendment. In his own analysis, everybody aboard these boats is an innocent asylum seeker. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh put it best: some of the people who come across on these boats are innocent asylum seekers, but others are certainly not. We do not have trained people in Dover looking for coercive control because we do not think that some of those coming across are wholly innocent asylum seekers.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I am sorry to see that the Minister is still bravely struggling with a cold—the Committee has noticed. A variety of offences are available to the courts to make sure that anybody who endangers people at sea can be prosecuted. There is illegal arrival, there is facilitating the illegal entry of others, and there is what Ibrahima Bah was convicted of—gross negligence manslaughter. These offences are all currently available to the prosecutorial authorities. I do not know why the Minister feels she needs this new offence. It can only be because she has a particular target in mind against whom she wants to apply these rules. Can she confirm that?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I will try to give the hon. Gentleman some insight. I was going to come on to this when addressing the clause itself, but it is in the Bill because we have perceived a change in behaviour in some areas.

There has been an increase in physical aggression towards other people, including migrants and third parties. There is a lot more violence on the beaches against French police. There is intimidating and controlling behaviour on the boats. People are preventing others from disembarking or calling for help when the boat gets into difficulty. There are physical acts that result in harm being caused to another person either while boarding a boat or while on a boat. People are being pushed off boats, including in shallow French territorial waters. The pilots sometimes decide to continue on to the UK even when there have been fatalities or serious harm on the boat. We are now seeing a range of behaviours that clause 18 will allow us to address.

I will address amendment 5, but the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that no asylum seeker should be charged with this new criminal offence, which would render clause 18 unworkable and pointless, as 95% of people who come across on small boats claim asylum. How one behaved on the boat across will be in the purview of clause 18, whether it is dangling children over the side or forcing women and children to sit in the middle—often the middle of the boats come free and collapse, so the women and children are the first to die. Where women and children are forced to sit in the middle, they sometimes arrive in the UK with horrific burns because of the combination of fuel and seawater, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said.

I simply do not agree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire that, just because someone will claim asylum when they get to the UK, none of their behaviour on the way over should have any bearing on what happens when they get here. Clause 18, which creates a new criminal offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act, will not criminalise everyone who makes these crossings. It would be pointless and completely unworkable if we sought to do that, as the Opposition amendments do. It is about addressing, discouraging and deterring the acts that cause or create a risk of serious injury or death to others, which we are now seeing from individuals travelling to the UK by small boats.

There have to be consequences for anyone who further jeopardises the safety and lives of others during these dangerous crossings. There are those who insist on continuing their journey when assistance is at hand, who refuse assistance, and often, when there have been fatalities, try to prevent others from being rescued. Clause 18 addresses specific acts that create or cause a risk of serious injury or death to others during a journey. We heard in oral evidence how these journeys are being made more dangerous by such acts, and clause 18 is a response to the increasing propensity of this kind of behaviour.

There have been shocking and tragic cases of women and children being forced and intimidated into life-threatening positions during journeys that are already dangerous enough, which is exactly the type of offending that clause 18 aims to target. The approach cannot simply be to say that whatever happens on the boat, stays on the boat. The new offence is another tool designed to curb the endangerment of life. It sits alongside other activity against gangs that intentionally place people in danger by selling these crossings as a viable route to the UK. This Government take fatalities and injuries at sea extremely seriously, and we are going further than ever to try to bring an end to them.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I thank the Minister for her full response to the amendments before the Committee. I totally agree with her on amendment 17, and I hope the Committee rejects it. It is a ridiculous and unworkable proposition that everybody who comes to our shores should be criminalised almost immediately upon arrival.

A couple of things have been said in this debate that I want to challenge and take head on, including the idea that everything is black and white, that people are either the exploited or the exploiters. Everybody accepts that there is a grey area. I think every member of this Committee believes that those who behave in a reprehensible, appalling and awful way, whether on the small boats or in getting people on to the small boats, should rightly face the full force of the law.

The Minister is right to highlight all those examples of the dangerous behaviour that happens during some of these journeys. None of us would want people to get away with that behaviour, but the Bill does not refer to such activity, and there is nothing in the guidance or the explanatory notes. Nothing in the Bill specifies this type of behaviour. As the Bill progresses, the Minister will have to make sure it mentions such behaviour.

The other challenge with the type of activity the Minister describes is how to get the evidence. This activity is happening in the most chaotic circumstances, on small boats coming across the channel. We know these things are reported, and we know that people are arrested and face the full force of the law, but the Minister still has to convince the Committee that a new offence is needed, and that certain categories of migrant will not be caught up.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if his amendment 5 were accepted, someone could orchestrate a boat crossing the channel, throw a child off—which this measure is trying to prevent—and then, when they arrive on the shores of the UK, just say, “I am an asylum seeker”? That would be an obstacle to any prosecution.

The only way we could get over that obstacle—even if the person were French—would be for them to go through the entire asylum process. They would be placed in a hotel in one of our constituencies and, given the huge backlog we have, it would be almost two years before we are able to prosecute them.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

It must be how I am presenting this but, again, I am not being understood. I am sorry that I have not explained the intention clearly enough, but I have no intention of that scenario happening. [Interruption.] Can I say to the hon. Gentleman—and to the Whip, the hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West, who is trying to intervene from a sedentary position—that existing offences are in place to deal with the activity being described. I have cited the example of Ibrahima Bah, who was done for gross negligence manslaughter. Where that happens, of course people should face the full force of the law. And that happens, because we have existing laws in place.

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s description of the new types of activity that she feels clause 18 is necessary to address, but those activities have to be specified and defined. If she moved new clauses to address such activity, I am sure she would get a fair hearing—she would get a fair hearing from me—but, because clause 18 is so broad, other behaviour and activity will inadvertently be drawn into these offences. People who are possibly acting in self-protection, or who are trying to save people but inadvertently put others at risk, will be caught by this clause.

We need to apply common sense to what the Minister is trying to do, and we need to make sure common sense is reflected in the Bill because, at this stage, it is not.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

I just want to tease out what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he accept that, if this amendment passed, gang members facilitating crossings on small boats would escape prosecution?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

Absolutely not. Again, I must be having great difficulty getting through, and I accept that that is my responsibility, but that is not what is intended in the least. A variety of laws deal with the activity that the Minister mentioned. We know that because 244 people were charged in the course of 2023, and since the Labour Government came to power, something like 86 people have been charged with offences. People are being charged and prosecuted for serious offences.

The Minister has identified new dangerous activity, and she is right to do so, but if we want legislation to deal with it, bring that legislation before the House. Do not bring in this broad-sweep legislation, under which natural, normal activity that may be designed to help and protect people could be caught up. The difficulty with this legislation is that it inadvertently draws in people who do not deserve to be. I know it is about targeting the pilots in the boats, but there has to be some recognition of what forces and coerces people into piloting the boats. There needs to be an understanding of their situation and why they are doing that, but the clause fails to take account of any of that.

I will not press my amendment to a vote, but I will say one more thing. I am making this point as Pete Wishart of the Scottish National party. Nearly all the evidence I have presented to the Committee on this and previous amendments has been supplied by the organisations that the hon. Member for Stockton West refers to, all of which work with asylum seekers in the UK, promoting their best interests and serving them. They have given me that material because they are so concerned about the broad nature of so many of these criminalising clauses, and they want us to look at them. I tabled amendment 5 just to raise the issue, and I hope that as we go through the Bill, we will have an opportunity for debate.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I can assure him that no one has higher respect than I do for the organisations that have supplied such evidence. I have been in conversations with them myself. The issue at hand here, however—I know this from having worked in the sector—is that they are not set up to stop the gangs or take through criminal prosecutions. That is not their objective. Their job is purely, and properly, to protect migrants. They will lean towards a broad definition, and that is why I think he has inadvertently fallen into a trap. In excluding everyone from the provisions, we avoid the traffickers, but it is not the job of those organisations to target them.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The job of those organisations is to be concerned for the welfare and conditions of people who come to our shores, and to ensure that they are supported on their journey through the asylum process. The organisations have identified that the Bill does little to target the gangs that the hon. Gentleman is referring to; in fact, they do little at all. They are all about ordinary asylum seekers. The new criminalisation clauses that we have debated over the past couple of days are all exclusively devoted to the activity of asylum seekers coming here, and none more so than this clause.

I hope that, as the Bill proceeds through its remaining stages—particularly when it goes through the other place, although that greatly concerns me for a number of reasons—we will be able to improve it, and get to a place where it reflects what the Minister said in her fine contribution.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I did not hear from the Minister a response on the Law Society’s concern about parents and guardians being criminalised, and I wonder whether I could hear some thoughts on that.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

In general, it is not expected that parents will be criminalised, but there is not a total ban on that. It will depend on what has happened and what the circumstances were. That will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to be more explicit about that, given that the nature of the offence represents a stricter law that is meant to deter people from making small boat crossings. It is a signal to smugglers and passengers that fatalities and injuries at sea are taken extremely seriously, so there may well be consequences for particular unacceptable behaviour of the sort that I have talked about. I would not want there to be an absolute exclusion, but I would not expect a large cohort of people to fall within the purview of the new offences.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I thank Members for their considered contributions. Effective international partnerships can be useful, but I would not want to deny anyone the right to scrutinise a partner on Twitter, particularly one to whom we pay so much money. The previous Government were right to toughen up on sentences for the worst offences. They were right to restrict prisoner release during the pandemic. That put pressure on the prison system, and that that is why the previous Government were also right to undertake the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era. I realise that the Labour party did not agree, but it was right that the previous Government used the Nationality and Borders Act to increase the penalty for people smugglers to a life sentence.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I was going to allow that statement to go by, because lunch is near and I am quite hungry, but I am hungrier still for the truth. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept the validity of independent assessments of our prison system—the system that this Labour Government inherited—as near to collapse? For him to claim otherwise is farcical, and I hope he will withdraw that.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I repeat exactly what I said: the previous Government were right to toughen up those sentences and make those who are guilty of some of the worst offences stay longer in prison. They were right not to release people during the pandemic, and therefore they were right to have the biggest prison-building programme since the Victorian era; that is a fact. It was also right that the previous Government used the Nationality and Borders Act to create life sentences for people smugglers. The vile criminals who profit from the peril of others deserve nothing less. That is why it is right to increase the sentence for this offence, as set out in amendments 15 and 16, to deter people from engaging in this awful, vile and inhumane trade. I will press amendments 17, 15 and 16 to a vote—

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Just before the hon. Gentleman does so, there was a question about why the proposed sentence length of 14 years was hit on. I wonder whether he might wish to illuminate us.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

As I said in my opening remarks, that has to be a deterrent. This is a damp squib Bill. If people come to this country illegally—if they break in—there should be real consequences. If they put other people’s lives at risk, there should be real consequences. I think we have proposed the right sentence, and Committee Members can now have their say on it.

(Afternoon)

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interests as set out in the code of conduct.

Clause 19 - Meaning of key expressions

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 20 and 26 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is a pleasure to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Stuart, for what will be a marathon session. Clause 19 provides definitions for the key expressions used in relation to the electronic devices measure. These definitions mean that the measure will focus the powers only on irregular entrants who are in possession of an electronic device that authorised officers have reasonable groups to suspect contains information relating to facilitation offences under the Immigration Act 1971.

Furthermore, clause 19 defines “authorised officer” as:

“an immigration officer, or…a constable of a police force maintained by a local policing body”.

The aim of the powers is to gain access to information held on such devices on the organised crime groups who help facilitate or plan migrants’ dangerous journey and, as a result, to save lives from being lost. The clause is integral in defining the key expressions relating to how the powers can be used.

Clause 20 enables immigration officers within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and police constables in England and Wales only to search an irregular entrant if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that they are in possession of an electronic device that contains information linked to a facilitation offence. That power enables the search of a person, property, premises, vehicle or container. That is to ensure that, in any circumstances in which it is necessary to obtain a device, the authorised officer can use the powers to conduct a search. The clause contains safeguards to ensure the powers are used appropriately. Clause 20 provides clarity over how searches must be conducted in accordance with these powers.

Finally, clause 26 defines any additional expressions referenced throughout clauses 19 to 23. That will ensure that it is clear to users of the powers what key expressions mean. It is important to be transparent about what is meant and to ensure that the public and authorised officers fully understand these expressions.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We support clauses 19 to 26, but only in so far as they endorse powers that we think already exist to seize, extract and retain data from mobile devices. Clause 19 provides definitions of key terms in sections 20 and 21 relating to the provisions of those clauses to allow authorised officers to search for, seize and retain relevant articles. The definition of a “relevant article” is

“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971 is, or may be, stored in electronic form.”

Will the Minister provide some concrete examples of what the Government think such information might consist of?

Clause 20 gives relevant officers—either an immigration officer or a police constable—powers to search a relevant person, which is someone who has entered the UK without leave or in breach of a deportation order. Will the Minister explain why subsection (2) does not allow for any more than one search after the person in question has arrived in the UK? The clause gives officers the power to search for “relevant articles”, which are described in clause 19 as

“any thing which appears to an authorised officer to be a thing on which information that relates, or may relate, to the commission (whether in the past or future) of an offence under section 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971”.

That is quite a narrow definition, as it covers just electronic devices. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the necessary powers to search for non-electronic items exist elsewhere? In practice, we suspect the power will be used to gather information and evidence to identify smugglers for prosecution. We fully support that, but most mobile devices are destroyed during or prior to travelling across the channel. Will the Minister therefore explain whether she expects any of the evidence gathered using the powers in these clauses to be used to support decision making on immigration enforcement?

If the devices are seized, as the former director general of Border Force pointed out in his evidence, they may contain useful information about nationality, identity, age and travel history, and may provide valuable evidence when assessing asylum claims. Will the Minister explain how effective the new powers will be in supporting evidence gathering to remove those with no right to be here? Will information gathered using these powers be available to asylum screening teams? Will that evidence be used in decision making for immigration appeals? These clauses do not have extraterritorial reach, so can the Minister explain to what extent the Government envisage these additional powers will make a meaningful difference to smashing the gangs, when many of the perpetrators are located outside the UK?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

These clauses create invasive new search, seizure and retention powers, along with the powers to access, copy and use information contained within an electronic device. The new powers can be applied to any person who arrives irregularly and has not yet been granted permission to enter or remain in the UK. They allow an immigration or police officer to fully search a person, including a search of that person’s mouth. I expect that the Minister will tell us exactly whether that particular qualification is required for these new powers.

This is not the plot and setting of some future dystopian film: it will be the UK sea border in the course of the next few months. These things will not be done to hardened criminals wandering the streets of the United Kingdom or those associated with violent crime. They are to be done to some of the most abandoned and traumatised people in the world. With these clauses we are starting, measuredly, to go into police state territory. They are essentially a hybrid form of stop-and-search powers, without the due qualifications and reassurances. I do not know if profiling will be a part of this—I will be interested in the Minister’s response—but it seems like only one profile will be included in all that, which is that of every asylum seeker. They may all be subject to these new powers.

For these powers to be exercised, there need only be reasonable grounds and suspicion that a relevant article appears to store some electronic information that relates or may relate to the future or past commission of a facilitation offence. That seems excessively broad. Practically any person who arrives irregularly to the UK may be subject to these powers. Any information received from these searches would be used for preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting facilitation offences. The property can be retained for as long as considered necessary to assess, examine or copy information for use in proceedings for an offence, before being returned or disposed of.

I trying to think why the Government want these clauses. I know they are going to tell us it is all about helping to disrupt organised crime and making sure they can find particular and specific information on electronic devices, but I think a lot of it has to do with the 2022 High Court ruling decreeing that the Home Office’s secret policy of blanket searching, seizing and returning mobile phones from individuals arriving by small boats was unlawful.

Just like the Tories before them, if any particular law that defends and protects people is seen or deemed to be a little bit unnecessary, the Government will just bring in a new one to override it completely, forgetting anything to do with the consequences and implications for people. These new offences clearly compromise a person’s right to a private and family life. Given the confidential, legally privileged, sensitive, private and personal nature of the messages, photographs, information, correspondence and data that may be on such mobile devices, we hold that that could only ever be the case. To be fair, the Government respect that and acknowledge it as fact, and the European convention on human rights memorandum suggests that the new powers could be distinguished and that phones will not be seized on a blanket basis when these powers come into force—well, thank goodness for that.

The memorandum says:

“The Home Office will issue non-statutory guidance about the use of the powers and training which will be required for authorised officers exercising those powers.”

We will have to see that happen pretty quickly, because we have no idea how any of these powers will be exercised. Again, I am entirely happy to take the Minister at her word on how the new law will be exercised as we go forward. However, there is no such guidance for parliamentary scrutiny during the passage of the Bill, so it remains entirely unclear how the Home Office proposes to use these wide and invasive new powers.

I am distinctly uncomfortable with the new powers, and I am disconcerted about how they may be applied and used. A number of agencies have serious misgivings about the type of individuals who will be subject to these new powers. The Minister has to explain just a little more how these powers will be used and what protections will be put in place, particularly for some of the most traumatised people whom we will be ever deal with in this country.

Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I very much welcome this element of the Bill on electronic devices. While clause 22 will give officers powers to seize digital devices that are believed to be used for the purpose of people smuggling, clause 23 gives suitably trained and accredited criminal investigators the powers to access the information on mobile devices, phones and laptops that will build the evidence base, history, connections and understanding of the routes of the criminal gangs.

Seizing and extracting data from mobile devices is a powerful tool already used by our security services. There are already established Home Office guidelines on this, and these clauses extend those powers and will help enable intelligence-led profiling of irregular arrivals. That key change will lead to greater opportunities to disrupt the trade of these awful gangs.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I want to make just a couple of points on the seizure of phones. We have to be incredibly realistic about the threat that the country faces and how these things are organised. We have seen people-smuggling networks and trafficking networks developing in complexity and scale. It does not start in France; it goes all the way through European countries—our allies—and then through countries that are very difficult for us to engage with, including some countries that are at war and some that are hostile states.

The evidence from the National Crime Agency is very clear that the networks are organised by phone, and that that is the primary means by which these criminals orchestrate them. We know that they are evolving, so it is really important that we give officials the power to seize those phones not only to understand where these smuggling networks are coming from, which is the only way to intercede and save people in unsafe vessels, but to disrupt those networks later.

We heard a whole set of arguments earlier about the insufficiency of deterrents in stopping sea crossings. Professor Walsh from the Migration Observatory was really clear that the demand is inelastic. No matter how many deterrents we introduce, there will still be some demand rising to meet them. That is why disruption is so important, which we can only happen if we have the ability to seize those phones. There is a really important distinction between targeting the demand and targeting the supply of the ability to cross the channel.

On the point about whether the powers are applied on a blanket basis, they are not. The Home Office is clear that there will be statutory guidance. The people who seize these phones will be subject to the same rules that are already in place on the handling of material seized from any individual, and they need those powers. The point about family life and private life is absolutely fair, and it applies whenever someone’s phone is stolen, which is a wider debate that we have in society. The truth is, there is no capacity to only seize part of someone’s phone. We cannot seize only some data and not detect, for example, private text messages or family photographs. It is proper that the Home Office officials who seize such data are subject to the rules that we have in this country about protecting the data and returning it when it is decided that it is not required, but we cannot separate out different types of data, and we would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if we did not allow the powers to seize it.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The proposed powers will enable immigration officers and the police to search for, seize, retain and extract information from electronic devices, but only based on two criteria. The first is reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has a relevant electronic device and that it contains information that relates, or may relate, to the commission, whether in the past or future, of an offence under sections 25 or 25A of the Immigration Act 1971—the facilitation offence.

The second criterion is that the person must be an irregular arrival or entrant. Currently, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which is on the statute book until we get this Bill made into an Act, allows for blanket seizure, and searching for all purposes, of all phones. We are repealing that very wide power and replacing it with this one, which is much more targeted than the IMA one.

The hon. Member for Stockton West hinted that we should use this clause to widen the powers, or allow all the information on the phone to be used for all purposes. That is not what we are suggesting. In fact, part of the reason why the Illegal Migration Act powers of seizure was never operationalised is that building the sheer capacity to take everyone’s phones off them and download the contents and analyse what was on all of them defeated the powers that be, and the technical ability to do so has not yet been developed.

It seems to us, from talking to organisations in the police, and the National Crime Agency, who follow these things very closely, that the best and most targeted way to get at some of this information is to have these criteria. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect, and that is not a blanket thing. These are intelligence-led powers, which will lead us potentially to certain individuals, so that we can take a device off them and analyse what is on it.

Experience suggests that what is on such devices can be very revealing. I will not list things here, because I do not want to produce a list of things that people should not leave on their phones that is essentially public, but we all use our telephones and other devices in ways that we all know about, and we probably would be very sobered if we realised how much Apple knows about us, for example, just by looking at its own records. A lot can be gleaned, but there must be reasonable suspicion that the individuals whose devices are taken are involved in facilitation—not just coming over, under section 24, but under section 25, which is facilitation, the more serious offence.

The hon. Member for Stockton West said he thought those powers already existed. In the Illegal Migration Act, yes, but they are completely uncommenced and not put into effect, and are far too blanket to be useful. There is a current power to seize, but that power does not enable immigration officials or police constables to search and seize devices in many circumstances at all. First, a person must be under arrest before that can be done, and we think that, as part of our intelligence-led, counter-terrorism-style powers to defeat organised immigration crime, being able to search a bit ahead, and certainly ahead of an arrest, is a useful power, so that is what these clauses provide for.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked whether information found on phones could be used for asylum casework. No, we do not think that is appropriate. This focused power allows us to search for information and evidence about organised immigration criminality, not about any other aspect of the person’s existence. There are clauses that we will come to later, however, that would enable us to operationalise the information we have, particularly if other crimes come to light as a result of a search.

Clause 21 - Powers to seize and retain relevant articles

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 21 provides immigration officers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and police constables in England and Wales, with the power to seize and retain electronic devices. Clause 21 provides a clear and detailed approach for authorised officers to ensure that the powers are correctly, efficiently and effectively used.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 21 gives authorised officers the power to seize any electronic device that has been found in a search under clause 20, or is not found on a search but appears to the officer to be, or to have been, in the possession of a relevant person. How would officers determine whether an article appears to be or to have been in the possession of a relevant person? What is the evidence threshold for that?

My question for the Minister about clause 21 is similar to my one about clause 20. Will the powers be used to gather evidence that can be used in immigration decision making and appeals? The Opposition support the powers in this clause, in so far as they go.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the powers, but I emphasise to him again that clause 21 is very much in the context of the clauses that we have just agreed. It is a more limited—not a blanket—power. It exists within the parameters that I set out in the previous debate.

I emphasise again that none of the information seized in this context could be used in an asylum case; it is for the purposes of dealing with organised immigration crime. It is not for wider purposes, unless other criminality is found, in which case it becomes available and can be passed on. That will be dealt with in some clauses that are coming up. But these provisions are limited to collecting evidence and intelligence on organised immigration crime from people who have just entered the country illegally.

Clause 22 - Duty to pass on items seized under section 21

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 22 will provide immigration officers using the powers with the duty to pass on electronic devices to other agencies, such as the police. The clause will be used if an electronic device seized contains information about a non-immigration offence—this is the case that I was hinting at earlier. Clause 22 provides the process to be used in these types of cases. We cannot seize an electronic device without that process in place, because we may discover information relating to a criminal offence, such as a counter-terrorism offence or an offence related to indecent and/or obscene material of a child—those kinds of offence. If we discover evidence of such activities on a phone, we must act, and to act we have to have the processes in place to enable items to be forwarded to police or any other agency that needs to take possession of the device for its investigation into the other criminality.

The clause provides for a robust step-by-step process to ensure that immigration officers know what actions to take to forward the device or if the agency to which we wish to forward the device refuses to accept it for an investigation.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 22 gives authorised officers the duty to pass on seized items that have been found in a search under clause 21 where there is a reasonable belief that the article or information stored on it has been obtained in consequence of, or is evidence in relation to, an offence other than the relevant immigration offence. The immigration officer is under a duty to notify someone who has the functions to investigate the relevant offence. What might be the reasons why a person notified under the clause might not accept the article, and what would be an acceptable reason? If a relevant person refuses to accept the article, what are the next steps? We support the powers in the clause so far as they go.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is a bit difficult to talk about specific circumstances in a generalised way. As the hon. Gentleman will perceive, there may be some material on a phone that police or immigration officers are worried breaks the criminal law—I talked about counter-terrorism and child sexual exploitation as potential examples. That information may be passed on and the relevant authorities might decide that it was not at a criminal level—that would be the kind of occasion that the hon. Gentleman was asking me about.

However, one would assume that, with the appropriate training, it would be fairly obvious whether something would be a worry for the purposes of counter-terrorism or child sexual abuse, and police forces could understand whether they have an obligation to try to prevent criminal activity of a category other than that for which the phone was originally seized. Once we begin to seize phones for narrow purposes, we have to make certain that passing on that information is lawful, and that is the purpose of the clause.

Clause 23 - Powers to access, copy and use information stored on relevant articles

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 22—Access to mobile phone location data—

“(1) The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 86 (Part 3: interpretation), after subsection (2A)(b), insert—

‘(c) illegal immigration.’

(3) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.

(4) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 10, (electronic monitoring condition), after subsection (2)(d) insert—

‘(e) involve the tracking of P using P’s mobile phone location data.’”

This new clause would allow law enforcement to access mobile phone location data of people who enter the UK illegally.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I will wait until the hon. Member for Stockton West has spoken to his new clause before I respond to anything he says about it; I will briefly outline what clause 23 does and if the hon. Gentleman wants a reply, I will come back at the end.

Clause 23 will ensure that authorised officers can assess, examine, copy and use information stored on a relevant article. It will enable authorised officers to copy the information from electronic devices so that the device can be returned to the owner as soon as possible. The clause is vital to enable authorised officers to obtain the information needed in relation to facilitation offences under sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, to use for purposes relating to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of such an offence. It is very much targeted at organised immigration crime and the facilitation of illegal entry to this country.

Clause 23 will help the Government to tackle organised crime groups, protect migrants from exploitation and prevent lives from being lost on dangerous journeys across the channel. Obtaining that information will further focus our approach to tackling organised crime groups, identifying as early as possible the trends in the activities of gangs, including their modus operandi, and providing the Government with improved information to prevent future fatalities.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 23 gives authorised officers the power to access, copy and use information stored on relevant articles that have been retained under powers detailed in clause 21, and authorises the use of any information retained under this clause relating to the prevention, detection and investigation, or prosecution of such an offence. We support the powers in the clause. However, it is important to bolster the utility of the powers in clauses 20, 21 and 23. It is for that reason that we have tabled new clause 22, picking up on the suggestion made by the former director general of Border Force in his written evidence to the Committee.

We have tabled the new clause because currently Border Force and immigration enforcement officers are not able to use mobile devices to track illegal migrants on bail. Although powers exist for electronic tagging, there are difficulties with using these powers and so they are not frequently used. At present, mobile devices can be used only for tracking people for serious offences. Under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, an illegal entry into the UK does not count as a serious offence for these purposes.

Mobile devices are often used by migrants on bail to report by phone rather than in person, which minimises their risk of arrest and detention on reporting. Without access to location data about illegal migrants, they are able to stay at addresses not listed on their bail forms. If immigration officers were able to make use of location data from mobile devices, they would be better able to secure compliance with bail conditions and thus reduce the risk of absconding.

New clause 22 would allow law enforcement to access the mobile phone location data of people who enter the UK illegally. It would do so by adding illegal immigration to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 as a serious offence that allows location data to be used. We would also amend the Immigration Act 2016 to allow a person’s mobile phone location data to be used as part of electronic monitoring for immigration enforcement.

Of course, migrants can change phones, but they are more likely to make use of them than electronic tags. In our view, the new clause would add a useful new power to immigration enforcement teams. I am very keen to hear the Minister’s view.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

New clause 22 proposes an amendment to section 86(2A) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, I do not think that this proposal is either necessary or appropriate.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides law enforcement and other relevant public authorities with the ability to acquire communications data covertly, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. Members of the Committee should particularly focus on the seriousness of the powers conferred in the 2016 Act, including the ability to covertly acquire communications data where it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

With new clause 22, the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to add immigration issues to that area of the law, and whether, with an immigration issue, it would be necessary and proportionate to start acquiring covertly communications in an immigration setting. It is important to consider whether that would unbalance the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and cause some issues that would probably weaken it.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is intentionally neutral on the specific types of crime for which the powers within it can be deployed. Instead, it sets a threshold for serious crime, to enable access to more intrusive powers. The threshold for the acquisition of communications data—the who, when, how and where of communication, but not the content—is set out in section 86(2A) of the Investigatory Powers Act. Events data, which includes details of where and when a specific communication took place, is available only for crimes that meet the serious crime threshold. The threshold at section 86(2A)(a) of that Act is a crime for which a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment can be handed down.

The proposed new clause does not define illegal immigration, but many of the immigration offences in section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as recently amended by the Nationality and Borders Act, will already meet the serious crime threshold. There is no real reason to put immigration crime in there; it is already implicitly included. If we start to add particular instances, that will unbalance the way that the Investigatory Powers Act works. That is a technical point, but it is about keeping our statute book coherent, rather than adding things in for effect. Essentially, since offences under section 24 of the 1971 Act are indictable, the serious crime threshold would already be met, so events data can already be acquired as part of the investigation. We do not need to go through the rigmarole in the new clause to emphasise what is already possible.

Where offences do not meet the serious crime threshold, it would not be proportionate to extend the use of events data to those crimes. The right to private and family life is set out in article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is important to uphold our obligations to the European convention on human rights. I know that is not always the most popular thing among Opposition Members, but as someone who voted for it in 1998, I am still quite proud of it. Defending our human rights and ensuring that such things are proper, proportionate and lawful is an important part of trying to pursue and deal with difficult cases with certain standards of behaviour.

Although article 8 is a qualified right, we must ensure that interference remains necessary and proportionate to the level of criminality. By introducing specific crime types that do not meet the sentencing threshold, we risk eroding the safeguards in the regime. By taking away the rights of people who may seem marginalised at the moment, I submit that we are putting at risk our own rights, and human rights in general. That is not something that I would want the Government to do.

New clause 22 would also unnecessarily amend schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016. Where a person is subject to electronic monitoring as a condition of their immigration bail, the Home Office can access their location details via the GPS tag or non-fitted device. There is no need to access mobile phone location data, because there are already powers to monitor the whereabouts of individuals at risk of absconding. I hope that, having had that debate, the hon. Member for Stockton West will realise that those things are already covered in the way that we currently do things. I hope that he will not press the new clause to a vote, but obviously we will not know until we get on to voting on it—some time in the future.

Clause 24 - Amendment of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 25 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clauses 24 and 25 deal with amendments to the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, extending those powers to other authorised officers and to key definitions in the clauses. Clause 24 includes amendments to the 2001 Act to extend powers of seizure where a device may contain legally privileged material, excluded material and special material. The 2001 Act also contains essential safeguards for the handling of such material. Extending its powers will ensure that the seizure of any device will not be prevented by claiming that it holds legally privileged, excluded or special material, which is often an excuse that is raised when such matters come up.

Furthermore, clause 24 will ensure that this data is protected, but that operationally, the information needed can still be taken for the purpose of these powers, and that seized electronic devices are returned as soon as reasonably possible.

Clause 25 provides the Secretary of State with the ability to extend the powers to other authorised officers, via secondary legislation, if they are required to support the disruption of organised immigration crime. The Government will ensure that any decisions on extending the powers to other authorised officers will be fully considered before action is taken.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 24 amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 so that provisions relating to the protection of legally privileged material and excluded and special material apply when mobile devices are seized under clauses 20 to 23. Can the Minister explain how often the Government envisage that those provisions would need to be invoked?

Clause 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to extend the powers given to authorised officers in clauses 20 to 23, to be available to other people, including people designated by the Secretary of State. Why might these powers need to be extended to different categories of people? Who does the Minister have in mind? Why are those not included on the face of the Bill? Why was it judged appropriate that these powers are subject to the negative procedure?

Clause 26 defines key terms used in the preceding clauses, and we have no problem with those definitions.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

Clauses 19 to 23 contain very wide powers. Often, police constables have those powers only when they are authorised and monitored by their superiors, but the powers in the Bill almost allow civil servants and immigration officers to use them without oversight. Clause 25, first, allows Ministers to extend those powers to privately employed staff, and secondly, does so without requiring Ministers to give directions for the exercise of those powers. That sits very poorly with me. I am quite concerned about that. I can understand why we need some broad powers, and I was happy to let the others go through on the nod, but clause 25 seems to go further still. Could the Minister try to reassure me—or us? Particularly, would the Government agree to issue directions for the use of those powers, either today or before MPs vote fully, on Report? I think some colleagues out there will say that the private sector should not have these powers, but if they are clearly identified and statutory guidance is issued, I would feel a lot more reassured.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The first thing to say is that the powers under the Criminal Justice and Police Act are already used by law enforcement and apply in many statutes. Therefore, all of these powers will be used to ensure compatibility with ECHR protections, GDPR protections and data protection generally. We have a very high level of expectation when it comes to data protection in these instances.

Clause 27 - Supply of customs information by HMRC

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Again, I will reserve my comments on the new clause until after I have heard what Members on the Opposition Front Bench have to say about it.

The group entails clauses 27 to 29, which cover the arrangements for HMRC to supply information that it holds in connection with its customs functions. The group also covers new clause 23, which I will try and separate out so that I can try to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Stockton West, once he has put them.

Government Departments like the Home Office and law enforcement partners rely on information sharing for a range of purposes, including law enforcement and border security-related purposes. Key datasets are held by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, many of which are held in connection with HMRC’s customs functions. Existing statutory provisions to share this information are complex, fragmented and restrictive in ways that prevent the Government from taking full advantage of technology such as modern big data analytic tools.

Clause 27 will create a new power for HMRC to supply information that it holds in connection with its customs functions to a range of recipients, including UK Ministers, Government Departments, police, and certain international partners. HMRC will be able to supply information for use for the purposes of any of the functions of the recipient.

The sharing of entire datasets and the use of customs information for more than just customs purposes will enable the Home Office and other partners to analyse the information to identify suspicious activity that would not be apparent if each dataset were considered in isolation. This will support key Government objectives, such as disrupting and dismantling organised crime groups, preventing the unlawful movement of people and goods into the country, prosecuting offenders and protecting vulnerable people, as well as the Government’s safer streets mission.

Clause 28 regulates how the information supplied under clause 27 may be used and disclosed by its recipients. The aim is to ensure that the information is fully safeguarded while also enabling Government Departments to use information received for any of their functions. That will ensure that maximum benefit can be derived from the information received.

Information shared under clause 27 is subject to a general rule: the person who receives it must only use it for the purposes for which it was supplied. They may not further disclose it to anyone without HMRC’s consent. However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule that will enable certain recipients to use and disclose information more flexibly. UK Ministers, Government Departments and the police will be able to reuse customs information for any of their functions and further share it between themselves for specified border security and law enforcement-related purposes. Additionally, there will be extra onward disclosure permissions for the Home Secretary so that she may disclose the information to any person for use for certain immigration and customs-related purposes.

Clause 29 regulates how the information supplied onwards in accordance with clause 28 may be used and disclosed by its recipients. The aim is to ensure that the information is fully safeguarded. The clause focuses on making clear the restrictions surrounding the reuse and onward disclosure of information supplied under clause 28. Any person supplying information in reliance on clause 28 or 29 must notify the recipients of these restrictions, as they apply to the reuse and onward disclosure of the information. In recognition of the particular importance of protecting HMRC information, which can include a great deal of personal information, clause 29 extends the existing criminal offence of wrongful disclosure under section 19 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to apply to any person who discloses information in contravention of these restrictions.

The intent of clause 29 is a continuation of the safeguards laid out in clause 28, while ensuring that none of the restrictions go against the spirit of the overall information-sharing provision. Clause 29 protects information from being shared beyond the provision’s intent. I will not deal with new clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton West until he has spoken to it.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

rose—

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Ah, the hon. Lady will speak to it.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

We welcome the powers in these clauses to share HMRC data. Border Force is responsible for clearing both people and goods at the UK border. There is international precedent for moving towards joint targeting centres for people and goods. From a law enforcement perspective and from ours, the more customs information that can be shared with UK and other Government agencies, the better. HMRC has a range of customs functions, including the collection and management of customs duty, monitoring and controlling the movement of goods, and control of cash entering or leaving the UK. HMRC is bound by a statutory framework of confidentiality and needs a lawful basis to disclose information.

Clause 27 will allow HMRC to share customs information in support of defending the security of the UK borders. The clause allows UK Ministers, Government Departments and the police to reuse customs information for any of their functions, as the Minister laid out. The clause also allows data to be shared with international organisations that have functions relating to the movement of goods or cash across international borders, or if an international arrangement makes provision for co-operation between that organisation and HRMC. We welcome the powers in clause 27. I would like to ask the Minister how often she expects these data-sharing powers to be used for law enforcement and her assessment of what practical effects the powers will have on making it easier to disrupt organised crime networks.

Clause 28, which we support, specifies the circumstances in which UK Government Departments, Ministers and the police can further share customs data. We also support clause 29 on the safeguards included in this clause. We have tabled new clause 23 to disapply data protection laws from data on those who have entered the UK illegally or are foreign national offenders. The purpose of the new clause is exactly the same as the purpose of clauses 27 to 29, which is to minimise barriers to data sharing between agencies for immigration and law enforcement purposes. We table it in the spirit of the support I have already mentioned for the Government’s aims regarding data access.

If someone has entered the UK illegally or is a foreign national offender, law enforcement for their removal is vital and GDPR legislation should not stand in the way of being able to gather and establish any necessary evidence for use in immigration appeals or law enforcement. We wish to remove the barriers to data sharing in these cases, and we know the Government want that too. We hope that they will find the suggested new clause useful.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I thank the hon. Lady for speaking to new clause 23. As she said, it seeks to disapply the protections afforded by the UK GDPR regulations to people who have entered illegally or who are foreign criminals. I think that would massively complicate data protection legislation, given that we would always have to keep an eye on who is a foreign national criminal or an immigration offender, over time as well as in the moment. That could make it harder to apply some of the data-sharing rules.

We believe that with the protections in clauses 27 to 29, we can get and share the information that we need to share, to its greatest effect, while protecting people from unlawful disclosure, without complicating things further by trying to check whether somebody is a foreign national offender or has entered the country illegally.

We have a strong history of maintaining high data protection standards. The legislation permits the use of personal data for legitimate purposes, such as immigration control, while giving the public the reassurance that such use will be subject to proportionate safeguards. Our approach will be to rely on the proportionate safeguards, rather than to disapply the entirety of data protection laws to certain groups of people who happen to be in our society at the moment. The proportionality test, with the focus on organised immigration crime, is important.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

Does the Minister agree that the lesson learned from the previous Government, with the blanket application of some seizure powers under the Illegal Migration Act being so complicated that they were not actually enforced properly—as we learned from one of our witnesses—is a cautionary tale illustrating why new clause 23 should be rejected?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is certainly a good idea to create legislation that can actually be commenced. Otherwise, we are just all having a fun time in Committee— I can see everyone agreeing with me—and not affecting the statute book, making it easier to do what must be done or enabling the law to help with that rather than having a gigantic problem. As a Minister, I am certainly in favour of enacting laws that we can commence, and I hope that we will be able to commence large parts of the Bill as soon as it has made its proper progress through both Houses.

The UK has a long history of maintaining high data protection standards. Complicating them by trying to disapply them for certain individuals who are in our society whether we want them to be or not implies that we would have to keep very up-to-date, regular records of every single person in the country to check their status. That sounds like ongoing identity checks across the whole population, and that is easier said than done. It is not Government policy, and I did not think it was Opposition policy either. Although the new clause is well meaning, it is a complication rather than an assistance.

Where the exercise of data subject rights, such as the right to seek access to personal data, could undermine the tasks, appropriate exemptions can be applied on a case-by-case basis. Disapplying data protection rules in a blanket fashion for certain groups is unnecessary and could disadvantage some of the most vulnerable people in society, such as victims of trafficking. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Weald of Kent will not press new clause 23, with the reassurance that we think that these clauses give us the power to use big data and big data analytics in a way that is in keeping with data protection laws, the GDPR and the ECHR.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I take the Minister’s points about practicality, but in situations where new clause 23 created additional complexity, the Home Office would retain the option to adhere to the GDPR if it wished to; it would just not be forced to do so. We really think that the provision would be a useful addition and we hope the Government will consider it further. However, we do not intend to press it.

Clause 30 - Supply of trailer registration information

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 31 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clauses 30 and 31 concern the sharing of trailer registration information. Clause 30 creates a clear discretionary power for the Transport Secretary and, in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to share some or all of the trailer registration information they hold with the Home Office, for specified purposes related to border security and law enforcement; the National Crime Agency and HMRC, for use in connection with their statutory functions; policing bodies, for purposes of policing law enforcement and safeguarding national security; and specified persons in the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar for purposes equivalent to their UK counterparts.

The measure is designed in recognition of the limited timeframes that law enforcement bodies have to review information and take decisions when risk-assessing thousands of lorry movements into the UK each day to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute crime, and to conduct checks at the roadside. Border Force intends to use this information, alongside customs information and other information it holds, to develop a richer picture of vehicle movements and enable timely interventions. For the police, the National Crime Agency, HMRC and recipients in the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar, the value of the information will be realised via the law enforcement data service, which will provide it on demand at the point of need.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I am sure that if we cast our minds back to 2019, we will all remember the awful case where 39 Vietnamese migrants died in the back of a trailer in Essex. Reading reports of what people found when they opened the lorry, and hearing about people dying in excruciatingly painful ways, makes us all realise that everything we are doing is about trying to stop harm to vulnerable people and save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that this group of clauses will make it easier for data held by DVLA on UK-registered trailers to be shared with our law enforcement and police, and that as a consequence we might be able to avoid more misery and loss of life in such excruciating circumstances?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That is at the higher end of the harms that one would hope could be prevented by more timely access to this kind of information. These clauses will ensure that those charged with securing the border and beyond can use the information in line with the range of threat types enabled by cross-border lorry movements such as the one my hon. Friend just mentioned, to ensure that the law enforcement community engaged in tackling organised immigration crime, and wider serious and organised crime, are able to tackle it at pace.

Clause 31 complements clause 30 by setting out how information received by the Home Office and the police may be disclosed onwards, with whom and for what purposes. Robust inter-agency and international co-operation is crucial to smashing the criminal gangs. Border Force routinely works with the National Crime Agency and the police for the purposes of criminal investigations connected with the smuggling of people and illicit goods, and with HMRC for customs purposes.

The police, in turn, need to be able to alert law enforcement partners to identify specific trailers of interest. Border Force and the police also need to be able to alert European law enforcement partners to intercept trailers where there might be a threat to life and in support of cross-border co-operation against illicit goods. This clause, subject to safeguards contained in clause 32, enables just such an outcome to be achieved.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Clause 30 provides a power for the Secretary of State for Transport to supply trailer registration information to the Secretary of State for the Home Department for immigration purposes, law enforcement purposes, human welfare purposes, purposes connected with functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, protecting national security, and responding to an emergency. The information can also be shared with the National Crime Agency and HMRC.

We support the powers in the clause. As with the previous group of clauses, this is about being able to bring together the information held by different arms of the state to defend the border, and we wholeheartedly agree with that. I must confess that this is going to be a fairly friendly section of the afternoon, for which I can only apologise to all involved.

Clause 31 provides powers for the onward sharing of information in clause 30. It is important that that information can be shared with those exercising public functions, including those outside the United Kingdom. We also support the new powers in the clause.

Clause 32 - Sections 27 to 31: general provision about disclosure

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 33 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

This group includes clauses 32 and 33, which provide for safeguards with respect to the customers and trailer registration information-sharing provisions, which we have just agreed will stand part of the Bill, as well as providing clarity about the meanings of terms within those clauses.

Clause 32 makes general provision about the disclosure of information with respect to clauses 27 to 31. That is information held by HMRC in connection with its customs functions, as set out in clauses 27 to 29, and the DVLA’s trailer registration information in clauses 30 to 31. The clause does two things. First, it clarifies that clauses 27 to 31 do not limit how information may be disclosed outside of the scope of this legislation. It does not tie the hands of a named party to disclosing information subject only to the regime established here if another information gateway exists. Secondly, it clarifies that nothing in clauses 27 to 31 authorises disclosure where it would contravene UK data protection or investigatory powers legislation. In deciding on that, the clauses are to be taken into account. Clause 32 neither treads upon other legal regimes to disclose information outside of the scope of this legislation nor permits anything that would fall foul of existing statutory safeguards—a perfect, balanced approach.

Clause 33 makes provision for the interpretation of clauses 27 to 31—the terms used, their scope and limits. First, it defines the meanings of certain terms through direct definition and in reference to other legislation. Secondly, it seeks to capture all UK police forces and bodies that might be the end users of the information, referring to a “UK authorised person” and a “UK authorising officer” for the purposes of clause 30, and defining what it means in this clause.

The use of the terms “UK authorising officer” and

“the person under whose direction and control the constable…is”

avoids reliance on references to chief constable, commissioner and chief officer, because those terms have prescribed legal meanings that exclude the commanders of the very important ports police and the even more important Mersey Tunnels police, which rely on other ranks to command. That ensures that the definitions apply to everybody, whatever the force. The ports forces and the Mersey Tunnels police are an extremely important part of defending the border, for obvious reasons.

For “UK authorised person”, the term constable, which includes special constable, is used. The clause also refers to

“other person who is under the direction and control of a person who has the direction and control of a body of constables”.

Such is the poetry of legislative diction, but lawyers know exactly what that means. Instead of police civilian staff, or similar terms with prescribed meanings, we have that rather long and convoluted explanation, which includes everybody. That is because not all forces employ police staff subject to employment contracts. Some also use police volunteers. The MOD police uses civil servants in such roles, while the Police Service of Northern Ireland has powers to use civil servants separately from employed police staff. Use of “other person” accommodates all these cases, so it is all-encompassing, and I hope we have not missed anybody out.

Thirdly—this applies only to the trailer data—we have worked with the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar to identify persons undertaking statutory functions equivalent to their UK border security and law enforcement counterparts. We have defined them as a non-UK authorised person and specified them in a table along with the authorising officers.

Finally, the clause establishes a regulation-making power for the Secretary of State to define the meaning of specified purposes related to policing to ensure that the data requirements are met today and can be updated from time to time as operational requirements evolve. Such an extension would be subject to consultation with policing bodies across the UK, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and it would require the affirmative resolution of both Houses. With those reassurances, I hope members of the Committee will be happy to support clauses 32 and 33.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Clause 32 makes general provision about the powers of disclosure in clauses 30 and 31. Subsection (2), as the Minister laid out, clarifies that nothing in clauses 27 to 31 authorises disclosure where it would otherwise contravene data protection or investigatory powers legislation. How much difficulty does the Minister envisage these provisions causing for the sharing of information? I seek reassurance—she has offered some already—that the safeguard will not frustrate legitimate data-sharing activities. Clause 33 defines key terms included in clauses 27 to 31, and we have no problems with it.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I reassure the hon. Lady that we do not envisage the definitions causing any practical problems with data sharing and the powers defined in clauses 27 to 31.

Clause 34 - Provision of biometric information by evacuees etc

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 35 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 34 is critical to the Government’s ability to manage crises and support evacuations effectively. Where the UK Government are considering or have facilitated an individual’s departure from a country in crisis, it is essential to lock in identity and conduct necessary biometric checks at the earliest opportunity, for obvious reasons. Clause 34 ensures that there is a clear legal framework for collecting biometric information outside the UK in these exceptional circumstances. The clause includes important safeguards, particularly for children, to ensure that biometric data is collected responsibly. The provision reflects the UK’s commitment to maintaining both security and efficiency in high-risk international evacuation situations.

Clause 35 details the Government’s approach to the use and retention of biometric data gathered subject to clause 34. It sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may use the information, mainly in connection with their duties relating to immigration and nationality, along with law enforcement and national security. In line with data protection legislation, the information will be retained only if this is necessary, and will be destroyed either when no longer needed or within five years. The clause contains important safeguards that protect the data of individuals in scope of clause 34.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Clause 34 provides a power for an authorised person to take biometric information when the Government are in the process of facilitating their exit from a state or territory. The purpose of the power is to ensure that only those who qualify under particular evacuation schemes are able to come to the UK. The power to take biometric information should help to verify identity and conduct screening checks, as individuals in these circumstances are often undocumented. We fully support the provision.

We would be interested to hear more about whether the Government intend to take further action on biometrics, which could be brought about through the Bill. Countries such as Dubai and Singapore are investing in biometric entry and exit systems, as is the EU. The UK does not routinely capture biometrics at the border, although with the new UK electronic travel authorisation, we will collect digital photographs of all non-visa nationals, with the option of retaining fingerprint scans.

We are aware that there are logistical and financial challenges to enabling Border Force to collect biometrics routinely from all passengers on arrival and departure, but there are also substantial benefits, including helping to match illegal migrants and asylum seekers leaving the country, thereby giving a clearer picture of those who are overstaying through more accurate migration figures. We would be interested in hearing how the Government are thinking about biometrics more broadly in the context of their not extending the power to capture biometrics more widely in the Bill.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Working out the potential for electronic borders and a more sophisticated approach to the hundreds of millions of journeys that cross our borders every year is an important part of the day job of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston. This is a more limited clause, but we are certainly investigating the potential, costs and benefits of a much more digitalised border. We are not about to introduce that through this Bill, but there will be more to be said when that work has been done in due course.

We understand the potential for making border crossings much more convenient for everybody while having more robust information about who has crossed borders, and when and where they were crossed. Some of this is about goods, trailers and a range of other things crossing borders, and ensuring that we have information on when people smugglers and clandestines cross borders, too.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I note that clause 34(3) sets out the requirement for an authorised person only to take biometric information from a child under the age of 16

“in the presence of a person aged 18 or over who is—

(a) the child’s parent or guardian, or

(b) a person who for the time being takes responsibility for the child.”

Does the Minister agree that we ought not to disapply the requirement for consent on such tests for children who are under the age of 16?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is important that we uphold standards and have those requirements, which is why the clauses we are debating do that. These clauses deal with the need, in an emergency situation, to evacuate people who are British citizens and/or people who live in families that include British citizens. It is about being able to get them to safety but, at the same time, to collect biometric information so that we can check who they are. It is much more effective for us to do that at the earliest opportunity rather than getting them to the UK or on UK territory and having to do it then. That is why the clauses will put us in a much better situation from the point of view of identity and security checks, if there is an emergency evacuation of British nationals from a particular place in the future, which we hope will not happen.

Clause 36 - Provision of biometric information at ports in Scotland

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 36 will enable the biometrics of persons detained in Scotland under schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to be taken at ports, thereby bringing the position in Scotland into line with that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Those schedules allow an examining officer—a constable, or a designated immigration or customs officer—to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port, or at the border area in Northern Ireland, for the purposes of determining whether the person appears to be a person who is, or has been, engaged in terrorism or hostile activity. An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is, or has been, engaged in terrorism or hostile activity. Those are important powers that allow counter-terrorism police officers to detect, disrupt and deter terrorism and hostile activity at the border.

The powers for taking biometrics in Scotland are contained in paragraph 20 of schedule 8 to the 2000 Act and paragraph 42 to schedule 3 of the 2019 Act. Clause 36 amends those paragraphs, removing the unnecessary restriction unique to Scotland that requires that those detained under those powers are taken to a police station to have their biometrics taken. The clause will allow biometrics to be taken much more easily and quickly in situ, rather than the person having to be transported to a police station.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Clause 36, as the Minister has laid out, extends biometrics powers to ports in Scotland. As we understand it, immigration enforcement already has the power to take biometrics from people arrested in the UK, including at ports, if they are suspected of having entered or remained in the UK illegally. How does the Minister think that the clause will add to existing operational powers?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is a lacuna in Scotland rather than a problem elsewhere. It is simply that, in Scotland, biometrics cannot be taken except in a police station. In his 2020 report on the operation of the Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recommended that we address the issue. We saw the Bill as an opportunity to deal with what is obviously an unintended kink, so we are ironing it out.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

That is very helpful, but I just want to check that I fully understand what the Minister is saying. The power already exists, but it is about locational flexibility—is that right?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

At the moment, under Scottish law, biometrics—in this instance—must be taken in a police station. Everywhere else, they can be taken in situ. We are just bringing the situation in Scotland into line. It is a minor change, but it will have an important practical effect.

Written evidence reported to the House