Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Committee (5th Day)

15:29

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 10th Report from the Constitution Committee. Scottish and Northern Ireland Legislative Consent granted, Welsh Legislative Consent sought.

Amendment 136

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

136: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002For section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substitute—“(5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh, or(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to remain in the UK without C.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met. These include that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child (that is, a British child or a child who has resided in the UK for more than 7 years) or a qualifying partner (that is, a British citizen, or someone settled in the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971).

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Noble Lords will note, being terribly observant, that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Around about now, I hope, she is emerging from theatre, having had an operation on her foot. She will not be in the House for a few weeks, so I am afraid that I am picking up amendments from my noble friend. I apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading, but the timing of the operation was uncertain, so this is where we have got to.

I am moving Amendment 136 and will speak to Amendment 187, both in the name of my noble friend. They propose two new clauses which would address the rights of children. Most of us will understand—and I hope and believe that most of us accept—that we in the UK regard the rights of children as enormously important and that, when making decisions, we have always to keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or children resident in Britain.

To set out a couple of points of context for this, I note that, as many will be aware, Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the best interests of the child being at the centre of decisions. Article 5 talks about the importance of parental guidance for children and children’s rights, and Article 9 says that separation from parents should be avoided wherever possible.

Let us think about what it means for the child if a parent is deported. I refer to some testimony from an organisation called Bail for Immigration Detainees which talks about what it is like when a child sees their parent facing deportation. Obviously, it is devastating when families are torn apart and children face never seeing their parent in the flesh again. If a parent is deported to, say, Jamaica or India, it will be extremely expensive, perhaps impossibly so, for the child ever to be in their arms again. There are also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, with employment fitting around it—one parent takes the children to school while the other is working. All those arrangements fall apart very suddenly, and the child is the one who suffers.

That is the context of these amendments, which the two proposed new clauses seek to ensure that the Bill addresses. Amendment 136 would amend the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to address the rights of the child. As the explanatory statement sets out, it

“seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met”.

This is about a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child. It is about the reality of children’s lives, not just this year or next year but for the whole of their childhood.

Amendment 187 would insert into the Bill a new clause providing a

“Duty to have due regard to family unity”.


Again, this would put the rights of the child front and centre in the exercise of all immigration and asylum functions. It would apply to the Secretary of State, to immigration officers exercising immigration and asylum functions and to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in deciding human rights appeals.

We hear a lot about the problems and difficulties in our society. If we are to be a caring society that prepares our young generations for the future, I put it to the Committee that these two amendments would be a step in the direction of making sure that—as we so often claim to do—we put the rights of children first for the future, for all of us. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.

In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.

I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I too wish a swift and full recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Her colleague has ably set out the thinking behind this amendment. I suspect I am more sympathetic to it than some members of the Committee, but I suggest the following additional observation on a point that it demonstrates, even to those who feel very anti anyone who has committed a crime ever being able to stay in the United Kingdom.

The amendment demonstrates that Article 8 of the convention is broadly drawn, so there is room for considerable debate about where the line should be drawn on what is a necessary and proportionate interference—for example, to prevent crime or for the purposes of immigration control. A great deal of latitude has always been allowed to signatory states as to where, in the first instance, democratic politics and the elected Government of the day think that discretion should be framed. For many years, Governments of both persuasions have attempted to structure that discretion—just as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is doing in one direction in this amendment—by a combination of primary legislation, Immigration Rules and policy. So, anybody who says that one needs to resile from the European Convention on Human Rights because of Article 8 is either misguided or not misguided at all and is doing this for various political reasons.

I have been a lawyer for only 31 years, but my understanding is that there have been only four removal cases since 1980 in which the UK Government have been found in violation of Article 8. So, if people are upset about the way domestic courts are drawing the line in particular cases, I suggest that that is something for domestic legislation—primary or secondary legislation, rules, guidance and so on. It is in no way a justification for some of the toxic debates about international human rights that we have heard in recent days, weeks, months and years.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I too send my best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We shall miss, for a temporary period, her distinctive contribution to this House.

I am puzzled by this amendment, essentially for the reasons my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentions. Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is part of our law. There are suggestions that proposals may be brought forward in relation to its application, but it remains part of our law. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but there is nothing in the Bill that purports to remove Article 8.

Article 8 requires adjudicators, tribunals and courts to have regard to family law issues and the interests of children and parents—families—and that seems entirely appropriate. There is a balance to be struck in these cases. We are talking about the deportation of criminals. Sadly, there are people here on a temporary basis who commit serious crimes and who need to be removed. It is right and proper that the interests of families are taken into account, but that already happens. I do not see the need for the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there are particular statutory provisions on additional considerations in cases involving foreign criminals, and it is those that I understand the noble Baroness is seeking to amplify.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I too offer best wishes, from these Benches, to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for a speedy recovery.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling these amendments but, like several other speakers before me, it is our party’s position that the legislation already strikes a careful and considered balance between the public interest in deporting foreign criminals and the need to protect the rights of their partners and children under Article 8. Section 117C of the 2002 Act is clear: in the case of those sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, deportation is the default position unless one of two well-defined exceptions apply. Exception 2, to which Amendment 136 relates, already provides that where there is a genuine and subsisting relationship with the qualifying partner or qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on that partner or child would be “unduly harsh”, deportation should not proceed. So the amendment before us appears to restate protections that are already embedded in the legislation, and the courts already have the discretion—indeed, a duty—to interpret and apply that exception.

We have to be mindful of clarity in the law and not introduce duplicating or potentially confusing provisions. In short, with the greatest respect, the amendments would not meaningfully add to the safeguards already in place, and for that reason we cannot support them.

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for moving the amendment. I hope she will pass on the best wishes of His Majesty’s Government and myself to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding her absence from this House. We look forward to undoubtedly seeing her back for day 6 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, on a date to be determined in October.

The noble Baroness’s Amendment 187 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of the family in exercising immigration functions. It is important that the noble Baroness has raised this point, but I share the view expressed by both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the amendment is unnecessary.

15:45

The protections the amendment seeks to apply are already firmly embedded in law and practice through Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010, and the plans for family reform we announced in our immigration White Paper in May, which will be before both Houses in relatively short order.

There is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of the child in the UK. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 ensures that consideration of the child’s best interests is a primary—but not the only—consideration when carrying out relevant functions. The UK’s immigration system rightly supports family migration for British citizens and those settled here, but where individuals wish to establish family life in the UK it is appropriate that they do so on the basis of financial self-sufficiency and the ability to integrate into society.

The system already provides for dependent children through cross-cutting rules in Appendix Children and includes provisions for parents to join or remain with their children in defined circumstances. As noble Lords have mentioned, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a robust framework for assessing the right to private and family life. The Immigration Rules reflect the qualified nature of Article 8, setting requirements which properly balance the individual right to respect for private or family life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK by controlling immigration, protecting the public from foreign criminals and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti have spoken in support of that, but I think that Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has already set out Parliament’s view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has mentioned, it requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases. This means that the public interest in family migrants being financially independent and being able to speak English, as required by the Immigration Rules, is set out in primary legislation.

Each application for permission under the family routes is considered on its merits and on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the individual circumstances of the case. Where an applicant does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will go on to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to respect private and family life. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or their family.

As has been mentioned, under Section 149 of the Equality Act, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations between those with and without protected characteristics. Given the nature of many protected characteristics, such as age, disability, sex, and pregnancy, the consideration of their impact will inherently include the effect on family life.

As I have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, the Government are fully committed to complying with international law and protecting human rights. We are therefore proposing reforms to the immigration system but ones which we believe will be compatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. As we announced in the immigration White Paper, the Government will set out a new family policy to cover all UK residents—including those who are British, settled, on work routes or refugees—seeking to bring family members to the UK, which will include clear relationship requirements and an appropriate level of English language skills, and ensure that the family unit has sufficient money to financially support any migrants without reliance on the taxpayer.

We intend to reform Article 8 and consideration of exceptional circumstances by setting out a clear framework, which I hope will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK, including on the basis of exceptional circumstances, who do not fall within our family policies. I respectfully suggest to the noble Baroness that Amendment 187 is unnecessary.

Turning to Amendment 136, I have a stronger disagreement with it than simply that it is not covered by legislation currently. Amendment 136 would replace the Article 8 family life exception for deportation of foreign criminals who have a qualifying child with the lowest test that applies to other cases. Where an Article 8 claim is made by a foreign national offender sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, the claim will succeed if they show that the effect of deportation on a qualifying child would be unduly harsh. This is a higher threshold than applies to other Article 8 claims where there is no criminality, recognising the strong public interest in deporting foreign criminals.

We have set out in our immigration White Paper our intention to bring forward legislation to allow us more easily to remove foreign national offenders. We remain resolute in our commitment to deport those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK. I am very sorry, but it would not be appropriate to lower the Article 8 exceptions to deportation for foreign criminals, including those who have a qualifying child.

This amendment would undermine our ability to deport serious violent and persistent foreign national offenders, and I therefore cannot support it. Replacing the unduly harsh threshold with a new, lower reasonableness test would open the doors to litigation to determine the parameters of what could be considered reasonable. It fails to adequately reflect public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals. There is an easy way to avoid that conflict in the first place: do not commit the crime. Self-evidently, if you do not commit the crime, then you will not be facing that. I cannot accept the amendment because it lowers the threshold. For that reason, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 136. I cannot accept it under any circumstances, and I hope she can accept the explanation on Amendment 187, which I think is unnecessary for the reasons I outlined.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind wishes to my noble friend. I will certainly be passing all those on as soon as possible. I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate—including the Minister. However, I will point that in his closing comments he repeated several times, “Do not commit the crime”. But the child we are talking about here has not committed any crime. It is the future of the child’s whole life and family life that we are talking about—focusing not on the criminal but on the child.

I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising a very important point about the well-being of children. We are focusing not just on those children but on the public interest. The future of our children is the future of all of us. The noble Baroness made a very useful point by noticing how often the unity of the family is brought up in public debates but then seems to be excluded from certain parts of the conversation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a really important point in the context of our current national debate for those who would see us withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It is actually a very flexible instrument, which reflects why these amendments have been tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why these amendments were needed and said that it is all there in Article 8 judgments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we can set the guardrails; we can say what Article 8 means and that is what these amendments seek to do.

None the less, we have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned Skype families. That is an issue I have been working on for a very long while. I think we might have to get a new term—maybe Teams families or Zoom families. It is important to think about the reality. Let us think of a child of seven or eight who knows they are never going to be held in the arms of a parent again. How does the other parent, if there is another parent there, explain that to the child?

I am sure my noble friend will be looking very closely at this debate and taking on board all the comments so, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 136 withdrawn.

Amendment 137

Moved by

[Lord Bach]

137: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to make legal aid available to detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must ensure that civil legal services in relation to any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the relevant time.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation);“relevant time” means—(a) the time at which a person is first detained under a relevant detention power, and(b) if a person has been released following detention under a relevant detention power, the time at which they are next detained under a relevant detention power.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 137. I also declare my registered interest as the unremunerated, non-executive chair of the board of trustees of the Leicester Law Centre. I remind the Committee that I am also the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Access to Justice.

I thank noble Lords who have put their names to my amendment and others who have expressed their support. I also thank those from outside the House who have provided excellent briefing and particular assistance to me and other noble Lords.

In the Government’s own words, the UK’s asylum and immigration system is “broken”. In few areas is this damage more obvious than in the struggle people face accessing legal aid immigration advice, due largely to so-called “legal deserts”. This stems, of course, as so much does these days, from the drastic cuts to legal aid following the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, always known as LASPO. Immigration legal aid is, in the words of the Public Law Project,

“an advice sector that has collapsed”,

leaving individuals

“adrift in an ocean of unmet need”.

The facts are fairly brutal. In June 2025, the Law Society estimated that 63% of people in England and Wales could not access a local immigration legal aid solicitor. The result is that 50% of claimants are unrepresented in asylum claims and appeals. In real terms, this means that almost 55,000 people are left without a legal aid representative at the time they need one.

This amendment is about that crisis. Its purpose is to place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available within 48 hours to individuals in immigration detention. This will ensure that people who are perhaps in fear for their life, safety and future are supported at a time of obvious extreme vulnerability and helped to navigate the confusing—to put it mildly—labyrinth that is the UK immigration system. Importantly, it will also save taxpayer money by facilitating better decisions earlier on.

Recent announcements have made early access to legal aid more pressing than ever. The first people have been detained as part of the Government’s pilot of the UK-France migration treaty, which facilitates expedited deportations. In addition, the Government are intending to expand the “deport now, appeal later” scheme. It has also been suggested that the Government plan to replace tribunals with independent adjudicators to speed up appeals. On top of this, we are seeing an expansion of the detention estate, such as the reopening of Campsfield House immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire, enabling more people to be detained.

The recent increases in immigration legal aid fees announced by the previous Lord Chancellor—now the Home Secretary—are very welcome. She recognised herself that the changes were designed only to

“stabilise the system and prop up the bits that are most likely to experience system failure”.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, the increases will go nowhere near restoring the Ministry of Justice budget to pre-cuts levels, with the legal aid budget being 36% lower than in 2008.

The increases announced also do not deal with the unique and urgent challenges of accessing legal advice in immigration detention and are unlikely to prevent system failure in that context. This amendment is a further step in supporting the Government’s efforts to prop up the most broken part of our legal aid system.

I want to address directly why the Government and the House should support making legal aid available for migrants in detention. First, it is to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament; if people cannot obtain legal advice and challenge Home Office decisions when they may be unlawful, the laws passed by Parliament are, frankly, not worth the paper they are written on.

Secondly, this amendment supports the rule of law, of which access to justice is a vital part, as the Committee will surely agree. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, put it in 2017:

“Obtaining advice and representation does not merely mean that competent lawyers exist; it also must mean that their advice and representation are sensibly affordable to ordinary people and businesses: access to justice is a practical, not a hypothetical, requirement”.

16:00

Thirdly, legal aid is needed to make the immigration system work effectively. It is both the law and Home Office policy that people should be able to access legal advice before they are removed. Indeed, during the passage of what became the Illegal Migration Act, it was the previous Government’s firm conviction that that was the position. Therefore, without prompt and effective advice, the immigration system simply cannot function from one day to the next.

Alas, the reality is that access to justice for people in immigration detention is largely illusory. Evidence shows that existing government schemes to provide access to legal advice in immigration detention are simply not working. People detained in immigration removal centres—IRCs—are entitled to just 30 minutes of free advice via the detained duty advice scheme, the DDA. However, a survey this year by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 27% of respondents held in IRCs had a legal aid solicitor. This contrasts with a figure of 75% before LASPO. The situation is equally dire for those detained in prisons. These individuals are entitled to 30 minutes of free legal advice via the telephone legal advice service. However, a Bail for Immigration Detainees survey last year found that 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under that scheme.

In the words of the Jesuit Refugee Service in a report this year, access to legal advice in immigration detention is “becoming an impossibility”. Many sign up for advice but never hear back. Even when they do hear back, the lawyer will often be unable to offer detailed advice of good quality, for understandable capacity reasons. Even if existing schemes provide free legal advice to the minority who can access them, the experience of practitioners and NGOs suggests that the schemes too often fail to provide ongoing representation after that initial 30 minutes—for example, in supporting a person to bring an appeal in a tribunal where a decision against them has been unlawful. Even worse is that even when a person is not detained in either an IRC or a prison, there is no specific government scheme at all to provide free immigration legal advice. For example, those detained in short-term holding facilities and residential holding rooms are not entitled to the access that others are.

In sum, the main government scheme for providing immigration legal advice is, I am afraid, failing to provide the very basis of access to justice. This amendment is intended to support the Government to resolve this crisis.

The Committee will know that immigration law is notoriously complex; I do not need to go into the details. Evidence consistently shows that being supported by a lawyer enables individuals with a valid claim, such as for asylum or as a victim of trafficking, to submit relevant evidence and prepare their case more effectively. This helps the parties narrow the dispute and government officials to make more accurate decisions earlier on.

As the National Audit Office made clear last year, the result of failing to provide effective early legal advice in this labyrinthine system is money, time and resources wasted on all the following: court adjournments, supporting litigants in person, accommodating people in hotels, fresh asylum claims, and tribunal appeals. We cannot afford this waste at a time when the asylum appeals backlog has increased. Better we get it right first time. Modest investment now is needed to prevent even further wasted expenses in the future.

In the Government’s own words, the immigration legal aid system is in crisis and will get worse unless we grasp this nettle and carry out urgent reform. The Government’s recent actions are very welcome, particularly on funding, but they do not reflect the unique challenges of accessing immigration legal advice while in detention. Further action is needed before the system can be saved from collapse.

From both a rule of law perspective and a practical perspective, the present position is untenable. The Government need to respond urgently. I beg to move.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I am a signatory. It has been admirably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He has set out in detail the rationale for the amendment, so I will not repeat his arguments. However, I would like to highlight the human impact of lack of legal aid for those in immigration detention.

Look at the scenario. Those in detention may have faced trauma such as persecution, threats to life and inhumane treatment by callous human traffickers. Following this trauma, they face a very complicated, confusing and bureaucratic system which they have to navigate. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to navigate the system without competent legal advice, and if they get anything wrong, the consequences are very detrimental to them, as this can endanger their safety in the long term.

Concerns have been expressed by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons about the detained duty service, which all the evidence shows is not easily accessible and is of doubtful quality. It gives only 30 minutes of advice, which is not enough to explain the circumstances. Furthermore, at the end of the 30 minutes, it is not clear whether they will be supported. If appeal deadlines are missed, and because of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, this lateness is held as evidence of lack of credibility. All this is happening when those detained are locked up in prison-like conditions, potentially indefinitely.

This scenario is not exceptional; all the evidence shows that it is quite common. In short, the system of providing legal assistance and representation in detention is broken. Action is urgently needed—not least for the reasons described by the noble Lord, Lord Bach—such as the piloting of the UK-France migration deal. We need practical action to improve access to high-quality legal advice within 48 hours. This will not only be humane, but, as has been described, will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. I therefore commend this amendment to the Committee.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I too have put my name to this amendment, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for how he opened the debate and explained the amendment.

About 42 years ago, my first task in the other place was to be a member of the Standing Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was probably the most important criminal law statute enacted in my time in either House of Parliament. Paragraph 6 of the Home Office’s online summary of the Act’s provisions, which is shared with the Legal Aid Agency and the Law Society website, says:

“The police must tell you … why you have been arrested and are being detained”.


There is an analogy between what we are discussing today and what happens in cases where people are arrested in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Those of us who have been MPs or have worked with the police—I was once the chair of the London Policing Ethics Panel—and spent the night with police officers on duty have seen the following happen in real time in the real world. If somebody is taken into a police station under arrest, they wait to be interviewed and then a duty solicitor is found for them if they do not have a solicitor of their own. The job of that duty solicitor is to explain to them—in terms they understand, and, I hope, in a language they understand—why they have been detained.

People who are arrested for criminal offences in the ordinary course of things on a noisy Saturday night in north London do not expect to be kept in custody for a very long time. If somebody is detained under immigration detention, it must be even more alarming, because the consequences they see panning out before them are being put by force on to an airplane and returned to a country they have not been to for a very long time. It may be a very deserved return, but it must still be alarming.

For the kind of police situation I have described, it is worth looking at the statistics. Some 25% of those arrested—one in four—are not charged with any offence whatever. Mistakes are made and, sometimes, they are glaring mistakes: the wrong person is arrested, either due to mistaken identity or because they happen to be a youngster carrying the identity card of somebody who may look rather like them but is a bit older. They may be arrested mistakenly because their age has been misunderstood. There may just be a terrible mistake, which can be ironed out only if somebody is there to help them, because complete misunderstandings occur. It is very important in all cases that there should be an early intervention, which may be very brief, in which a lawyer can be made available to advise a person whether what has happened to them is legitimate—not whether it is right; that is not the question—as part of the process.

For the sort of immigration detention we are discussing, it may be that the figure of mistakes is much lower than 25%—I accept that. However, I do not accept for one moment that there will be no mistakes. Indeed, the provision of legal aid is a key component in upholding the constitutional right of access to the courts, which is itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid in what are regarded proportionately as proper circumstances can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. I cite, for example, the judgment of Lord Reed in the UK Supreme Court case, R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017], at page 51, paragraph 66. It is an undeniable right.

I congratulate the Government on some steps that they are taking to deal with immigration cases. They are speeding up the process dramatically. I hope that those cases—for example, the Afghan and Hong Kong cases—in which almost everybody is given asylum anyway will be speeded up so that they can be dealt with more or less summarily. I hope that the Government will fulfil their promise to appoint more adjudicators, judges of one kind or another, for as long as is needed to deal with the backlog. I hope they will use these adjudicators in a creative way by sending them out to where the people they are adjudicating on are situated, so that cases can be dealt with in bulk, possibly by hiring a local school or village hall or by simply setting up a room wherever those people are held, so that the cases can be dealt with quickly.

16:15

I spent a number of years as a deputy High Court judge dealing almost entirely with judicial review cases. A large number of them were dealt with by very carefully prepared paper applications, of which the judge dealing with them could manage 12 or more in a day. This process can be made very effective. If that sort of process were created, it would work, but there must be some legal advice to people—at least of a rudimentary and informative kind, in a language that they understand. It may be done by telephone, as long as it is properly managed. In an accelerated detention process, an independent reviewer ought to be appointed—I would say this, wouldn’t I?—who could report to Parliament on a regular basis, naming and shaming as independent reviewers do, as I used to do long ago and as my noble friend Lord Anderson did so effectively after he took over from me as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and as the current independent reviewer does.

If we were to take the steps suggested by the noble Lord in his amendment, it would build on current legal aid arrangements. Where a person is taken to a police station and it is decided that there is no criminal element to the case, but there is an immigration element, then the police, as a matter of practice, request assistance through the immigration police station advice scheme. For immigration matters that are classified as criminal offences, the details are captured by the defence solicitor call centre, which is responsible for bringing in a criminal solicitor. The proposed system implicit in this amendment would simply involve allocating an immigration lawyer to an individual upon them entering detention.

It is all very simple. It is going to happen. The Government have the opportunity to make this work in a constructive and speedy way without being sued through the courts through judicial review and forced to do it—as will happen if this is not dealt with in this Bill. I commend the amendment strongly to the Committee and thank the noble Lord for moving it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, self-evidently I am not my noble friend Lady Ludford, but her name is on this amendment on behalf of these Benches. The noble Lord described immigration law as labyrinthine. It certainly is. There are easier subjects in which to practise. As a society, we are very lucky that a lot of lawyers are prepared to sacrifice themselves—I do not say this lightly—to ensure that people are advised about the labyrinthine rules.

I am a member of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. At the moment, we are doing some work on the rule of law. I think we have raised with every witness the issue of access to justice. The committee is paying a lot of attention to that.

I want to pick up the reference to the 30 minutes of advice that is available. It is not 30 minutes; it is less than that, as I discovered when I visited Yarl’s Wood a few years ago. It was explained that you have to take out of those 30 minutes the time needed to bring the detainee to the room where the lawyer is holding a surgery, for want of a better word. Can it really be advice? The first job of a lawyer in this situation is to listen. In pretty much every case, if you were to do it properly, I think it must take longer than 30 minutes to have a detainee explain what has happened and what his or her history is, and not just in one period, taken consecutively. For a number of people—those who have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery have been mentioned—it takes a long time to be able to tell that story. So there is listening, and then there is advice—or, rather, an explanation and then advice, let alone action. We know that action does not happen. These Benches very much support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Had I been awake, I would have added my name to it, but I was sleeping in the Recess. He describes a situation which I do not think it is exaggerating to call critical. The numbers and percentages that he cites are shocking. The case for his amendment can be made on the grounds of fairness, access to justice and, as he said, the requirement for the Executive to carry out the laws that this place has passed. I agree with all that, and I do not think anybody in this House would disagree.

I will emphasise a point that the noble Lord made en passant and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made at greater length: we should not just act on this amendment on the grounds of fairness, equity and access to justice, but it makes sense in terms of economy. The costs of the delays in the system, which must in many cases result from inadequate preparation of a case, the wrong grounds being advanced and cases being deferred and having to be heard again, must be considerable. I have no numbers to offer, but I know that, in asylum cases, 50% of initial applicants have no legal representation and, in asylum appeals, 60% have no legal representation. That must prolong the process.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I congratulate the Government on the efforts they are making to reduce the queues for the initial application stage and for appeals, getting rid of these backlogs which grew terrifyingly under the previous Administration while the emphasis was on the Rwanda scheme and people were taken off these cases. The Government’s efforts to get the backlogs down are admirable, but they would be assisted by putting into practice what this amendment calls for, so I support it on the grounds not just of equity, which is perhaps in itself sufficient, but economy.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment have got a deep understanding of a very complex system—the legal aid system—which I certainly do not, so I will leave the fundamentals of the amendment and how the legal aid system works to those who have a great deal of professional knowledge about the system.

However, I noted the observation from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he moved his amendment, that a modest investment would be required now in order to deliver the plans that he has outlined. Can he give some indication of what that modest investment would be? While accepting that it sounds like a simple question, I suspect that the answer is probably complex in terms of the netting off of savings elsewhere through a more efficient process and so forth. Can he also say what proportion of the existing legal aid budget that would represent in order to get the system to the level that he feels would be satisfactory, and where the additional capacity would come from and how long it would take to come through the system?

If the noble Lord could answer those points—or perhaps the Minister could in his winding-up speech—it would be very helpful, certainly to give some context to the non-professionally qualified Members of the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach and pay tribute to him not just for the amendment but for decades of service to access to justice, not least through successive Labour Governments and leaderships. I also congratulate him on his rather impressive list of supporters; clearly, there were many who were knocking on the door to be supporters but could not get in there quickly enough to be signatories.

I remind the Committee that we are talking about incarcerated people. This is not all migrants by any stretch, though no doubt more and more will become incarcerated in the future; there has certainly been a growth in detention in previous decades. These are incarcerated people, which means that the instinct behind the amendment from my noble friend Lord Bach is not a 1998 instinct or even a 1950 instinct; it is actually coming from a 1215 instinct—and noble Lords will understand that I do not mean 12.15 this afternoon. These are incarcerated people who are not getting access to legal advice around their incarceration and potential urgent removal from the country without legal advice. I do not think that most members of the public realise that that is the situation.

Obviously, I think this is a no-brainer, but I must try to walk in other people’s shoes and think about what the objections to the amendment might be. Clearly, if you believe that Governments and successive Home Offices and their officials always get things right and that legal process, and legal advice in particular, is just a burden and impediment and that we should ask my noble friend Lord Bach questions about how much this is going to cost et cetera, that is an obvious objection to the amendment. Another objection would come if you were of the view that non-nationals have no rights or should not have rights. If you take those two objections together, you very quickly pave the way for many more Windrush situations. I remind the Committee that nationals were swept up in that particular scandal because of the callous approach to non-nationals.

That takes me to the very important speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, comparing the lot of these incarcerated people with those who are swept up in the criminal justice system but have PACE protections that these people do not have, even though these incarcerated people are often not even accused of the kind of criminality that many criminal suspects are. These are incarcerated people; yes, for the most part they are non-nationals, but they face very serious consequences, quite possibly for reasons that are not a huge fault of their own.

16:30

If you really believe that lawyers are always a problem and always in the way, and that we should remove people with no due process at all, that is all very well, but I do not understand that to be the position of either the Front Bench opposite and certainly not of the Government. Why do I say that? I say it not least because my noble friend the Minister restated the Government’s commitment to international human rights and the rule of law just a few moments ago in the previous group. Given all of that, I really find it difficult to see what reasonable objections there are to the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, in relation to the importance of basic access to advice and representation for this group of very vulnerable—incarcerated—people who, in addition to their incarceration, may be facing imminent removal from the country.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a practising barrister including in immigration cases—sometimes for claimants, sometimes for the Home Office. I support this amendment for the reasons so eloquently presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and those who have followed him.

I want to add one point, and it is a legal point. The Court of Appeal has explained that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is of course part of our law by reason of the Human Rights Act, imposes obligations on the state to provide civil legal aid in some circumstances. The question of law, says the Court of Appeal, is whether an unrepresented litigant is able to present his or her case effectively and without unfairness, having regard to the complexity of the relevant laws and the importance of what is at stake. Applying those criteria, you decide whether there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Those criteria were stated by Lord Dyson, the then Master of the Rolls, for the Court of Appeal, in the case of Teresa Gudanaviciene v the Director of Legal of Aid Casework and the Lord Chancellor—a case reported in vol. 1, 2015, of the Weekly Law Reports, page 2247 at paragraph 56.

If you seek to apply those criteria to immigration detention, it seems to me that the answer is very clear: there is an obligation to provide civil legal aid. Why is that? Because the law in this area is highly complex, and the issues are of great significance to the person concerned. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has emphasised, the person concerned is incarcerated. It is wholly unrealistic to think that an unrepresented litigant, who may after all speak little if any English, will be able present their case effectively—that is the test—and without unfairness, if they lack legal representation.

The Government have emphasised repeatedly the importance of complying with their human rights obligations—the Minister has said that; I have heard him on many occasions. I suggest to him that this commitment requires Ministers to look favourably on this amendment and, indeed, to answer the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, to do so irrespective of the cost. I do not think the cost would be more than a tiny proportion of the legal aid budget, but that is not the point. The obligation is irrespective of the cost. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us, when he replies to this important debate, that further thought will be given to this issue by the Government before Report.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, not being a lawyer, I feel more qualified to speak on this than anybody else.

The reality is that legal aid across society is, in effect, a rationed resource; it cannot be universally applied. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a point about obligations, and Parliament has been perhaps unwise in the past to have open-ended obligations when we cannot deliver them. The Minister will no doubt have some figures on this but, if more money is allocated through the legal aid system to asylum and immigration cases, either the budget will have to expand or money will be taken away from other areas. It is a simple matter of arithmetic. This is about choice and priorities, and they need to be matched with obligations that we have shown ourselves unable to meet.

On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in his contribution, it would be invaluable for the Committee to have some factual evidence. A point was made that if cases could be made to go more quickly, with fewer adjournments and appeals, savings could be made—and maybe they could be—but we are flying blind because we do not have the facts. I do not know whether they are obtainable or whether this can be looked at before Report, but it would be extremely helpful to have some factual evidence to support this.

Unless the Government expand the budget for legal aid, something will have to give somewhere. If more money needs to go into this area, less will have to be spent somewhere else. It is not a hugely challenging intellectual concept. It would be most helpful to hear in the Minister’s reply whether he has any facts at his disposal. The Committee would be in a much stronger position to take a decision when we have that information.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate because we have had a fantastic presentation by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the legal arguments were made by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They gave the legal basis for why this amendment ought to be accepted, but I am going to go in another direction—that of ethics.

We as a society may say to ourselves, “We are built on the rule of law and in everything we do it is a mirror by which we are judged”. Then we get strangers whose language is not English and whose background is not that of our culture, and we say, “We really uphold the rule of law”. The best way to know whether we are doing that is, first, that no one is above the law, and, secondly, in how we apply the rule of law to those unfortunate to find themselves facing immigration questions so that people see that this is a society that does not simply talk about the rule of law but upholds it. We are going to be judged by the rule of law.

Immigration is its most testing point. Immediately, people say that such people could be illegal and ask why we should give them legal aid, as it is going to be costly. But I am with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: the question of cost cannot in the end trump the rule of law because, if you do not get good representation, you will find those cases going to appeal. If we have not carried out our obligations, we will find this question of the rule of law to be just words and words.

Let me put it another way. Any civilised society that abides by the rule of law will be judged by the way it treats the stranger—the one whose habits and behaviour are not our norm. In the end, if this amendment is not allowed, something similar to it must be, if we really believe that we are a society built on the rule of law.

We will know what we are when we treat the stranger with great disdain and think that anything will do. I know of many immigration appeal cases that happened because there was no legal representative. I know that some cases go wrong because they have not hired a legal person who understands the nuances. If we want to speed this up and hold a mirror to our society, it is what we do, particularly towards the stranger, that demonstrates how we uphold the rule of law. If we cannot, we should stop using these words.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches agree that detained persons should, of course, have access to good legal representation when they are detained. This amendment pertains to legal aid for those detained persons. As noble Lords are aware, legal aid is already provided for those who bring asylum cases or other matters such as immigration bail, certain applications by victims of domestic abuse or trafficking, proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, asylum support applications and applications made by separated children. Put simply, this support is already clearly in place. It is our position that extensive provision is already made and at significant cost.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bach for his amendment and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on behalf of her noble friend Lady Ludford. I have also heard contributions from the Floor of the Committee from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Pannick, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, all of which were broadly in support of my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 137.

This amendment would impose a duty to make civil legal aid available to detained persons within 48 hours. I am going to repeat what noble Lords have said already, because it is important to put it on the record. People detained under immigration powers in prisons and in immigration removal centres are provided initially with 30 minutes of free legal aid advice through the detained duty advice scheme—DDAS. This is a triaged appointment which supports people to meet with a legal provider who may provide further advice, subject to the matter being within scope of legal aid and the detained person’s eligibility. I want to be clear that there is this 30-minute availability, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is important to re-emphasise that, following that DDAS assessment, whether a legal representative accepts or takes on a case is subject to a merit test and to a decision about independent legal representation, in line with legal aid. There is already some scope for reassurance. I hope that the Committee can accept that this well-established service is in place to provide people with quick and easy access to legal provision.

I am conscious that my noble friend Lord Bach mentioned the take-up. I fully accept that this is an important matter for him, and for the Committee and the Government to consider. Take-up is monitored by officials from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It will be examined in detail. I am happy to look at how we can improve take-up of the initial provision, but the initial provision is there.

16:45

The questions posed by the noble Viscount, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, are questions that I mused on while sitting on the Front Bench waiting to make my contribution. We are in a situation where, as I have just explained to the Committee, a 30-minute window is given. We can examine take-up and look at how we can encourage it, but a 30-minute window is given. On the merits of that 30-minute window, further action could be applied for, subject to the test. The question that has been put, which I want to echo, is: if the 48-hour position is there—I accept what my noble friend said—what is the quantification of that? What is the cost of that?

My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has made the point that it is either a matter of principle or a matter of cost. It cannot be both. I am saying simply that if the Government were to accept this amendment, I cannot answer the points made by the noble Viscount because I do not know what that commitment is. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked where that resource comes from—existing legal aid or an increase in the budget. Those are valid questions, and I cannot answer them honestly to the Committee today. It might be a matter of principle, and I accept that could be the position that Members wish the Committee and the Government to take, but at the moment it is not a costed matter of principle and cannot be judged accordingly. That does not mean that it is not a valid principle, but the argument I have put is that that basis of advice is available and it can be expanded accordingly.

The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kerr, were gracious in mentioning that the Ministry of Justice, for which I am not accountable in this House—although I am speaking on behalf of the Government as a whole—has uplifted the housing debt, immigration and asylum legal aid fees scheme. It has injected an extra £20 million into the civil legal aid sector each year. It has increased overall spending on immigration and asylum work by 30%. It now includes paid travel time when providers attend to give in-person advice. It has given a lot of extra investment and support. That has been done for the purpose—again, I am grateful for the comments that have been made—of speeding up asylum claims, getting those asylum claims processed and finding that people either have a genuine asylum claim, in which case we move on to stage two of finding how we can resettle those individuals, or they do not have an asylum claim, in which case they are then subject to potential removal, subject to appeals as currently operated.

I say to my noble friend, and I speak on behalf of the Government, the MoJ and the Home Office, that that support is in place for that initial assessment. There is support in place potentially to take it further if certain tests are met. I understand that there is a need to examine the take-up on the assessment. Additional resource has been put in. Overall, that is where we are. My noble friend’s amendment is still open to the test that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have put to it, reflected by me.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am listening very carefully to what the Minister says, but does he not agree that the very high percentage of these cases that reach an appellate level in which the litigants are not represented by lawyers is alarming evidence that if legal aid is available at an early stage, it is not having much effect?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

So the Goschen/Empey number is neither here nor there. It is not a watertight compartment. The country can decide how much money to put into legal aid. There is also an offsetting benefit, which the Minister has been explaining, from speeding up the process, making sure that good decisions are taken and courts’ time is not wasted. So the Goschen question, to be honest, is irrelevant to this issue. My argument for economy is based on taking the two things together: the speed of the system, the cost of delays, unnecessary detentions and backlogs of asylum cases versus the undoubted additional cost of legal aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.

Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. While he is still on his feet—I love that device—and before my noble friend Lord Bach responds, I think I am hearing an understandable response to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that at the moment none of us has a view of precise figures, but we could examine that, and maybe that should go into the mix of a future discussion on Report.

However, I have to agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not a zero-sum game between justice and efficiency. Indeed, I just wanted to ask my noble friend the Minister whether he agrees—I think he indicated that he does—with judges who have had to deal with cases of unrepresented people about how much time and energy that adds to hearings that, I believe, the Government actually want to speed up. In any calculation that the Minister comes back with on Report, I hope that officials will add that component for delay—an unrepresented person in an asylum case; that should go into the mix.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I draw the Committee back to where we are at the moment: an individual in detention can have 30 minutes’ worth of legal advice very quickly after they have requested it. There may be an issue around take-up. We are monitoring take-up on a regular basis and want to increase that take-up, but that 30 minutes is there. If further advice is required, on the merits test that can be taken forward as of now.

My noble friend’s amendment may take that issue wider than that discussion. It is the Government’s objective to speed up claims to get to decisions on asylum. We are doing that through executive action, not legislation, increasing the number of people taking decisions and making it much quicker and fairer, because that is in the public interest, as has been mentioned by all. I do not think we are going to resolve that issue in Committee today. I have tried to set out where I think we are, and my noble friend has tabled his amendment.

Serious questions have been raised on these issues by me, by the noble Viscount and by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment, because I believe the Government’s case as I have put it is the right course of action on those issues. If we are going to have even further discussion on the points he has made, we need to have some better information on which to base it, even though I accept that for some members of the Committee, that becomes a matter of principle.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am very grateful. The noble Lord has been very generous with time on this important matter. I entirely understand his point that further factual information is required. Will he do his best to ensure that we do not wait until Report to receive that information, and that at least those who have spoken in this debate and the Library generally receive a written explanation of the factual position as seen by the department on the cost of implementing the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, the 30 minutes, and the take-up? Will he also commit to meeting with noble Lords who are concerned about this matter, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bach, so we can see whether there is a way forward prior to Report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for that intervention. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are valid and I will do my best to examine them. Some of these issues are within the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office, but I will examine those points in detail and make sure that we respond to those who have spoken in the debate and potentially put a note in the Library of the House accordingly.

I want to re-emphasise that the Government strongly believe that there is a good offer at the moment. That offer is available to all who seek it, and there is the potential for further advice if the case merits it and for us to examine how we monitor take-up. I will certainly look at the points that have been raised, but in the meantime, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee that in this very complicated and important Bill, this is the only amendment, and therefore the only discussion there has been, on the legal aid issue, so I do not apologise for the time this debate has taken. Everybody who has spoken, on all sides, has taken this issue seriously, as they ought to, because it is very serious, given the principles behind the rule of law. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord on the Front Bench repeat what I knew to be the case—that that side as well as this side, and all sides of this House, believe it important that the rule of law applies when non-nationals are detained, and that those people are as entitled as anyone else to have the benefit of legal advice. That is a big principle and the one behind this amendment, so I am glad it is accepted.

I am really grateful, in that no mover of an amendment could have enjoyed a more expert team of people speaking on behalf of the amendment—or, indeed, not on its behalf. Every contribution was important, not least of all that of my noble friend the Minister, who in his usual courteous way listened to the debate and answered it as well as it could be answered.

17:00

I do not think this is the end of the matter. I am not looking for some wider decision about legal aid; if you pressed me to do so then of course I would, but in a different context. Here we are just talking about immigration and asylum legal aid. While we all think the Government have made important strides in this area, I am afraid we have the legacy of 36% less now being spent on legal aid than in 2008. That is a shocking figure for a country that believes in the rule of law.

No, this is about asylum and immigration legal aid. We accept that there is some sort of system, but where some of us part company is on saying that that system is working adequately at the moment, particularly in an area that has really taken public opinion and is the most important thing in many people’s minds. It is important sometimes to make the point that everyone is entitled to some legal advice.

Contributions at the end of the debate from the mover of the amendment are supposed to be short and we have lots of business to do—the Whip is smiling at me—so, while thanking everyone for what they have said, I will say briefly that this is both a practical issue and a rule-of-law issue, but those will come together if we play this right. If my noble friend the Minister could meet some of us before we get anywhere near Report, that would be extremely helpful. I am going to withdraw the amendment, and I always was, but I thank noble Lords again for the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 137 withdrawn.

Amendment 138

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

138: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Automatic deportation: Appeals(1) Subsection (2) applies to a person (“P”) who has been given a deportation order in accordance with section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007.(2) P may not appeal against the deportation order but may only appeal against their conviction in accordance with section 1 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. (3) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (4) and (5).(4) In section 32, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) An order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) is final, and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”.(5) In section 34(2) omit “or sentence”.”

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 138 and 139 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Together, they go to the heart of what it means to have a fair, firm and trusted asylum and immigration system that both commands the confidence of the British people and respects their good will.

We should start from first principles. The people of this country are generous, compassionate and welcoming. That generosity has been demonstrated towards those migrating to the UK over the centuries and has especially been seen more recently in the Homes for Ukraine scheme, through which ordinary families across the UK opened their doors, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which have offered refuge to those who stood by our Armed Forces. This reflects a profound national instinct to offer sanctuary to those in genuine need fleeing persecution and violence, and to do so with humanity and dignity.

However, that good will is not unlimited, nor should it be exploited. When we ask the British people to assent to immigration policy, we are not legislating in the abstract. We are in effect asking our fellow citizens to share their homes and their services with those arriving on our shores. That is a profound act of trust, and it is our duty in this place to protect that trust. That is why I suggest that these amendments matter: they draw a clear and important distinction between those who come here in need of our support and behave with gratitude and decency, and those who come here and break our criminal law and expect to remain regardless.

I turn to the detail of the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies. Amendment 139 would provide that any person who was not a British citizen and was convicted of a crime while in the UK would be automatically deported. Furthermore, where a non-British citizen over the age of 17 was convicted of an offence, the court would have to order deportation when sentencing. That would bring absolute clarity: if you break the law, you forfeit the right to remain. It would also ensure that those who committed immigration offences, such as entering or remaining unlawfully, were dealt with firmly and consistently.

Amendment 138 deals specifically with automatic deportation orders. These were introduced to the immigration system by the previous Labour Government in the UK Borders Act 2007. They state that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order in cases of conviction where 12 months’ imprisonment is applied and an offence is specified. My amendment seeks to prevent the possibility of constant and lengthy appeals by removing the ability of foreign offenders to frustrate an automatic deportation order through a lengthy appeal mechanism. It provides that, if a deportation order is made, it is final and can be neither appealed nor overturned by a higher court. That would not, of course, affect the right to appeal the criminal conviction, which would remain, but the automatic deportation order could not be overturned.

We cannot justify to the British people a system in which convicted criminals linger here for years during protracted appeal proceedings. These amendments are not directed against those who genuinely need our protection—those fleeing war, persecution and danger—but against those who exploit our generosity, take advantage of our systems and commit crimes against the very society that has given them shelter.

Finally, I lend a word of support to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I have no wish to steal his thunder, so will be as brief as I can. I support the amendment, which would ensure that deportation orders follow swiftly within seven days of release and cannot be endlessly delayed or appealed. That clarity is essential both for the integrity of the system and for the public’s trust in it.

These amendments draw a firm line, restore public trust and reaffirm the principle that compassion must be matched by responsibility. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Amendment 203A in my name and to contribute to the wider deliberations of the Committee. It almost feels as if this Bill is from a different era. The speed of change of government policy on immigration following the publication of the immigration White Paper and various other political developments has left us somewhat flat-footed.

Foreign national offenders remain an endemic issue, which the previous Government, in all fairness, failed to tackle as effectively as they could have. It is apposite that just today the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 is being considered by the Grand Committee. As noble Lords will know, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has opined on that statutory instrument in its 31st report. I will not bore the Committee with the details.

Foreign national offenders cost roughly £54,000 each. They cost £500 million a year and, as of 25 June, there were 10,772 foreign national offenders in our prison estate. They represent 12.5% of the prison population. Disproportionate groups are Albanians, Poles, Romanians, Jamaicans and Irish citizens.

I welcome the Government’s new focus on this area. It is fair to say that they have made some progress. Up to August 2025, they had removed around 5,000 of these individuals. Nevertheless, the number of foreign national offenders is still extremely high compared with just six years ago. Since 2019, there has been a 16.8% rise in foreign national offenders in the prison estate. It was not always the case that we were struggling to remove them. In 2016, the previous Government removed 6,437. In 2017 the figure was 6,292 and in 2018 it was 5,500. Believe it or not, over 12,000 were removed in 2012. The previous Government secured a prisoner transfer agreement with Albania in May 2023.

Regarding some of the legal impediments to the removal of foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences, the German Government—no doubt we will come back to this issue in future—derogated from parts of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically to prevent vexatious and spurious claims against deportation by, in particular, persistent Albanian career criminals. I wonder why the UK Government have not sought to pursue a similar policy, but I am obviously glad that they are looking at it in their review of Article 8. Every time the Minister speaks on this, he sounds a bit more robust in his interpretation, which I am hopeful about.

One-third of foreign national offenders are citizens of the European Union. They should be removed on the basis of public policy, public health and public safety and security, available under the free movement regulations and, post Brexit, Regulation 27 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016.

I am interested to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, in the Chamber, as I do not know what the statutory basis for this is, but why do we not remove the many hundreds of Irish prisoners in our estate? It seems to be a “convention” that we do not. As she would no doubt agree, surely we can ask the Irish to take back their own prisoners as a quid pro quo for the defence support we consistently give to them. The previous Government paid £25 million to the Government of Jamaica to construct a prison in Kingston as part of a quid pro quo for the removal of several thousand Jamaican prisoners in our estate. It seems that we have not expedited that positive outcome. Can the Minister update us on any new prisoner transfer agreement that is likely to come to fruition on top of the one signed in October 2023 with the Philippines? I know that there is ongoing work with the Government of Italy in this respect as well. Maybe he can say how many prisoners claim asylum, or are likely to claim asylum, at the point that they are due to be released or deported.

The reason why we need this amendment and a statutory duty as an imperative in law is that Ministers are bedevilled not just by judicial activism and the misuse of Article 8 of the ECHR by some judges in the Upper Tribunal, as consistently exposed by the Daily Telegraph, but by a fundamental and chronic issue of mismanagement in the criminal justice system. It is why we have 12,000 criminals mooted for deportation at large in our communities, an increase of 192% since 2012. Yet we have the legal powers to act decisively under the Immigration Act 1971 and the UK Borders Act 2007. I applaud the Government for their early removal scheme changes and efforts to secure new prisoner transfer agreements. I think we all agree with that, but we need better and more up-to-date data and communications between the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. We need better reporting performance at the foreign national offenders returns command and a review of case working. We need to stop the use of manually accessed spreadsheets, tackle poor IT provision and improve case ownership, case management, accountability and timelines.

17:15

What progress have the Government made in response to the inspector of borders and immigration’s report of 2023, which made some robust criticisms of the existing regime? This was raised in the debate I had last year in Grand Committee.

While I am at it, and on a note of consensus, the Opposition spokesman on that occasion was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who was a decent, courteous and knowledgeable Minister across his brief. His resignation or removal from the Government is a matter of regret. I wish him well in his future endeavours, and it is a great loss to the Government that he is no longer a Minister.

I know that the Minister should welcome this amendment, which supports the broad thrust of the Government’s current policy, but I look forward to him telling me that he will not support it. Nevertheless, I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will add a few words about the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby: I too greatly appreciated all the work he did and the courteous manner in which he addressed this House. I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, his replacement at the Ministry of Justice.

Amendments 138 and 139 would certainly bring clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said in speaking to them, but they would do so, surely, at the expense of any balance and consideration of relevant factors. Amendment 138 would provide that there is to be no appeal against a deportation order. It would be most unusual and highly regrettable to have a sanction that is simply unappealable; I cannot think of any other circumstance in which that is the case under our law.

If this amendment were accepted, there would be no appeal, however strong the basis for one. If a deportation order were to be made despite the fact that the criteria set out in the UK Borders Act are not satisfied, it would be quite an extraordinary position to be in. There would be no right to appeal despite a deportation order being made to a country which everyone accepts would pose a well-founded risk of torture to the individual concerned; such a provision would be absurd, in my respectful submission.

Amendments 139 and 203A would impose obligations to make a deportation order with no exceptions or discretion where a person who is not a British citizen is sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Again, this is surely wholly unacceptable because it would mean an obligation to make a deportation order even if it means removal to a country where the person concerned will face torture. It would mean an obligation to make a deportation order irrespective of the circumstances of the offence, any mitigating circumstances or how long the person concerned had been lawfully in this country. Such an absolute provision surely cannot command the support of the Committee.

I very much hope that the Minister will say that the Government will not accept any of these amendments. The right way forward, I suggest, is for the Government carefully to consider the existing work to address what guidance and directions should be given to courts and tribunals, particularly in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that a proper balance can be accepted and implemented in this important area.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I was not able to be here at the opening of the debate on the earlier group, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if anyone else has already said this, but I was delighted when I walked into the Chamber and saw the noble Lord still in his place. I have worked very closely with him on these matters over the years and I am pleased that his qualifications have been appropriately recognised over the weekend.

I certainly support the thrust of these amendments, and I will come on to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a moment. They are important because the public believe that, if you are in the United Kingdom and you are not a British citizen, you owe some obligations and responsibilities to the country that has provided you with a home. People generally feel that if you come to the United Kingdom and you are here lawfully, and you subsequently break the law, it is something we should deprecate. There should be some consequences, and we should set a very clear expectation that those who come here under the Immigration Rules and who are not British citizens are expected to be exemplary in obeying the law. It is both a sanction, as the noble Lord said, and something that sets an expectation about behaviour. That is ultimately the thrust behind the amendments from my friends on the Front Bench and my noble friend Lord Jackson.

To pick up one point my noble friend Lord Jackson made, and I hope the Minister can cover it in his response, I believe the issue around Irish nationals is that they have unique legal status here that is not connected to the Republic of Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It is to do with our entwined history and the Act which set up the Irish Republic—or separated it from the United Kingdom. That is therefore a more complicated position and it would be helpful if the Minister could deal with that when he responds, because my noble friend made some points that the public would not necessarily understand.

I want to pick up some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which I thought had some merit, and which have been considered previously by Ministers. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Jackson referred to the very successful deportation period in 2012—I just throw out as an aside that that was when I happened to be the Immigration Minister and responsible for such matters; I will just leave that there. When we toughened up the legal regime in what became the Immigration Act 2014, we contended with exactly the points that the noble Lord raised, about whether you put an absolute position in the legislation or allow any judicial weighing-up of these factors at all. I agree with him that there is a role in allowing there to be some judicial oversight, and we did that in the Immigration Act 2014; we said that if you were sentenced to over four years in prison, you must be deported unless there were compelling reasons over and above the two exceptions set out in the Act. This was to circumscribe the ability of judges to use Article 8 to allow people to stay here at the drop of a hat.

Where I part company with the noble Lord is that I do not think that the Government’s current plan to simply set out in guidance, or some non-statutory mechanism, directions to judges is going to be adequate. When we looked at this, we found that because the Immigration Rules are set out in secondary legislation, courts felt very confident about inserting their judgment on whether people should be removed from the country. We put the balancing arguments—particularly those for Article 8—in the primary legislation, which set out some exceptions and the need for compelling circumstances. The effect was that judges, as they properly do, put a great deal of weight on what Parliament said, rather than what Ministers put into secondary legislation.

Therefore, if my noble friends withdraw and do not move their amendments today, I urge the Minister to think about coming back on Report—we can think about that as well—with something tougher than simply guidance, advice or directions for judges. My experience is that, unless you put it in the legislation, it does not have the desired effect.

Appeals in this area of law are different than in others because, if somebody is in the United Kingdom unlawfully or if we are trying to deport them, it is in their interests for the appeal process to take as long as possible, because for every day the appeal process is not concluded, they are able to stay in the United Kingdom and effectively achieve their objective. That is not like the situation in other areas, where they do not have an incentive to make the process go very slowly. Therefore, we need to do something in the legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has a point when he says that there should be some element of judicial discretion. The challenge, of course, is that as soon as you allow there to be any, it is very easy for that to creep along and for judges to widen it. Then we get all the cases we read about in the paper that bring the law into disrepute.

Therefore, the expert drafters in the Home Office—whom I know are there—should bring forward some tightly drawn amendments that achieve the spirit of what my noble friends have put on the Marshalled List but that perhaps allow some judicial discretion. I was certainly told that, by allowing some judicial discretion, you actually strengthen the power of the statute, because it means that the courts will not seek to overturn it in creative ways, because they feel that justice can be done by following what is in the law. That is perhaps the approach I would urge the Minister to take as he puts together his response to this and what he may come forward with on Report.

Of course, I am more hopeful about the Minister bringing something forward on Report than one would perhaps normally be in this debate because, having seen some of the opening remarks of the Home Secretary, I note that she seems very taken with the idea of a more robust approach to removing foreign national offenders in particular from the country.

I hope the approach I have set out, taking inspiration from what my noble friends have done, is something that the Minister will find meets favour with his new boss in the Home Office. I therefore commend these amendments in moving the debate in the spirit I think the public would wish.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will just intervene on this interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friends on Amendment 203A. The question this raises—I say this really as a question—is: is it not the case that people in this country who want our borders strengthened and immigration controlled may perhaps consider that convicted offenders from overseas who are not British citizens should not enjoy the same rights, privileges and protections after a conviction as a UK citizen should?

I understand that we are bound by international regulations and international law. None the less, as my noble friend has said, there have been derogations from the law, not least by Germany, which has in fact withdrawn legal aid from those appealing. The French Government, in defiance of their own courts, very often deport overseas offenders. Therefore, although it is a very persuasive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there is a wider context in which this group of amendments is being spoken to.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and shall give one example as to why automatic removal regardless of the circumstances is so wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Harper—whom I was lucky to work with many years ago in the coalition Government and am glad to see here—raised a point that a number of other Lords have also mentioned: people who have come to this country and have been afforded protection by it should understand the consequences if they breach the law. That is an understandable point to make.

However, I will give one example. Take a small child who came to the UK, whose parents became British citizens and who had assumed that they were in fact a British citizen, who had committed a crime and was sentenced to prison—and, under this amendment, was therefore subject to automatic removal—but the national referral mechanism competent authority later found that they were a victim of modern slavery for the purpose of forced criminality. That person would have no right of appeal, none of the circumstances of the case would be considered and they would be deported automatically to a country that they have never been to and where people speak a language that they do not understand. It would be wholly wrong for that to happen without any mechanism for a court or tribunal to consider it. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and oppose these amendments.

17:30

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the question was posed by my noble friend Lord Jackson—and touched on by, I think, my noble friend Lord Harper—as to why Irish citizens are not deported. The answer lies in the Ireland Act 1949, which was passed by this Parliament when the Irish Free State turned itself into a republic. The Ireland Act 1949 states that Irish citizens should not be treated as foreign citizens for the purposes of British law, which is why Irish citizens can vote in our elections and why Irish prisoners are not sent to the Republic of Ireland.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, for their amendments. I echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Jackson, about my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. He has served his party and Government over many years, and he deserves to be recognised for the efforts that he has put in. I am pleased to endorse those sentiments from the Committee today, not least because I have shared an office with him for the past 13 months of my term in this Government. I will pass on the Hansard reference to him, so he can read the responses himself.

Foreign nationals who commit crime in the UK should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned this in passing, but it is worth placing it on record that 5,179 foreign national offenders have been deported in the 12 months between July 2024 to July 2025—a 14% increase on the previous year.

On a personal note, I am grateful for the comments about my continuing tenure in this job. I am commencing my 15th year as a Minister, 28 years overall as either a Minister or a shadow Minister, which is quite a long time. I have been around this block several times and I can recall, on foreign national prisoners, going to Nigeria in 2008 and negotiating a foreign national prisoner transfer with the Nigerian Government. Because this falls within the MoJ, I will update colleagues in due course about any potential new prisoner transfer agreements being developed.

Amendment 138 seeks to prevent any challenge—this is a key point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—to an automatic deportation decision and to prevent a deportation order being made when there is an appeal against a sentence. Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, seeks to prevent any appeal against deportation; I will refer to the circumstances around that in a moment. Both amendments would remove any challenge to deportation and would, if nothing else, be contrary to the withdrawal agreement, which the previous Government negotiated and which requires us to provide a right of appeal against deportation for beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement.

For other foreign national offenders, the right to appeal deportation was removed by statute in 2014 by the previous Government. Appeals can now be made against only the refusal of a human rights claim, the refusal of a protection claim or a decision to revoke a protection status. In any event, the amendments would be contrary to Article 13 of the ECHR when read with other rights. We can have a debate about the ECHR, and I am sure that we will, at the moment, the amendments would be contrary to those rights. It would also be unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR to deny courts the ability to set aside a decision by the Secretary of State when such a decision may be manifestly wrong. This Government take citizens’ rights very seriously and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that we meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

Amendment 203A, from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would also undermine the UK’s agreement with Ireland on the deportation of Irish citizens. There is a range of legislation around that, but since 2007, public interest has been the qualifying matter. Irish citizens are exempt from automatic deportation, except in exceptional circumstances where the Secretary of State can determine that it is in the interests of the public at large. It would also undermine the protections against deportation afforded to certain Commonwealth nationals. It would set an artificial deadline for the making of a deportation order, preventing any leave being granted to a person who made a successful human rights or protection claim.

Amendment 139 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Pannick, mentioned, it would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. It would also require a court to pass a sentence of deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK. In my view, these amendments would not be workable and would be contrary to our international obligations.

For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say again that the Government are committed to the protection of human rights and to meeting our international obligations. The Prime Minister has made clear that the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the ECHR, and these amendments would not prevent persons being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. They would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of deportation considerations to Strasbourg and would slow down the removal of those being deported. The amendments would also undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of which we are a signatory.

I hope that noble Lords are getting the general sense that I am not going to be in favour of the amendments. I can continue, should noble Lords wish me to do so.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

The Minister has made very clear his approach to the amendments, but I want to press him a bit. The Government accept that in some cases the courts are not drawing the lines in the right place, which is why the Government have suggested, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referenced, that they will issue further guidance to courts to make these decisions and draw the lines in a different place. Is guidance going to be sufficient to alter where judges make these decisions, or do we need to change the law? The Minister may not agree with these proposals, but I would argue that you do need to change the law. If he does not think that these proposals are okay but thinks that courts are not getting it right at the moment, the Government should bring forward their own amendments on Report. I suspect that this House will give them a fair hearing.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises perfectly valid questions. I was clear to the House and have been today to the Committee that the Government will examine the European Court of Human Rights Article 8 requirements. We will be issuing guidance on that and have some further discussion on what that means in practice. We are still considering those matters, but we not minded at the moment to bring forward legislation—and I am certainly not minded to support, for the reasons that I have said, the amendments from the Opposition Front Bench and from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I hope that I have been clear on that.

We are committed to reforms across the immigration system. It is right that we take action against foreign national offenders in the UK before they get the opportunity to put routes down in the UK. We will do what we can to protect local communities and prevent crime. We will simplify the rules and processes for removing foreign national offenders and take further targeted action against recent arrivals who commit crime in the UK before their offending can escalate.

Later this year, as the noble Lord is intimating, we will set out more detailed reforms and stronger measures to ensure that our laws are upheld, including streamlining and speeding up the removals process. We will table legislation to strengthen the public interest test, to make it clear that Parliament needs to be able to control our country’s borders and take back control over who comes to and stays in the UK. We need to strike that balance between family rights and the wider public interest. That is why we will clarify Article 8 rules and set out how they should apply in different immigration routes so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will also set out when and how a person can genuinely make a claim on the basis of exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, seeks to amend the penalty for immigration offences in Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, replacing this with a sentence of deportation and removing the lack of knowledge as a defence against these offences. We have been clear in our response to the sentencing review that we will reduce the use of short sentences and increase the use of suspended sentences, so there will be a significant reduction in the number of such offenders being sent to prison. Foreign nationals convicted of immigration offences can be considered for deportation at present, and we will act to ensure that such action is taken in future.

Removing lack of knowledge as a defence will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more ECHR challenges, resulting in delay, the consequence being fewer successful removals.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

To pick up on a point made by the Minister, he confirmed that the Government are undertaking this review of Article 8 and how it is interpreted by the courts. He also said that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward legal provisions to put reforms in place. We have a bit of time before Report, with another day in Committee in October and Report a little bit after that. Can I urge the Minister to speed up that review? If it is necessary to put into statute any changes in how Article 8 is being interpreted, he can then bring that forward in this legislation, to take advantage of bringing those reforms in urgently, rather than waiting for another piece of legislation to come down the track in a year or two.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We keep all matters under review. This will go at the pace that it goes at. We will be making further announcements in due course on how we will review Article 8 and the issues that will result accordingly.

17:45

The sentencing review is ongoing. We welcome recommendations to make it quicker and easier to deport foreign criminals. We have committed to returning foreign national offenders earlier by changing the point at which they can be deported under the early removal scheme from 18 months to 48 months, subject to serving a minimum of 30% of their custodial sentence. Also, the MoJ-Home Office joint operation is conducting further work on how we can deport foreign national prisoners serving less than three years as soon as possible after sentencing.

Finally, Amendment 139, which I have referred to several times already, seeks to amend the Illegal Migration Act by disapplying key immigration legislation from the Human Rights Act 1998. I regret that this would have no effect, as this Bill will repeal the provisions in that Act.

I have tried to answer the points that have been made by noble Lords. I suspect that we will return to some of these issues on Report. We certainly will if the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson, re-table their amendments. In the meantime, I would welcome them withdrawing or not moving their amendments, and them considering what has been said.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, whom I congratulate on showing his survival instincts over the weekend. I do not shy away from the absolute nature of these amendments. Having listened carefully to what has been said, I intended to withdraw or not move them, but I make just one point, which was also made by my noble friend Lord Harper.

The rationale of these amendments lies in building a fair, trusted and enduring immigration system that requires us to carry the British people with us. Protecting that good will must be a matter of utmost importance. The danger is that the good will that currently exists is dissipating very quickly. Foreign national offenders are at the epicentre of that and public confidence in our system can never be taken for granted.

However, in the light of what has been said, and reflecting on everything, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 138 withdrawn.

Amendments 139 and 140 not moved.

Amendment 141

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

141: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules(1) The Secretary of State must collate and publish—(a) the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences,(b) the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visas, and(c) the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.(2) Data published under subsection (1) must be broken down by nationality.(3) For the purposes of this section—“overseas students” means any person who is not a British citizen who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of partaking in an educational course;“student visa” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Rules.”

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships’ House too long with this amendment because it is straightforward. It relates to the piece of the jigsaw that is missing in respect of foreign national students with visas to study in the United Kingdom. The background of my amendment is the very serious occasions on which public disorder has occurred, in London and other parts of the country, arising from the Israel-Gaza conflict, which dates from October 2023.

This has obviously been a phenomenon across the world of student bodies, whether it is Harvard, Columbia in New York, in Australia or across Europe, protesting against what they perceive as wrong policy pursued by a particular country—not just the Israel-Gaza situation but other contentious political issues. Other jurisdictions have co-ordinated their response to public disorder which has occurred with student bodies in a better way. In other words, they have monitored whether those students have properly abided by the restrictions and obligations put on them when they apply for and are successfully granted a visa.

Students and those with educational visas in higher education are not in any sense sui generis. They do not have carve-outs and are not given a free pass. Indeed, for the purposes of any transgression of criminal law, public disorder and other issues, they are as much subject to statute as anyone else: the Immigration Act 1971, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Immigration Act 2016. As I referenced in the earlier group, if they are from the European Union, they are also subject to restrictions in their conduct, essentially around visa breaches and immigration law violations, but for our purposes today, I am focusing on criminal activity. That is quite a high bar for those students, in that it is deemed to pose a threat “to the public good”, which is the wording used in primary and secondary legislation—statutory instruments.

It is unusual that I am praising the Government slightly today, but I know that they are mindful of the concerns that the general public have on this issue and that they are seeking, as did the previous Government, to address and ameliorate abuses of the student visa system. We accept in good faith that they are seeking to tackle those egregious abuses, but, to my mind, the piece of the puzzle that is missing is that there is not proper co-ordination in respect of student visas. Therefore, it is important to collect the data on those student visas which are applied for by students who are subject to criminal sanction, not just being arrested but charged and, perhaps, subject to criminal penalty, including, of course, incarceration in the prison estate.

It is for that reason that I think my amendment fits well with this Bill. I am not saying that every foreign student is a criminal—far from it. We welcome the many thousands of students who come to our country to study, some of whom stay here to further their careers and add to our economy and our civic life, et cetera. But there will be some who come here and commit criminal offences. To my mind—I echo the astute comments of my noble friend Lord Harper—you have an obligation, if you apply for a visa and come here, to behave yourself, to behave in a civilized manner, to abide by the law, to work hard and to abide by the conditions of your visa and wider obligations. If you fail to discharge that, particularly, for instance, by shouting antisemitic abuse on a hate march in London or anywhere else, that is unacceptable. If you are subject to criminal sanction and penalty, there is a strong case that your visa should be revoked and you should be removed from this country.

However, the first step should be that that information should be collected and collated in a way which is transparent and open, so that the state and the criminal justice system has an opportunity to make a value judgment on your behaviour, as someone who is not a British citizen and who has been invited here in good faith to behave as a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. For those reasons, I commend the amendment in my name, support Amendment 141A from my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and look forward to the Minister’s answer in due course.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments proposes the means to make transparent one of the constituent parts of the high immigration levels that the Government aim to reduce. The amendments propose making transparent the data on the numbers granted student visas and the numbers of dependents, capping the numbers—in the case of the amendments that will follow, Amendments 198 and 199—and dealing with those who offend and the home countries of offenders.

I shall focus on my Amendment 141A, which proposes an annual statement on the number of visas given to overseas students and their dependents, because they contribute significantly to the overall immigration numbers, on which this Government and the previous one have concentrated in order to get them down. The evidence that we have is piecemeal. It covers a range of periods and categories and comes from the Home Office, the ONS and the Higher Education Statistics Authority, but all of the evidence indicates that overseas students’ visas and those issued for dependents constitute a large cohort of the immigration numbers.

In the previous academic year ending September 2024, there were 732,285 overseas students at higher education institutions in the UK. That is almost 25% of the total student population. Around one in 10 came from the EU, while 90% of them came from further across the world. Although the total was down from the very high period of 2022-23—a record high, as it happens—these figures from 2023-24 are still the second-highest ever for overseas students and their dependents.

We want to find out what the top countries are. India was top of the list, sending 107,500—almost nine times the number from India in 2017-18. China, which sent the most students for 10 years, is now in second place; it sent 98,400. There have been rapid increases from Nigeria, which is in third place. The figures for Nigeria will come up in my notes in a moment, so I will come back to them, but it is in third place.

Now we have another set of figures, though, from the Home Office. I want to talk about them. They give an indication of the numbers for the year ending in June this year—the year in which the Labour Government have been in power. From them, we discovered that the number of student visas granted for the year ending June 2025 was 436,000; that was higher than the average from 2012-21, which was an average of 305,000, although it was much smaller than in the peak year of 2023, which was the year when 650,000 student visas were granted. During that time, there were 18,000 dependents—a far lower figure than the 154,000 who came in before that. That is, I think, due to the previous Government’s attempts to curb the figures.

What we see from this is that student visas for overseas students still run at a very high rate. If we take the figures for the year ending June and multiply them, say, by three, we are looking at well over a million people in the country on overseas student visas. For these reasons, it would be very helpful for Parliament, and indeed the public, to know on an annual basis the number of overseas student visas granted, and the numbers granted to dependents, and whether that is increasing or falling. That kind of information in an accessible and consistent form will help identify the nature and scale of the question, whether it is indeed a serious problem and, if so, how we can deal with it.

18:00

Looking at some of the reports on this, I thought it might be interesting to look into how easy it is to get a student visa and how many overseas applicants for student visas succeed. The first part of the question is answered by the government website. It says that anyone over 16 can apply for a student visa if they have been offered a place and have the means to support themselves and pay for their course—though the amount will vary—and that they must be able to speak, read, understand and write English; 16 and 17 year-olds who come must have their parents’ permission.

How long they can stay will depend. They can stay for up to five years if studying for degree-level courses and up to two years for courses underneath degree level. For longer stays, GOV.UK/student-visa helpfully tells us that you can switch from a student visa to another sort of visa if you are already here. The website also explains the charge for the visa application, the health charge, and so on. I want to know—and it is something I would like the Minister to give me a hand with—what happens at the Home Office in respect of student visas and any extension of stay, if it is an extended stay, and the figures for those who change to a work permit. This is not in my amendment, but it would be very interesting to know these figures. I understand they are tracked, but if there could be a statement releasing that data, it would be very helpful. Another question is whether students who come on a student visa remain in their courses and finish them.

One illuminating report I saw came from Sky News on Thursday 4 September by a data journalist called Joely Santa Cruz. She considered not merely the numbers but the sort of problems which the system is dealing with. The message I took from that report was that there is a certain laxity by the Home Office in checking applicants and dealing with fraudulent claims. The report told of an Indian national who used fraudulent papers to secure a visa for herself, her husband and her children, and who seems to have abandoned her course or did not take it up. The family is now making an asylum claim to stay here. The visas were awarded on the basis of fraudulent claims about the bank statement. This is another aspect of the gangs: it is sometimes the case that people set up in other countries and help applicants through the student visa process. These visas were awarded on the basis of fraudulent claims. The family has no money and are now being supported by the local authority while making their asylum claim.

Although it is not in my amendment, I would like the Minister and the Home Office to look into this. When the visa expires, the student goes home or is deported for breaking the law, but what happens to them as they try to extend their visa? I know that, in the case of this family, they are making asylum claims. I understand that, in the latest year, 14,000 people who originally came on a student visa claimed asylum—they account for 14,000 of the 111,000 claims, though it was higher in 2023. If we could know how the Home Office deals with these numbers, it would be excellent, and also how the costs stack up against the benefits of having overseas students.

I began my life as a historian at Cambridge. I know the contribution that overseas students make, but, ultimately, we need to look for other solutions for the cash-strapped universities. Many of them have already started to build overseas campuses, where students can be educated locally at far less cost to themselves and at far greater benefit to their own countries. It is for these reasons we need to start addressing the numbers here.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his amendment, which seeks to collect and publish data about overseas students who have committed criminal offences leading to the revocation of their student visas.

When immigrants commit crimes, we need to understand whether there are patterns that suggest wider or systemic abuses of the system. Data of this kind has immense practical importance. It allows us to identify risks, ensure accountability and take informed decisions about how to strengthen our Immigration Rules. When we talk about borders, we must do so with an eye to safety, fairness and national interest. The British people rightly expect that those who come to this country will contribute to it through our economy, workplace, communities and civic life. The vast majority of overseas students do just that, enriching our universities and our society. But when a small minority commit offences, we must have the tools to know about it, track it and respond effectively.

As my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, he has tried time and again, unfortunately in vain, to get the Home Office to release these statistics. The Answer my noble friend received to his Written Question on 7 April, that official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, is not particularly helpful. I hope the Minister will be able to finally give my noble friend the answer that he deserves. This amendment seeks to provide that clarity.

Amendments 198 and 199, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, go to the heart of what it means to exercise control over our borders in a way that serves our national interest. The first amendment makes it clear that family migration through spouse and civil partner visas must be subject to sensible limits and rigorous criteria. This is about making sure that those who come here are ready to contribute, not to extract; to work, not to remain idle; and to build, not to burden.

Our economy, jobs market, public services and national identity all depend on a social contract: that people pay in before they take out. That is the foundation of our tax system, the National Health Service, schools, housing and every element of our welfare state. Introducing a salary threshold of £38,700 is not a punitive measure; it is common sense. It would ensure that new arrivals will be net contributors to this country, helping us to strengthen our economy at a time when the Government’s mismanagement has left us in a dreadful state. It would reassure the British people that migration is working for them, not against them, and it would help to rebuild the trust that is so essential if public confidence in our immigration system is to endure.

The second amendment addresses an equally important issue: the question of sovereignty. Put simply, we cannot allow this country’s ability to remove those with no right to remain to be dictated by the whims of foreign Governments. Our domestic policy must never be determined by third countries which frustrate deportations by refusing to co-operate with basic verification of identity. This amendment would strengthen the Government’s hand by making visa penalties mandatory when other countries refuse to play their part.

The link between border control and national well-being could not be clearer. Our economy, our jobs market, our communities and our state services depend on a system that is fair, firm and respected. The British people are generous, but they are not fools; they want an immigration system that supports growth, rewards contribution and protects our national autonomy. These amendments deliver on those principles; they are proportionate, robust and urgently needed. I urge the Government to recognise their merit and adopt them.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I will say something about Amendments 198 and 199, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Amendment 198 would, as I understand it, specify a maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another. If I were not already married, I would be exceptionally aggrieved to be told that my spouse, from whatever country she may come, would not be permitted to join me in the United Kingdom, despite the fact that I am a British citizen, because too many spouses or civil partners had already entered this country in the last year or because, looking at proposed new subsection (5), the country concerned cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations. I do not know where 7% comes from rather than 6% or 8%, but that is what it provides.

It is not difficult to see that such arbitrary restrictions on spouses or civil partners coming to this country would be a manifest breach of this country’s international obligations under Article 8 in relation to family rights. It is also not difficult to see what the reaction of our closest allies—the United States, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries—would be to being told that their citizens cannot join their spouse in this country. Reciprocal measures of this nature would be highly likely to be adopted, to the detriment of everybody. It is also plain from this amendment that these arbitrary restrictions on numbers would apply irrespective of whether the person coming from abroad is to work here and irrespective of whether the spouse in this country, the British citizen, is able to accommodate and provide for them. I am afraid that this is simply not well thought out.

It also requires in proposed new subsection (10)(b) that the applicant in this country provides evidence that the happy couple were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application. So, my beloved and I are to be arbitrarily prevented from living in this country together for at least two years. I cannot begin to understand the logic, the rationality or the justification of such a measure. I hope the Minister will tell the Committee that Amendment 198 is unacceptable.

Amendment 199 is equally unacceptable. It would impose, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, a mandatory obligation on the Government to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. The Government already have ample powers in their discretion to impose visa penalties on unco-operative countries. It makes no sense whatever to impose a mandatory duty on the Government to impose visa penalties. For this reason, the Government may well take the view that it is far more productive and effective to inform the country concerned of its failures, to negotiate with it and to seek to secure a resolution to the problem. A mandatory duty simply serves no sensible purpose.

18:15

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has left out of his critique the requirement that the happy couple, as he described them, must both be at least 23 years old. When minimum income rules increased the amount of income that had to be shown in 2012, I heard a call-in debate about this on the radio. British citizens were affected; as he has said, it is not just about the foreigner. One person who called in said of the person who had been speaking, “Well, why can’t you just go and work in her country?” He said, very calmly, that it is not easy to find a job in mortgage broking in Nigeria.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her interesting statistics. As a former chairman of a university court, I find high student numbers a cause for delight. I am not quite sure why we should see it as bad news; the university sector as a whole finds large numbers of students wanting to apply from abroad rather good news, and so do I.

I would like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about Amendment 198, on which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has expressed some doubts. I am struck by the plight of the British Romeo, who happens to go to Verona and meet Juliet. Not only does he have to tell her that they have to wait until they are both 23—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—but they have to wait until he is earning £37,750 a year and until they have already been married for two years. Even then, they cannot be sure, because they have to get a place in the quota. The quota for Italy will be 7% of an unknown number, to be determined at some future annual date by the Secretary of State. So, they would be well advised to get up very early on 1 January, two years after they got married, and register their application to come to this country. On what basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, does one pick 7%, and on what basis is the Secretary of State to pick the annual number?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I want to touch on three matters—two to do with these amendments and one of a more topical nature. We have at previous stages of this Bill talked about the ability of the Government to remove people from the country. Amendment 199 touches on illegal removals. The Minister has been very keen to champion the deal the Government have done with France. Given that the French Government have, just a few moments ago, been voted down by the National Assembly and therefore collapsed, I wonder if the Minister, as he has been in post—I am sure the Home Office will have given it a great deal of thought—could comment on what impact, if any, that will have on the deal that the Government have done, whether in substance or the speed with which they will be able to implement it. That would be both of interest to the Committee and relevant to this legislation.

I strongly support Amendments 141 and 141A, from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor, because they are about making sure that we better understand the system. While I welcome students who come here to go on good courses, who are here to study, it is useful for us to know if those students are breaching criminal law. I will not rehearse the arguments that my noble friend Lord Jackson made so eloquently, but there is a very good reason why having this data is helpful: one of the things that the Home Office pays a great deal of attention to, when it is making judgments about granting student visas in the first place, is looking at countries where there is a high risk of abuse. It puts a great deal of weight and expectation on universities to ensure that students are genuinely here, that they are competent to study courses and that they are going to study those courses when they get here. If the data highlights countries that are a particular risk, it would enable the Home Office and universities to take that into account when they are making decisions; it would tighten our immigration system and it would make sure that people are genuinely coming here to study—which is, of course, the reason they have been given the visas. So I strongly support both those amendments.

I also support Amendment 199. There is an argument for it—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was not enormously persuaded, but I will just give him one argument for where it might be helpful. One of the things that the Home Office finds difficult at the moment is when it wants to deport people to countries that will not have their nationals back. This is internal government politics, but I suspect that the Home Office is very keen to implement those visa requirements. I do not know—and I would not expect the Minister to confirm this at the Dispatch Box—but I suspect that other bits of government, such as the Department for Business and Trade and perhaps the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are not very keen on implementing those visa sanctions. They would come up with all sorts of compelling reasons—for them—for why the Government should not do so. The countries know this, and they also make those arguments about why we would not want to implement those visa sanctions—damage to our trade and all sorts of other reasons.

This provision may be helpful when Ministers are having those conversations because, by making it mandatory, if the country will not up its game and if is not willing to take back citizens who are not entitled to stay in the United Kingdom, the Government can explain to those countries that their hands and discretion have been fettered by Parliament. Therefore, the only possible sensible course for that country is to improve its compliance and, frankly, do what it is required to do by its international obligations, which is to take back the citizens who are not welcome here. So I think there is a very sensible argument. It may be that the drafting of this amendment can be improved, and the noble Lord is well qualified to help with that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Is my noble friend as pleased as I am by the news that the new Home Secretary is a keen reader of the amendments that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have put down on this Bill? The top story in the Times today is:

“Mahmood plans visa crackdown on countries that won’t take back migrants”.


Is she a sinner repenting, and is my noble friend full of joy about this?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Jackson raised that, because I read that piece this morning and it is part of the reason why I was keen to speak on this amendment. In the debate that was going on this morning, our friend the shadow Home Secretary was challenging the new Home Secretary on this. She hit back and made the point that this permissive power had been in place for some time and had not been used for the reasons that I set out and because of all the other arguments that will be brought forward in government about why you would not want to disturb the relationship between the United Kingdom and the other country that is refusing to take back its citizens. It was interesting to note that the Home Secretary appears a little more seized of using this power.

We are trying to be helpful here because—I do not know, but I suspect—when she has these arguments inside government and expresses her intention to use this power, she will get quite a lot of push-back from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and from the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary, who perhaps may not have remembered that, just a short while ago, she was responsible for these important matters in the Home Office; it is amazing how quickly Ministers forget when they change departments. The Business Department and the new Business Secretary will be making the point about our important commercial relationships. Actually, the new Home Secretary may well welcome the strengthening of her hand that would be put in place by the Government accepting Amendment 199.

When the Minister responds, even if he does not like the specific drafting of the amendment on the Marshalled List today, and given what my noble friend Lord Jackson said about the Home Secretary’s views, I hope that he gives it a fair wind and commits to come back with a government amendment on Report. If he does not, perhaps we will discover that the Home Secretary’s tough words are just that—words.

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

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Harper, will forgive me, I will not comment on the consequences of the fall of the French Government on this legislation or any other. My noble friend Lord Hanson has been a Minister for 15 years; I am of a rather more recent vintage, like a cheap wine, so, if the noble Lord does not mind, I will pass on that. But I have not the slightest doubt that it will be the subject of further debate and comment in your Lordships’ House before too long.

Amendment 198, from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, proposes a cap on the number of entrants of partners and proposes amendments to the immigration requirements for a partner of a person present and settled in the UK. I will set out the overall position. The Government are very clear that net migration must come down, and the swift return of those with no right to be in the UK forms a key part of a functioning migration system that commands the confidence of the British public. The provision for family members to come to or stay in the UK is set out in the Immigration Rules, so this is not, strictly speaking, the correct legislation for this debate. But the Government’s position is clear: we support the right to family life and we value the contribution that migrants make to our society. As a migrant myself, I am profoundly grateful for the opportunities that I have had in this country. Like so many others, I have an ineradicable respect and admiration for British institutions and values. Perhaps that is why I am here today.

The noble Lord, Lord Harper, talked about the expectations of immigrants. I entirely endorse those remarks but, as an immigrant myself, I should also say that, in large numbers, immigrants are happy and proud to fulfil the expectations that he sets out.

However, this commitment to supporting the right to family life must be balanced, as we all know, by a properly controlled and managed immigration system that commands public confidence. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, commented on earlier amendments that there is a great deal of consensus on these points. Our immigration system welcomes people from across the globe to come to the UK to join family here, and it is right that we continue to enable family migration.

To ensure financial independence, the family rules include financial requirements. The minimum income requirement is currently set at £29,000. On 10 June, the Migration Advisory Committee published its independent review of the financial requirements across the family route. The report is now under review, and we will consider the recommendations made by the MAC.  The Home Secretary will respond to the review in due course.

18:30

The introduction of a cap, however, would detrimentally impact British citizens applying for their immediate family members to join them in the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has observed, it risks undermining our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord used the word “arbitrary” several times. I entirely agree that it would impose arbitrary nationality caps, which raises concerns about equality and consistency. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, observed, it would impose age limits for partners, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2011 that a minimum age requirement of 21 was unlawful.

On 12 May 2025, the Government set out their plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. This includes plans to reform the framework for family migration across all routes. Before the end of the year—so not so far away—we will set out a new family policy to cover all UK residents, including those who are British, settled, on work routes, or refugees seeking to bring family members into the UK. We hope that reform of our family and human rights system will provide a clearer framework for dealing with exceptional circumstances that go beyond our core family policy. I could not add anything to the eloquent observations of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerr, about relationships and happy couples and so on. I hope I have explained, albeit in a rather dry way, where the Government stand on that.

I turn to Amendment 199 on the use of visa penalties powers where countries are deemed to be unco-operative about the return of their nationals or citizens. We agree that visa penalties are one of the very important levers in the Government’s toolbox to incentivise international co-operation on returns. This is a fundamental pillar of our immigration policy. Ministers and officials are working hard to strengthen relationships with our international partners to improve returns. However, where co-operation with countries falls below the levels expected, and where appropriate, we use all available levers, including visa penalties. The noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Harper, mentioned the comments by the Home Secretary after her Five Eyes meeting, at which she reinforced that point. There has been a statement from the Home Office this morning, so I think the position is up to date and very clear.

Our view is that the existing provision in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already gives the Home Secretary sufficient scope to use visa penalties if appropriate. The last Government introduced these powers but exercised their discretion not to use them, despite the obvious challenges they faced with returns. This Government intend to retain that discretion to use those powers in the right way at the right time, as the Home Secretary has confirmed.

Whether a Government are or are not co-operating is a discretionary judgment which needs to be taken by Ministers. The decision also needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, once it is understood whether visa penalties would be the most effective tool. As I said, visa penalties have not been used before, either by this Government or the last. In each case where their use has been considered, we have been able successfully to unblock co-operation through other means such as ministerial and senior official engagement. Further, the fact that visa penalties are available to the Home Secretary has helped to unblock unco-operation, even if they were not ultimately imposed. We believe that the provisions already provided for in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are sufficient for our primary aims.

I turn now to Amendment 141 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and Amendment 141A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. The Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contributions that international students make to the UK. Noble Lords and Baronesses across the House have made that observation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I am a former chair of a university council, so I know first hand the vibrant contributions international students make to our universities in economic, social and intellectual terms. There has been correspondence between the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the Minister, as well as previous Written Questions on similar topics, so we shall see whether the noble Lord is happy with my answer.

As noble Lords will know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

On welcoming overseas students, I accept that good students who come here lawfully can be a great bonus. Indeed, I have had the benefit of teaching such students, and I had a great time with bright students. But does the Minister agree that many UK universities are now dependent on overseas applications and overseas student fees, and that this can have a detrimental effect on the cultural life of the university and perhaps on its overall quality? In some institutions, it seems that the courses offered and their quality have changed as universities race to increase their fee income through a higher overseas student ratio. I am not saying that this is true of all universities, and there are other ways of obtaining income. It requires more work by universities, but many have pioneered other ways of getting that income by setting up overseas campuses.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

It is not really within my brief to comment on the financing of universities, so the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not go too deeply into that. However, I can be clear about the grounds on which a student’s permission to stay may be cancelled, and this relates to some of the points the noble Baroness has made: where the person’s sponsorship or endorsement has been withdrawn, for example because they do not have the required knowledge level of the English language; where the person does not start their course with their sponsor—that is important because, as universities know, people sign up but do not turn up; where the person ceases to study, which can include no longer attending their course, completing it at an earlier date or the start date of their course being delayed for more than 28 days; where the sponsor loses their licence—this is important too—or transfers the business, so if they are not a serious higher education institution and are not sustainable; or where the business for which the person studies is transferred to another business or institution and that business or institution, for example, fails to apply for a sponsor’s licence.

If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I do not feel I can comment on higher education funding, but we think we have robust arrangements for removing people and cancelling student visas where there are the sort of problems I have set out, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred in relation to crime and disorder.

Foreign nationals—including students, of course—who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I was deeply involved for many years with the Prison Service, and I saw at first hand the problems of not deporting foreign national offenders and what that was doing to not just immigration policy but the prison capacity crisis. I spent several years working on that policy with the Ministry of Justice, so I understand that problem very well and take very seriously the need to get better at it.

On the specifics of the amendments about publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of migration statistics, as your Lordships know, including information on visas, returns and detentions. If I may say so, too much of that information does not play a large enough role in an often fevered public debate which is often based on rumours rather than detailed facts. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. This ensures that we identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have made suggestions, and they may want to continue to press that case.

The Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public about the numbers and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted—I have already stressed my interest in this subject—and what happens to them after they have completed their sentences. We understand the importance of this information. The department is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collecting and verifying relevant data on foreign national offenders and their offences and to establish a more regular means of placing that data in the public domain. By the end of 2025—so, again, not far away—if this work progresses as planned, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK.

Before I sit down, I shall make one other comment in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about the agreement between the UK and France. It remains firmly in place, and we shall continue to work with the French Government in all their various forms. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, for his excellent response. It is the first time I have had the pleasure of listening to him at the Dispatch Box, and I welcome him to it. I thank other noble Lords for their contributions to this interesting debate—even the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with whom I disagree. His characteristically eloquent but pugnacious contribution was most appreciated.

The Minister touched earlier on the reason why I tabled this amendment. I asked his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a Question for Written Answer about the collection of data around student visas and criminality. He answered on 25 March that the Home Office did not collect that data. If you are going to design public policy around an efficient and effective immigration policy, wider economic issues and the efficacy and viability of the higher education sector all wrapped up in one, you cannot do it if you do not have the data. You need to collect that data. It is not just about criminality. In fact—dare I say it?—my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendment is actually more germane to this debate because we need to collect that data. The Government should perhaps look at that on Report.

On Amendment 199, I think that there is quite a bit of consensus across the Committee about the rather liberal, permissive powers of the Government in response to what one might call, if one used a pejorative term, visa retaliation. There is a way of doing it in a more collaborative way without going nose-to-nose with each individual country. It is good that the Government are now looking to invoke those powers because they are important. Countries should know that they have a duty and a responsibility adequately to address the issues we have in our country.

18:45

That brings me back to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We in this House cannot legislate in a vacuum. We must be mindful of the serious concerns that people have about uncontrolled immigration and controlled migration. The fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, well knows, that only 22% of the new migrants who came to this country in the four years to 2024 are in paid work. The vast majority are not working. They are dependants or students, or they are here on other schemes. Now, I accept that Ukraine and Hong Kong are part of that, but nevertheless, those figures are correct. There are 1.6 million new migrants to this country who are not in paid work. That is a matter of significant concern. Once those people—a tiny minority—tip over into criminality, we have a right to comment on that and design public policy on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Lemos, has addressed in a helpful and collaborative way some of the important issues. I think there is consensus here, particularly on Amendment 199, and maybe even on my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s amendment. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis that we may revisit it on Report.

Amendment 141 withdrawn.

Amendment 141A not moved.

Clause 42: EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc

Amendment 142

Moved by

[Lord Oates]

142: Clause 42, page 36, line 27, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) P was granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of residence scheme immigration rules, which has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked by the Secretary of State or an Immigration Officer, benefit from this Clause if they are not already a beneficiary of the Withdrawal Agreement.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

Amendment 142 would ensure that

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

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

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

19:00

Amendment 144, as my noble friend has said, is critical, as it seeks to remove subsection (2)(c) which currently allows a person’s EUSS status to be removed without applying the procedural safeguards enshrined in the withdrawal agreement—those safeguards which I listed at the beginning. The Home Office’s stated reason for this provision is to remove EUSS status granted in error. However, this creates a group of individuals who lack procedural protection to challenge the Home Office’s assessment, risking arbitrary outcomes and denying them their withdrawal agreement rights. This amendment would ensure that all actions relate—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for moving the amendments on behalf of himself and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. He will know that we had some meetings in relation to this, and I have tried to engage on behalf of the Home Office as the answering Minister here, but, as he realises, the Minister who has been dealing directly with this issue was until recently one Minister in the Commons and is now another Minister in the Commons. But we will return to that in due course.

First, I want to set out the purpose of Clause 42. As the noble Lord said, Clause 42 is designed to provide legal clarity for those EU citizens and their family members with EU settled status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement that it is the source of their rights in the UK. This has been achieved very simply by confirming in UK law under Clause 42 that any EU citizen or their family member with EU settled status will be treated as being a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. Where they do not already do so, they will have directly effective rights under the withdrawal agreement as brought into domestic law by Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.

Because the EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires, there are, as the noble Lord has mentioned, two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: there is the “true cohort” who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement because, for example, they were economically active or self-sufficient in the UK as per EU free movement law at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020; and there is the “extra cohort” who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Although the UK has sought, through both the previous Government and this Government, to treat both cohorts the same, certain court judgments since the end of the transition period, as the noble Lord mentioned, mean that some differences in treatment have emerged. The whole purpose of Clause 42 is to address that anomaly.

Amendment 142 in the noble Lord’s name permits all those granted EUSS status to benefit from the clause where that status has not been cancelled, curtailed or revoked. This would mean, for example, that Clause 42 would benefit a person who was granted EUSS status but has since committed a serious criminal offence, for example, and has been deported from the United Kingdom. In my opinion, that would not be an appropriate outcome, but it would be the effect of the amendment that the noble Lord has tabled.

In respect of those with pre-settled status under the EUSS who obtain another form of immigration leave, I can confirm that this amendment is not needed because the clause as drafted covers that point. We have listened carefully to representations with stakeholders on these issues and we have decided that, where a person with pre-settled status obtains other leave, such as the domestic abuse route, they will retain their pre-settled status. That will enable them easily to show that they still have withdrawal agreement rights, should they need to do so.

The noble Lords spoke to Amendments 143 and 145 together, and I will deal with them together, if I may. These are concerned with those with EUSS status based on certain derivative rights under EU law. Those individuals include people who are the primary carer of a self-sufficient EU citizen child or with a child in education in the UK where the EU citizen parent has been a worker here and their primary carer. Both these categories are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and are included in the EUSS on a basis which reflects the relevant EU law requirements. Complex though this is, a person granted EUSS status on that basis will be in the “true cohort” and will have the withdrawal agreement rights in the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary.

That is so regardless of whether the caseworker applied evidential flexibility in granting EUSS status. Such flexibility—for example, not requiring missing evidence to be provided and therefore minimising administrative burdens on the applicant—can be applied only where the caseworker is already satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant requirements of the EUSS rules are met.

Finally, Amendment 144 would remove subsection (2)(c) from Clause 42. This would mean that we were granting withdrawal agreement rights to people in the UK who do not qualify for EUSS status, which would not be right. Subsection (2)(c) protects the integrity of the EUSS and of Clause 42. It ensures that, to benefit from Clause 42 and therefore have withdrawal agreement rights, the person was correctly granted EUSS status. This amendment is not needed to ensure that the status of a person in the “true cohort”, or by virtue of this clause in the “extra cohort”, can be removed only by applying the procedural safeguards contained in the withdrawal agreement.

The noble Lord mentioned the issue of a decision to cancel, curtail or revoke EUSS status. It carries a right of appeal under Regulation 3 or 4 of the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and nothing in Clause 42 changes that. I hope that will give him the reassurance that he seeks. A person whose EUSS status has manifestly been granted in error will not be in the true or extra cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.

Safeguards are still in place in such cases. Where the Home Office comes across the case of EUSS status granted in error, the individual is contacted and provided with a reasonable opportunity to show that their grant of EUSS status was correct. If they cannot do so and they have pre-settled status, our current approach is to allow them to remain in the UK for the remaining period of their leave. They are also informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal. Safeguards that I hope the noble Lord will find adequate are therefore in place in both these cases.

We have had a discussion and I hope the noble Lord can look at what I have said. Again, this is always a complex area. I have read deliberately from my brief so that the issue is, I hope, clarified by what I have said, and he can read Hansard in the morning and look at what I have said to date. The purpose of Clause 42 is to clarify the very points that the noble Lord has concerns over, and that is why I hope he will withdraw this amendment today. If he remains unhappy then obviously he has the opportunity to return to this issue on Report.

The noble Lord asked about data. I answer in this House for the department, but I often answer for other ministerial colleagues who are looking at these issues in detail. I will revisit the questions that the noble Lord put to me on data sharing, and I will make sure that, well before Report, I get him a fuller response to clarify the issues that he has raised, because I am unable to give him a definitive answer on that today. While I might wish to do so, it is best if I examine that in the cold light of day and drop him a note accordingly. With that, I hope he will not press the amendments.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response and for taking time to meet me and my colleagues to discuss these matters, as he referred to. I am grateful for his clarification regarding Amendments 143 and 145, which will give welcome reassurance.

I am not entirely convinced that the response he has given to Amendment 144 addresses all the concerns that we have raised, although I will certainly study Hansard carefully in case I have missed some of those issues. While it is true that someone whose status expires because the Home Office has determined that it was granted in error has a right to subsequently apply again, and if that is refused then they can appeal, that is not an appeal against the decision that the original status was granted in error, so that remains a cause for concern. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is particularly in cases where the Home Office has made an error that we want all the safeguards to exist.

Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We will look at it and decide how to proceed from here. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 142 withdrawn.

Amendments 143 to 145 not moved.

Clause 42 agreed.

19:15

Clause 43: Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail

Amendment 146

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

146: Clause 43, page 38, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) After section 3(1) insert—“(1A) The Secretary of State must, where a person breaches any of the conditions of their leave to enter or remain under subsection (1)(c), make a deportation order against the person.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that anyone who breached a condition of their leave to enter or remain would be deported from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 146 and 147, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel.

At the heart of these amendments is the principle of conditionality. Where an individual is granted conditional leave to enter or remain in this country, that permission is given on very clear terms. We need to be clear that these conditions are not arbitrary or frivolous. They are carefully set out to protect the fundamental interests of our economy, the integrity of our communities and the sustainability of our public funds. If those conditions are broken then the privilege of remaining in the United Kingdom should be forfeited. To do otherwise would render the entire conditionality regime meaningless. Rules that cannot be enforced are not rules at all; they are invitations to abuse and exploitation, and they undermine the trust of the British people in our immigration system.

The amendments before us are common sense. They would require that, where an individual breached the conditions of their leave, a deportation order must follow. That is a proportionate consequence, one that would reinforce the principle that with the right to stay comes the responsibility to comply. This is also about fairness to those who abide by the rules—fairness to the taxpayer who shoulders the cost of our public services, and fairness to our communities who deserve confidence that immigration is properly managed.

These are key aspects of government administration. Without robust enforcement, our borders cannot be effectively controlled and our laws risk becoming toothless. Through these amendments, we are providing the Government with the tools they need to deliver on their own stated objective of a firm but fair immigration system. The amendments are practical, enforceable and just. They would ensure that our conditionality regime had meaning, that our rules had effect and that the British people could have confidence that their borders were being properly secured.

On the question that Clause 43 does not stand part of the Bill, we on these Benches must disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I do not need to go into great detail on the point. Clause 43 pertains to conditions on limited leave to enter or remain, but we on these Benches are clear that, where this status is granted, it is vital that strict conditions are both met and enforced, and that anyone found to have broken those conditions should be deported. The Government have a duty to control and manage immigration in the interests of our country. We say that removing those conditions undermines the Government’s ability to do that, so I cannot support it.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, raises an interesting point in reference to the Immigration Act 2016 on the process of being granted bail accommodation. I too would be grateful, alongside the noble Lord, to hear from the Minister what the Government’s assessment of this is, whether it is a problem that they have identified and what plans they have to mitigate it. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, I have tabled a notice to oppose Clause 43, which has been signed by a former immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has just said, so I shall make it clear what the amendment is about. We are not trying to stop the Government doing what they say they need to do, but we are objecting to a means of doing it that is arguably unnecessary and which is certainly exorbitant—indeed, dangerously so.

The provision that Clause 43 would amend is Section 3(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, under the title:

“General provisions for regulation and control”.


Section 3(1) is indeed general in its scope. It provides for conditions to be imposed on any person who is given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. That includes those who are here on a student visa, a business visa or a spousal visa. The conditions that can currently be imposed on the grant of such visas do not appear in the amendment. I remind noble Lords what they are: they include the power to issue visas for certain types of work only, and the power to require visa holders to maintain themselves and their dependants without recourse to public funds. They are fair conditions, and they are well understood by those who are subject to them. Those people include—and I declare an interest—one of my sons-in-law, who is on the five-year pathway to indefinite leave to remain. The happy couple have settled in Norwich, but I try not to hold that against them.

Clause 43, if we were to pass it into law, would allow the Secretary of State to impose on any of these visa holders such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit. No limit of any kind is placed on this power, and its potential severity is shown by the illustrative restrictions given in Clause 43(2): electronic tagging, a curfew to operate in a place specified by the Secretary of State for unlimited periods of day or night, and requirements on individuals not to enter a specified area—exclusion zones—and not to leave a specified area, so-called inclusion zones.

Such conditions are not entirely without precedent in our law. They will be familiar to your Lordships from the terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, introduced in the TPIM Act 2011 and echoed in Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023, for those believed to be involved in foreign power threat activity. It might be thought extraordinary enough if this clause allowed individuals whose only crime is to have studied here or married a British citizen to be treated like terrorist suspects, but it is worse than that. Clause 43 would introduce a materially harsher regime than TPIMs in at least three respects.

First, there is the threshold for their use. TPIMs require a reasonable belief on the part of the Secretary of State that the subject is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity. Clause 43, by contrast, is universal in its application. There is no threshold. Even the most blameless of migrants, whose only crime is to have come here for a wholly legitimate purpose, may in law be subject to its full rigour.

Secondly, there is the scope. The measures that appear in Clause 43(2) are all familiar from Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act, but the range of possible TPIMs is at least finite. Not even in respect of those believed to be terrorists did Parliament trust the Government with the unlimited power to impose, in the words of Clause 43,

“such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.

Thirdly, there are the safeguards. TPIMs can be imposed only after the Home Secretary has obtained both the permission of the High Court and the confirmation of the CPS that it is not feasible to prosecute the subject for any criminal offence. No such safeguard exists in Clause 43, which would allow the severest restrictions on personal liberty to be imposed by the Executive without the intervention of a court on a potentially vast range of people, without any requirement for consultation, authorisation, automatic judicial review of the kind that exists for TPIMs, or oversight.

Clause 43 came late to this Bill. It was introduced in Committee in the Commons. No attempt was made to defend its breadth of application, but the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Angela Eagle, did explain the limited circumstances in which the Government proposed to use the new powers for which they were asking. It was intended for use, she said:

“Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 265.]


It was intended to allow the same conditions to be placed on such persons as they might have been subjected to under immigration bail. She said:

“The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 268.]


Speaking for myself, that objective is entirely understandable, indeed defensible, though I pause to say that the definition of extremism is worryingly uncertain. Given the Government’s limited ambitions for the use of this clause, can the Minister explain why the existing powers to issue TPIMs, serious crime prevention orders and measures under Part 2 of the National Security Act 2023 are considered insufficient? They contain better safeguards and seem to meet precisely the cases that the Minister has in mind. Indeed, serious crime prevention orders are to be extended further by Part 3 of this Bill. If I am right about that, there is no need for Clause 43, but I am sure the Minister will explain.

Even if these existing powers are not sufficient, any new power must surely be tailored to its intended target, rather than to the vast range of innocent visa holders covered by Clause 43 in its current form. That is what the Constitution Committee had in mind when we recommended that the power be narrowed and that safeguards on its use be included in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported in similar terms. For anyone who is interested in more detail, I can recommend the useful briefings from Amnesty and the Public Law Project.

No one doubts for a moment the good faith of the Minister or his colleagues, but to legislate for unlimited powers and trust to assurances from the Dispatch Box about the narrow scope of their intended use would not just be poor legislative practice but an abandonment of parliamentary scrutiny at the very time when that scrutiny is most needed. The courts have no regard to ministerial assurances, save when the terms of an Act are ambiguous. That, as noble Lords know, is a rare eventuality.

No one who looks at the opinion polls can be confident that all possible future Governments would apply Clause 43 with the restraint to which this Government have committed. To enact Clause 43 would be a gift-wrapped present to any future Government who wished to threaten or erode the rights of immigrants across the board, without thresholds or oversight. If this clause is needed at all, I hope the Minister will agree that it should at least be confined in the Bill to the circumstances where that need arises.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

I am very pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and my name is on this amendment. I would just like to say to my noble friend Lord Davies that I was indeed the Immigration Minister, and I came forward with the term “being firm but fair” in relation to all immigration matters. I think that has stood the test of time. I have always believed in very strict conditions being attached not only to the Immigration Rules and their application but to our approach to those who seek asylum in this country.

My name is on this amendment because this is something of an example of a Government using a sledgehammer where it has been quite unnecessary to do so. This clause is so general and so wide in its effects that it seems to me to go against all propriety and balance. I will be very brief because I do not want to fall into the trap of repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has said, but I want to tease the Minister out a little on those points.

We know that terrorism prevention and investigation measures, TPIMs, are already very effective, and as are serious crime prevention orders. They all have within them the necessary ingredients to be able to deal with virtually all the circumstances that we are debating in relation to this Bill. Therefore, I again suggest to the Minister that it is unnecessary for us to have these extra powers being sought by the Government. It is true that the Minister in the House of Commons gave a clear indication that the use would be only limited. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has given us the list of things where there might be interest here. However, in the circumstances, these intentions of the Minister do not necessarily make good law and I am sure he shares my concern that, if you allow extensions in this way, you are allowing future Governments to abuse the system and the situation unnecessarily.

Also, these new measures, unlike TPIMs or the SCPOs, do not seem to require any judicial approval. There is no such requirement, so far as I can see. As a fairly junior lawyer, but a lawyer nevertheless, I find that reprehensible and dangerous. I would like the Minister’s comments on that.

19:30

There does not appear to be any duty to notify an individual prior to introducing these restrictions. That seems, on a very basic level, to be a departure from my understanding of constitutional rights in this country. I never like it when provisions are made to grant almost unlimited and undefined powers to a Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has underlined the point. The Home Secretary may impose

“such other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”.

This Committee should be very concerned about that. We have had previous debates in which we have been concerned that powers of that kind—rather nebulous and very subjective powers—should not be considered acceptable. Could the Minister give us an example of conditions other than those that have been elaborated which the Secretary of State might think fit in any situation? The list is already fairly long and pretty exhaustive, so I wait to hear from the Minister on that.

Finally, it seems to be unwise and illogical to differentiate in circumstances of anti-terrorist actions between a UK citizen and those with limited immigration status. The risks are, of course, the same. Such powers as do exist to order the indefinite detention of non-citizens should surely apply to UK citizens as well.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the amendment in my name ought to be in this group, but it has to be somewhere, and it probably does not deserve to be on its own. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for moving away from the topic. The only link I have is that my amendment would add something to the clause that we are discussing, but that is out of convenience as much as anything else.

There seems to have been some confusion between the Home Office and those who have been advising me about this amendment. I do not think I am in a position to speak to it until my noble friend and I have had an opportunity to meet and discuss it. It is not a long amendment, but it is quite an important one. It relates to what the guidance says on immigration bail and what it should say going forward. I do not want to say much more about it now. We have lots of business to complete today and I imagine the Committee has heard too much from me anyway, so I am going to leave it there.

I do not have any intention of moving the amendment, but I invite my noble friend to meet me shortly. It would be a short meeting just to discuss whether there has been some misunderstanding between the department and those who have asked me to table this amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee does not need me to repeat what has been said about Clause 43 by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Kirkhope. I agree more than I can say with what they have said. Tagging, curfew, and requiring someone to be or prohibiting someone from being in a particular place at particular times, et cetera—the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has explained what “et cetera” could mean in this situation—are all huge interferences with life in practical, emotional and psychological terms. It basically means that you cannot live a normal life. For instance, how would an international student pursue a course with these restrictions?

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned, the Constitution Committee made a recommendation regarding this clause in its report on the Bill. We have had a response today from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, saying that the person affected can make representations to the Home Office and apply for a judicial review, which the Home Office says in its letter would “provide appropriate scrutiny”. That may be the topic for a whole other, long debate. Noble Lords will understand that I do not feel—I say this personally, because the committee has not had an opportunity to discuss this yet—that that is an appropriate or particularly helpful response.

The comments—the assurances, perhaps I should call them—made by the then Minister for Border Security and Asylum have been referred to. I would be surprised if this detail had yet been discussed within the Home Office, but one never knows, so perhaps it would not be out of place to ask the Minister whether the change of various Ministers within the department means that these assurances remain in place. Is this still what the Government think? Would they be able to give some sort of undertaking to this effect? However, I do not think that would completely answer our objections to Clause 43.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, in an earlier debate on the Bill, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel reminded me that it is the purpose of the Opposition to oppose. That is why I find it impossible to understand why the Opposition are not opposing this clause. I thought that Conservatives were wholly against Governments being given powers without very clear parliamentary restrictions.

I understand the argument that, if people are allowed into this country with conditions and they break them, all kinds of things, perfectly rightly, can be carried out; I am not disagreeing with that. But I would have thought that it would not take much, looking around the world at the moment, to see how dangerous it is to have a law which can be used by Governments of any kind to do almost anything that they want to. We can look at the United States and see a President who appears to be trying to do things which the law does not allow him to do. Think what would happen if the law did allow him to make the kinds of decisions this clause suggests. I also say to my noble friends that, if this clause applied without any restrictions to citizens of this country, the very first people to object to that would be the Opposition.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be serious in accepting that the argument is not about immigration; it is about what powers the Government should be given, unfettered by parliamentary decision-making and the courts. It seems to me that the powers given to Governments under this clause are unacceptable. I am sure that they would not be misused by the Minister or any of his colleagues, but that is not to say that we do not have in this country politicians whom I would not trust with these powers—some of them, indeed, have been in power, and I would not have trusted them with these powers.

Having been a Minister for some 16 years, I always found it valuable that my decision-making should be kept within particular parameters laid down by Parliament. One was constantly being asked by civil servants and people outside to do this, that or the other, and one was able to say, “That is not within my power”. I do not think this is a suitable clause for a British Parliament to pass. We should rely on the law we have already or, if there is any gap in it, reduce that gap in a clause which is very specifically restricted so that we do not tempt any future politicians to behave improperly.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree with everything that the noble Lord said, although I slightly dissent from his description of his discussions with his civil servants. I used to be a civil servant and I thought that the main job of civil servants was to stop Ministers doing things they should not do or did not have the powers to do. Otherwise, however, I entirely agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a powerful case. To me, this is a very strange clause. We have to listen to what our Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I followed what the Minister said in the Commons, which was that the power conferred on Ministers would be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism—I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—or serious crime, or when a person poses a threat to national security or public safety and, presumably, cannot be deported. If the clause said all that, limiting and ring-fencing the powers of the Minister, I could understand the rationale for it and might even support it. However, with no ring-fencing, it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said—a sledgehammer. The absence of any judicial oversight provision is wrong. It is dangerous to give Ministers the power to add such other conditions as they think fit. This is just too broad and, if it is to be there at all, it needs to be limited. If the Government’s intentions are as Angela Eagle said in the other place, let that be spelled out in the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful as ever for the discussion around Clause 43 and for the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I will start by setting out the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 43. There will be an opportunity, as has been discussed, to follow the course of action suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope, to delete the clause. There is also the possibility on Report to look at strengthening the clause by some amendments that could be brought forward on judicial oversight. However, I want to put on record where the Government believe they are at the moment.

Noble Lords will know Clause 43 will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat but currently cannot be removed or deported because of our obligations under domestic or international law. It will also make absolutely clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained—for example, they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings—they may be placed on immigration bail. Those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews, which are imposed in accordance with our ECHR obligations.

A person who does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention, but who cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, may fall to be granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation currently prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subject to while on immigration bail. The Government believe that this is perverse. I hope that I can give the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Deben, the assurance that the decisions to impose these conditions will only be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to appropriately address the specific risks that a person is assessed to pose.

19:45

A disproportionate use of these powers will be unlawful if exercised in a way that is incompatible with convention rights. I refer noble Lords to what was said by the then Minister Angela Eagle in the House of Commons during Committee on this Bill. As the policy Minister responsible for this area in the Commons at the time, she said that the powers will be applied only in a very low number of cases

“involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety”.”.—[Official Report, Commons, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, 13/3/25; col. 268.]

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has rightly asked why we do not use TPIMS. TPIMs are issues taken in a closed court in a specific way under judicial review and we have taken the view that, in this case, the powers could be applied in those small number of cases. Decisions to impose those conditions would be taken on a case-by-case basis, as I have said, subject to an ECHR proportionality analysis, which is oversight of sorts, if that is a comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Deben. We intend to publish guidance, which will set out how decision-makers will undertake the ECHR proportionality analysis. Curfew inclusion and exclusion zones will be imposed only in cases where electronic monitoring is not sufficient to mitigate the threat posed by the person.

I come back to the central argument: the powers are necessary to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat to the public but cannot be removed due to our obligations under domestic or international law. In such cases, we will continue to frequently assess each person’s circumstances to ensure that they are removed at the earliest opportunity. I recognise from the quizzical looks that this may not satisfy Members of this Committee who are raising these issues. That is understandable and I am stating where the Government are.

If Members are not happy, there is an opportunity either now or, I suggest, on Report to determine this by a Division and the other place can respond with Home Office assessment, or they can put amendments down that meet the concerns that they have. It is the Government’s position, however, to use this to respond to very low numbers of cases where there are specific identified serious threats. It is important that we have the power to ensure that we can deal with this for the safety of the British public. If we did not have the power and if those individuals exercised the threats that they pose, Ministers would be in a severely compromised position to argue to the British public why we did not use the powers to take strong action against these individuals.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. He has really said just one thing, which is not in dispute across the House: he and his colleagues would use these powers on a case-by-case basis and in a very responsible way. However, with great respect, he has not answered either of the two points that were made to him in the debate. The first was the question of why serious crime prevention orders, TPIMS or prevention and investigation measures under the National Security Act 2023 would not be sufficient to deal with all the categories of people that Angela Eagle referred to. That is the question of whether Clause 43 is necessary at all.

Secondly—assuming he makes that case—how can he justify a power that is designed for such a narrow purpose being drafted in such an impossibly broad fashion? Although the Minister says, quite rightly, that we can put this to a Division on Report, I remind him that the TPIM Act, with all the safeguards that it contains, is 59 pages long. Drafting thresholds, proper provisions for scope, and safeguards is not a simple matter—not for a humble and unlettered Back-Bencher or Cross-Bencher such as myself.

I remember a similar case with the deprivation of citizenship, in which, under the last Government, a clause was put forward that allowed anyone who was subject to deprivation to be deprived of their citizenship without notice. It was seen that this was far broader than it needed be and the Government met with me and others and assisted with the drafting. We ended up with something much more tailored to the policy that the Government were seeking to advance, which nobody has questioned in this debate. Will the Minister meet with us in a constructive spirit and with a view to finding a clause that meets the Government’s policy but is not open to the sort of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others have referred?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, knows from our 13 months or so of engagement with him that I am always open to meet with noble Lord and to have input into the legislative process to make sure that the Government’s objectives are workable and practicable. I will happily meet with him to reflect on those points. I have Members from the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Cross Benches pressing me on this issue; it is important that I listen to those reflections with the policy Minister who has argued that case in the House of Commons.

Let us look at what has been said today in the cold light of day and reflect upon it. I will certainly arrange a meeting to hear his concerns further and look at the issues. The Government believe that Clause 43 is of sound policy and that it would be used in the limited circumstances that I have described. They believe that those circumstances can be defined and, even though new sub-paragraph (x) in Clause 43(2)(b) says

“other conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit”,

I understand his concern on that matter. But I believe, again, that a responsible Secretary of State would be held to account, would have to explain and bring forward information on that, and would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in the House of Commons where votes from the governing party can take place, but also in this noble House.

So I say to the noble Lord: let us meet, but the Government have put forward a clause that they believe is appropriate. There are noble Lords in this Committee who believe it is not, so let us have that discussion in the cold light of day to reflect on those points.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

When the Minister goes back to the policy Minister, will he reassure her that nobody in this debate has questioned the policy that the Government are seeking to pursue? All we are questioning is the method they have chosen.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That point has been made, and I will discuss that with my colleagues in government. Clause 43 as drafted is before the Committee today, but there are opportunities to discuss it further if the noble Lord is not happy with any assurances that we can give outside the Committee to table amendments that can be debated and voted upon in due course. I will leave it at that.

Amendment 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bach seeks to clarify the eligibility criteria for bail accommodation under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. Under this provision, the Secretary of State has the power to provide accommodation to someone in exceptional circumstances only when they have been granted immigration bail and are subject to a residence condition that requires them to live at an address specified in that condition. The Home Office recognises that, where the Secretary of State is required to provide a person with accommodation to enable them to meet their bail conditions, a specified address cannot always be known at the time of the bail grant. Accordingly, it has been a long-standing policy position that bail can be granted with a residence condition to an address that is known at the time of the grant of immigration bail, or an address that is yet to be specified. In 2024, this was also set out explicitly in the relevant guidance. The policy is clear, and operational teams are already operating the legislation in this way, to ensure that someone can apply to the Home Office for bail accommodation without having been granted bail to a specific address. Therefore, the amendment—with its good intention—would make no material difference to the current operation of the legislation and is not necessary. I am happy to hear further from the noble Lord, but I invite him not to move his amendment.

On the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, Amendment 146 would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against persons who breach the conditions attached to their leave in the UK. Such breaches of conditions may already be addressed by cancelling that leave and removing the person from the UK without the need to seek a deportation order. Mandating deportation in such cases is not therefore necessary. It will provide no guarantee that a person’s removal from the UK could be enforced if they were to make a human rights or protection claim against their removal.

Finally, Amendment 147 would replace existing criminal sanctions for offences under Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 with a penalty of deportation. Overstayers and illegal entrants are already liable to removal from the UK. Where a person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to a period of imprisonment, consideration will be given to their deportation. With respect to the noble Lord, the amendment risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not result in an increase in removals from the UK.

This has been a serious debate that has raised a number of points. But I hope, given what I have said, that the noble Lord will not press his objection to Clause 43. I will meet noble Lords to discuss their objections further to understand their concerns better. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments so that we can examine the clause together.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group for their contributions to this debate. This has been a group that clearly reflects several different views, and I welcome that we have been able to have a debate on these issues.

We on these Benches remain firm in our resolve that conditional leave to enter or remain should be just that—conditional on criteria that seek to safeguard our communities, our public services and our economy. These conditions do not undermine our capacity to be compassionate, our capacity to help those who are in need, or our record of supporting those who need our help. They ensure that we have a system that is controlled and protects our country, and over which the Government can exercise their dutiful authority. These are fundamental duties and we have sought to support the Government in meeting their own objectives. I therefore hope the Minister will seriously consider these amendments as a way of empowering him and his colleagues to take action that is needed to ensure that our conditions are not optional. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 146 withdrawn.

Amendment 147 not moved.

Clause 43 agreed.

Amendment 148 not moved.

Clause 44 agreed.

Amendment 149 not moved.

Clause 45: Extension of prohibition on employment to other working arrangements

Amendment 150

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

150: Clause 45, page 42, line 9, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 15, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) The Secretary of State may take such reasonable steps as they consider appropriate to ensure that employers and other persons referred to in section 14A(1) have been made aware of the provisions of sections 14A and 15A.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe the impact on businesses and employers of this section.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Tempting as it is to continue the debate we have just had, I will resist. In moving Amendment 150, I will speak also to my Amendments 153 and 203D in this group.

I first make it clear that I support the right to work, which is dealt with in a less narrow way than by my amendments. My noble friend Lord German has Amendments 151 and 152. This is something for which these Benches and many other noble Lords have argued for years, for practical and economic reasons, including using the skills of those concerned, matters of dignity and so on, and because not being able to work should not be a punishment, which is how in some places it is perceived. There are a lot of issues that we could be debating around illegal working, including how vulnerable our laws make some people to exploitation.

20:00

Much of Clause 45 is required because of the Employment Rights Bill. Amendment 150 is not an oppositional amendment. When employers were given duties to police immigration, it was not easy, particularly for small employers. No doubt some deliberately evaded the rules—I am not making a value judgment here—but there must be new burdens on people who do not regard themselves as an employer. My question, based on this amendment is: what impact do the Government anticipate there will be on small businesses, such as one-person businesses or sole employers, arising from these requirements? These are, as I say, in turn based on the Employment Rights Bill, which I assume, despite rumours to the contrary, will pretty much continue and go through in its current form.

I have referred to exploitation. Amendment 153 is specifically about migrant domestic workers and seeks to restore the protections they had until 2012. I hope the Home Office will recognise that this amendment is the humane and appropriate response to the appalling situation in which some—I stress some—domestic workers find themselves, at the hands of extreme abuse by their employers. Given the amount of work that we still have to go through, and that we are being required to keep going barely able to draw breath today, I will not spend much time on examples.

The changes to the overseas domestic worker visa were made in 2012. We now have a six-month non-renewable visa tied to an employer, leaving the worker undocumented. The changes did not reduce the demand for domestic workers but—I am advised on this by third sector organisations working with people who are in this situation—they produced a significant increase in the rates of exploitation. In fact, the term used for that increase is “escalation”. The amendment would enable leaving the employer and finding a new job, though in the same sector, for 12 months. That period is important. The visa holder, if left only with the tail-end of a visa, may have only a few weeks or even a few days left. It is not sensible for any respectable new employer to take on someone with hardly any time that can be given to a new job.

The current situation has been described as an exploitation trap, and I know that the Home Office is aware of the particular vulnerability of these people. It says it relies on the national referral mechanism, but this does not prevent work conditions getting worse. There is no protection until harm has actually happened, and of course not all abuse is within the legal definition of modern slavery and human trafficking.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, who has signed this amendment, wanted to be here this evening. We did not anticipate that it would clash with the TUC conference, which is where she is in her role as a previous general secretary. I will of course not read her whole speech, but she would have said that the key lesson she has taken from her experience as a trade unionist and as chair of the committee on modern slavery of your Lordships’ House is that policymakers must listen to the workers who are at the sharp end of the labour market and do everything we can to protect their interests. She says that she personally has heard from women forced to sleep on a mattress in the kitchen and who are under instruction from their employers never to leave their workplace, often isolated in big houses in London’s most affluent postcodes. I have heard from some of them as well, and they are in a particularly difficult position because they are so isolated. In addition to what I have just said, in practice, the exploitation means no access to your own passport, not being paid regularly, not having your own bedroom or private space and not being allowed to leave your workplace.

I pay tribute to the organisation Kalayaan. By naming her, this is not to deny the determination and advocacy of others working in the sector, but I add my tribute to Marissa Begonia, who is nothing less than a force of nature and, frankly, not to be resisted. If there had been an opportunity for the Minister to meet her, I think he would find it quite difficult to respond to this amendment, to be quite honest.

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

The Government’s policy includes five priorities: first, to reduce the asylum support budget; secondly, to reduce or eliminate the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels; thirdly, to reduce child poverty; fourthly, to reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities of newly recognised refugees; and, fifthly, to reduce the number of people claiming state benefits. Amendment 151 addresses all those priorities. Enabling asylum seekers to work will reduce the asylum support budget and enable people to earn money, so that they can pay their own accommodation costs. Giving people this support enables them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. It would also help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be paying their way.

Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that if communities see hotels being closed. Working will help those asylum seekers who get refugee status—which is somewhere in the region of three-quarters—to stand on their own two feet much quicker than if they had been languishing in a hotel for months or years. This would be very helpful to local authorities with their obligations to homeless people and to the DWP benefit budget.

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

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

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

20:15

Amendment 152 is about the right to work for people in the national referral mechanism if they have been waiting for more than three months for a conclusive grounds decision to be made. An individual is referred to the national referral mechanism after a two-step process: first, a government-nominated body called a first responder considers that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are a victim of modern slavery, and, secondly, that is then reviewed by the Home Office. The individual cannot refer themselves to the NRM. In the NRM, an individual waits for a conclusive grounds decision to be made as to whether they are or are not a victim of modern slavery. It should be provided after 45 days, but that is not usually the case. Home Office analysis shows that, in 2023, the median waiting time for a decision was 526 days. The median time for women and foreign nationals is even longer.

The purpose of the NRM is to provide a period of recovery. The Home Office states that its purpose is to provide access to support for potential victims of modern slavery. If they do not have a valid visa going into the NRM, or they have not claimed asylum because there are no protection issues, they cannot work. Holders of valid overseas domestic worker visas have the right to work while they are in the NRM until 28 days after they receive a positive conclusive grounds decision.

There was an awful lot of discussion about how this group should be handled. These are people who predominantly came to the UK via a legal route and were exploited on UK soil. They are in the national referral mechanism because the Home Office has agreed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are victims of modern slavery. The national referral mechanism is not just a waiting room for decision; its stated purpose is recovery from exploitation. The right to work would certainly mean that this exploitation could be overcome. It makes absolute financial sense as well as being helpful for recovery. I hope that the Minister can confirm how many individuals currently in the national referral mechanism have the right to work and perhaps indicate some details of how the NRM backlog is being reduced.

Finally, I refer to Amendment 154 on the fishing industry. While we know that the fishing industry is very important to our country, there is a strong reliance on migrant fishers in the UK industry. The lack of worker protections and oversight, poor conditions and a significant power imbalance between the worker and the employer have meant little oversight of the use of the code 7 contract seamen stamp to employ migrant fishers inside UK waters. It is important that we find that protection from labour exploitation. The treatment of contract seamen is an area that requires a review to ensure that this protection is in place.

I regret having to take so much time, but I wanted to explain why the other Members who support these amendments could not speak today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 154A seeks to extend the conditions for someone subject to immigration controls by adding a proposed new paragraph (c) to Section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. I am not a lawyer and apologise for my slowness in working out how you refer to a subsection of a section. It deals with the rules for employers or businesses using delivery riders covered by this Act. It aims to ensure that all who deliver and make their living from transporting goods, meals and other matters, whatever the vehicle they drive, have a full driving licence, and that the businesses which employ, contract or otherwise with the bikers will be held accountable if they do not have the necessary driving licence.

I tabled the amendment because, as they stand, the regulations governing e-bikes are complex and difficult to operate. They involve a level of commitment and time by the police forces of the UK which, under the stringencies, operational priorities and finances of today, they are unlikely to be able to afford. A report from the Guardian of 4 September illustrates some of these difficulties, referring to two police constables from the City of London cycle response unit. It reveals that, for e-cycles, particularly those used for delivery, there is often a breach of the conditions for using them. The report highlighted that changes are made to an e-bike to empower it to travel at speeds of up to 60 miles an hour. They are finding these and impounding them.

This is certainly a problem, but so are the routine offences committed daily by delivery bikes, which make life for people using the pavement and public spaces—whether parks, gardens, commons, greens, pieces or streets in the towns and cities of this country—dangerous. These bikes career at speed on pavements and cycleways, with no front or rear lights at night. Whether on the streets or the pavement, they continue to break the Highway Code. I have had a very instructive weekend on the Highway Code, which I recommend to your Lordships. Many, but not all, delivery riders are from overseas. We must presume that they have the right to work under Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

That also applies to self-employed contractors, because it makes it unlawful to employ an individual who does not have the right to work in the UK, and engaging a contractor falls under the definition of employing for the purposes of the Act. The section prohibits someone employing an adult subject to immigration control if the person has not been given leave to enter or remain, the leave is invalid or out of date or the subject has been prevented from accepting employment.

My amendment specifically adds the prohibition on employing or contracting with drivers or bikers without a full driving licence, whether delivery is made by a motorbike or an e-cycle or the normal motorised ways of doing so. The aim is to ensure that they have a full driving licence and are covered by licence rules. The law already obliges deliverers who drive a car, a lorry or a motorcycle to have a valid licence, as well as registering, insuring and taxing the vehicle and getting an MoT, and some, indeed, have the courier addition, but this amendment extends to those who ride or drive an e-bicycle to do so—to deliver goods, groceries, meals, whatever—whether the vehicle is powered by combustion engine, electric battery or hybrid.

As matters stand, the rules are that anyone over 14 can ride an electric bike without a driving licence and without the bike being registered, taxed or insured, provided it is an electrically assisted pedal bike—an EAPC. To qualify as such a bike, it must have pedals that can be used to propel. It can have more than two wheels, but its electric motor must have a continuous rated output of no more than 250 watts, and it must not be able to propel the bike when it is travelling at more than 15.5 miles per hour. That is, the battery must not be such that it can power the bike at more than 15.5 miles per hour, although, if you are a speedy cyclist, you are allowed to do so by pedalling. The bike must show the continuous rate of power output of the manufacturer.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I simply want to ask the noble Baroness whether she can explain what the very detailed description she is giving has to do with border security, immigration or asylum.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I will come to that point, if I may. Anyway, there are very stringent rules governing these bikes, and they are all available. If your bike does not meet them, you have to register for a full scooter licence.

To answer the noble Lord’s intervention, for which I am very grateful, many delivery bikers come from overseas. I said at the start that we presume that they are covered by the rules under the 2006 Act. What I want to do is to add, for those people who are specifically covered by these immigration controls who drive these delivery bikes, that their employers will face an additional requirement if they come from overseas, which I think is germane to the debate we are having on borders, because many delivery bikers come from overseas and are subject to immigration controls.

If I may conclude and explain why I think it is perhaps necessary for the Home Office to consider this and take it on board, I go back to the police constable who says that illegal bikes are, in effect, motorbikes.

“These people have passed no test, have no road training and don’t have the road skills. They … ride around without insurance, tax, the bike not conforming to lights and everything else it should conform to, it’s not registered with the DVLA, all these things”.


One of the instances he dealt with was indeed an overseas biker who came from Bangladesh and had had his engine changed. The PC said that the problem was mainly to do with delivery bikes, but it could be with other bikes.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord German, for mentioning the very unfortunate accident that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suffered. I was not aware of that. Many noble Lords will be well aware of the fearless campaigning on humanitarian issues over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, often in very dangerous situations in various countries, so it is somewhat ironic that he suffered an injury at Victoria station, I think. I hope that it was not serious, and I very much look forward to seeing him back in his place as quickly as possible.

I want to speak to my Amendment 154, and I am also happy to support every other amendment in the group apart from Amendment 154A. I do so because last year, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was fortunate enough to serve on the committee on modern slavery to which the noble Baroness referred, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

20:30

I am not saying this for the first time, but those of us on the committee were disappointed by the Government’s response to what we felt were some potentially very powerful recommendations from that report. Much of that encompassed the issues in this group of amendments on human trafficking and modern slavery; we heard a lot of evidence of some of the worst effects of that.

Before getting into the detail on the issues surrounding the situation of migrant fishers, I want to pay tribute to the advice and briefings that I and the noble Lord, Lord German, received from an organisation called Focus on Labour Exploitation—FLEX. It is a British charity working to end human trafficking for labour exploitation.

In challenging and transforming the systems and structures that make workers vulnerable to abuse, FLEX has a straightforward goal, which is very commendable, and that is to work towards a world free from all forms of labour exploitation, including forced labour and human trafficking. FLEX is supporting a number of amendments to the Bill, and I value the opportunity to work with it on Amendment 154.

As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, the UK’s fishing industry is reliant on migrant workers. In fact, the industry would collapse without migrant workers doing the catching. Fishing industry experts have described how boats have had to be tied up in ports for months when they could not access migrant fishers. Migrant workers are essential because the fishing industry faces significant challenges recruiting domestically. Self-evidently, the work is tough and dangerous, with expectations of poor work/life balance, and is associated with areas of the country that, in general, are seeing people leaving rather than staying in or moving to.

Typically, young people are not attracted by the prospect of working on a fishing boat and, sadly, apprenticeships have a very low take-up, and that means when the remaining domestic workforce reach the end of their working lives, there are few coming forward to take their places.

Despite this and the importance of migrant workers filling those gaps and doing the essential work of catching, the immigration White Paper fails to mention a route to allow the ongoing recruitment of migrant fishers. Currently, UK fishing vessels that operate outside of UK territorial waters do not have to comply with work visa rules to employ migrant fishers. Instead, they can rely on an exemption under Section 8 of the Immigration Act 1971. As part of this exemption, fishers are given a code 7 contract seamen stamp, which permits them to enter the UK to join a ship, which will leave the UK in what is termed a reasonable amount of time, usually within seven days.

This stamp—in effect, a transit loophole—is intended for seafarers to pass through the UK to join their ship. The Home Office has confirmed that fishers who are transiting cannot work in UK territorial waters, usually defined as 12 nautical miles from the UK coast; and where fishing takes place within territorial waters, workers who need permission to work in the UK should enter on a skilled worker visa. Once the immigration salary list is abolished, it is unclear whether there will be a route for migrant fishers to work in UK waters, because a code 7 stamp does not provide seafarers the right to stay or work in the UK itself. That means they do not, even if docked in a UK port, have entry clearance for the UK, creating barriers to accessing medical attention or seeking information about their rights. There is little or no proactive monitoring by the authorities of compliance with the national minimum wage, hours of work, sick pay or holiday pay.

Migrant fishers are currently included on the UK’s immigration salary list. The Government have said that this list will be phased out in future changes to the Immigration Rules and replaced with a temporary shortage list as the proposals set out in the immigration White Paper are implemented. As the White Paper will lift the threshold for skilled workers to regulated qualifications framework 6—that is equivalent to graduate level or above—and entries on the temporary shortage list are time-limited and conditional, it is unclear how it would be possible for migrant fishers to be employed to fish in UK waters after 2026. There is real concern that these changes could increase the use of the code 7 transit loophole. I hope my noble friend the Minister might be able to offer clarification on this point in his response.

Amendment 154 calls on the Secretary of State to commission a report to understand the situation of migrant fishers on the code 7 stamp, which for too long has remained hidden. There are not even publicly available government statistics on the number of migrant fishers on the code 7 stamp. By systematically identifying the extent of the problem, the experience of migrant fishers and the solutions that would make their lives safer, the Government would be not only strengthening employment rights for marginalised workers but protecting the fishing industry—one that is vital to the country’s economy and our food requirements.

It is long overdue for migrant fishers to be properly recognised as workers and to be able to access the rights that UK workers are entitled to. A report along the lines set out in the amendment would be an important and very necessary step in achieving that and righting a wrong that is invisible to all but those who suffer from it.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and chairman of the Task Force Trust, which I will come on to later. I extend my best wishes to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German, who are not able to be here because of illness, and wish them well.

I support the amendments on the right to work, particularly for domestic workers and those in the NRM. I have been an advocate of this for some time. Call me psychic, but I do not think the Government will accede to this for the very reason the noble Lord, Lord German, gave: the pull factor—although that has never been proved—or whatever.

In my capacity as chairman of the Task Force Trust, we have had a very interesting set of projects through Action Asylum—I would be very happy to show the Minister an evaluation report we got from the University of Nottingham—that get asylum seekers and refugees to do voluntary work, particularly in the environment field: things such as beach cleans, tree planting and a lot of other similar things. This is so important because it has been shown that, in local communities that are not always the most keen on what they perceive asylum seekers to be, they see them as real people, they see them as families and they see them doing things. It has been great for cohesion, but also a great thing for the asylum seekers themselves, to make them feel valued and part of the community, and it has helped their mental health. I think it is something that should be looked at more. As I said, I would be very happy to pass on a copy of this evaluation report from the University of Nottingham that shows the value of it.

There are other projects I have been aware of. For example, the Marylebone Cricket Club has a foundation which has been getting asylum seekers to play cricket. The Saracens Foundation has also involved refugees and so on into sports. I cannot help feeling that this is the way forward—at a time when we know full well that there are frictions out there in our communities—to make sure that they realise we are talking about actual people.

It is a lateish hour and there are plenty more speakers. I just say to my noble friend Lady Lawlor, on her amendment, I think the question of driving licences for these people is a valid one, but it is slightly discriminatory to say it is just for overseas people. There are plenty of other people around. It may be that she thought it was a cunning way to get the issue raised, but I do not think this is really part of this. With that, I will sit down, but I am very happy to meet the Minister, or pass him this report, because I think it is a very valuable idea in terms of community cohesion.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer Green group support for all the amendments in this group, except for Amendment 154A, and to express the greatest sympathy with those who are not able to be with us when we would like them to be. It is also terribly disappointing given that this is such an important group of amendments for addressing essential issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as a result of our immigration law.

I will address two related amendments: Amendment 151 from the noble Lord, Lord German, and others, and Amendment 155A, both of which address points on what is known for short as the “lift the ban” campaign. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on this. Indeed, last week, I spoke with the Minister in Oral Questions about suggestions from the Refugee Council to allow people who are most likely to be given asylum status the right to work. This is a broader step.

Giving people the right to work as they seek asylum would, of course, empty the asylum hotels. That is one way of doing it, but the arguments for it extend beyond that. I note that the Global Compact on Refugees—a UN agreement that we do not hear much about these days, but undoubtedly should—says that refugees should be included in communities from the very beginning, meaning as soon as they arrive. What better way is there to include people in communities than to allow them to work? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was just saying that voluntary work is great, but to enable people to support themselves, support their families and contribute to societies is surely better.

I will just draw on a little history. I am coming up to six years in your Lordships’ House, which makes me not quite a newbie any more by House of Lords standards, so I can go back to the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2022. I just point out that what we are presenting here is something that the House more or less supported, voted for and sent back to the other place. Amendment 30 of the Nationality and Borders Bill on Report was to change the Immigration Act 1971 to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. It was proposed and the vote was called by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Meacher. Ten Conservatives and 32 Labour Members voted for that amendment, so we are not really going out on a limb here with these suggestions to allow people to work after three months or at least to review the possibility of six months.

A Times leading article from 16 December 2021 also called for—I emphasise that this was the Times—asylum seekers to be given the right to work after six months. I may not say this terribly often, but I entirely agree with the Times where it says:

“Enforced idleness is a waste of initiative and wealth”.


It notes that, at the time, the Migration Advisory Committee opposed the ban on asylum seekers working and the leading article suggested that they should be able to work in shortage occupations. This Times notes that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said:

“Britain’s policy is more restrictive than that of EU member states”.


As the noble Lord also said, it

“would have no impact on the aggregated numbers of people granted asylum”.

I finish by quoting the Times’ conclusion:

“it would help the economy, reward enterprise and better integrate migrants into British society. A policy that is humane and beneficial for all concerned ought to be grasped”.

When we think about the way in which our immigration debate is going at the moment, it is worth thinking about how far we have moved in the wrong direction. Let us head back in a humane, just and sensible direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has set out an overwhelming case for Amendment 154, on the fishing industry. It is worth going back to some research from the University of Nottingham Rights Lab from 2021. I do not think there is any evidence that the situation has improved since then. Some 35% of fishers reported experiencing regular physical violence, including racial abuse and sexual violence. Their average pay was £3.51 an hour—one-third of the minimum wage; 19% were working in conditions comparable to forced labour; and 60% reported shifts of a minimum of 16 hours. When we think of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred, one in three were working more than 20-hour shifts, and 100% from outside the EEA were on the visas we are talking about.

20:45

Finally and briefly, I will speak about Amendment 153, on migrant domestic workers. This is an issue on which I have been working for a very long time. As this change was being put forward, I spoke to a motion at the Green Party’s spring conference in 2012, calling for Britain to sign up to ILO Convention 189 on decent work for domestic workers. This amendment would head us in that direction. I heard then from Kalayaan, from the Voice of Domestic Workers, from campaign groups and from the workers themselves about the terrible position that change in the law in 2012 would put them in. Now, 13 years down the track, all their predictions have come true. It is absolutely indefensible.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to reiterate what has just been said on Amendment 153. Like the previous speaker, I too have had experience of dealing with domestic servitude. I chaired an inquiry for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland which was dealing with trafficking more generally. It came as a great surprise to me, because my own experiences as a younger barrister had been dealing with domestic workers inside embassies and diplomatic circles. People would often be brought from countries other than the Emirates or Saudi; they would be Filipino, or from parts of Pakistan or India. They were collected on entry into the country, their passports were taken from them, and they were deeply exploited. I remember being involved in a number of such cases when I was a young lawyer.

As a much more senior person chairing an inquiry, it came as a great surprise to me to find that many successful business people who were running chains of Indian restaurants and all manner of businesses brought people from villages where their ancestors were from. They would say to the workers that they would be paying their parents for their services. They would be paid at the sorts of rate that people would be getting back in those countries, whether it be Bangladesh, Pakistan, or wherever. The workers often received no money—maybe just meagre pocket money. They often slept on mats in the kitchen rather than in a proper bed. They were expected to work all hours of the day and night and were not able to complain anywhere. The idea of someone with a specific visa ending up being tied, like indentured labour, to a family, and not having it made clear to them that there were other options, was quite scandalous. It was rather shocking that we made those changes to those arrangements some years back, as has already been described. Since we have this Bill before us, now is the time to put that right; we have the opportunity to do so.

Kalayaan has been doing incredible work on this front. It has done deep research into what is a form of modern slavery—a smokescreen used to deflect the transparency and accountability there should be for what is experienced by many migrant workers. The evidence that Kalayaan has compiled reports very serious abuse. I ask the Committee to take seriously the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I strongly support.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 151 and 152 and endorse and support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, will know that there have been a number of reports in local and national media about people without settled status who are seeking determination of their asylum-seeker status who have been alleged to be working as delivery drivers for food-delivery companies. Clearly, it is a potential loophole, and it is responsible for us to respond to that sensibly by an amendment that seeks to close that loophole.

On the other two amendments, the noble Lord, Lord German, will be aware that we debated this issue in Grand Committee a year or so ago, when we had quite a good debate. I always think it is a good rule of thumb that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge speaks good sense. I do not always agree with everything he says, but I was determined to agree with something he said in his remarks. We laboured in the Whips’ Office in the other place many moons ago, and he took a pastoral interest in my short-lived career in the Whips’ Office. I agree with him more than I disagree in that this is a point of principle about whether you should give asylum seekers the right to work. I think the challenge is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord German, says, there is a pull factor. People come to the UK, which is a unique economy, because it is in the right time zone, we speak English and we have a dynamic, service-based economy. They travel over many countries mainly, in my view, as economic migrants—clearly, there are a number of genuine asylum seekers—and it is not possible comprehensively to disprove the idea that they are coming for work.

The problem with the proposal is that the most disadvantaged group of people in this country is poor white British boys. A situation where you encourage an economic model that brings in more people to drive down wages, keep conditions not much better than was hitherto the case, cut back on training and keep this addiction to cheap foreign labour is not a model for a successful, happy and contented country. That does not, in any sense, second-guess the merits of individual people who want to come to the country to make a better life.

That brings me on to the point that the challenge we have here, and the thing that the Government can take away from this debate, is that there is much more to be done along the lines that my noble friend Lord Randall outlined in terms of civic education around British values—an educative or didactic process for these new asylum seekers to understand what Britain is about and how they can contribute as decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without working. If you cross the Rubicon and say that, if you arrive and claim asylum, you can automatically work and enter the employment market, that is a step too far. However, the Government have a duty and a responsibility, for the sake of the taxpayer and for the welfare of those people and their families, to give them the opportunity to volunteer, train and assimilate but not to work. That is the challenge for the Minister.

In many respects, I support my noble friend Lord Randall—and even, maybe, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord German, and others—but on a point of principle I cannot support this amendment. I hope that the Minister will set his face against it, but the Government, as the previous Government did, could do a lot more in terms of the training and development of people who aspire to be British citizens.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I would like to find that there is something on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I think his point about assisting assimilation is very strong, but it is not an alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German.

The Minister knows full well that I have been boring him for years about the right to work, and he used to show some personal sympathy for the point. I am with the noble Lord, Lord German, in not believing very strongly in the pull factor. I think people come here basically to escape persecution, famine and war. I think pull factors are, to the extent they exist, much less important. I think, secondly, that the best way to deal with pull factors to the extent that they do exist is with identity cards. I am a strong believer in identity cards. We made a great mistake when we dropped the idea; we should get back to it.

I support Amendments 151 and 155A. Amendment 155A is a very modest proposal; I hope that the Minister will feel that he can consider it. I think there is much to be said for the Treasury approach to this issue. That is an unusual statement to make but, in the Treasury, the right to work would have a double benefit: it would increase the tax take, and it would reduce public expenditure. These are both quite desirable benefits; if you are in the Treasury in current circumstances, they are highly desirable. The main argument for the right to work is human dignity and assisting the assimilation process. The Exchequer arguments are subordinate arguments, but they are real. We ought to reduce the cost of the queue. Of course, the best thing—as the Government are trying to do—would be to reduce the length of the queue but, if we can reduce the cost of the queue and increase the tax take, these must be things that are worth doing.

I have long felt that this is something that we ought to be able to do something about. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate at least an open mind on the softest of these amendments, Amendment 155A—the one that simply calls for a report.

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

My Lords, that may be my cue to speak to my Amendment 155A. I start by pointing to my declarations in the register of interests on two matters: first, the support that I received from the Refugee, Asylum Migration and Policy Project; and, secondly, my role as a paid chair of the Mayors Migration Council, which is a voice that I want to bring into the Room today. The Mayors Migration Council is a worldwide network of mayors. I was a founding member. It includes the mayors from Freetown, Amman, Zürich, Montreal, Rio and now, once again, Chicago. These are mayors who have been incredibly frustrated with the way that national Governments and networks of national Governments have approached migration while they as mayors have tried to create the conditions within which densely packed people within their boundaries live, and the conditions in which they can build the powerful economies that the nations depend on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, we think that this is a very careful amendment. The way that the debate around asylum seekers and immigration has been happening in the UK generally is what I would describe as somewhat falling into “fight or flight”; it is quite panicked. One of the things that I have longed for, both as a resident of the UK and now as a Member of the House of Lords, is that we can make some space to take a deep breath and engage with the evidence—and not get caught up in the frenzy and fear that has been stoked around this question.

If the amendment is passed, we would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government’s working rights policies for people in the asylum system and for both Houses of Parliament to have the opportunity to debate a Motion on the report. That deliberately avoids jumping in two-footed and saying we should just lift the ban on asylum seekers working straight away, because I am sensitive to the potential of people accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding that and making more hay with it. But if we had this in place, with our Secretary of State coming back, it would give us the space to engage with the evidence and to take a breath, reflect on it, and begin to influence policy in response to that.

21:00

Some of the evidence has already been shared today, and to build on the points made by the noble Lord just now, I summarise it by saying that stopping asylum seekers working goes against our national interest and allowing them into the workforce is in line with our national interest. We have evidence that suggests it would be a boost to the economy, giving us tax revenue and increasing our global domestic product. I will not put any numbers to that now because I do not want to debate the specific numbers, but the general truths are there and we will, I hope, have time to look at them over the coming months.

Allowing asylum seekers the chance to work, as we have heard, is good for their mental health and well-being. When their mental health and well-being are undermined, they do not disappear; they turn up in public services and, importantly, they need the support of our voluntary and community sector. I was talking to members of Bristol’s voluntary and community sector about that this week and they wanted me to stress this point. That is the same voluntary and community sector which has demands placed on it by all communities across Bristol and which faces increasing stretch when unnecessary need is pushed on to it.

I stress that work is a pathway to integration. We have had riots—we had them in Bristol—and confrontations. One of the charges made is that these people come here and do not want to work. The truth is people do want to work. They want to bring their skills into the UK economy. At least let us give people the chance to dispel the myth that they are just coming here to get access to our benefits, only then to be pilloried and held responsible for a situation that is not of their own creation.

It is important to recognise that there is strong support, including cross-party support in the Chamber here. There is support from the business community, metro mayors and local authority leaders across the country, the Greater London Authority, the Adam Smith Institute, the CBI, Unison and the TUC. There is plenty of evidence out there, including some of the statements made today, about the impact of migrant workers and asylum workers on the work chances of the domestic, indigenous workforce. That is not as clear as people might assume. A fantastic piece of work has just come out of Wharton business school by Professor Zeke Hernandez, The Truth About Immigration, that shows that there is not a like-for-like placement. Many asylum seekers come in and do work that local people will not do or cannot do themselves.

As I said at the beginning, I come at this as a mayor. I ran Bristol from 2016 to 2024. Bristol is one of the UK’s core cities. During that time, I became chair of Core Cities UK. I was also chair of the LGA City Regions Board, representing the urban regions across the UK. We were in regular contact with the leaders of places outside of Westminster who were trying to create the space for their populations to live and live well, and the conditions in the places they ran for them to make the full contribution we will need if this country is to flourish.

We were often incredibly frustrated by conversations and decisions being made in Westminster that did not listen to what we needed to be heard, and did not create the conditions that would allow us to create those thriving places. Today, I ask us to do that. I am asking us to pause and think outside the Chamber, beyond easy assumptions, and about the wider network of people bringing different perspectives to our approach to asylum seekers’ opportunities to work in this country.

Something has been made today of pull factors. I echo noble Lords who have stressed that those factors are not actually as strong as people suggest. It is dangerous when we receive a truth as though that is the end of the conversation, without looking at the context within which that received truth is being grappled. Many other factors determine where people settle in the world. The working conditions and legislative framework that we are talking about are not what people pore over before they look at language ties, family ties and diaspora connections in the area.

What is true is that the UK at the moment is a bit of an outlier. The United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, France and many other countries grant asylum seekers the opportunity to work much faster than we do. By the way, when I talk about this, I try to stay away from the argument that we are doing this just because it is the right thing to do, because it is just or fair. We are talking about enlightened self-interest. There are reduced costs if we allow people to work and have that good, dignified life, and there is an increased boost to our economy when people become contributors.

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord German, in sending good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I wish them both a speedy recovery. They have played a very full part in debates on this Bill and, although they are not often on the same page as the Opposition, I have always welcomed their incisive arguments.

The amendments in this group are primarily concerned with granting asylum seekers the right to work, after various timeframes have elapsed, much more quickly than is currently permitted. The position of those of us on these Benches is clear and already well known. It has not changed and therefore I will not detain the House for too long, only to say that we believe that the current system, which allows those who have been waiting for a year or longer for a decision to apply for permission to work, is sufficient.

We are also clear that, if we were to allow a looser approach to those in the asylum process being allowed to work, it would create a clear incentive for people to come to the UK illegally. That is self-evident and will encourage even more people to endanger their lives and the lives of others in crossing the channel and the money will ultimately just flow back into the pockets of the people smugglers. It will encourage people to come and often to work illegally.

I note that the previous Home Secretary, who recently moved on, said that:

“Illegal working undermines honest business, exploits vulnerable individuals and fuels organised immigration crime”.


Therefore, for those reasons, despite a fascinating and wide-ranging debate—I particularly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, talk about his experience—I am afraid that these Benches will not support those amendments that seek to permit this sort of working.

I move on to the final amendments in this group, which relate to the fishing industry, brought by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. They raise some very interesting questions and I welcome them to that extent. As someone who represented the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for eight years in the Scottish Parliament, I am very alive to the issues in the workplace in the fishing industry, particularly among people from abroad working in very difficult conditions on boats for periods of time. We must do everything possible to stamp out exploitation in the workplace and in sectors such as fishing where vulnerable people can so easily be taken advantage of.

No one in this Chamber would want to see labour abuse tolerated. Where there is criminality, it must be cracked down on swiftly and decisively. I have one caveat about these amendments. This worthy objective cannot come at the expense of somehow opening up a sort of back-door route, if I can put it like that, for those who come to this country illegally to remain here. That would risk undermining confidence in the system.

We need a balanced approach—one that ensures workers are protected from abuse but preserves the integrity of our border and Immigration Rules. To do that, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks, we have to understand the true scale of the problem and what practical steps can be taken to address it. These amendments are directed towards discovering and learning more about this. I look forward to hearing the Minister provide some clarity on how the Government will tackle this labour exploitation.

21:15

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very wide-ranging debate on an important group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and this discussion. I also join the words of sympathy for both the injuries of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Covid-related illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them back to hold the Government to account, as they do so well. I will go through each of the amendments in turn and try to give some reasonable commentary on each in the time I have.

Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is intended to probe the impact on business and employees of this clause. I hope I can reassure her that the previous Home Secretary has already engaged with businesses and representative bodies on the proposed legislation. I give a commitment that the new Home Secretary will continue to do so following this week’s reshuffle. In addition, the Secretary of State intends to conduct a formal consultation with employees and businesses, which will underpin updated guidance that we intend to bring forward, so that they are aware of their obligations prior to the implementation of the legislation. I hope that assists the noble Baroness on Amendment 150.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her Amendment 154A. It seeks to make it an offence to employ someone to deliver goods, meals or services using a vehicle if that person does not hold a full driving licence. In the UK, individuals can drive a variety of vehicles without a full driving licence, including some of the vehicles that she refers to in her amendment. There is already strong legislation in place to make sure that the DVLA, the responsible body, carries out checks to ensure applicants are not disqualified from holding a licence due to their immigration status. That is already a very strong issue for the DVLA as a whole. The Government have robust licensing and driving compliance measures in place to ensure that there is relevant driving licence regulation in force.

In this very Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers to prevent illegal working. Separately, through existing enforcement measures the Government are giving a very hard push, particularly following some examples of the type of abuse that the noble Baroness mentioned, on compliance with legislation to ensure that people are not being employed illegally, that people who have come here illegally are not being employed and that that is not undercutting legitimate businesses in their work. I think her amendment has those areas of work in mind, but we are covering that with this Bill and what is being done elsewhere.

Amendments 151 and 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, seek to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three. I acknowledge the intent behind these amendments. I know where the noble Baroness and others are coming from. However, I do not think these amendments are the right mechanism to achieve the aims they are seeking. We want to ensure that those who may have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery in particular are examined under that legislation. Therefore, I do not feel that this is the right way forward.

I will take the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to supply that information if he wishes to send it through to me—care of the Home Office, Marsham Street, London. We will certainly look at the information he has brought forward.

On Amendment 151, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and supporting those with genuine protection. It allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if their claims have been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. Those granted permission are limited to roles on the immigration salary list only. Employers are expected to uphold fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices for all individuals with the right to work.

Reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor—we have had a debate about that; I know some noble Lords will disagree with the use of that phrase—and would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. Furthermore, it would undermine the established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. Again, I take on board what noble Lords have said about why people are seeking to come to the UK, but the factors before us are a real concern for the Government.

On Amendment 152, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, as has been mentioned, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract, which provides safe accommodation and financial assistance to prevent destitution. Where applicable, those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision are considered for a grant of temporary permission to stay, which includes the right to work.

There are several reasons why the Government cannot support Amendment 152, one being that expanding access to employment at an earlier stage could incentivise misuse of the national referral mechanism, which may inadvertently encourage irregular migration or exploitation by traffickers who falsely promise access to work in the UK. The current framework maintains a clear distinction and upholds the integrity of the immigration system.

My noble friend Lord Rees made a very powerful case, and I was pleased to meet him, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and colleagues to engage on this matter. I value the representations that have been made and welcome continued collaboration. There is an argument that his amendment may carry unintended consequences, particularly for wider delivery and our modernisation of the asylum system. The Government’s position has been consistently clear and introducing an additional process subject to regular scrutiny could risk diverting focus from our broader strategic objectives.

However, my noble friend made a very important case for the Government to consider, and I want to reflect on it with colleagues. There are other ways in which my noble friend can get a regular report on the impact of the concerns he has, and there are ways to put pressure on the Government, such as the very good initiative by mayors to examine this issue, whether that be through parliamentary debate, Questions, Written Statements or Commons and Lords Select Committees. I will look again at what he said today because I think there is scope to ensure that we examine some of those areas, and I thank him for his amendment.

On Amendment 153 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister—although she is not in her place today—supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the Government are very concerned by the links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. I hope all noble Lords are reassured that in the immigration White Paper, published in May, we said we intend to reconsider how this route operates. I know I regularly ask for patience on these matters, but the immigration White Paper looks at it and recognises the genuine concerns that have been raised.

Allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer without restriction is already a feature of the existing system, as they have been able to do so since 2016. The ability to change makes it very clear that overseas domestic worker status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on their current employer and gives them an opportunity to escape abuse. We do not currently require them to inform the Home Office so that they are able to move more quickly and easily. During my time as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2012, when discussions were taking place on the Bill back then, I met Kalayaan and I was impressed by the cases it made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that that will be looked at as part of the immigration White Paper response.

My noble friend Lord Watson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, tabled Amendments 154 and 203D, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which concern migrant fishers and the question of seaman and transit to the UK to join a ship leaving UK waters. The Government’s long-standing position is that foreign nationals need permission to work in UK waters; this ensures consistency between those coming to work on the UK landmass and those transitioning through it. Contract seamen who enter the UK seeking to leave or join a ship are expected to leave the UK within seven days of arrival and are not given the right to work. Seafarers wishing to come and work in the UK should apply for a work visa that gives them the right to work in the UK. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to give work rights to those on temporary visas intending to allow transit only.

There are no plans to create a bespoke visa route for fishers as the immigration White Paper has very clearly set out our strategy for reducing reliance on international recruitment. However—and I hope this helps my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—we have established the new Labour Market Evidence Group to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, trading levels and participation by the domestic labour market, including at devolved government and regional levels. I expect it to make recommendations shortly about sectors or occupations in which workforce strategies are needed or the workforce labour market is currently failing. I hope that my noble friend can look at what is going to happen and the gathering of information on this issue so that we can examine it further.

In response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. It is within this framework that the fishers mentioned can seek assistance.

I cantered through those points because of the discussion we had. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and I will reflect on what has been said—I will certainly give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Will the Minister reflect a little more on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees? He said that the noble Lord made a powerful case—I think we all thought that. His principal argument against accepting the amendment seemed to be that the reports called for by the amendment could constitute an undesirable diversion of resources. He also argued that the debates in both Houses that the amendment would mandate could be secured by different means.

I suspect that the commendable longevity of the Minister has a price: he has been got at by Sir Humphrey. I used to be a Sir Humphrey and I was very good at this. The undesirable diversion of resources is a very good argument; better still is “unripe time” or “dangerous precedent”. If all else fails, there is “with the ambit of the vote”. They are all excellent arguments, but what is the harm in having debates on this issue every year in the Commons and the Lords? There is no downside to it; it is a good thing. It would give us the space, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, proposes, for a serious debate on this on the basis of the evidence. The Minister is being a little negative. He should go back and see Sir Humphrey and say, “There was a lot in this amendment. We ought to think seriously about it”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his experience. As he knows, having been there himself, the Government reflect on, take and determine positions across the board with ministerial engagement. Having started my 15th year as somebody in government, over that 28-year period, I am very aware that, when Ministers want to do something, they can.

21:30

I have been listening to what my noble friend Lord Rees has said and have given him, I hope, an indication that reflections take place on these matters. I also say to him that the position I am giving today is on the need to potentially find other mechanisms to solicit, encourage and receive that information.

The noble Lord will know that we will examine the issues following the debate today; that is the purpose of Committee. I will reflect on what has been said by all noble Lords and examine how we can meet individuals’ desire to collect further information to assess the situation, at the same time as not putting undue burdens on the system as a whole. I hope that is of assistance to the noble Lord and indeed to my noble friend Lord Rees.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.

Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.

The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.

In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister, whom I thank, started his response by saying that the Bill is not the right mechanism for the amendments. I think he was applying that comment to the whole group of amendments, not just to Amendment 154A. Without being psychic, I too have had my expectations met. Including a provision for the right to work would be the right thing to do, and it would be enlightened self-interest.

I too have never been persuaded by the idea of the right to work being a pull factor; there are plenty of push factors without one having to think about pull factors. Banning the right to work—as we have done, in effect—does not seem to have been a deterrent. That may answer the point.

I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Rees, in this whole space. He made a very powerful speech, but I thought that his amendment was less persuasive than his speech. I am more ambitious: I want to remove the restrictions so that the reports to the House can be on the impact of changes in the law, not just calling for changes in the law.

Mention was made of voluntary activity. I use the term “voluntary activity” rather than “voluntary work” because a problem for so long for people who want to put a huge amount of effort into volunteering is that it has been designated as work, not as voluntary activity. I was interested to hear the support of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for training. That would be a good move forward—it really would be—so I thank him for that.

I will return to overseas domestic workers. They do not, in reality, have the ability to change employers. We are leaving people in appalling situations that they cannot escape. The changes made in 2016 were minimal, and we have failed people whom we should be protecting. I am very sad that we cannot move the situation forward tonight, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 150 withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed.

Amendments 151 to 154A not moved.

Clause 46: Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support

Amendment 155

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

155: Clause 46, page 43, line 28, leave out “reasonably practicable to do so” and insert “reasonable or reasonably practicable to do so having regard to other matters before or likely to come before the Tribunal”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe whether the resources of the Tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure cases are heard fairly within this 24-week timeframe.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this need not, I hope, take anything like as long as the last group of amendments. Clause 46 relates to an appeal when a protection claim has been removed, and Clause 47 relates to protection and other human rights. The issue I am probing is the scope that these clauses give for the Government or Parliament to impose deadlines on the tribunal in determining appeals—in this case, a deadline of 24 weeks from the institution of the appeal. I am not arguing that appeals should not be dealt with as speedily as possible; instead, I would like to understand the scope for the tribunal to say, “Sorry, we can’t meet this timeframe”. In particular, how far can regard be had to other cases? Is it just for particular cases?

The wording is

“where the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so”.

Is that confined to a particular appeal or is it about the workload in general? I am very uneasy about a statutory deadline on how tribunals of the judiciary operate. I know that we will be given some opportunities to be briefed on and to discuss the new procedures that the Government have in mind, but we must deal with this legislation as it is in front of us now. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, at the heart of Amendment 157, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, is the fundamental principle that we must reduce the backlog, unblock the immigration system and ensure that people are not left waiting endlessly for a decision on their appeal. It is in no one’s interest that asylum seekers should be kept in hotels and HMOs for weeks on end while decisions are being made on their appeal. Delay does not serve anyone.

The present situation is intolerable. Recently reported statistics cited by the Law Society show that the waiting time for an appeal decision is, on average, nearly 50 weeks. There is almost a year of uncertainty, during which applicants remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation and support. It is in precisely this space that vexatious claims can be lodged, with the appeals process used not to seek justice but to delay removal and prolong the benefit of support. This is not acceptable, and it undermines public confidence in the integrity of the system.

Our amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State, first, to publish a clear date by which he expects appeals to be determined within a 24-week period, and then, within 12 months, to provide a report on how many cases have not met that standard; in other words, the Government would have to set out their ambition and then be held to account for whether or not they deliver it.

Amendments 203F and 203G, tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Alton, are fundamentally about transparency, requiring that all judgments of the Upper Tribunal in immigration and asylum matters are published promptly and made accessible to the public. Why does this matter? First, it is because transparency allows us to assess the quality of the initial decision-making process. A high rate of successful appeals is a clear signal that something is going wrong further upstream, either with the application of the law or with the evidential standards being applied. Without clear and timely publication of judgments, it is difficult to see where those problems lie.

These amendments are about shining a light on the system. If the Government have nothing to hide, there can be no objection to Parliament and the public being able to see how decisions are being made. Indeed, such transparency will strengthen confidence that our border security is being upheld in the way that Ministers assure us it is. I hope that the Government will seriously consider this principle in light of the points than I and other noble Lords have raised.

[A noble Lord]

That is in the next group.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I know, I just realised that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know that we will have a full discussion on Amendments 203F and 203G at a later date. I will take that as an hors d’oeuvre from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. It is important that he trails those issues because they are linked. I value that he has done that today. However, I will focus on the amendments before the Committee, Amendments 155 and 156, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These seek to confirm that the resources of the tribunal and legal aid practitioners are sufficient to ensure that appeals are heard fairly within the 24-week timeframe.

Clauses 46 and 47 already set out that the statutory timeframe should be adhered to unless it is not reasonably practical to do so. This enables the judiciary to take into account any relevant factors when exercising its discretion and responsibility over case management and the listing of appeals. We in the Home Office are working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the tribunal has the resources it needs to meet the growing backlog. and we want to ensure that we deliver on that backlog as a matter of some urgency. The tribunal has been given additional funding to boost the number of days it will be sitting in 2025-26 to near maximum capacity, and we are also consulting on uplifts to immigration and asylum legal aid fees to support that capacity.

The period of 24 weeks is carefully chosen, as it balances the importance of resolving cases quickly, while the Government recognise the need for appropriate safeguards to ensure access to justice for all. To provide further reassurance to the noble Baroness, the resources of the tribunal are taken into consideration, and these provisions will not apply immediately following Royal Assent. There will be a period of implementation and operationalisation, during which the Home Office, the MoJ and the Courts & Tribunals Service will ensure the tribunals’ readiness in the coming months. I hope all that will give the noble Baroness some reassurance on those issues.

21:45

Amendment 157 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, seeks to place reporting requirements on the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting a date on which appeals will be heard within the 24-week framework and then further to report on the number of cases subject to Clauses 46 and 47 that have not been determined within 24 weeks. If I am honest, that would require a considerable amount of detailed work between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice operationalising this measure, when we are committed to implementing the new framework in the shortest possible time. There is a process in place for the MoJ to collect and publish tribunal data on a quarterly basis, including the timeliness of appeals, and the amendment would, therefore, I say with respect, set unnecessary frameworks which would be limited to fixed points in time and would not assist the speedy dealing with this matter in an efficient way.

We all in this Committee wish to speed up and ensure that we deal with these matters in a speedy, timely manner. I suggest that Amendments 155, 156 and 157 would not meet the objectives set by the noble Lords who have proposed them, and I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 155.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has quite fairly answered the Member’s explanatory statement to my amendments. As I say, that is perfectly reasonable, and I am grateful for that. Of course, the new Lord Chancellor will have taken an oath, as did the previous one, to provide resources to the courts. My question, which I accept was probably expressed in a slightly strangulated fashion, was about what the tribunal can take into account in saying what matters it is not reasonably practicable that it should have regard to.

Given that it is now 9.50 pm and there is a lot more we are expected to get through—which we may or may not get through, I do not know—I would be very happy if the Minister could write to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 155 withdrawn.

Clause 46 agreed.

Amendment 155A not moved.

Clause 47: Timeframe for determination of certain appeals brought by non-detained appellants liable to deportation

Amendments 156 not moved

Clause 47 agreed.

Amendment 157 not moved.

Clause 48: Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime

Amendment 158

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

158: Clause 48, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime if—(a) the person is convicted of an offence under—(i) Part III of the Immigration Act 1971, or(ii) sections 13, 14, or 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, and(b) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (2).(4B) A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime if—(a) the person is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence,(b) the act constituting the offence would have constituted an offence under— (i) sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, or(ii) sections 13, 14, or 18 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, had it been done in any part of the United Kingdom, and(c) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (3).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that illegal entrants and those who commit immigration crimes are included in the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of the interpretation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, meaning that they would be able to be removed from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a barrister, specialising in public law, including in immigration cases. I will speak to my Amendment 158—and I hope my amendment is not what has caused the Minister to vacate the Front Bench.

The amendment would expand the UK’s interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention and includes an offence under Part III of the Immigration Act 1971 as a “particularly serious crime”. As noble Lords who are present in the Committee this evening will be well aware, Article 33 of the refugee convention is the provision which prohibits the expulsion or return of refugees or, in the lex specialis of refugee law, the refoulement provision.

For the benefit of the record, Article 33(2) itself provides that:

“The benefit of the present provision”—


by that it means the provision of the benefits of the convention—

“may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.

In that provision, the drafters of the refugee convention envisaged a situation where a refugee could, as it were, avoid the benefit of the refugee convention by their own criminal action.

What this amendment seeks to do is to insert the offences in Part III of the Immigration Act 1971 into the statutory definition of a “particularly serious crime”. The concept of a particularly serious crime is contained within Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was legislation brought forward by the previous Labour Government. That Act defined what a serious criminal offence was, and Section 72(1) begins:

“This section applies for the purpose of the construction and application of Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (exclusion from prohibition of expulsion or return)”.


It then goes on to set out what those exclusions are.

This amendment seeks to amend subsequent legislation but ultimately impacts on the meaning of Section 72 of that Act. In so doing, it adopts the same model as the Government have provided in Clause 48 of the Bill, which provides that it amends Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by including various categories of offences as “particularly serious crimes”. The Committee will see—those who have a copy to hand—that at line 15 on page 45 of the Bill, that includes a person convicted of an offence

“listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003”,

and so on.

My amendment is very much in the same vein, and would insert:

“A person is convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime … if … convicted of an offence under … Part III of the Immigration Act 1971, or … sections 13, 14, or 18”


of this Bill once it is enacted.

Part III of the Immigration Act includes almost all immigration offences, including the offence of illegal entry into the United Kingdom. As the Committee will recall, that includes the offence, under Section 24, of being:

“A person who knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order … A person who … requires leave to enter the United Kingdom … and … knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave … A person who … has … limited leave to enter … and knowingly remains beyond the time limited by the leave … A person who … requires entry clearance … and knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance”.


It is a large list of offences, and would include illegal working, assisting unlawful immigration to a member state of the United Kingdom, helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom, assisting entry to the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation or exclusion order, facilitation offences, and general offences in connection with immigration including possession of a fraudulent registration card or immigration stamp.

The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that a person who is convicted of those offences is to be treated as having committed a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of the refugee convention, in that they would therefore constitute a danger to the community. They would therefore be able to be removed or returned in a convention-compliant way.

This amendment probes the Government’s intentions and the general approach they will adopt to perform a toughening up—as we have heard over recent days—of their immigration policy in as far as they are able in line with their international obligations. I have laid this amendment to explore what the Government suggest in this regard. It is clear, given the message we have heard in recent days about the willingness to adopt a fresh or tighter interpretation of Article 8 of the ECHR, that it may well be that the Government share my view on the proper interpretation of Article 33(2) of the refugee convention.

It is consistent with the amendment I laid on the previous day of Committee on the need to come directly and the approach that can be taken on a clean review of the obligations and commitments made when we signed the refugee convention, without the barnacles of subsequent decisions. The proposed change in this amendment would permit the United Kingdom to return and deport anyone who enters illegally, regardless of whether they are a refugee or not.

All this ties into a much overlooked provision of the refugee convention, one I am sure the Minister will be very interested to hear about: namely, the obligations in Article 2 of the refugee convention, which requires that every refugee has duties to the country in which he find himself, and that, in particular, he conform to its laws and regulations, as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order. One aspect of the refugee convention is that refugees are expected to conform to our law, and if they break our law then they cannot expect to have the protection of the convention. I beg to move Amendment 158.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in favour of the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It seems to me that this is a perfectly proportionate amendment, in that it seeks to build on the Government’s own Clause 48, to amend Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, by including there offenders against the Sexual Offences Act 2003, explaining further how this would operate and be extended.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment develops that further by proposing that those who commit immigration offences as now defined in the 1971 Act will be deemed to have committed a serious offence and will therefore fall under the provisions of this measure. It is a perfectly proportionate amendment and, although noble Lords may be concerned that there are loopholes which mean that some applicants will rightly be here because of their claims, they can take comfort in the refugee convention saying that they need to come directly to the UK from a country where their life or liberty is in danger. So that part of their immigration—entering the country without leave to remain—would also be deemed an offence. Therefore I support the amendment.

22:00

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 159, 160 and 161 in my name before speaking in support of Amendment 158 tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. My amendments here are more technical in nature and simply seek to standardise the language used in Clause 48 with the language used in Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as has already been mentioned, provides for the application and interpretation of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention. Specifically, it provides a definition in UK law of what is to be considered a particularly serious crime. This permits the refoulement of refugees and asylum seekers who commit such particularly serious crimes and therefore constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.

Section 72 of the 2002 Act was amended by Section 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The 2022 Act substituted the words “shall be presumed to have been” for “is” in subsections (2), (3) and (4). Consequently, rather than saying:

“A person shall be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,


which was the original language used, those subsections in the 2002 Act now read:

“A person is convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”.


That was introduced to end ambiguity regarding which presumption in Section 72 is rebuttable in court. The changes in the 2022 Act therefore alter the language such that the rebuttable presumption applies only in one instance.

However, in Clause 48 of this Bill, new subsections state that:

“A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”,


thereby using the old phrasing of the originally enacted 2002 Act rather than the phrasing currently in force. If this clause were to pass as it is, the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act would not be uniform and would reintroduce the ambiguity regarding the rebuttable presumptions that was removed by the 2022 Act.

I apologise for that lengthy exposition of the technical context of the amendments, but I simply seek clarification from the Government and the Minister on why this is the case. Have the Government chosen to reintroduce another rebuttable presumption in Clause 48? Given that the Government have not stated their intent to reverse the changes made by the 2022 Act to Section 72, why is there mismatching phrasing? I do not think those changes were controversial at the time; I have checked Hansard and not a single Member of your Lordships’ House challenged those changes in the Bill in Committee or on Report. So I simply seek to understand whether the Government support the language in Section 72 of the 2002 Act, as amended by the 2022 Act, and whether there was an intention to reintroduce that ambiguity.

Amendment 158, from my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, has been amply covered. My noble friend Lord Murray made a compelling argument for seeking to include immigration offences in the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of Article 33(2) of the convention. As things stand, the definition of a particularly serious crime includes any offence for which a person has been sentenced to imprisonment of at least 12 months. As my noble friend has just said, his amendment would expand that definition further to encompass immigration offences.

I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a short but legally quite forensic debate. It was probably almost too forensic for gone 10 pm on a Monday night. I shall do my best to address their concerns.

I shall start by talking a bit about Clause 48 and then move on to the amendments. The Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out under the Refugee Convention. As noble Lords will be aware, a key principle of the Refugee Convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk they would be subject to persecution. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, clearly and ably set this out.

The convention recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows refugees to be refouled where they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. Clause 48 goes further than the previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence included in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This is because this Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities. We are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls within a decade. Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows the individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community.

Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the particularly serious rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the Refugee Convention with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly, Amendment 160, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offences committed outside the United Kingdom, where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the United Kingdom. Their Amendments 161A to 161E seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a particularly serious crime in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result.

There is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the Refugee Convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other states parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good faith interpretation requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and maintaining respect for the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole.

The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. At the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed that such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing these heinous acts, they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. This measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach.

In speaking to his amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke at length and in quite technical detail about the alignment of the language of the 2002 Act. Rather than trying to go into detail now, I will undertake to write to the noble Lord about the issues of language alignment that he raised, so that we can get a properly considered and more legally watertight response than I can give at this hour.

Amendment 158 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to expand the definition of a “particularly serious crime” to immigration offences. We consider this amendment to be incompatible with the refugee convention. We understand the seriousness of individuals seeking to arrive in the UK through dangerous and unsafe means, which is why we are taking robust action to prevent it. That is what this Bill is all about. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, raised Article 2 of the refugee convention. Our view is that the Bill is utterly consistent with the principle that those coming here have responsibilities to obey the host nation’s laws. That is something that we feel runs through the Bill.

In terms of the actions that we are taking, Border Security Command is strengthening global partnerships to enhance our efforts to investigate, arrest and prosecute these criminals. We recruited an extra 100 specialist NCA investigators and intelligence officers, including staff stationed across Europe and in Europol, to drive closer working with international law enforcement partners to target smuggling gangs. This Bill will give the NCA new powers to tackle organised immigration crime and protect the UK’s border. As stated previously, it is open to the UK to interpret the convention in good faith, and it is considered that immigration offences that do not carry a custodial sentence of more than 12 months cannot in good faith be interpreted as a particularly serious crime. Given that explanation and the undertaking to write to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on the technical point of language alignment, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that considered reply, and I am glad to say that I agreed with at least part of what he said. There is much to welcome in Clause 48. I concur that it is appropriate for a person who is convicted of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act to fall within the definition, so the Minister and I agree on that point at least. He said that, in the view of the Government, our amendment is not consistent with the refugee convention, but I did not discern particularly clearly why. No doubt, the Minister and I can explore that in correspondence prior to Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Amendments 159 and 160 not moved.

Amendment 161 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 161A to 161E not moved.

Clause 48 agreed.

Amendment 162

Moved by

[Baroness Neuberger]

162: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Age and safeguarding assessments at the port of entry(1) A person who claims to be a child must not be subject to a visual age assessment by Border Force officials solely for immigration control purposes.(2) Any such assessment must be conducted as part of a safeguarding determination to identify potential risks and support needs. (3) A visual age assessment at the port of entry must not result in the assignment of a specific chronological age to the individual.(4) Border Force officials may only determine whether, in their view, the person is a child or an adult.(5) Where there is doubt as to whether an individual is a child, the presumption must be that the individual is treated as a child unless and until a comprehensive age assessment is conducted by local authority social workers in accordance with Merton compliant age assessment procedures.(6) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the implementation of this section, including—(a) the training and qualifications required for officials carrying out safeguarding assessments;(b) mechanisms for independent oversight and review of age determination decisions;(c) safeguards to ensure that no child is placed at risk as a result of incorrect age assessments at the port of entry.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that visual age assessments focus on safeguarding rather than immigration enforcement, removes the Home Office’s power to assign a specific age at the border, and to strengthen independent oversight and child protection safeguards.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I will channel my inner version of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, since she is not in her place, as I introduce Amendments 162 and 163. I thank all colleagues who have signed them. I also make clear my support for Amendments 180 and 194.

Amendments 162 and 163 aim to address serious and well-documented flaws in the current approach to age assessment for unaccompanied children and young people seeking asylum. They are grounded in safeguarding principles and reflect the urgent need to prevent children being wrongly treated as adults, a practice that has led to significant harm, including wrongful detention, denial of education and even criminal prosecution. I feel like something of a broken record on this subject, having spoken on it so many times over the past few years.

The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which is a coalition of more than 100 organisations—I am very grateful to it for its help—has repeatedly raised concerns about the Home Office’s approach to age assessment, particularly the use of visual assessments at the border and the previous push for unproven scientific methods. For too long, it and we were not listened to, so we very much appreciated the willingness of the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to meet members of the consortium and a number of noble Lords and his patent and keen engagement with what was said. These amendments respond directly to the consortium’s concerns and propose a child-centred, rights-based framework for age determination. I will speak to each in turn.

22:15

Amendment 162 seeks to ensure that visual age assessments at the border focus on safeguarding rather than immigration enforcement, removing the power to assign a specific age and strengthening independent oversight and child protection safeguards. Unaccompanied children arriving in the UK often lack documentation due to the circumstances of their journey. Documents may have been lost, destroyed or, in some circumstances, never issued. Some do have documentation, but it tends to be disregarded, in some cases by non-specialist Border Force officials, on arrival. Instead, they routinely conduct what several Independent Chief Inspectors of Borders and Immigration have dubbed “perfunctory” visual assessments at the border, deciding whether an individual is over 18 and assigning arbitrary dates of birth, with no independent oversight or support provided. We do not think that that is satisfactory.

Assessments based solely on appearance and demeanour, in line with Home Office rules, are inherently flawed, and the notion that border officials can decide an individual’s date of birth based on looking at them is even more so. None of us could manage that. Concerns about visual assessments have been raised not just by NGOs but by the Children’s Commissioner, parliamentary committees and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In his recent report, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration pointed to

“a significant body of academic, professional and practitioner research and commentary that argues that it is not possible to assess the chronological age of a child or young person through observation of their physical appearance and demeanour”.

His latest inspection found that

“many of the concerns about policy and practice that have been raised for more than a decade remain unanswered”,

and he noted, with reference to small boat arrivals, that

“the physical and mental condition of the migrants, after a long, arduous and perilous journey, make the already difficult task of assessing age even more challenging”.

We know that the consequences are really serious. While the Government do not publish clear data on this, evidence from local authority children’s services analysed by the Helen Bamber Foundation revealed that, over an 18-month period, over 1,300 children were wrongly assessed as adults by the Home Office. In 2024, over 600 children were misidentified—over half of cases where a decision on age was concluded at all. These children were placed in adult accommodation, denied access to education and legal support and, in some cases, prosecuted and imprisoned as adults.

This is a serious child protection failure but one which the Home Office has failed to address in any meaningful way, preferring to emphasise the safeguarding implications of adults misidentified as children. International and domestic guidance is clear that age assessments should be undertaken only when necessary and be conducted using holistic, multidisciplinary approaches, ideally with social workers and interpreters for the specific language concerned, yet this is far from the reality that we are currently facing.

The amendment would introduce a presumption of childhood in cases of doubt. We urgently need to move towards a system where a Home Office official treats someone claiming to be a child as an adult only in exceptional circumstances, so as to reduce the safeguarding risk to children placed in adult prisons and forced to share rooms with unknown adults. It would also mandate the publication of guidance on training, oversight and safeguards to ensure consistency and accountability. Those safeguards should include, for example, the automatic notification to local authorities when someone claiming to be a child is treated as an adult and moved into their area, so that they can make the necessary safeguarding checks. Finally, I should stress that this amendment is not about preventing officials from making decisions at the border; rather, it attempts to address the systemic failures arising from a lack of safeguards during the flawed visual process of assessing age.

Amendment 163 aims to ensure that age assessments are conducted fairly, accurately and in the best interests of the child, and sets out specific requirements. One of these restricts the use of scientific methods unless proven ethical and highly accurate. Since that amendment was tabled, the Government have announced their rejection of the kinds of scientific methods promoted by the previous Government, such as those including X-rays. This is very welcome and has received a very positive response from NGOs and from specialists in the field who rejected such methods.

However, there is considerable concern about the proposal to use AI and facial recognition techniques instead. Existing evidence suggests that AI can be even less accurate and even more biased than human decisions when judging a person’s age, with a similar pattern of errors. The Minister for Border Security and Asylum stated that the aim is to integrate the technologies into the age assessment system during 2026, subject to the

“results of further testing and assurance”.

Can the Minister give us more information about the findings so far and an assurance that results of this further testing will be published, and that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate them before they are integrated into the age assessment process?

The amendment requires the involvement of local authorities so that Merton-compliant age assessments are carried out by qualified social workers. It would ensure that age assessments are holistic, drawing on the expertise of professionals in healthcare, education, and child welfare. It also requires consultation with independent child trafficking guardians and local authority advocates, ensuring that the child’s best interests are central to the process.

Finally, the amendment stipulates that anyone overseeing age assessments must be operationally independent of the Home Office. This particularly addresses concerns about conflicts of interest raised regarding the National Age Assessment Board, whose social workers are employed by the Home Office and whose assessments have been found to be flawed in a number of publicised cases. Although the NAAB social workers assured the independent chief inspector and inspectors that they saw themselves as social workers first and foremost and denied any conflict of interest, the independent chief inspector’s report noted that inspectors found some blurring of the boundaries between asylum caseworking and the NAAB’s age assessment work. This is a source of particular concern to the British Association of Social Workers.

In conclusion, and to echo the independent chief inspector’s emphasis on the need for child-sensitive processes that ensure that the best interests of children are served, these amendments are needed to protect the rights and welfare of unaccompanied children in the UK. They respond directly to clear evidence of systemic failures in the current age assessment process, and they offer a practical, rights-based solution that prioritises safeguarding over enforcement.

The view of experts on the ground who support these children is that misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than misidentification of adults as children. There are no safeguards in adult systems because children are not expected to be there. When they are, they are left vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. In contrast, child systems have robust protections in place that can be triggered when a young adult enters this environment. We need to remember that these are not comparable scenarios, since children in adult systems face significantly greater risks. The amendments that I and my colleagues are proposing aim to close this serious safeguarding gap.

It is shameful that in his foreword to his recent report, the chief inspector notes:

“Over the years, and again during this inspection, I have listened to young people who felt disbelieved and dismissed by the Home Office, whose hopes have been crushed, and whose mental health has suffered”.

By supporting these amendments, the Committee has an opportunity to ensure that, instead, vulnerable children are treated with the care, dignity and protection they deserve. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My noble friend Lady Brinton added her name to all these amendments. I was happy that she did so. I am also happy to have the opportunity —of course, not at her expense—of expressing my support for them this evening. Inevitably, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has said, there is rather a lot of repetition in this over a period of years.

We touched on visual age assessments—I cannot remember on which day in Committee—and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as she always has done, expressed her clear views about visual assessment being inappropriate. She said she had talked—coming from her cultural and ethnic background; I align myself with her in this—to young males whose looks raised a question in her mind as to what age they were. However hard we try, our own backgrounds leave us with a bias, I suppose—an inbuilt bias, an expectation. We have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes.

I recall being in the education centre of this House, talking to young students who I think were at the top end of primary school. There was one young student who, if you went by facial hair, would have been regarded as twice as old as he actually was. I recall also being very impressed by his presentation; the students were discussing how they would campaign for a change in the law, although I suppose I should not go into that tonight.

My noble friend also has in this group Amendments 180 and 194, supported by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. Amendment 180 deals with criminal proceedings, and my noble friend says that a mandatory referral age for age assessment in those proceedings follows from the basic argument regarding assessment for immigration purposes.

Amendment 194, as the noble Baroness has said, is about accommodation. Some people assume that everyone in asylum accommodation is a criminal and a danger to local residents. It is good that we have the opportunity to recognise that a child in adult accommodation, in adult detention, is a vulnerable child, and I just use the amendment to make that point.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

This is an important set of amendments, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords supporting them that we on these Benches have some disagreements with them.

Amendment 162 proposes that, where there is any doubt as to age, we should simply presume that the individual is a child. I cannot think of a more reckless approach. We all know that children are entitled to greater rights and protections under our law, but those protections exist precisely because children are vulnerable. If we hand them out indiscriminately to anyone who claims to be under 18, we risk creating grave safeguarding failures. There are well-documented cases where individuals who arrived illegally have lied about their age, and as a result adult men were placed in classrooms with teenage girls or in accommodation with vulnerable children. This amendment, whatever its good intentions, would compromise safety, weaken enforcement and put children at risk, and we cannot allow that to happen. Furthermore, Amendment 163 seems to me to be completely impractical in operational terms.

The fundamental point is this: age is one of the characteristics that we need to determine as soon as someone arrives in the UK illegally. This is innately tied to the sort of support they receive, who they are housed with, what services they can access and how they will interact with other migrants and those already in the United Kingdom.

22:30

We cannot pretend that we have the luxury of unlimited time in this matter. The use of a scientific age assessment is a necessity if we are to protect children from those who falsely claim that they are under 18. We on these Benches are absolutely unequivocal on that point.

Finally, I come to Amendments 180 and 194, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, and the noble Lord, Lord German. I can see some merit in the principle behind Amendment 180. Ensuring that those who may be children are properly assessed before criminal proceedings are brought is an important safeguard. However, I have concerns about how this would operate in practice. We have already spoken at length about the backlog in the asylum system and the enormous delays that are causing real frustration, both for those with genuine claims and for the British taxpayer.

Amendment 194 would require that whenever the Home Office determines that someone claiming to be a child is in fact an adult, local authorities must be notified and given an opportunity to conduct or review an age assessment before any placement in adult accommodation or detention occurs. This is a recipe for more endless appeals, endless second-guessing and endless delay. If the Home Office, with all the information at its disposal, has determined that an individual is an adult, then that decision must stand.

While I acknowledge the fairness objectives underpinning Amendment 180, I cannot support Amendment 194, which would drive us in the opposite direction towards further delay, duplication and dysfunction.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for becoming the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this evening, particularly at this late hour. I am grateful for her introduction of the amendments. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for being the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I am still Lord Hanson for the purposes of the discussion before us today.

Age assessment is a difficult area of work and there is no single-combination assessment technique able to determine age with precision. It has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there are serious safeguarding risks if adults are treated as children and placed in settings with children. Similarly, there are serious safeguarding issues if children are treated as adults.

I will turn to the amendments before us and try to weave through them in a way that, I hope, assuages the concerns of the noble Baroness and gives a direction forward. On Amendment 180, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to the completion of age assessments where an individual faces criminal charges, the current approach of the Home Office is that any decision on age made by the Home Office for immigration purposes is not binding on the UK courts. Where an individual is charged with a criminal offence, the CPS is advised of any age dispute issues that have arisen and will decide if it is in the public interest to pursue a prosecution. Once proceedings are instigated, should the presiding judge have doubts about the individual being a child, the courts can take a decision on the age based on the available evidence or request that a substantive age assessment is undertaken.

The Home Office has introduced additional safeguards in criminal cases to mitigate the risk of a genuine child being imprisoned in adult prison for immigration offences. This is something that none of us would want to see. Where an individual who has been assessed to be “significantly over 18” maintains their claim to be a child and is identified for potential criminal charges for immigration offences, the Home Office will provide for an abbreviated age assessment to be conducted by qualified social workers. I hope that on both those counts, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment before the Committee today.

Amendment 162 is on the suggested use of visual age assessments as part of a safeguarding determination, identifying potential risks and support needs, rather than solely for the purposes of immigration enforcement. The noble Baroness has said that the initial age assessment is an extremely important first step to prevent the detention of children generally, including any accidental detention of someone who is believed to be an adult but subsequently found to be a child, and to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct adult or child immigration process. That is key. It provides that immigration officers may treat an individual as an adult only where they have no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff independently assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This is a particularly high threshold, and the benefit of the doubt remains key. Where doubt exists, individuals will be referred for further assessment.

As the noble Baroness said, a social worker may be present at the initial age decision stage. Where present, they will play a crucial role in the welfare of the individuals in their care and will support our Kent Intake Unit officers with their initial age decisions carried out at Western Jet Foil. Any views expressed by the social worker at this initial stage will be given a strong weighting, given the expertise they have in regularly working with children.

The Home Office has contractual arrangements with the Refugee Council to provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who arrive by small boat and are moved to the Kent Intake Unit. That contract sees Refugee Council advisers working directly with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children providing impartial and independent information, advice and guidance to help them navigate the asylum and looked-after children system. These amendments would make it mandatory for the Home Office to publish guidance that includes mechanisms for independent oversight. I note that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration already has oversight of Home Office practices and is not short of bringing forward reports about the areas we are discussing.

Amendment 163, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 194 were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuburger, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They are about whether age assessment in relation to asylum claims should rest with the local authority according to the ADCS guidance. I ask the Committee to bear with me because we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. The amendments as tabled would mean that the Home Office would be bound to immediately notify a local authority in every instance where an individual claiming to be a child has been determined to be an adult and therefore may be placed in adult accommodation. This would apply even when an individual is obviously an adult. This creates the risk that already-stretched local authorities could cause significant safeguarding risks if adults have access, along with genuine and potentially vulnerable children, to children’s services including accommodation and education.

I hope it will reassure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already takes into account best practice within the age assessment guidance issued by the ADCS and the equivalent guidance in Scotland and Wales. Where the Home Office or an accommodation provider have concerns that an individual might be a child, it is now standard practice for a local authority referral to be raised. Even where a referral is not made, this does not prevent the individual from approaching a local authority for further consideration of their age.

As I said at the outset, the Government continue to review all options for age assessment. A parliamentary Written Statement issued to both Houses on 22 July indicated that work was being undertaken in the Home Office to look at science and technology innovation and the age assessment system. We have concluded that the most cost-effective option is to pursue a likely facial age estimation whereby AI technology trained on millions of images is able to produce an age estimate with a known degree of accuracy. Again, I recognise that the noble Baroness raised some concerns about that. I hope I can reassure her that the Home Office is taking this seriously and that further testing and trialling of the technology will be conducted ahead of any integration into the system. It is important that we get that right, but it is also important that we try to find mechanisms to give greater clarity on what that age is over and above the individual eyes-on by a particular officer at the border.

I hope that, with those reasons, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee—the substitutes for the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, respectively—will not press the amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

As the substitute for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I would like to make a point about AI. It is important that the Home Office and others use AI only where it is appropriate and safe. Quite a lot of work has been done across the piece in Parliament about the reliability or otherwise of facial recognition—because that is what this is— including by a Select Committee which I chaired. I have not been satisfied by any comments from the Government Benches since, including on the need for regulation and oversight. That must apply here. I would be deeply worried if we were to go ahead with using AI as a substitute for the human brain without the proper regulation in effect.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I echo totally what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has just said. In my speech, I asked the Minister whether Parliament would have the chance to look at whether AI is used. Will he reply to that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are examining all of this, and there will need to be some further consideration. I will ensure that there is further discussion in Parliament, prior to that being undertaken.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. That is what we wanted to hear, and I very much hope we might have informal discussions before that comes to Parliament. Like some of the stuff more generally about age assessment, the meeting with the Minister was hugely helpful.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, will not be entirely surprised to hear I do not wholly agree with him. The point I was trying to make is that it is worse for a child to be in adult accommodation than for an adult to be in child accommodation. That is the point we ought to take most seriously.

At this late hour, let us leave it at that. With the Committee’s leave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 162 withdrawn.

Amendment 163 not moved.

Amendment 164

Moved by

[Lord German]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

22:45

Amendment 164, which concerns additional safe and legal routes, would require the Secretary of State within six months of the passing of this Act

“to provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme … and … specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully”.

The UK resettlement scheme originated from the resettlement programme in response to the crisis with Syrian refugees in 2015 and provides a way for a UNHCR-recognised refugee to come to the United Kingdom. The value is that the arrival is planned; the refugees are prepared for arrival in the UK, with cultural orientation prior to departure. The receiving local authority or community group has prepared for their arrival and support is ready.

The UK resettlement scheme operates through a quota. In an Oral Question to the Minister, I received a reply which indicated that no quota for 2025 had been supplied to the UNHCR. Is this still the case? Can the Minister confirm whether a quota has been given for 2025 and, if so, for how many people? As I understand it, the last multi-year quota was given by the Cameron Government. The Minister may recall that, last week, he met some of the last three families who have come here from Sudan after being in the Cameron Government quota for at least the last six years. This demonstrates that people are prepared to wait in a queue, provided that the queue is moving, however slowly. The process is very similar to that of Biden Administration in Haiti, where the number of irregular movements dropped away to virtually nothing once people got themselves into the queue.

This new clause is vital. It would allow us to offer an alternative to dangerous journeys, which will, in turn, help break the business model of criminal gangs, reduce the number of cases in the appeals process and, crucially, save lives. Without offering alternative safe routes, people are likely to continue to seek ever more dangerous methods to find safety. This amendment provides a positive and proactive response to the mix of solutions being undertaken.

Amendment 173 introduces the humanitarian travel permit. Under our existing legislation—which is not touched by this Bill—no one can claim asylum in the UK unless they are physically in the UK. However, it is not necessary to conduct the whole asylum claim process from within the UK. The new deal with France produces an element of triaging for those who will be admitted in that country; in other words, taking the most likely people who are eligible for settled status. While we do not yet have the full details of the scheme, the Government’s statements thus far indicate that this is the approach being taken.

Amendment 173 replicates that process for applications further back in the journey. Under this provision, the appropriate decision-maker must grant entry clearance to a person if satisfied that they are a relevant person. The definition of “serious harm” for this permit is treatment that

“if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur)”.

This provides a clear, principled basis for granting protection.

By proactively creating and expanding safe routes, we can deter dangerous, irregular migration, enhance our ability to tackle criminal networks, and ensure a more humane and orderly system for all. These amendments are not merely about mitigating harm; they are about offering a positive and effective framework for migration.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.

This amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.

When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.

Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent White Paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.

Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.

BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.

Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.

This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the Front Bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.

There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.

More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.

Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.

This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.

I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.

This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.

In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

23:00

I made the point earlier that public confidence in our migration system is a precious and finite resource. The British people have made it clear that they want overall migration numbers to come down. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very public support on which the sustainability of safe and legal routes depends. For those reasons, while I accept the good intentions of this amendment, I believe that it would make for poor legislation and cannot support it.

On Amendment 173 and the humanitarian travel permit, I am afraid that I must once again position myself against this proposal. Proposed new subsection (1) would oblige an appropriate decision-maker to grant entry clearance if satisfied that a person is a relevant person. That test is defined in proposed new subsection (2) in extraordinarily broad terms. The applicant merely

“intends to make a protection claim”

that would have a realistic prospect of success, and

“there are serious and compelling reasons”

for that claim to be considered here.

Yet how are these serious and compelling reasons to be assessed? Proposed new subsection (3) would require consideration of matters such as the applicant’s risk of persecution, their family ties and their health and vulnerabilities, all of which would have to be determined remotely from overseas without the proper safeguards or full knowledge that in-country processes allow. That is a recipe for abuse, dishonesty and serious error, as well as a massive increase in the administrative and operational burden which is creating the inertia that we already see in our asylum system as it stands.

Proposed new subsection (4) would compel the decision-maker to waive the usual requirements under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the biometric provisions of the UK Borders Act 2007 if the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to comply. In other words, the very security checks that are in place to protect the integrity of our borders could be set aside. It is reckless to propose that we water down the safeguards currently in place when the threat we face is far from hypothetical.

Proposed new subsection (6) would remove the fee for such an application, further incentivising volume and adding yet more pressure on an overstretched system. Most concerning of all, proposed new subsection (7) guarantees a minimum grant of six months’ leave to enter, baseline rights to remain conferred in advance of any asylum determination. Proposed new subsection (8) goes further still, deeming the protection claim to be made the moment that the individual sets foot in the United Kingdom.

The consequences are obvious. This would place an immense burden on our border authorities. It would substantially reduce oversight of who is arriving and worsen the very delays which the asylum system is already struggling with. I suggest respectfully that these amendments ignore the reality that the British people feel that our system is already out of control, too lenient and too open to abuse, and that this would take us in precisely the opposite direction to that which the public demand. It is an invitation to expand the system to breaking point. My concerns are shared by other noble Lords. Although my noble friend Lord Jackson is not in his place, I welcome the changes proposed in his Amendment 174.

Finally, on Amendments 203B and 203C, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, this Committee will know that the BNO visa route has been a vital scheme, reflecting our historic obligations and our modern responsibilities. It has provided a lifeline to many who sought refuge here and it has been source of pride that the United Kingdom has upheld it with fairness and dignity. Amendment 203B seeks to place the BNO on a statutory footing. I can understand the motivation behind that: to provide reassurance and stability to those who have already made their lives here and who rely on the existing pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence. That principle of safeguarding continuity in such a scheme is one that I support.

I approach the proposal with a small degree of caution, in that we must always be mindful of hardwiring provisions into statute that could have implications for flexibility in government policy and for how immigration law is best managed. It is not immediately clear that this is the most appropriate legislative vehicle, but I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do Ministers remain fully committed to the BNO route as it currently operates, and have they given thought to whether such statutory underpinning of the scheme as suggested in this amendment might give greater reassurance without unduly constraining future policy-making? I look forward to hearing the Ministers’ views—I am looking at both Ministers.

Perhaps I can briefly cover the final amendment in this group, Amendment 203C. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee are proud, of the support that this country has provided to those from Ukraine who have sought refuge here. At a time of great hardship, we have stood alongside our ally and her people, and I am glad that this is a point on which we can all agree. It is a developing situation, and I know that all of us here share the same wish that all Ukrainians should one day be able to return to a country that is safe, secure and free from the tyranny of Russia. Until that day comes, however, we must ensure that our support for those in need continues. On that basis I would welcome an update from the Minister on this, and an assurance that those who require our help from Ukraine will continue to receive it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

Can the noble Lord be tempted to express support for Amendment 203C? On his test of support by the British public, there can be no doubt that the British public support Ukrainians who are here.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, at such a late hour, for their contributions, and I add my good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I very much welcome the opportunity to hear from my noble friend—my very good friend—Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

This group includes Amendments 164, 173, 174, 203B and 203C, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, relating to safe and legal routes. I begin by reaffirming the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. It is fundamental, a cornerstone of our international reputation. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme, in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR. As the noble Lord, Lord German, referenced, the UNHCR assesses refugees living in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities and identifies who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK.

We do not seek to influence the cases referred to us by the UNHCR. This ensures that refugees from across the world can access a safe and legal route to the UK. Alongside this, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary, as noble Lords have mentioned, for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. There is no provision within our immigration routes for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we of course sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, I am afraid we could not consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord German, has been concerned about safe and legal routes for a long time. They are an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published on 12 May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out. Problems in the asylum system are hardly new, and the Government are determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.

Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, includes a provision that would enable biometrics to be waived. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration controls. They enable us to have comprehensive checks against immigration and criminality records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety and immigration controls, or those who we think are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK. There is, however, I reassure noble Lords, already scope to waive or defer the requirement to enrol biometrics in compelling circumstances.

It is for these reasons that the Government cannot support any amendment which would undermine those efforts and create an unlimited route, adding untold pressures on our decision-makers and accommodation and support systems, as well as the justice system. The number of people we can support through safe and legal routes depends on many factors, including local authority capacity for supporting refugees. I fear a scheme that would be difficult to control, such as this one, would quickly overwhelm our asylum system and have wider ramifications in our entire immigration system. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lords opposite, have mentioned, we worry that that would compromise public confidence.

Amendment 203B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to amend the British national (overseas) route into primary legislation, so that any changes restricting eligibility conditions and settlement can be made only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure, and I have noted the comments made in the Committee about the importance of the commitments we have made. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, that the Government are firmly committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, and those who may yet come here in the future on the British national (overseas) visa route.

The Government recognise the concerns that the White Paper proposals on new earned settlement and citizenship rules have raised, and we are taking steps to ensure that British nationals overseas can share their views during the upcoming consultation. We appreciate how important this issue is to the Hong Kong community, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us.

Given the ambitious nature of the proposals in the White Paper, it is essential that we fully understand their impact on all affected groups before making final decisions. Following the consultation, the Government will outline how the new rules will operate, including which immigration routes they will affect and when the changes will come into force. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.

Delivering the BNO visa route through the Immigration Rules allows the Government to make swift changes to the route when necessary; for example, should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further. This amendment, we on the government side fear, would limit this ability to act quickly and create unnecessary delays. Given the unique circumstances of this group of people whom we support, the flexibility of the Immigration Rules is, in the Government’s view, more appropriate.

Finally, I will address Amendment 203C from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The purpose of this proposed new clause is to make individuals under the Ukraine scheme eligible for indefinite permission to stay once their permission has expired, even if there is no further permission they can apply for under the scheme. The UK support for Ukraine remains steadfast and, together with our international partners, the UK continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked and premeditated war. That stance has had the very committed support of the entire House and the country as a whole.

23:15

We recognise the importance of providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the Ukrainian visa schemes. This is why the Home Secretary recently announced that the Ukraine permission extension scheme will be extended to offer those eligible a further period of permission of 24 months. However, the Government have been clear from the outset that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict. We have heard comment, which I heartily endorse, about the very moving commitments made by the entire British nation to support the displaced people of Ukraine, extending to taking them into their own homes. However, we also respect the Ukrainian Government’s strong desire for its citizens to return home and contribute to the country’s future recovery. This amendment would mean the UK Government rowing back on that long-standing position, which we believe would be ultimately to the detriment of Ukraine as a country—which will need its people back to rebuild.

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

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

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

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

Amendment 164 withdrawn.

House resumed.