Death of a Member: Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, on 26 September. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start Oral Questions today, I thought this would be a good opportunity to remind Members that the House wishes the questions that are asked to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. As I have said before, it is called Question Time for a reason. There is no greater favour that a noble Lord asking a question can do for a Minister than to make a speech before asking the question. Equally, the House expects Ministers, when replying to questions, to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If we do this, we will have greater scrutiny of Ministers and the Government at Question Time, and more Members will get an opportunity to ask a question.
When questions are being asked, we move around the House, enabling Members from different Benches to get in. If a Member from a particular Bench asks a question, it is unlikely that we will get back to that Bench before supplementary questions from other Benches have been asked. For example, the first Question today is from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch. After the noble Baroness has asked a supplementary question and it has been answered, we will then move around to other Benches. I would not normally expect another Conservative Member to ask a question until we have heard from the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches, and maybe even the Bishops’ Benches.
I hope that is clear and of assistance to the House. My only intention in standing at the Dispatch Box and making these contributions on a regular basis is for Question Time to be more effective and provide greater scrutiny, and to allow Members across the House to participate in this most important part of our business. I hope all noble Lords will bear these remarks in mind when participating in future.
Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Maclean of Redditch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of asylum claims based on religious conversion.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on religious conversion. All claims, including those based on religious conversion, are carefully assessed individually in accordance with our international obligations and in line with our published guidance. Claims based on religious conversion do not guarantee a grant of refugee status.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am sure that many other noble Lords will be surprised to hear that the Home Office does not publish such statistics. Given the salience of asylum claims and the number of illegal migrants coming to our shores, it would very much help the community and the country if we could see the number of conversions, for Christianity and any other religion, that are grounds for someone being granted asylum. Will the Minister please look again at his department and publish that data for us to scrutinise?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, at the outset, can I say how much these Liberal Democrat Benches will miss our dearly respected and valued colleague, Lord Ming Campbell of Pittenweem? He served the country well. My question to the Minister is this: last year, the previous Government established a faith working group to look at the issues at the basis of this Question. Does that working group still exist and, if so, can the Minister tell me what it has achieved?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On behalf of the Government Benches, I echo the noble Lord’s comments about his noble friend. He was a good servant to his party, to his constituency and to the country. The recommendations made by that working group have been put into government consideration. I am not involved in that working group and there may not be a working group in existence now. I will check whether other ministerial colleagues are involved and let the noble Lord know in due course.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister outline what kind of training the officials have? A number of years ago, a cross-party group of parliamentarians was involved in helping the Home Office officials with changing the training from a general type of test of your knowledge of a religious text, which you may not even have seen, to that which required an analysis of the lived experience. Is that training still happening now with Home Office officials?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There is full training, not just for those in existing positions. We are now including an extra 1,000 or so individuals to support speeding up the asylum claim decisions, and they are receiving full training. As the noble Baroness will know, there is published guidance around which the criteria for assessment are made, and that guidance is subject to tests from individuals and others.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, while we are on the issue of asylum claims, can the Minister update us on the Government’s latest steps in relation to dealing with asylum claims more quickly and more effectively than has previously been the case?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He gives me the opportunity to repeat the fact that the Government have recruited an extra 1,000 individuals to work on speeding up asylum claims, because the key issue is making sure that we determine very speedily whether individuals have a right to stay in the United Kingdom. If they do, they can; if they do not, they should be removed after subsequent appeals have been unsuccessful.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that in March last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee heard oral evidence from a former Anglican reverend that his church had been used as a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism. He raised concerns that asylum seekers were deliberately converting to Christianity in order to claim that they would be persecuted if they were sent back to their home country. Given the unease within the Church of England about those comments, what discussions has the Home Office had with the Church of England regarding such conversions for asylum purposes?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield, which seeks to support refugees and asylum seekers. Is the Minister aware that the evidence provided by the former Anglican cleric just referenced was refuted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in extensive oral evidence on the subject at a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in the other place last year?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in the light of the substance of this Question, would my noble friend the Minister like to restate the Government’s commitment to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and, indeed, to the refugee convention itself?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am very happy to give my noble friend that assurance. As I said, the Government want to meet their international obligations and will do so under refugee conventions and according to their responsibilities under human rights legislation. But I hope she will accept that we also need to test people’s claims individually when they make them against the criteria for remaining in the United Kingdom. If an individual claims Christian conversion, at whatever stage of their application, clearly that needs to be examined and tested and, ultimately, a decision will be made individually on that basis.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the efficiency of the asylum system and of the immigration system as a whole depends not just on speedy decision-making but on speedy removal of those people who have no right to remain? Will the Minister please update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade other countries to take back their nationals who have no right to remain here?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is integral to the success of the immigration and asylum system that those who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom are removed speedily. Since July 2024, this Government have improved the performance on those removals. We need to engage with our partner nations to ensure that countries are willing to receive individuals, but the basic principle of the asylum system is that we are open to meeting our international obligations. If someone seeks asylum and it is approved, they will be accepted. If it is not approved, they have no right to live in the United Kingdom and that speedy removal should take place, as the noble Lord said.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
How many appeals have overturned the original decision? How many claims that were originally denied have been reversed on appeal?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I do not have the figures directly in front of me and I would not wish to give him a spurious figure. I will reflect on his question and give him an answer within short order by that old-fashioned method of pen, or email.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Can the Minister confirm whether any individuals granted asylum on the basis of religious conversion have subsequently been flagged by the UK security services for posing a risk to national security?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me, but I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on national security issues in relation to individuals per se. If individuals commit offences, they will be deported as a result of any conviction on those offences, even if they have been granted asylum. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that I cannot give detail on any particular aspect, but she can rest assured that the Government will take seriously any individual who commits, or conspires to commit, any crime.
School Fees: VAT
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government how much money has been raised from the imposition of value added tax on school fees.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of one of its constituent bodies.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, at the Budget last year, the Government set out that ending the VAT exemption for private schools would raise £460 million in 2024-25 and £1.7 billion per year by 2029-30. The Government remain confident in these costings, which are certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR will recertify these costings at the forthcoming Budget in November. The money raised by this measure is helping to raise standards for the 94% of pupils who attend state schools.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, have the Government noted a recent detailed survey by the Independent Schools Council which shows that their appalling education tax is producing an exodus from independent schools eight times larger than Ministers predicted? Does it not follow that the Government will have to fund many extra places in the state sector for pupils driven from independent schools, while simultaneously the proceeds from their tax raid on those schools plummet? Is it not the case that the Government stand no chance of extracting the £1.8 billion that they hoped to receive from independent schools to fund an enormous range of improvements, including, most surprisingly, the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation, according to the Prime Minister in June?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question—I think the short answer is no. We estimated that the introduction of VAT was likely to lead to around 35,000 more pupils in the state sector over the course of this Parliament. This is fewer than 0.5% of all pupils currently in the state sector and will take place gradually over this Parliament. This assessment was certified by the OBR at the time, and we remain extremely confident in it. Pupil movements so far are absolutely in line with this estimate and are in line with trends over the past 20 years. They represent, as I say, a very small proportion of the private school population. It should be noted that not all pupil movements are the result of this policy; they can happen for a large variety of reasons and will reflect wider demographic trends.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, given that the money raised from this will be spent on increasing teacher numbers in state schools and that 93%—although as my noble friend the Minister mentioned 94%, I will go with his statistic—in England attend state schools, does my noble friend agree that this is an excellent example of the Labour Government’s commitment to benefiting the many, not just the few?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend on that point. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and are determined to drive up standards in those schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country so that they may receive the opportunities they deserve.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, one of our greatest concerns is that SEN pupils without an EHCP are forced from private schools that have the capacity to support them to state schools without the resources to do the same. Have the Government been tracking how many of those SEN pupils without an EHCP have moved, and are they looking at the impact on both children and schools, including school finances?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I know that this is an issue that she cares deeply about; we have had discussions on this point in the past. We recognise that the current SEN system is not delivering the outcomes that pupils and parents rightly expect and is placing unsustainable burdens upon schools, local authorities and taxpayers. The Government will set out the detail of our reform plans in the context of the wider schools strategy later this year. In terms of specific pupil movements, as I say, those movements are in line with the estimates that we set out at the time of the last Budget. Those estimates were assessed by the OBR and we remain confident in them. It is worth noting that so far this year 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have opened, and of those 70 private schools, 59 are special educational schools.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, the Government pledged at the last election that this tax increase would pay for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Over the past year, this Government have seen the number of teachers in state schools drop by more than 400. How can minus 400 be an addition, even in the crazy mathematics of His Majesty’s Treasury?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord mentions crazy mathematics—I think he was one of the leading proponents of Brexit, so he would know all about crazy mathematics. This measure raises £1.7 billion to spend on state schools. He will have seen in the previous SR settlement for schools that, to raise school standards for every child and break down barriers to opportunity, the Government are increasing the core schools budget by £4.7 billion per year by 2028-29. This is a real-terms increase of 1.1% on average each year, on a per-pupil basis, taking per-pupil funding to a new record high.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Will the Minister comment on data that seems to suggest that schools are using some of this additional money to fund free school meals—because there is insufficient funding for the level of the cost of those meals—rather than employing more teachers?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not know about specific decisions that each individual school is making. Obviously, how individual schools fund a specific policy is a matter for them, but I am very confident that our free school meals policy is fully funded.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed that when this was announced the Opposition claimed that it would shut schools, yet it has not? They are switching their arguments on a daily basis. Does he also agree with me that this is hard to take from a party which cut state school spending virtually every year that it was in power?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the points that he makes, and I agree very much with what he is saying. As he knows, we are increasing per-pupil funding to record amounts. It is absolutely correct that we have heard many scare stories about this policy—that schools would close. Since VAT was applied on 1 January, private schools have continued to open and close in line with historic trends. As I have said already, 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have so far opened.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I start by echoing the tributes to Lord Campbell. It seems only yesterday that he was with us. I believe that taxing education is a shabby policy, and we have seen some 50 schools close since the VAT on private schools was introduced. This is another example of Labour attacking the sectors of Britain that are most successful: in this case, our private schools. They are very well regarded internationally and key to our country’s academic successes. Has the Minister learned anything from this regrettable episode about how and where we tax?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. What I have learned from this episode is not to listen to scare stories from the party opposite. She talks about school closures; I am sorry that she did not listen to the figures that I gave. Yes, 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have opened, so obviously there is a net increase in the number of private schools in our country. There has historically been a significant turnover in this sector, with around 75 private schools in the UK opening and closing each year and the overall number of private schools remaining broadly stable.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will His Majesty’s Government consider using some of the money that they expect to get from this policy to reverse their recent decision to remove funding from state schools for the international baccalaureate?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not know about the specific policy that the noble Baroness is talking about but, as I say, we significantly increased per-pupil funding in the previous spending review to a new record high within our state schools.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Would the Minister like to confirm that, without Brexit, his Government would not be able to put VAT on private schools?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Without Brexit, GDP would be 4% higher, so we would not need to.
Lord Naseby (Con)
As the Minister knows, there is very little boarding availability in the state sector. Against that background, will His Majesty’s Government look at understanding that all the families who need boarding are probably heavily involved in exporting and helping our nation? Will he consider removing VAT on the boarding element when there really is no other choice than to go to the private sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to that is no. VAT applies to private boarding fees as well as private tuition fees. At private schools, boarding is very often included as part of a single overall tuition fee. Not applying VAT to private boarding fees would open up significant risks of value-shifting from school fees to boarding fees in order to avoid VAT.
Alzheimer’s Disease
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure all people with Alzheimer’s disease have access to a timely and accurate diagnosis to improve access to care and quality of life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, in the 10-year plan we announced that we would deliver the first ever modern service framework for frailty and dementia to reduce unwanted variation and narrow inequality in diagnosis and care for those living with dementia. It will set national standards and redirect NHS priorities to provide the best care and support, which will be central, along with access to a timely and accurate diagnosis.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but I will press her a little further. According to Alzheimer’s Research UK, one in three people in the UK living with dementia currently do not have a diagnosis. Unlike other major conditions, such as heart disease or cancer, dementia does not have national waiting time targets. Therefore, what plans do the Government have to introduce an 18-week referral to treatment target to give those people with dementia, and their carers and families, parity with other conditions?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In our development of the modern service framework for frailty and dementia we are engaging with a wide group of partners, because we need to understand what should be included to ensure the best outcomes. I hope my noble friend will welcome that we are going to be considering what interventions should be supported to improve diagnosis waiting times—which are, I certainly agree, too long in many areas. In addition, we are considering all the options to help reduce variation, including reviewing metrics and targets, as my noble friend refers to.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, having had the analysis of the results of incredibly extensive clinical trials on the use of GLP-1s to treat dementia, particularly Alzheimer’s disease, this is an incredibly exciting potential development. Will the Minister please share with the House what the Government are doing to prepare diagnosis for Alzheimer’s disease, so that those with the disease can be ready for this exciting treatment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to identify what are exciting developments in this area. We are investing in dementia research across all areas. That includes causes and diagnosis, as well as prevention, treatment, care and support, including for carers—I think it is important to identify the wide range. In preparation, we are ensuring that clinical trials are maximised and that reductions in waiting times happen. As I said, through the modern service framework we will be looking at the arrangements as a whole, which will give the useful range of direction that we need to address the point that the noble Lord made.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, in the light of other positive developments, such as the ADAPT and READ-OUT trials which concentrate on using blood tests to ensure that diagnosis is done more effectively, can the Government outline what steps they are taking to make sure that the NHS is able to adopt such innovations, to ensure that everyone has a right to an early and effective diagnosis?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In addition to the points that I have already made, I add that our work through the life sciences plan will be of great assistance in ensuring that we remove obstacles and make the route to which the noble Lord refers as quick as possible, so that we can move from development to delivery for the people who actually need this. We will ensure that we reduce friction and optimise access to and uptake of new medicines. That includes speed of decisions and implementation, which I am sure will be most welcome.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Question asked about not just access to care but quality of life. Is the Minister aware of the growing body of evidence that creativity enhances the quality of life of those with dementia, and that of their carers, and provides an effective mechanism for interaction between the two? What is her department doing to explore how creativity can be embedded as part of the treatment to improve quality of life for those with dementia?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. I have been involved personally in a number of discussions about the role of creativity, and I certainly acknowledge it. It is perhaps helpful to refer to the RightCare dementia scenario, which works through the whole of the pathway for those with dementia. It is about not just diagnosing but looking at the best kind of approaches to support people on their journey from diagnosis through to the rest of their lives.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, as we know, Alzheimer’s is the main form of a number of types of dementia. Early diagnosis allows for help to identify the specific type of dementia, leading to targeted treatment and access to support services, which have been discussed already this afternoon. However, the expected time from someone presenting at a GP surgery to diagnosis has increased from 13 to nearly 18 weeks. This is going in the wrong direction. What will the Government do to speed up this diagnosis, so that more people can benefit from some of the treatments that the Minister has referred to?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness says, diagnosis is absolutely crucial. I feel our health system has struggled somewhat to support those with complex needs, including those with dementia. That is why I emphasise the role of the modern service framework in this area; it is the first time we have had one and it takes a whole view, which I think has been sorely lacking. It will be informed by the independent commission on social care next year—so we are looking at next year, not waiting for years. The final point I make is about the dementia diagnosis rate for patients aged 65-plus. The Government are committed to recovering that to the national ambition of 66.7%; at the end of August, it was 66.1%.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the evidence is clear across the board: eating healthily and staying active helps brain health and the prevention of Alzheimer’s. Is it not a huge concern to the Government that more than half the calories the average person in the UK eats and drinks come from ultra-processed foods and fewer than 25% of adults in the age groups most prone to Alzheimer’s are not meeting the Chief Medical Officer’s guidelines for aerobic and muscle-strengthening exercise?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I think the valid points that the noble Earl raises refer to a whole range of health conditions. I refer particularly to our health service’s struggle to support those with complex needs. Clearly, prevention of ill health—one of the pillars of the 10-year plan—is going to be crucial, and that will include good diet and a good exercise and movement programme. I cannot comment on the specific link with dementia. There is so much more work to be done, which is why we are investing so much in research and development.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, family members who look after those with Alzheimer’s—often at great stress to themselves, as the House will know—require respite care, which is one of the most valuable ways of helping them. Traditionally, they have looked to the nursing home sector to provide one-week or two-week admissions to give them a break, or perhaps a chance to attend a family event. Increasingly, though, they are finding these more difficult to obtain. Not only are they prohibitively expensive but the nursing home sector is now reluctant to offer short-term placements.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for those helpful, although concerning, observations. That is why I very much look forward to the first phase and later phases of the independent commission into adult social care, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, not least because it will inform the modern service framework, which will take account of matters such as those that my noble friend raises.
Jobs Market
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the jobs market in the United Kingdom, and of the implications for the economy.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, economic growth remains this Government’s No. 1 mission and boosting labour market participation is central to achieving this. The UK jobs market continues to show resilience, with high employment and falling inactivity. However, there is more to do, which is why we are continuing with our Get Britain Working strategy to drive forward the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, given that every Labour Government in the last century have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s opposition to those cross-party amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, achieved by substantial majorities in your Lordships’ House, which seek to protect jobs? In that way, she can prevent history repeating itself.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am very fond of our traditions in the House of Lords, but we now have a new one: on a monthly basis, we relitigate the Employment Rights Bill in the form of an Oral Question. One reason why I do not like having this Question every month is that we end up having the kind of ding-dong that is more typical of the Commons, so let me try to answer in a more serious way without getting into scrapping about it.
This Government had to take some difficult decisions to strengthen the country’s finances. However, we believe the Employment Rights Bill was the right choice. We have looked at the evidence and it is backed by academic and business voices as a driver of productivity. I encourage the noble Lord to look carefully at the employment data, where he will see a positive trajectory. Employment is up, inactivity is down, wages are growing and vacancy levels remain healthy. These are clear signs of resilience in the labour market. However, there are clear global headwinds and, where there is slack, one of the most important things for our Government to do is to address supply-side measures, because if times get tough then the people who risk losing out are young people and those farther from the labour market. We have a strategy to support people, tackle the barriers into work and make that work. That is what we are trying to do. We are pushing forward and it is getting results.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, given the emphasis being put on gold-star vocational qualifications, what are the Government doing to encourage local businesses to horizon-scan with regard to future skills requirements and work with local educational institutions, so that courses properly reflect the local jobs market and we avoid the rather hit-and-miss approach where skills do not match the jobs on offer locally?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for an excellent question. I assume that she refers to the Government’s recent announcement that we are moving away from a target for university entrance to an ambition for two-thirds of young people to reach level 4 by age 25 and 10% to reach levels 4 and 5. In this country, we have traditionally done well on university degrees, but too few young people have level 4 and 5 qualifications—a missing middle that holds back our productivity and stops people getting those higher technical jobs. My noble friend’s point about horizon scanning is crucial. We know that by 2030 we will need 900,000 more skilled workers in priority sectors, two-thirds of whom will need qualifications at levels 4 and 5, so the DWP is working closely with business and, at a local level, local skills improvement plans are led by employers working with jobcentres and local partners. The detail is coming—the Government have a strategy for post-16 education and skills in the long term, which will come out in a White Paper on education and skills that I am assured is imminent.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, more than 84,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality industry since the last Budget. This is an industry that should be growing, not contracting, as I hope the Minister would agree. What is the Government’s assessment of why this is occurring and how will they address it?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, within hospitality, there are still 78,000 vacancies in accommodation and food service activities. That is unchanged on the quarter and is only 7,000 below the pre-pandemic level. Of course, there are global headwinds across the economy, but retail and hospitality are sectors where there has always been a lot of churn. We need to make sure that there are the appropriate workers at the appropriate level.
Therefore, we have announced the rollout of the hospitality SWAP pilots—sector-based work academy programmes—launched in partnership with UKHospitality. We are spreading them to 26 new areas which are in need of jobs and opportunities, including 13 coastal towns like Scarborough and Blackpool. We are also working with other key sectors. One challenge we have is to make sure we match the skills of workers with the jobs that are available. A SWAP can get someone job-ready and able to move into one of those jobs when they become available. There will always be vacancies and part of our job is to ensure that everyone has a chance of getting one. That is what we are focused on.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the UK is experiencing a decline in payrolled employees and a significant drop in graduate job opportunities, with listings for entry-level graduate jobs at the lowest level for seven years. This does not really tie in with the wonderful statistics the Minister told us about. There is another set of statistics which are not very good. What are the Government doing to improve those statistics in real terms?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is very aware, there is a whole range of statistics. If he goes through the official statistics, he will see a wide range of data, each of which tells us something slightly different. He is right about nudging at payroll data, but I am absolutely right that the employment rate of the UK is at record levels—that is a fact; it is from the Office for National Statistics.
One of the challenges for the Government is to ensure that even when times are tough, we have a strategy to do three things. We must continue to develop growth and investment in our economy to make sure that the labour market is functioning. We then need to make sure that it is an inclusive labour market, and that those who are farthest from it get the skills they need to have a chance of getting the jobs, so employers can have the workers they need. Finally, we need to make sure that every area of the country works. Some local labour markets have 80% employment already, but others do not. The Government’s job is to target those three things, and that is what we are doing.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, there are woeful and worrying figures showing that the number of working-age people signing off work for sickness benefits has gone up from 2,000 to 5,000 per day—per day—with a direct negative impact on employment. What are the Government going to do now, before the publication of the Timms review? I remind the House that we have a whole year to wait until then, which will be one of inaction, inactivity and spiralling costs, will it not?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, given the levels of inactivity due to health over which the noble Viscount’s Government presided, that is a brave question, but let me answer it none the less. This Government are not simply waiting for the review. The Timms review is looking specifically at PIP which, as the noble Viscount knows, is a benefit that applies in and out of work. As I have told the House before, this Government have looked carefully at three things. One is what happens to people who are on benefits. This House backed the Government in making the difficult choice to change the incentives so that for new people coming in, we would reduce by about half the extra amount of money you get on universal credit. The second is to invest up to £1 billion over the scorecard in making sure we give people the support they need. People out there want to get jobs, and we have to help them. Finally, we have invited Charlie Mayfield to produce a report looking at employers. Every time someone loses a job, it can be an £8,000 loss to the employer from lost productivity. We are investing in all three of those things.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the Cross Benches next.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The Minister quite rightly mentioned young people and the importance of opportunities for them, but there seems to be increasing evidence that entry-level opportunities are reducing and that it is becoming more difficult for young people to take that all-important first step into work. So can the Minister explain why the Government are still insisting on pushing through a change to employment law that their own impact assessment says will actually make it harder for young people to find a job?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are making a significant investment in young people. I assume the noble Lord is referring to employer national insurance.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
We have to have a level playing field in employment rights. We are investing in supporting young people with a youth guarantee. For young people who are intensively looking for work, there should be no fourth alternative to education, training or a job. To put our money where our mouth is, we have announced that we will give young people who have spent 18 months looking for a job on universal credit a guaranteed job. Young people should be out there either earning or learning; we will make sure they can.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
Does the Minister appreciate that her Chief Whip opened by asking for shorter answers?
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.
Chinese Espionage: Parliament
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their ability to protect Parliament from Chinese espionage in light of the collapse of recent legal proceedings.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to reducing the threat from foreign espionage targeting UK domestic institutions and continue to drive cross-government work to respond to the threat through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The National Cyber Security Centre and the Centre for the Protection of Critical National Infrastructure produce advice and guidance for Members of both Houses of Parliament. MI5’s National Protective Security Authority has today—22 minutes ago—launched new guidance to protect the UK’s democratic institutions from foreign interference.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and will look at the action she has recommended and mentioned. I am sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is not in her place to answer this Question.
Will the noble Baroness agree that no step must be left unturned to safeguard the integrity of our Parliament from espionage by foreign state actors, and notably the malign and relentless activity of China? Any suggestion of executive action—or inaction—that may have led to the collapse of these proceedings must be investigated thoroughly and unequivocally condemned.
Will the noble Baroness give the House a categorical assurance that, if any evidence occurs of Chinese targeting of Members of your Lordships’ House—past, present or future—she will press colleagues in government at the highest level to ensure that those involved will be brought to court and made to answer for their actions: no ifs, no buts and certainly no secret quid pro quos?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is absolutely right that of course we would expect full prosecution of anybody who undertakes espionage against Members of your Lordships’ House or anyone else working in Parliament. I want to make it very clear that we are very disappointed by the CPS’s decision; it was made by the CPS as an independent body. Noble Lords will be aware that a Statement will be made by the Security Minister this afternoon, which we will have the opportunity to discuss later this week, about the actions that this Government are taking.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the former director-general of the Security Service has warned the country that Chinese espionage has been carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as on industry and education. That is why I and these Benches warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a strategic mistake by the Government. The Government made another strategic error by deciding, with the Conservative Party’s support, to exempt government, administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme—I warned them about that on 5 June. Does the Minister not agree that new guidance is fine, but it is hamstrung if the Government and the Official Opposition continue their support for the exemption from the FIRS scheme of the very areas we know China seeks to influence?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has consistently made these arguments. I confirm what has previously been said in your Lordships’ House: no decision has yet been made on specifying China on the enhanced tier of the scheme. As noble Lords would expect, my officials continue to consider whether and how the enhanced tier can be used to provide greater protection for areas where China and other countries pose significant threats. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests and any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the Government stated that the decision not to proceed with a prosecution was entirely that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the Minister acknowledge, in the light of the director’s subsequent statement, that the Government were being economical with the truth?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
While I have huge respect for the noble Lord, I absolutely will not. This was an independent decision made by the CPS: there was no ministerial or special adviser involvement. The Deputy National Security Adviser, without interference, gave three different witness statements to the CPS for its use. This is not a matter of us not assisting the case: this is an independent matter for the CPS.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while all embassies have spies in them, the larger the embassy, the more spies can fit in? Is it appropriate to have an embassy the size of the one that has been proposed for China?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I never thought I would be discussing real estate and espionage, but we find ourselves in a strange set of circumstances. I thank my noble friend. As he is very well aware, the decision about the future location of the Chinese embassy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and a decision will be brought forward in due course.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, do the Government accept that China is a security threat to our country?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is famous for asking such straightforward and easy questions. The Government are clear that our relationship with China is complex: we are to compete, to challenge and to co-operate. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. Let us be clear: state agents of the Chinese Government have acted in ways that pose a potential threat to the United Kingdom. We continue to have conversations and to engage in a collaborative way with our Five Eyes partners to counter that challenge.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that spying by the Chinese is not a new phenomenon but has been conducted under previous Governments as well?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point, including in relation to this case, which allegedly occurred under the previous Government. China and other nations seeking to get information and access to Members of your Lordships’ House is nothing new.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister said in answer to my noble friend Lord Butler that the decision not to continue the prosecution was entirely a matter for the DPP, with no involvement whatever from any special adviser. Surely it is the role of the National Security Adviser to advise in relation to such a matter, and for that to be taken strongly into account by the DPP.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I have previously said, the Deputy National Security Adviser, on behalf of the Government, gave three different witness statements, as requested by the CPS and the DPP. We gave, and will continue to give, for all prosecutions, full evidence as available. It was a matter for the DPP to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed and in this matter it chose not to.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does my noble friend recall that we once had a Chancellor of the Exchequer called George Osborne? Among the many things he said—this was 10 years ago, in the dying days of the Osborne-Cameron Government—was that we should “stick together” with China and
“make it a golden decade for both our countries”
and that the aim was to make China the second-largest trading partner for Britain. All parties are entitled to change their policies, but does my noble friend have any information on when the Conservative Party made this 180-degree shift?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I very much thank my noble friend for his question. Let me be clear about some of the interesting comments in terms of where the Opposition have been. When he was Foreign Secretary, the right honourable James Cleverly, MP, who I have a huge amount of time for, called the decision to sum up China in one word as a “threat” as
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”.
Most importantly for your Lordships’ House, the Leader of the Opposition, when Business Secretary, said that we
“should not be describing China as a foe”.
When in government, the Opposition had some interesting views on China; so did some of their Ministers. On that basis, I think we need to be very clear about what we are talking about.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers. Is it the case that the witness statements of the Deputy National Security Adviser will be published? Is it the case that any communications between the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser relating to this case will be published? Is it the case that the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser will make themselves available to a committee of this House, or to a Joint Committee, in order to explain their decisions? Is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has ministerial responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service, will share information with this House about how that decision was reached? If not, why not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a series of questions—at Question Time there is typically just one—which I suggest that we discuss when we have the Statement repeat from the other end, because my honourable friend the Security Minister will be on his feet on this very issue within the next two hours.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, if China is considered to be a security threat, will the Government end ownership of UK infrastructure by entities connected with the Chinese Government? That kind of infiltration formed part of the previous Government’s privatisation policies.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, which has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, about the role of Chinese investment in our country. The reality is that we consider both that there is an element of security threat but also that we have the potential to compete, challenge and co-operate with China. China is the second-largest economy and our third-largest trading partner; we have to have a level of engagement.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to the average lay person, such as myself, it seems strange that the prosecution services can bring serious charges against two people and, for 18 months, these charges remain and the court is convened to prosecute these charges, and then at the 11th hour it is said that they do not have sufficient evidence? To the lay person, that seems extremely strange.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, the 18-month delay is unfortunate, which is why we are trying to fix the court services going forward. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, there was the Roussev case, a piece of case law about the Official Secrets Act, which concerned the DPP, which is why additional information was taken and why the CPS has made its decision, from my understanding.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Minister of the old Foreign Office dictum that we have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. It is in our permanent interest not to fall out disastrously with the biggest country in the world. We have to live with the Chinese and talk to them. Both sides must realise that there are things that cannot be done but, for goodness’ sake, let us stop talking about enemies and start talking about co-operation.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord has appreciated that I have said “co-operate” twice in the last 13 minutes. He is right; however, the first duty of government is to provide for our safety and security. There is a balance here between making sure that the population of the United Kingdom is safe and secure and that your Lordships can go about their work unconcerned about the threat of espionage while, at the same time, appreciating the international reality, in a very uncertain world, that we need to make sure that we engage with our third-biggest trading partner.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister have another go at answering my question: do the Government regard China as a threat to our national security or not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Just for the noble Lord, I will read from my pack: “The Government knows that China poses a series of threats to UK national security. We have seen Chinese espionage and cyberattacks on our soil and transnational repression of Hong Kongers”. Based on that, I think I can say yes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government had any discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service about the wording of the Official Secrets Acts, in light of the collapse of this case? Is it the Government’s understanding that the wording of the Acts was a factor in the collapse of that case?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, which I hope will be discussed this afternoon in the other place, so we can have a conversation about it later this week.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, when you see the background of the build-up of what China is building to create war in every conceivable way—and the number of ships and drones they are building—I have no doubt and totally support the view that China is probably the most dangerous enemy that we will have to deal with in the future.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would not necessarily use the word “enemy”, as we have discussed in response to earlier questions. It is clear that there are areas in which we need to both compete and challenge, as well as co-operate, with China, and we will continue to do so.
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
“Reuniting unaccompanied child refugees with family members(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (2) to (6).(2) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a child relative of a person or persons given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection, are that the applicant— (a) is the child, grandchild, sister, brother, nephew or niece of a person or persons granted limited leave to enter or remain as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection granted as such under the immigration rules,(b) is under the age of 18,(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the person or persons the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively,(d) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds, and(e) if seeking leave to enter, holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity.(3) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the close relative of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection are that the applicant is—(a) a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection,(b) joining a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who is under the age of 18 and not living with a parent or grandparent, and(c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately, together with any dependants, without recourse to public funds.(4) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) may be granted for five years provided that, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant has entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) may be granted provided the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.(5) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is not produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant does not have entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met.(6) Civil legal services are to be provided to an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom pursuant to schedule 1, subsection 30(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require changes to the immigration rules to extend the family members that could apply to join an unaccompanied child refugee in the UK, to include parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and to allow unaccompanied child refugees to sponsor close adult family members to join them in the UK. It also provides for legal aid to be available in such cases.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 165, I will also speak to Amendments 166 and 178 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord German. I also have my name to Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am sure that none of us is taking it personally that the numbers listening have suddenly so reduced.
I would have liked to put forward amendments that built constructively on what is in the Bill, but, not long before the last day in Committee, the Home Office suspended its rules relating to refugee family reunion. It also gave us the prospect of a framework, to be introduced in the spring, even more restrictive than what was in place when the Bill arrived in this House. So I do not have the basis on which many of us have sought to build, over a good while, to enable refugees to be with their families in the UK with fewer restrictions than are in place at the moment—and preferably none.
Without making a Second Reading speech—I am aware that saying that will make it sound like a Second Reading speech—I want to start with some general observations, the first of which is that family reunion is a safe and managed route. I will take my numbers from briefings from some of the many organisations within the sector, which have been so helpful on this subject and throughout the passage of this Bill. In 2024, just over 4,000 separated children claimed asylum in the UK, and there were about 1,400 in the first half of this year. The top nationalities of these children are telling, and they reflect the severity of the crises that they are fleeing: Sudan, Vietnam, Iran, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Somalia. In other words, the vast majority of children arriving irregularly are escaping war, persecution and authoritarian regimes, and most lack access to any recognised regular route to seek protection in the UK.
They are not a threat to the integrity of the refugee system, and these amendments are intended to make the route safer and to make it a safe route for more families and more family members who do not come within the current categories—more than can be achieved by the one-in, one-out arrangement. The risks to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are obvious. The UNHCR tells us that people smugglers are particularly likely to be resorted to by children who are alone. They are seduced by smugglers when family reunion is delayed or at risk. I recall that the Minister said he would be able to bring the House more information about the Home Office supporting unaccompanied children. I do not know whether he will be able to tell the Committee anything today—or, if not, to tell noble Lords when we might receive more information about the support available.
There are risks to other family members. Children and women are often trapped in very dangerous situations and resort to “small boats”. Families should be together. How often do politicians talk about the importance of family? I have the impression that fewer comments are made to this effect than there used to be. What is the damage if Governments keep them apart? People may be separated en route—children separated from adults and adults separated from children—and it is no wonder that some children present at the border as adults. They have had to learn to look after themselves.
The criteria that we understand are to be applied for the greater admission of family members will include long periods of residence here—that, of course, is not entry; it will be settlement—better facility with the English language, and financial requirements. In our view, all of these will exacerbate the precarious situation that so many family members find themselves in.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendment 165, although I will not detain the Committee with my views on it, and Amendments 173 and 203K. I will speak to the substantive amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment 166, and, naturally, to my Amendments 167 to 171 and Amendment 174.
The noble Baroness is right that this is a moveable feast. Since the Bill had its First Reading in this House, we have moved immeasurably in the Government’s commendable reaction to public disquiet about irregular and illegal immigration. We should not be churlish and should welcome that. I await the Minister’s response. I suspect he will be more robust than the noble Baroness would like in the Government’s formal response to her amendments.
We have moved on to the extent that immigration is now the number one issue of voter salience in the country, over the cost of living and the NHS. There is a reason for that. I say very gently to the noble Baroness that, although I agree with her on the principle of volunteering and work for asylum seekers—I have always believed that, even when I was in the other place—I do not think this is the Bill for that, but there is a degree of consensus on that between us. However, her amendments fail to take note of the significant public concern regarding the scale and speed of legal immigration and irregular and illegal immigration and the abuse of refugee status by economic migrants and people traffickers.
We need to look at the wider context. The noble Baroness will know that, in the year to June 2025, 111,084 people applied for asylum, and there was still a backlog at that date of 90,812 applicants. There have been 33,000 channel crossings this year, against 37,000 in the whole of 2024. The facts are pretty straightforward: 95% of people who come across the channel now apply for asylum, and 88% of those applicants are men aged between 17 and 40, roughly speaking.
The noble Baroness will know that estimates are that the small boats crisis alone will cost £3.5 billion this year. Indeed, on 7 May this year, the National Audit Office produced a report that estimated that the UK will be spending £15 billion in the next 10 years on the asylum system. In 2022, for example, hotel accommodation was costing £5.6 million a day, and it is not getting any better. The noble Baroness will also know that, on 8 October, 1,075 migrants crossed the channel in 15 boats. That figure does not take into account the concomitant costs of the crisis, such as healthcare, housing, asylum support allowance, state school provision, special educational needs, court services, translation et cetera. It is important to remember, within that context, that pretty much every applicant for asylum travelled through a safe, modern country—in virtually all cases, France.
I do not think, if I may say so, that there is a real understanding in these amendments of the geopolitical trends of push and pull—we have discussed this before—because they ignore hugely important and salient issues, one of which is cost. There is no impact assessment or robust qualitative or quantitative analysis of the impact of the level of migration that her proposals would give rise to. I accept that she is not proposing a stand-alone Bill but an amendment to a Bill, but there is no understanding of the costs that would fall on the shoulders of UK taxpayers.
There are safety and security issues. Because so many asylum seekers—wilfully, in most cases—destroy their ID, it is impossible to vet those individuals properly for security reasons and for public safety, security and the public good. Your Lordships may or may not have seen that I asked the Minister Written Questions on 25 and 26 September respectively about public safety and procedures for safeguarding public safety in dealing with migrants arriving at detention centres. Because I had been tipped off about these issues, I specifically asked him
“how many migrants with suspected links to organised crime groups, including the Turkish Militias, have (1) arrived in the UK, (2) been removed, (3) been taken to secure detention centres, and (4) have been released on bail to non-secure accommodation such as hotels and hostels, in the past 12 months”.
You would think that was a niche group—Turkish militia and organised crime—but nevertheless, the Minister told me:
“The information requested is not currently available from published statistics, and the relevant data could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost”.
Frankly, if it is not possible to focus on one specific, sui generis threat to safety and security, how can it be possible to monitor and vet potentially thousands of new people coming into the country where we do not have data systems, intelligence or even consular or embassy support on the ground?
I turn to the specifics of my amendments—forgive me, they are somewhat out of sequence. Amendment 171 seeks to enshrine in primary legislation the imperative for the Minister of a secure border. Noble Lords will know that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is essentially a reconfiguration of the Private Member’s Bill that she brought forward in, I think, January this year. At that time, we had a lively debate, although sadly it was curtailed by the Government Chief Whip at about 3 pm on that particular afternoon. Nevertheless, it is important that the concept of securing the border is plainly in the Bill.
My Amendment 168 is about a deterrent factor—a push factor to prevent people coming to the country who are potentially people traffickers or repeat offenders. It seeks to prevent those who have previously fallen foul of immigration law and have specifically been removed from the UK, those who would be considered a foreign criminal under Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and those who have committed a serious offence in respect of illegal entry or similar offences. There is an element of consensus between the noble Baroness and me on this. I believe she is as passionate as I am about setting her face against illegal people traffickers. Putting something in a Bill that seeks to prevent them continually attempting to get people into the country by nefarious or illegal means is sensible, and any fair-minded and right-thinking person would think that too.
Amendment 169, another of my amendments, would disaggregate
“civil partner or unmarried partner”
into just “civil partner”. Many of us understand the importance of established family structures, and none is more established than the sanctity and legal status of marriage. Frankly, it is not practical, as the proposed new clause in Amendment 166 stands, to prove that someone is a partner, in the sense of a de facto wife or husband—a spouse—in many of these regimes and jurisdictions. There would be too much opportunity for that to be misused, particularly by the upper-tier immigration tribunal. The wording as drafted is incredibly broad—I make the same criticisms in Amendment 170—and would be open to misinterpretation and worse. In Amendment 170, I say that proposed new paragraphs (d) and (e) are too broad and therefore should be rejected.
These amendments seek to ameliorate the most damaging aspects of the substantive proposals in the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others, which I think are regrettably naive. They may reward criminal behaviour, undermine our existing immigration and asylum regime, and exacerbate an immigration crisis and the chronic lack of faith and trust that the British people have in their Government to discharge their most fundamental duty: to protect and safeguard our borders.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 165.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Lib Dem amendments but I want to speak in particular to Amendment 177. I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
The proposition here is a very simple one. It is that asylum-seeking children should be enabled to join refugee family members who are in the UK. This amendment is very straightforward and I am grateful to the many NGOs which helped me draft it. I am also very grateful to the other signatories—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—for their support. I am influenced by the speech that the Prime Minister made at the Labour Party conference. I do not want to bring too much in the way of party politics into this debate, because I am seeking to get support from all parties, but he made a speech in which he talked about asylum seekers, refugees, human rights, and so on, which I think was very important.
I believe that the proposition in this amendment is a fair one. It will have some effect in reducing the number of people seeking to come over in boats and, above all, it will influence public opinion. I am aware that public opinion is in a volatile state at the moment, but I believe that if the point is put to the British people that what we are seeking to do is to enable children to join their family members in this country, most people in this country would say, “Yes, that is a reasonable and fair proposition”, even if they are hostile to some other aspects of present policy on asylum seekers and refugees. I think public opinion would come on board, but there is a history to this.
At the time we were leaving the EU, I tabled an amendment saying that we should achieve something very similar to what is in this amendment. It was an amendment that was accepted by this House. It was accepted by the Government and was part of the 2017 Act. It was then taken out in the 2019 Act, for reasons which were never made clear to me. Although I had meetings with Government Ministers about it, it was never clear to me why they had gone back on it, beyond the fact that they said, “It will be all right. There’ll be other ways for child refugees to join their families”, but of course there were not and there are not.
There is a positive history to this, because of the way it went through: it passed the Commons, so the Conservatives supported it. The Lib Dems supported it and many Cross-Benchers and Bishops supported it—and, of course, the Labour Party supported it. Are all these groups going to say no to this similar amendment? Are they going to say, “We have changed our minds”? Now, I know that the Lib Dems will not; I am not sure about my friends on the Labour Benches. We will have to see what happens. I look to my noble friend the Minister to see what he is going to do. I have had a discussion with him about this and will have another in the next little while.
The proposition is so simple. I do not believe that even the extreme right of British politics could criticise the concept put forward in this amendment. It seems to me that we have public opinion on our side; we ought to have all parties of this House, and the Commons, on our side, and it ought to become the law of the land. Goodness me, it would be a sign that we have not turned our backs entirely on the basic principles that have underpinned our attitude to human rights, refugees, and so on. It would be quite a bold step but a fairly easy one, in one way.
Of course, family ties are one of the key reasons why children make the dangerous journey. Again, I am not saying that it would stop all the boats—we would have to have a wide range of measures to stop the boats—but it would certainly help and be a generous move by us to show that we can accept people who are so vulnerable.
On the figures, although there is some difference of opinion between the Government—the Home Office—and me and some NGOs, such as the Refugee Council and Safe Passage, in fact the number of children who would be affected by this is very small. The principle is important, and I am not playing a numbers game, saying, “It’s okay because it’s small. It wouldn’t be okay if it was more”. There is an important principle here, but in practice it would affect fewer than 2,000 visas in the first year, I think, and possibly 200 to 300 in the second year. I repeat: the principle is important. It would show that as a country we have not turned our back on the rights of at least some asylum seekers, and we have not turned our back on some elements of the Geneva conventions and some of the human rights measures we have supported.
Unless something dramatic happens, I plan to bring this amendment back on Report. I think the Minister knows that that is my intention. It seems that the Government have three options. They can accept the amendment, which is of course what I would ideally like to see happen—they may want to tinker with the wording, as Governments like to do; they may wish to modify it, but they would have to be careful because modification can either be a way of improving something or it can be a negative; or they may reject it.
We will have to see what happens on Report, but I am conscious that, if the Government decide to oppose this, it will be embarrassing for them to oppose a policy that the same party accepted in the Commons not that long ago. It would be embarrassing for the Government not to do it, but it would be a sensible gesture anyway, because it would show that we do not have to be victims of the sort of publicity that the extreme right in British politics is putting forward, and that we have the strength to stick by our principles. At least there would be one group of people—namely, very vulnerable children—helped by this measure.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 177. I have very little to add to his introduction of the amendment, but it is important that the Minister makes it clear to the Committee what the present position on refugee family reunion is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we saw the announcement on 1 September that the refugee family reunion process had been paused temporarily. As I understand it, applications submitted before 1 September are being handled—perhaps the Minister will confirm that—but no more applications are being looked at until a review has taken place.
On 1 September the Home Secretary was very clear that this was a temporary pause, but on 2 October, No. 10 announced:
“In her forthcoming asylum policy reform, the Home Secretary will introduce a fundamental change to the rights provided to those granted asylum in the UK, looking to end automatic family reunion rights”.
That seems to indicate not a temporary pause but something a bit permanent and, to my mind, on the face of it, shocking.
I do not know exactly what is meant by “automatic” in the No. 10 statement, but I guess, charitably, one could assume it simply means “free”—that one should no longer have the right to apply to bring in the lost child without an application fee, attaching a cheque for jolly nearly £2,000 under present rules. For RFR cases there is no cost attached: there is no health surcharge or application fee. You could construe—this is the good interpretation—that the “automatic” in the No. 10 statement actually meant “free”. But people are going to have to pay to bring in the lost child, which is the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has so eloquently argued for.
I do not want to say that I hope that is the explanation and the correct interpretation. But the alternative seems to me to be worse: that we are going to end people’s ability to bring in the lost child. What kind of country do we think we are? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is saying in his amendment. The lost relative who turns up in the transit camp in Libya or Turkey is not entitled to come to this country, and the bona fide refugee here—the member of the family who got here, whose case for asylum was established and who was granted protection status—is not allowed to bring in the child, wife or cousin who got lost on route. That is a shocking idea. Surely that cannot be what the No. 10 announcement on 2 October meant. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I would be with him in saying that, if it is not accepted now, it should be debated on Report.
But I do not know on what playing field this match is taking place. What happened on 2 October? All these amendments were drafted before the summer: before the Home Secretary paused the policy at the beginning of September and No. 10 apparently killed the policy—or at least announced its massive modification, depending on what “automatic” means—on 2 October. We need to know before Report what the present position and policy are. I of course support Amendments 165, 166 and 178.
I might surprise the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, by saying that I think Amendment 168 is a rather good idea. I expect that the Minister will say that it is not necessary because thorough and satisfactory checks are carried out in any case. But, if I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
However, before we go much further in Committee, we need to hear from the Minister what the real situation as of today is. Have the Government decided to abolish the RFR route?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203K in my name, which is supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who is sorry she cannot be in her place. I thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for its assistance. The amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Government to publish and implement guidance on the resettlement of children and families of children. It would ensure that such guidance is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and reflects our domestic and international legal obligations to protect children affected by forced displacement. It would complement other amendments, in particular from my noble friend Lord Dubs and from the Lib Dem Benches, which I support.
Children are disproportionately affected by conflict and persecution: they face heightened risks of exploitation, trafficking, abuse and long-term psychological harm. They are fleeing crises in countries such as Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and Eritrea. Most have no access to safe or regular routes for protection. While the UK resettlement scheme prioritises children and adolescents at risk, there is no statutory guidance to ensure that their specific needs are met consistently across the country. Implementation varies widely, and local authorities are left without a clear framework to deliver trauma-informed care, education access and safeguarding support.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed Amendment 166, though there are several amendments here that I could have supported because I feel that they are common sense.
How can this Government be so heartless as to not accept that families have to be together? Surely that is basic humanity. Why are this Government so happy to shed so many voters simply by hanging on to the right-wing nonsense that says asylum seekers are to blame for all the problems that we face in Britain—the shortage of housing, the damage to the NHS and the lack of jobs? This is not the fault of asylum seekers; this is the fault of the previous Government’s policy of austerity that has so damaged our processes here. The right wing gets this opportunity to pass the blame on to other people. Will this Government please get a backbone and stand up for the rights of people?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is saying about immigration. It is in the press every day and it is a serious issue that the public care about. However, he spoke a great deal about adults and, on this, we are particularly talking about children.
I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the valiant work he has done over so many years. I support family reunion, and I particularly support his amendment. Some years ago, with the help of the NGO Safe Passage, Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP, and I went to Calais and met children. We did not meet any grown-ups who were trying to get to this country; we met entirely children. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it was not 17 year-olds we were talking to; they were 10, 11 and 12 year-olds who were anxious to join their families in this country.
Until Brexit, this country—under Dublin III, I think it was—allowed children to join their parents. To the credit of the then Conservative Government, that was going to be continued. It was then stopped. It seems to me that, with one voice, this Government are talking in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill about the best interests of children and saying that the welfare of children is paramount. Does that stop at this border? Does it mean that if a child comes from Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan or Afghanistan—countries where the greatest conflicts are at the moment—that child does not merit their best interests being considered? I absolutely do not believe that that is the view of this Government. Whatever may be said about this Government, in the past they have shown a huge degree of compassion in all sorts of situations. Although I may not agree with much that the Government say, I have admired the party over many years for its approach. For this Government to say that they will no longer allow foreign children to come to this country to join their parents would, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, be shocking—I use his word.
It would probably be wise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rather than go too far in saying how many relatives could come and join children who are already here. I worry about children put into care in this country if they do not have their families—of course I do; but I worry a great deal more about children living under the trees in a cold Calais winter, wanting to join their families here. That is the group we should worry about. That is the group that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is primarily talking about.
I find it incredible that this Government will not recognise that some children whose families are already here cannot come and join them, as successive Governments have allowed for so many years. I find it truly sad, if that is what the Minister is going to say.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for trying to get in before sponsors of amendments. I apologise to the Committee that my other public commitments have not allowed me to participate in this Bill to date.
I could not let this opportunity pass to pay tribute to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of family reunification and who, together with my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has authored a number of Private Members’ Bills with content similar to that in Amendment 165, which I support. In my opinion, this amendment that has been revised, refined and honed to perfection as a result of the extensive previous debates in this House.
I wish to make only two points. First, if there are issues with excessive immigration, asylum seekers are only a very small proportion of that problem. Secondly, the so-called push factors prompting people to seek asylum are far greater than any hypothetical pull factor—something that the Minister may say. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness in her comments about a lack of evidence to support this suggestion of pull factors.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, makes general comments about small boat crossings and foreign criminals trying to illegally enter the country. Amendment 165 is not about undocumented migrants; it is about children who have already been given refugee status, who should be allowed to be reunited with their family members. Perhaps in the absence of documentation, something the noble Lord mentions, family links could be established by DNA test, if necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has comprehensively and convincingly made the arguments in favour of this amendment, which I wholeheartedly support.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 166 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would not only oblige the Secretary of State to change the rules under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to accommodate her proposed new clause but would extend the type of relatives who could enter. As well as those allowed under Appendix F—dependent children under 18 and partners and civil partners—which was, as noble Lords will know, suspended in September 2024 pending review, it would mean that others would be added to the list of those who could enter and remain in the UK: parents, adoptive parents, unmarried partners and children as old as 25. This is in relation to persons, not the amendments on children. Because the people of this country have no appetite for increasing the scale of immigration but want the numbers cut—and have made this increasingly clear—I support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendments to Amendment 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have added my name to Amendments 167 to 171.
I would like to disassociate myself from comments which suggest that the majority of people in this country who want immigration cut and controlled are of some extreme disposition. Time and again I hear references to the “far right” or the “extreme right” or something else. Most of these people are ordinary people who have seen their communities torn apart very often, and they explain it on television perfectly clearly and lucidly. They are not put up to anything. They are worried about their children and what is going on in their local hotels. They are not extreme people. If any of your Lordships had young children going to school near an asylum hotel in which problems arose with people in that hotel, I do not think they would be considered extreme for raising the concern at Questions, as we can. We have a voice, but the people of our country will not have any voice until the next general election. I am sorry for slightly digressing.
I support these amendments not just because Amendment 168 would be a deterrent to foreign criminals coming in nor just because Amendment 171 would ensure that the aim of securing the border is inserted into the Bill, but because they would curb the numbers coming in rather than escalate them. In the year ending this June, 108,138 people claimed asylum. This is an 18% increase on the previous year and a fivefold increase on the numbers since 2022. Of this total, 84,231 were main applicants but 23,907 were dependants—the highest annual number of applications ever recorded, except for one other year.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My noble friend is making a very compelling case. Does she agree with me, in response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the context, to be fair, is that the last Government took an outward-looking, internationalist approach and their safe routes to citizenship for Syrians, Ukrainians and Hong Kong citizens were widely supported across the world? She was careful to praise the existing Government, who have been in power for 16 months, rather than the strong, positive record of the previous Conservative Government.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I did refer to the Conservatives as having carried on the very good practice.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness for their interventions. What I was saying is that the country has always been sympathetic and fair and accommodated people fleeing here when their lives or liberties have been in danger. However, mass global movement now poses a threat to stability in western democracies, not just Britain’s but that of other western European countries, particularly Italy, Germany and France—the founder countries of the European Union. If we are to continue to give a sympathetic hearing to those who have a real claim, we must avoid extending the potential numbers so that in addition to children under 18 and a spouse, a whole extended family plus anyone judged to matter to the person’s psychological or other well-being can come in.
We do not have a right to defy the clear wishes of the people of this country, who pay the bills for housing and for the Home Office, asylum and Border Force officials. My noble friend has referred to some of these costs, but the policing, the courts—which are clogged—the appeals system, the housing and subsistence of large family groups all cost money. Many individuals or families, when they leave Home Office accommodation, must be supported from the benefit system.
In the first quarter of 2025, more than 4,000 refugee households in England were recorded as homeless, meaning that either a single person or a family unit had applied for support after leaving Home Office accommodation—figures similar to the previous quarter. With the sort of expanding family as proposed in Amendment 166, what would the housing, accommodation and benefit bill then be?
I conclude by proposing that, even if the Government are tempted by Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, my noble friend’s Amendments 167 to 171 should be accepted in order that the Government can help bring the numbers down and stop them escalating.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I rise to agree and disagree with a variety of noble Lords. I am sad to say that I often do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but on one particular thing he said, I strongly do, which is that since this Bill was introduced into Parliament, the Government’s policy on this area has evolved—with is probably the politest way of putting it—and it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House, if not today then certainly before we have the two and a half days of Report, if the Minister could set out clearly what the Government’s current position is and what we are amending or changing. That is a very sensible point, and it is difficult to have this debate with an ever-changing legal undercurrent, particularly since many of these laws are not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation, which is therefore more capable of changing. I always think it is useful, where there is agreement, to put that on the record.
It is also worth saying that, in this group, two different things are being talked about. I have more sympathy with the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on unaccompanied children currently outside the United Kingdom looking to come to the United Kingdom to be reunited with family members. That is a completely different proposition from that in Amendments 165 and 166, which is about taking children already in the United Kingdom and widening the scope of those who can come here to join them.
This is an area of policy, as the Minister knows very well, which is incredibly litigious, and it therefore matters what words we agree, the scope and breadth of them and the clarity of them. I therefore wanted to draw your Lordships’ attention to a number of concerns that I have about the specific words in the amendments.
In Amendment 165, on the reference no recourse to public funds, it is worth pointing out to the House, because it is repeated on a number of occasions, that that does not include the National Health Service, which does not count as a public fund.
One of the areas that this amendment seeks to expand, according to the explanatory statement, is bringing in grandparents to accompany family members and a whole bunch of dependants. That is important because, generally, the consumption of health resources is not equal across somebody’s life. People consume more resources as they get older. When I was Immigration Minister, I saw a number of cases in which somebody was trying to bring an elderly relative to the United Kingdom, being willing to support them in the normal sense of that word, to accommodate them and put them up. What they would not accept is that we, the taxpayer, would be liable for their health costs, which in some cases are very significant indeed.
People do not mind paying for very significant health costs for elderly people who have spent their life in the United Kingdom and have made a lifetime’s contribution, but bringing someone elderly to the United Kingdom and the NHS and the taxpayer potentially having to pay for their health costs, when they have made no contribution over their lifetime, has to be borne into account. There is no recognition of that in this amendment. I did not want the Committee to miss the fact that although it says
“no recourse to public funds”,
which is of course an accurate characterisation, it is worth reminding people that
“no recourse to public funds”
does not exclude provision of healthcare, which does not count as a public fund in the legal definition, and the NHS generally does not deny health treatment to somebody because they cannot pay for it.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Does my noble friend consider that the fee of £700 that we now charge those on student visas for access to the NHS is too low, given that the average spending of the NHS per patient is around £3,000?
Lord Harper (Con)
On that point, briefly, it is good that we have the surcharge. It was brought in under one of the pieces of legislation I was responsible for in a former life. We can argue about the amount. For younger people in their late teens and early 20s, it is probably a reasonable amount of money. We looked at the costs at the time, and that cohort of people do not bear a huge weight on the health service—but they have some cost, and it is right that they meet some of it.
The second definitional point I want to touch on is in Amendment 166, about the use of the language “unmarried partner”, where I strongly agree with my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor. In my experience, that would be a massive red flag to anybody who wishes to come to the United Kingdom and make a definition. There is no way of proving or disproving somebody’s connection with such loose language. Spouse and civil partner are very clear. They can be evidenced, and documents can be produced to do that. As soon as you say “unmarried partner”, almost anybody can be said to fit into that category and there will be almost no chance of the Home Office making refusals on that basis—it will just be a large chasm.
I also support my noble friend Lord Jackson in Amendment 171, adding into the list
“the importance of maintaining a secure border”.
There is a very long list in Amendment 166, but they are all—in one way—things that the Secretary of State should consider, which would mean that the Secretary of State would have to let in more people. If the Secretary of State is making a judgment, it is very helpful to have a balanced list to weigh up.
I hesitate to say this in your Lordships’ Committee—there are so many lawyers here—but the problem with having the catch-all at the end, saying “any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate”, is that, certainly when we were drafting things, as soon as there is a list and things are not in it, weight is put on the fact that they are not in the list. If there is a very long list all in one direction, it is very helpful to put in that the Secretary of State also has duties to protect the border, because that enables the Secretary of State to put proper weight on that consideration in a way that is capable of withstanding legal challenge.
I will pick up another issue on language: the reference to adoptive parents and adoptive siblings in Amendment 166, which clarifies that it also includes “de facto adoption”. I have no objection to people bringing in adoptive members of their family, where that has gone through some legal process, but if it is de facto and there has been no legal process, it again becomes very difficult for decisions made by the Secretary of State to be upheld in the courts. If we do not have some kind of process, this becomes an open door.
Finally, reasonable-sounding language has been snuck into Amendment 165 with the reference to “any dependants”. If a child is in the UK, we define someone who can come and join them. That sounds very reasonable, but that person can then bring any number of dependants with them. Although it says that there would be no recourse to public funds, which we might discuss in relation to housing costs, there are a number of things that I think most people would consider were public funds, such as the NHS and universal credit, but that are not counted as public funds in that definition.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I will speak in support of three amendments in this group, one to which I have put my name and two to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has put hers; as we have heard, she regrets that she cannot be in her place today. I refer to Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, Amendment 178 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 203K in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
It is not just the Christian Church that regards the family as more than a merely biological unit; it is the fundamental God-given building block of community life and the source of belonging and stability for children. The former Home Secretary recognised this when she wrote in 2020:
“When children lose their home, their parents and their country through war or persecution, reuniting with surviving family members elsewhere can be their only hope of rebuilding their lives. But they need safe and legal routes to do so”.
The truth is that families belong together; these amendments speak to that truth. We must not keep families apart. No parent can be expected to build a meaningful new life, contribute to society and establish roots in a new country, knowing that their child is stranded elsewhere. No separated children should be prevented from reuniting with their parents.
We are told that the Bill partly seeks to stop the vile work of smugglers and traffickers. Yet 93% of those travelling safely via family reunion were women and children, who may now be at the mercy of smugglers taking criminal advantage. As a lawyer at Safe Passage puts it,
“the lack of accessible alternatives means we are not able to compete on equal terms with smugglers who make promises to children to cross the Channel within a few days and actually deliver on those promises”.
I urge the Minister to ensure that, when the Bill is mature, it will provide dedicated arrangements to support refugee children who have been separated from their parents.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which have been signed by others. We have debated refugee family reunion at numerous points over the past five years or so. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recalls that at one point I picked up the relay from my noble friend Lady Hamwee and took a Private Member’s Bill through this House successfully. Unfortunately, it did not get through the other place successfully, but I have been somewhat involved in this issue and feel strongly about it.
Just to pick up the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, he talked about family being the basis of belonging and stability. That is important, not only for personal feelings of security and being able to thrive within the family but as a practical issue about integration, which has been much talked about in recent months. On the one hand, people shout, “Why aren’t immigrants properly integrated?”, yet we want to pull the rug from under refugees by saying, “You have no right to have family reunited with you, which would help you to settle and get on in our society”.
There is obviously room for discussion about the scope of the amendments that I support, and colleagues to the right have pulled various holes in in them. One can discuss some of them, but I must admit that I am somewhat shocked by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—he and I are not always completely eye-to-eye in other fora. Here, he makes some reasonable suggestions in some of his amendments, but this one I find bad. He wants to delete proposed new subsection (5)(e) in my noble friend’s Amendment 166. He wants to delete having regard to issues such as
“the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child”
and
“any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person granted refugee status”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate said, the principle of family unity is important, but I think that the social aspects are also very important. There seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency in the policies of successive Governments. Like others, I find pretty shocking what has happened in the last six weeks. First, the Home Secretary paused family reunion, and then, perhaps tellingly—there may have been an interesting internal debate with the Home Secretary—No. 10 said, “Actually, we are going to make that permanent; it is not just a pause. We are going to eliminate family reunion as we know it”.
Some remarks from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches went to wider issues about immigration and asylum. I always find it a bit rich that such complaints are made. There are valid issues about the control of migration and security of borders—no one denies that—but we must not forget the big explosion in legal migration that took place after Brexit, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supported. We then had far greater volumes than ever happened under EU free movement, besides eliminating the two-way street which allowed Brits to migrate within the EU. I think a bit of non-joined-up thinking goes on there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about how we do not have a right to deny public opinion. Of course, public opinion—which is perhaps in a rather inflamed state at the moment—is important. I read in a briefing from the safe routes coalition that recent polling undertaken by the organisation British Future found that 67% of the public support a controlled official route for refugee children whose only remaining family are in the UK to travel here safely. Two-thirds of the public polled support family reunion for children who are stranded abroad, which is a large element of these amendments. That is public opinion, and we must be specific about what the public are reacting to.
The aim of some is apparently to curb the numbers coming in, but it depends what numbers we are talking about. In the case of family reunion and child refugees, we are talking not just about compassion, humanity and human rights, or even the principle of family unity, but about the best interests of the child and of the people who will settle in this country. We and they hope that they will make a big contribution to the success of this country, but we cannot expect them to do that if they are lonely, anxious and deprived of the support of their family. We must always remember that we are talking about social practicalities here, as well as the high principles of human rights.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I sat through this wonderful Bill as it went through its Second Reading and through all its Committee meetings. I speak today because I have been moved by Amendment 177 from the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Why am I saying these few words? The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, really put the finger on the issue: it is not just about children but about family reunion for asylum-seeking children outside the United Kingdom. He has narrowed it in such a way that it would be quite wrong in our statute to use it as an assurance, instead of a statement of public policy. If the statute uses it as an assurance, we will end up like that wonderful or awful Bill that went through Parliament and ended up as the Dangerous Dogs Act. Do your Lordships remember it? It was intended to give assurance, but it was very bad legislation and it was amended very quickly. We do not want that kind of assurance—of rising public opinion, which some see as a court of public opinion. It is important that a legislature is concerned about statements of public policy and that the law expresses that reality.
When I was Bishop of Stepney, there was a lady called Lasoya. She came here from west Africa as a student. She studied, got her degree and did very well. They gave her a job and she worked here for a number of years. She then became pregnant and had a son. The authorities then caught up with her overstaying and discovered that her son had already been registered as a British citizen. The adjudicator said that what should happen was that the son, who was already a British citizen, should stay, but that the mother should be sent back to west Africa.
That was an ugly statement. Hackney was up in arms and so was Islington. As Bishop of Stepney, I wrote to the Prime Minister, who at the time was John Major. I said, “At the moment, I have leave to remain. I am willing to exchange my leave to remain and give it to Lasoya so that she can stay with her son”. Do you know what happened? The Prime Minister was very quick to say that the adjudicator’s decision was ridiculous. He could understand what had happened and that she should not have overstayed, but the Government had not caught up with her, so the fault was on their side, so she stayed and there was great rejoicing in both Islington and Hackney.
Children outside the United Kingdom who are seeking asylum want to be reunited with their families who are here. Common sense tells us that, whatever the law may do in the future, this should guarantee that, because that is the only way if you have given somebody asylum and their children are not united with them. The ages are very clear in the amendment: limit it to those who are not 18 yet and then see what happens.
I am moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has been a great campaigner for children and is known for working on this. The same is true of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, in her work as a judge, has dealt with a lot of family cases and speaks from wonderful experience and knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said to the Minister that, if it is not to be decided today, this matter cannot be rushed or kicked into the long grass—by Report the Minister may have gathered ideas about how to respond to this marvellous amendment, which I support.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, although these amendments are grouped, they are quite disparate in many respects because we take Amendment 177 as almost the antithesis of Amendments 165 and 166. I say to the Minister, who holds probably one of the toughest jobs in the Government at present, that we are here to make life even more difficult for him. I think we are doing a good job of that.
We have listened to words such as “humanity” and “compassion”, which we are always proud of as a country, but, like everything else in the modern world, compassion and humanity have to be rationed. That is an inescapable fact, because government cannot function or do things without resources, whether money or other resources. As a country, we cannot simply be the recipient of every conflict around the globe. We cannot endlessly assume that we have to take on responsibility for individuals when we can hardly take on responsibility for those we already have. We are talking about compassion and, not 200 or 300 yards from where we are sitting, we step over people sleeping in cardboard boxes. What compassion do we have for them?
Relating that to this piece of legislation, I find Amendments 165 and 166, however well intentioned, dangerous because they will provide an incentive for people, whether gangs or whatever. They would see that the simple thing to do is to send a child over, and that then, under these proposals, they would have the potential to get other people to come in. Taking the zones of conflict, how on earth will we know who is related to whom? We have had a proposal for DNA tests. We could be talking about family groups of 40 or 50, and in some cultures people have multiple wives who have multiple children.
We have to be sensible here because we are proving ourselves literally to be the Westminster bubble because we have lost touch with reality—not only public opinion, which has been expressed. Public opinion comes and goes. It ebbs and flows, and it depends on what the flavour of the month happens to be. So legislators have to take a more coherent, sensible and long-term view, with the experience we have in this House. We cannot be blown around just by public opinion. Think of the practicalities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned that asylum seekers were getting blamed for everything, and so on. Of course, that is not the case; we all know that. But numbers matter. In 2023, we increased the population of this country by 23,000 people a week. The following year it was down to about 17,500 people a week, and this year we are probably running somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 people a week. Those people do not exist in a vacuum. They consume resources: water, transport, sewage and housing. They need access to health and, of course, many will rely on the public to support them, in both the short and long term.
I say to the promoters of those amendments that, however well intentioned, they are not a good idea. They would potentially put more people at risk rather than fewer. The concept of compassion that we have is because of the treaties we have signed. Both the ECHR and the refugee convention have been mentioned in this debate. Incidentally, I have asked two Questions in the last year about whether we were going to discuss looking at the refugee convention with allies, and I got negative answers. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, talked about costs. When I asked the Minister about the cost of non-hotel accommodation I got the same answer. But I have not finished with him: I have a letter coming to him shortly and I am looking at how we can get questions answered.
We will get that answer eventually, but the fact that we have to go through all of this illustrates the problem, and not simply with the Bill on its own, to which there are some positive dimensions. We do not have a comprehensive view of how we will deal with immigration to this country of all forms. It is haphazard. We have created a labyrinth of different categories for people. We are not dealing with it coherently as a nation. We cannot go on with the haphazard immigration we have on the scale that it is at. Numbers matter, and we need to have that background for everything we look at legislatively, but we do not have a comprehensive national understanding of where we are going.
Everybody has a say in this and is entitled to do so. I am just saying to the Minister that although I understand that we have to deal with the specific amendments to the Bill before us, he and his colleagues have a duty as a Government to acknowledge that our system is broken. It is haphazard and has been subject to changes in the international community over which we have no control. Wars and zones of conflict ebb and flow, and they will in the future. Our system is not fit for purpose. One of the Minister’s colleagues, who normally sits in front of me and is a former Home Secretary—he knows who I am referring to—said that his department was not fit for purpose, but the policy we have is not fit for purpose, because there really is not one. That is a huge danger. I will certainly look very closely at Amendment 177 when we come to Report, but it is on a totally different plinth from Amendments 165 and 166, which are very unfortunate.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken in this particular bit of the debate. Indeed, most of what I would have said has already been said, but there are three things I wish to say.
First, I support Amendments 165, 166 and 203K, and I would have added my name to them had I been able to. Secondly, I may be one of the very few people in the House who actually has some experience of child family reunion. My mother came to this country as an adult refugee in 1937. Her brother was 10 years younger and was stuck in Germany, being treated abominably at school after Kristallnacht in 1938. My mother got permission to bring her 13 year-old brother under family reunion rules, such as existed back then. That meant that he could not be a charge on the state, but he was allowed to use such health services as there were—this was before the NHS. The people around—his neighbours, her neighbours, the wider society who came into contact with him—were unflinchingly supportive.
I believe that we live in the kind of society in which people believe that children who are stuck and in danger and have family here who will support and look after them should be supported now just as much as then. For that reason, I support these amendments. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us where we are really going on family reunion more generally, because, to put it mildly, I think we are all a little confused?
I admire hugely the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and his Amendment 177 is a beautifully crafted piece of legislation. I cannot see how anybody could possibly object.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate around a cluster of amendments that are, I remind the Committee, largely about children and women. If we look at the background of the present system, we find that 91% of all visas granted since 2010 were for women and children, with children being the majority: 56% were for children against 35% for women. We should remember that we are looking at something important towards the sort of society that we want and that we want people to integrate within.
If we believe that we need a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, and if we are serious about solving the challenges at our borders, we have to acknowledge that enforcement alone is not enough. We have to pair control with compassion. That is what is proposed in the amendments that have been put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee persistently over a number of years. These amendments are comprehensive in trying to establish compassion as part of a full migration system. One thing I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on is that we must have a comprehensive system, and a comprehensive system must be those four things: controlled, humane, ordered and planned—all four are important. To concentrate as this Bill does, potentially, on one aspect is fine, but we need to bring together the parts into a whole system.
That is why safe routes are so important. Family reunion is about safe routes. When separation occurs due to conflict, it is essential that we uphold the principle that families belong together. The best interests of a child are a primary consideration in all decisions concerning family reunion. We have to address the barriers that push vulnerable people towards smugglers. When accessible legal routes are lacking, families who are unable to reunite will often feel forced to find alternative, dangerous ways to reach their loved ones. Restricting family reunion will not stop dangerous journeys; it will only push more desperate people into the arms of smugglers. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated that, in Calais, there are children seeking family reunion. We must be prepared to say that they are on a dangerous route because they are attempting an irregular route. We need this as part of a comprehensive system, so that people—young people in particular—do not feel pushed into the arms of smugglers.
At this point, three things are necessary in the legislation to try to simplify the whole process. One is removing restrictive requirements for people who are unable to return to their country of origin, meaning that family reunion is the only way they can exercise their right to family life. New financial and English-language proposals are being put forward by the Government, and I will come back to specific questions on the fundamental point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, put to the Minister earlier.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this group brings us to a very topical and significant point of contention. Amendments 165, 166 and 177 all seek in their own way to expand refugee family reunion provisions, in some cases dramatically.
I begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those who support these amendments. We all recognise the tragic circumstances that force families apart due to conflict and persecution. But we must equally recognise that compassion, if not tempered by realism and control, risks undermining both the integrity of our immigration system and the public’s confidence in its fairness. Each of these amendments, though well intentioned, risks undermining the very principles that underpin a sustainable, fair and secure asylum system.
Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made the argument that those granted refugee status in this country should be able to apply to bring their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner, their children, grandchildren, sister, brother, nephew or nieces to the UK; and, for a child, they should be able to sponsor their parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. This is a fundamental shift in the architecture of our immigration policy. It creates wide-ranging entitlements without the necessary safeguards, verification mechanisms or limits. It also risks creating perverse incentives, in particular the possibility that families might send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys in the hope of opening a pathway for broader reunification. Such unintended consequences which risk perverse incentives are not compassionate: they are, to put it mildly, reckless.
Amendment 166 would require the Secretary of State to rewrite the immigration rules within six months to provide an expansive new framework for refugee family reunion—one that far exceeds the scope of existing policy, international norms and operational capacity. Subsection (5) of its proposed new clause includes, as of right, not only spouses and dependent children but siblings up to age 25, unmarried partners and, potentially, a wide range of others where there is dependency or concern for well-being. In that regard, my noble friend Lord Jackson is right to raise the issue of unmarried partners via his Amendment 169. Crucially, it would also open the door to almost unlimited discretion under its subsection (5)(e). This would empower the Secretary of State to admit other persons based on subjective criteria, including emotional or psychological dependency, with no practical limiting principle.
This is not a measured enhancement of our current rules. It is an open-ended expansion that risks transforming refugee protection into a de facto right to extended family migration, far removed from the original purpose of asylum law. It would not only increase pressure on our asylum system, already under significant strain, but risk distorting the principle of individual refuge into a system of family-by-family resettlement through the back door.
The current refugee family reunion framework already allows for spouses and children under 18 to join those granted protection, recognising both humanitarian concern and practical enforceability. What is proposed here goes far beyond that: it would create a prescriptive and permanent legal duty to change immigration rules, backed by statutory timetables, without proper democratic scrutiny or flexibility to adapt to changing geopolitical conditions.
This raises several concerns, the first about security and verification. How will we reliably establish family links, particularly when documentation is scarce or unreliable? The broader we cast the net of eligibility, the more vulnerable our system becomes to fraud, abuse and trafficking. A second concern is about the operational consequences. The Home Office is already processing record numbers of applications, with finite resources. Imposing a statutory obligation to widen the criteria, potentially by tens of thousands of additional claimants, would undermine our capacity to deal swiftly and justly with the most urgent cases. This amendment, with its wide eligibility, statutory rigidity and lack of safeguards, risks sending precisely that signal.
I must ask: what is the end point? If we legislate to allow adult siblings, adult children up to 25, unmarried partners and those in psychological dependency, where does it end? We risk normalising a model where refuge is no longer about the individual at risk but an entitlement for entire extended families, however genuine their desire to reunite. That is not what the refugee convention envisages and it is not something we can responsibly support.
Amendment 177 proposes a statutory family reunion right for asylum-seeking children overseas to join relatives already granted protection in the UK. The amendment would remove virtually every safeguard, with no maintenance or accommodation requirements, no fees and no health surcharge. It would also oblige the Secretary of State to facilitate travel arrangements and co-ordinate with foreign authorities, regardless of the complexities or security conditions on the ground. In effect, this would create a state-sponsored international reunification scheme for extended relatives, with no meaningful eligibility checks or financial thresholds.
The idea may be noble in sentiment, but it is completely divorced from operational reality. We already offer safe and legal routes for those in greatest need. The resettlement schemes for Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians, not to mention the Hong Kong BNO route, demonstrate that, when this country chooses to act, we do so with generosity and resolve. But that generosity must be targeted, managed and sustainable.
At the heart of all three amendments is a belief that compassion must override control, but compassion without control is not kindness but chaos. The British people expect an asylum system that is firm but fair, not one that is open-ended, unverified and vulnerable to abuse. We must not confuse individual acts of empathy with a systematic rewriting of our immigration obligations. Nor should we allow our policies to be shaped by emotional pressure alone. A functioning asylum system must serve those in greatest need first and foremost, but it must do so within the bounds of national sovereignty, operational capacity and public trust. I fully respect those who have tabled these amendments, but I urge the Committee to reflect seriously on the risks they pose. We cannot allow emotion to drive policy at the expense of security, sustainability and the long-term integrity of our borders.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am genuinely grateful to noble Lords who have tabled these amendments. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones, the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Kerr, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Lister for their proposed amendments. They have generated a debate and discussion that we need to have. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his recognition of the difficult job we face in the Home Office. This week alone, it is immigration today, deprivation of citizenship tomorrow and crime and policing on Thursday, and there may be a repeat Statement on the Manchester incident as well. It is a full agenda for the Home Office to deal with.
I start by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am not right-wing; I am not pandering to right-wing tendencies. I am trying to ensure, with my colleagues in the Home Office, that we manage some important issues in an effective way, for the response that is required by the public but also for the management of this system.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am conscious that we have many groups of amendments to get through, so I shall resist the temptation to respond to everything that has been said—the Whip is nodding vigorously. However, I shall make just a few points. First, at some points in this debate we have fallen into the trap of conflating asylum and refugee policy with immigration policy, and we should resist that. Secondly, on references to traffickers, smugglers and other criminals, they will find new modi operandi, and legislation is not going to achieve everything, or indeed very much, in that area. That is why proposing safe routes is so important, as it is tackling the issue from the other end.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Amendment 166 having not been moved, I cannot call Amendments 167 to 171.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Amendment 173 having not been moved, I cannot call Amendment 174.
Amendment 175
Lord German
“Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migrationThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on how implementing a carers’ minimum wage would impact on levels of net migration.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Brinton, for very sad personal reasons, I shall speak to the amendments in her name, which I have also signed, and do my best to replicate what I think was her intention when she tabled them.
First, I need to say that the Government have already slipped a pass, in a way, by announcing on 30 September that they are intent on having the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers—the Government’s press release was announced on that date. I also notice that this agreement will not take place, and the fair pay agreement will not come into force, until 2028, so there is a small gap of what happens between now and 2028, when the new regime comes into place.
In the meantime, we have what we have been calling a fair wage for care workers. We have classified it as a carers’ minimum wage, which I think suits the style in which the Government are attempting to deal with this matter. The challenge of managing migration, particularly within the health and social care sector, requires solutions that address both workforce needs and the ethics of recruitment. Obviously, we must address the reliance on migration by focusing on domestic reform. I think all that is in accord with the Government’s intention, and of course the core area for intervention is the issue of pay and conditions for domestic carers, which directly influences our reliance on overseas recruitment in this sector. The minimum wage would significantly impact migration levels in social care by tackling the underlying drivers of domestic workforce shortages.
The policy case is clear. Vacancies in the social care workforce are driven largely by poor pay, terms and conditions. I do not think that the Government disagree with that, because their announcement was made to deal with it. That leads to low domestic recruitment and retention rates. Poor pay, and often sub-minimum wages in the worst workplaces, have allowed reputable employers which look after their staff to be undercut. There are significant concerns over abuse and exploitation of individual workers. The Government have already committed to tackling these issues, through their fair pay agreement, to empower worker and employer representatives to negotiate improvements in terms of employment. A specific carers’ minimum wage would be a decisive step in this direction. This policy links directly to the Government’s stated intention to end overseas recruitment for social care visas and to address the long-term reliance on overseas workers by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as social care. Improving pay and conditions would make these roles more attractive to UK residents, reducing the pressure on the Government to rely on international recruitment.
The recent expansion of the health and care visa route triggered a sharp increase in migration for below degree level jobs, rising from 37,000 in 2022 to 108,000 in 2023. Following concerns about exploitation and subsequent scrutiny, the number of health and care worker visas granted for main applicants and dependants fell significantly in 2024. Implementing a statutory minimum wage would cement the move away from reliance on low-skilled migration by addressing the root cause of domestic vacancies. This amendment simply asks the Government to
“within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration”.
That would mean that we would be able to see what the situation was and to understand the direction of travel that the Government laid out in their announcement of 30 September.
It is important that we measure the success of using domestic labour market improvements to regulate immigration in this key sector. It is important to find a balance between one and the other. With an ageing population, as part of this strategy on social care there is obviously going to be an increase in the numbers of people required to undertake duties of care, particularly in the home. Social care will naturally be an increasing requirement on our workforce, so improving the pay and conditions of UK-recruited care workers and the corresponding level of vacancies that would then need to be filled through migration, and understanding the gap in numbers between those who will come into the marketplace as employees from the domestic market against those who are currently in the migration market who are undertaking these roles, would be the purpose of this report.
It is a straightforward request for a report that will help us to understand the direction of travel, and I think it would be in accordance with what the Government are proposing anyway for 2028. I beg to move.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, Amendments 175 and 176, and I will speak briefly to both.
On the first, in my spirit today of agreeing with people where I can agree with them, I do not think there is a massive disagreement between us on the link between wage levels and migration; I just think that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord German, has just moved has got it rather the wrong way round. If we are talking about the labour market generally—I will come on to carers and the social care workforce in a minute—I think we actually start by limiting migration, which then forces employers to think about how they are going to attract the relevant staff and to stop thinking about bringing them into the country as their first resort. There should be some challenge in the system that says to employers, “There are circumstances in which you can import labour from overseas, but you have to jump through some hoops and demonstrate some shortage and some reason why those people cannot be recruited domestically”. I think that that is the right way of approaching it.
I just say in passing that when we were in government and I was Immigration Minister and we used to say that, those on the Opposition Benches, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, used to come up with all sorts of reasons why we should just let lots of people in. That was when we were a little bit more robust in controlling migration, when my noble friend Lady May and I were in the Home Office, where we robustly controlled such things. There is a challenge in the social care sector, of course, because a significant amount of the costs that would be borne by an increase in wages are of course not borne by the private sector, in effect, because there is a lot of public money used to pay for this.
The thing I have not heard from the Government when they talk about increasing wages in the sector—which may well be the right thing to do—is who is actually going to pay for it because that will drive up the cost of delivering social care, and not just for older people. The noble Lord was right to mention older people, but of course more than half of the public money that is spent on social care is spent on those of working age, so one has to think about both aspects. I do not disagree with him about the link between wages and migration, but where I do not think this amendment is very helpful is that it starts by assuming that you import people as the default and then you have to change the labour market to deal with migration. Actually, we control who comes to the country and we should set some tough rules about who you can bring in. That then drives the market to have to change the wages that it pays people, or the skills that it trains them in, to be able to deal with them.
That flows nicely on to the second amendment in this group—I am not quite sure why the noble Lord did not touch on it. Amendment 176 is about exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. I chose to speak after he had spoken as I was hoping he would explain the point of that amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German, raise two slightly different, yet interlinked, points. I have just a few observations. There is often much talk about the necessity of immigration because people are unwilling to do certain jobs, and therefore, to prevent understaffing, we must fill vacancies with workers from abroad. This is evident in the social care sector, which undoubtedly does suffer from a workforce shortage and low wages. Although not guaranteed, there is the possibility that, if wages in the care sector were higher, we might see more British people willing to enter carers’ roles and thus end the reliance on importing labour for the sector.
There is the obvious caveat, of course. This amendment asks for a report to assess the effect of introducing a sector-specific minimum wage for carers on net migration, and we must be careful about setting wages via statutory intervention in a highly selective manner. If we begin carving out bespoke wage floors sector by sector, we risk distorting the labour market and undermining the effectiveness of our broader immigration and wage policy framework. Nevertheless, Amendment 175 raises an interesting point and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I am far more sceptical about Amendment 176, which seeks to exempt NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. The NHS currently relies on talented professionals from around the world. They are a credit to our country and an integral part of our public services. However, I would suggest that there is a fallacy inherent in this debate. For far too long, our solution to the problem of labour shortages in the health and care sector has been to simply import workers from abroad. That is the easy solution. I have no issue with admitting that, in the past, my party has been all too complicit in this as well. But just because this has been the prevailing policy for some time does not mean it is right.
The immigration skills charge exists for a reason: to ensure that businesses and public services invest in domestic training and workforce development. Staffing shortfalls in the NHS have been filled by migration, but what that demonstrates is a fundamental weakness in our healthcare training and education system. As it stands, we are clearly not doing enough to hire British doctors, nurses and care workers, and that is why we are having to rely on immigration to fill those gaps. This is precisely the inverted logic that has been applied to healthcare hiring and immigration for far too long.
To exempt NHS employees outright risks setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the incentive for long-term workforce planning in our health system. Applying exceptions to the charge will therefore not solve the problem we have; it may very well exacerbate it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have raised two specific issues, as the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Davies of Gower, have mentioned. First, the Government recognise the vital contribution which international care workers have made to both the NHS and adult social care. However, the immigration White Paper, published in May, sets out the Government’s general position that we should be trying to encourage greater use and greater support for opportunities within the United Kingdom for those levels of skills, training and engagement for those who are economically inactive in the resident UK labour market. The purpose of the Government’s White Paper—and, indeed, the announcements on 30 September on the fair pay agreement for the adult care sector—is to ensure that professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work they do. It is a manifesto commitment that we will commit to extensively engage with the care sector on the design and implementation of a fair pay agreement, with the process and objective of, along with the immigration White Paper, increasing the use of UK-based residents in the social care sector.
I am grateful for the introductory comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, because in those comments he clarified for me what he meant about the minimum wage. Obviously, there is no specific minimum wage for carers as a whole, although there is a national minimum wage, which I was proud to stay up over several days to vote for back in 1998 in another place. It is a very important piece of legislation. However, people looking to recruit international care workers and senior care workers must now pay at least £25,000 per year based on a 37.5 hour week. This equates to £12.82 per hour. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government changed the immigration rules in July to remove the right to recruit care workers internationally. Therefore, the amendment as drafted is unclear as to what minimum wage would be reported on, although I did get the sense that it is the living wage that the noble Lord, Lord German, was speaking about.
However, I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report in Parliament, given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis which will show the impact of changes on inward migration and, in due course, once we have had an opportunity to consult further, the impact of the fair pay agreement on adult social care as a whole.
More broadly, in light of changes to the immigration system, the Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review salary thresholds across the skilled worker route, to ensure that international recruitment is never a cheap alternative to fair pay and must reflect the new changes to our immigration system. I think this is a very positive development by the Government to ensure that foreign workers are not undercutting wages for people based in the United Kingdom—something I had experience of in my former constituency when I was a Member of Parliament. So I say with due respect, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the amendment is not necessary and misses the target on this point.
On Amendment 176, I hope the Committee will bear with me when I say that I agreed with almost every word of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper—it is a novel experience, but one I welcome—as he made the arguments that I would have made and will make on this amendment. Removing the immigration skills charge would send the wrong message. It would remove an important tool in encouraging employers to look first at the domestic labour market and what more can be done to train and improve the skills of those in the UK, rather than simply looking outside it to import individuals who may accordingly be employed on a lower rate of pay. Following the arguments we made in the immigration White Paper, we want to ensure that we both reduce reliance on overseas-trained workers to support our public services and upskill and support the development of local talent to fulfil those roles.
Also—I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on this point—by seeking to exempt the NHS, this amendment would allow the NHS to benefit from cheaper recruitment for non-clinical roles, such as health service and public health managers or people working in IT occupations. The amendment would not cater for health and care professionals who are not employed by the NHS. For example, it would not cover nurses working in private hospitals or health professionals who may work in private organisations that support the wider health sector.
So, for once in this Committee, I agree with two noble Lords from the Official Opposition Benches. Hopefully, I can rely on their support to ensure that the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord German, if he chooses to bring them back on Report later this month or early in November, are defeated. I hope that, with the explanation I have given him, the noble Lord will not press these amendments and will reflect on them with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I hope to see back in her place shortly, so that we do not need to discuss this issue again on Report in a couple of weeks’ time.
Lord German (LD)
I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. I hear what the Minister says about Amendment 176, but I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding on the intention of Amendment 175. The direction of travel that the Government are seeking—to reduce the pressure around having migratory care workers and to increase the numbers in our domestic workforce—is obviously related to this amendment. The Government have recognised that in the way they are challenging the pay and conditions aspect of this issue.
This amendment would merely require them to say how much of a difference things are actually making to the numbers recruited locally and the numbers of those coming from a migratory workforce, to make sure that we are on the right track. I intend to think carefully about Amendment 175 before Report, because it goes far more with the flow of what the Government are doing; we need to understand this to be able genuinely to agree on what is happening in this country as the process of agreement on a new wage level is brought into effect. With that, I seek to withdraw Amendment 175.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I cannot call Amendment 179 because it is an amendment to Amendment 178, which was not moved.
Baroness Coussins
“Translation and interpreting servicesImmigrants and asylum seekers shall have the right, when needed, to professional, qualified translators and interpreters in relation to all oral and written communications concerning—(a) deportation,(b) detention,(c) control,(d) biometric data,(e) residency schemes and rules,(f) monitoring devices,(g) appeals,(h) accommodation, and(i) any other procedure mentioned in Part 2.”
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 181 in my name is very straightforward indeed. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, have kindly added their names to it; both regret that they are unable to be present this evening.
The amendment seeks, quite simply, to ensure that any immigrant or asylum seeker who needs interpreting or translation services in connection with the procedures in Part 2 of the Bill has access to qualified professionals who can provide those language services. I declare my interests as the co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages and the honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, without any prior liaison with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I must admit, I strongly support her amendment. I do not have experience of translation or interpretation in the asylum system, but 15 years ago I was the lead Member of the European Parliament on a directive on translation and interpretation in the justice system, and I was very proud to have led on that. As an MEP, one depended a great deal on professional translation and interpretation services for the wheels of legislative work to run as smoothly as possible. In that sense, one was in a natural environment for understanding the importance of linguistic support.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on both arms of her argument for properly professionally qualified interpreters and translators. It is not good enough to use Google Translate or have someone who claims to know a bit of the language when you are dealing with the need for precision and clear understanding; it is imperative to have people who are qualified professionals who can bring that necessary rigour into the procedures and proceedings. That is for two broad reasons: first, in the interests of justice and fairness to the individual concerned, so that they know what is happening to them in what may be an extremely confusing and distressing experience; and, secondly, as the noble Baroness said, it would be good for the Home Office, because if you do not have efficient and accurate translation and interpretation, there are risks of something being misunderstood, possibly leading to disagreements, further proceedings and litigation, so you are not going to save any money from that original penny-pinching. This would be an investment not only in justice and fairness but in efficiency and good administration. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to retained EU law. I have not managed to follow whether the 2010 directive on translation and interpretation in the justice system is still part of our law; the noble Baroness is nodding, so I am hopeful that it is. Regarding retained EU law, in the last 10 years one has mercifully forgotten some of the late-night proceedings on various Bills and horrible Brexit stuff. I hope it is part of our law, because the noble Baroness is quite right that relying on common law and the ECHR will not cut the mustard. There is an article in the ECHR about the right to a fair trial, but it is too broad and general, as I remember from working on the EU directive, which built on that foundation to spell out exactly what could be expected in respect of translation and interpretation in the justice system, which is what we need to do.
I reiterate my strong support for this amendment. I hope the Home Office and everybody else can see it not as some kind of wishy-washy desire to be nice to people but as an essential tool for the Home Office to make sure that its procedures are effective and cost-effective.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, on this amendment I had not decided whether I wanted to say anything about it until I listened to the debate. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, will recognise that I see some positive things in it and some areas where the Minister can perhaps work on helping to shape things. First, though, I am probably as surprised as the Minister that there was so much concern for the Home Office—that is probably a new thing and something that will not happen very frequently.
Listening to the argument, I was struck by two things. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the need for those going through the system to understand what is going on and for things to be properly translated and interpreted for them. On that, we are in agreement.
However, there are a couple of areas where I would like to hear from the Minister. The first is about the extent to which the Home Office already delivers that level of support to those going through the system and where the gaps are. In other words, what will the cost be of delivering the amendment as set out here or something like it? Is there a big gap that we are trying to cover here?
Secondly, the amendment is a bit prescriptive about how the services should be delivered. I accept that the noble Baroness threw out the reference to Google Translate, which was picked up, and I am not suggesting that that is the way of delivering this. However, I do not think it is sensible for the way public services are delivered to be set out in primary legislation. Artificial intelligence is moving very quickly and, while we may not think it should be a complete substitute, I think it seems perfectly sensible that both Home Office staff and people representing those going through the immigration system may well use artificial intelligence tools to help them be more productive and more cost-effective. I would not want the legislation to be so prescriptive that it ruled that out. We cannot just put to one side the cost of delivering these services. Once we have listened to the Minister’s response, the Home Office may wish to think about whether there is a gap to be covered and whether there is a way of drafting an amendment that recognises the importance of properly qualified staff—which is exactly what the noble Baroness is driving at—while allowing for the use of technology and for those services to be delivered in a different way in the future. We should not try to shut off those benefits.
My final point is about one danger that the noble Baroness did not touch on. As the amendment is framed as giving rights to people, what would happen if these services were not delivered? As a former Immigration Minister, I am afraid this looks to me like another example where, if something was not delivered to the standard required, there would be an opportunity to legally challenge a Home Office decision. It may be that the Home Office should not fail on things like making sure someone understands their deportation decision, but I do not think it is sensible to allow someone to successfully legally challenge the Home Office on, for example, the failure to properly explain the accommodation that was being provided. It would just open up a whole other range of areas that very litigious people could use to drive a coach and horses through our Immigration Rules. If the Home Office is going to bring something back to reflect the perfectly sensible concerns that the noble Baroness set out, which I share, it needs to have something in it that recognises what happens if it is not possible in all cases to deliver those services, what would then be the ability of someone to challenge those decisions.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She has been consistent in arguing for this with various Governments, and I would like to be consistent in my support for her.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, this is essentially an amendment about standards rather than the method of delivery. From the very beginning, the noble Baroness has made the point that where it is vital we get consistency of language or the written word, we ought to be able to rely on translation where English is not the first language. I have to say that my experience of policing is that English is not that precise at the best of times. With the police or others, it is sometimes quite hard to determine exactly what people have said.
Particularly important here is that the list in the amendment is of rights and expectations that people rely on for the system to be fair. We rely on understanding, in language, what we have been asked to do and what we may be unable to do in the future. This also allows the individual to ask questions. One of the things that underpins human rights law, which we all debate at times, is that the individual’s rights and responsibilities should be protected against the state. The state can be an overwhelming and powerful thing at times; all of us need rights to argue our case when we potentially come into conflict with it.
Language can be precise, but it is also very nuanced at times—sometimes by dialect, and sometimes by different languages. It is vital that we all understand that we are talking about the same thing in any judicial, tribunal or other procedure where our rights are going to be affected. This is all the amendment arguing for. To the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, it is not arguing for extra rights; it is just saying that where you have a right, you should be able to make your argument.
Probably as importantly, the amendment first enables the individual to understand what is involved in the process, what the outcome is going to be and what their rights are. Secondly, it enables them to understand the questions they are being asked. Finally, it enables them to provide an answer which is accurate and understood. I do not think it is asking any more than that.
I acknowledge that there may be a cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said. In fact, the police service has quite a good system, because in the criminal process, when you run the risk of the sanction of being imprisoned, it is vital that you are represented and understood well. The police have developed a system with some good standards, but there is a cost. As migration has increased over the years, that cost has significantly increased. In a city like London, around 38% to 40% of the people arrested are foreign national offenders, and often, language can become an issue. That is not unrepresentative of London; it is just a fact that this is what London is like.
The rising cost of migration and the changes it brings mean that we sometimes have to change our process. This is a vital part of it; it is about setting standards. You could say that it is hard to imagine why the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, had to make this argument. It is hard to understand why you have to argue for a—presumably significant—standard to make sure people understand what they are involved in. We might imagine it already exists, but I am afraid it does not. That is why this amendment is vital, and I support it.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in this matter. I draw upon my own experience of 11 years in a bilingual Parliament, the Senedd Cymru: without accuracy or professional translators, it would undoubtedly have been difficult to create the laws we passed during those 11 years.
Accuracy and clarity are critical. There is of course a cost to doing it properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly says. However, if it is not done properly, it will end up in the courts, and legal aid and various other factors will be involved. I do not agree with the noble Lord that you should not face the cost, because that cost may be displaced over the time.
I will wait for the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to reply on AI assistance, but there is a big difference between people hearing what is said exactly and reproducing it in exactly the same way it is being spoken. When someone speaks, the interpreter and translator translate those words exactly as they were said. That is the important issue here.
I want to tempt the Minister to talk about the learning of the English language, which is of course associated with this. There is undoubtedly a real problem in providing sufficient language courses to help people get an experience of the English language. Do the Government have any ambitions to improve the teaching of English to people coming here on the migration route?
As for the reason for this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, we should not be putting ourselves at risk by not having it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this amendment. The intention behind it is obviously very welcome. We need to make sure that those going through this process can understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is of course a duty of the Government to make sure that this can happen. To that end, I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the Committee that the Government are already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services, and how they plan to manage any increase in demand.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, to an extent, the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, for raising this matter of both practical importance and human dignity: the provision of translation and interpretation services within the Home Office.
The Government’s immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society. We believe, as I am sure not only the noble Baroness but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom.
However, obviously, there are circumstances where the needs of both protection and expediency trump this proposal. As we have already heard from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, there are individuals for whom translation and interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to begin the long journey of recovery and justice—for example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked to the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the high standards of delivery of these services. It is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency but of moral and legal obligation.
Paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules already makes it clear that the Home Secretary must provide, at public expense, an interpreter wherever necessary to allow an applicant to submit their case. This includes the substantive asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person’s life.
Noble Lords may be aware that, in the other place, an MP elected on the Reform ticket asked a number of His Majesty’s Government’s departments not to provide such translation services. I, for one, believe that the Government regret that approach. Both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and our society, and we will not undermine these principles. As I said, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services, not simply so that asylum seekers can access the system adequately but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, so that the system makes the right call the first time round.
Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by Immigration Enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights both affirm that a defendant must understand the charges against them and be able to mount a proper defence. This is not optional extra, and we do not treat it as such. As I said, the current Immigration Rules make clear the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services within the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help’s asylum services, which are available 24 hours a day, offer free, independent advice, guidance and information, including full interpretation services.
We have had some discussion about funding, and noble Lords will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this Government in public service delivery. We must therefore ensure that language services are cost effective, and the Home Office is committed to assessing language service needs and spend to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility and a compassionate, practical approach to translation. We understand well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about penny-pinching undermining the integrity of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about the cost gap in the sense, I suppose, of a counterfactual situation. I am not sure that any assessment has been made of that additional cost gap, but I will go back and ask officials whether that has been the case.
Lord Harper (Con)
Having listened to the Minister, I am not sure that there would be much of a gap. However, this is what I was driving at: based on what rights would be put in place by this amendment, compared to what is already delivered, what will the gap be? Listening carefully to the Minister, he seems to me to be saying that, certainly in the Immigration Enforcement pieces of that list, the services are already delivered, so it may just be an argument about the quality of that service, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was pushing at. It may be useful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether there are areas here that are not specifically about Immigration Enforcement and where there may be a gap.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Indeed, that was what I was getting at. I am not entirely sure how easy or practical it is to make an assessment of the upgrade to professional services and what the additional cost would be. However, as I said, I will go back and talk to officials to see whether an assessment has been made.
In a similar vein, I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that I do not have to hand any sufficiently watertight briefing on the EU retained law aspect of her question. However, I will go back and talk to officials and write to her with a fuller explanation, rather than risking some barrack-room lawyership on my feet this evening.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for raising her amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of high-quality services provided by the Home Office, as well as the importance of high-quality translation services for people who are rightly seeking asylum and need that support to access our system adequately. The points raised today reflect our values as a nation and our commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of every individual. Given the points I have outlined, and the fact that our Immigration Rules already make clear the obligation of the Home Office to provide translation and interpretation services where necessary, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his very clear statement that the Government agree that they have a moral and legal obligation to make sure that people in these situations clearly understand what is happening. Rather than just writing to me, will he agree to have a meeting with me between now and the Bill’s next stage, so that we can both understand better what the EU law Act 2023 said, and so that I can understand more about paragraph 339 of the Immigration Rules which he referred to? It would be very good if those two things hit the spot of what I am after.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Primacy of the Refugee Convention(1) The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is amended as follows.(2) For section 2 (Primacy of Convention) substitute—“2 Primacy of Convention(1) So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation, subordinate legislation, immigration rules within the meaning of the 1971 Act, and guidance issued by the Secretary of State must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention.(2) This section—(a) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted, immigration rules whenever laid, and guidance whenever issued,(b) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation, and(c) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible subordinate legislation if (disregarding any possibility of revocation) primary legislation prevents removal of the incompatibility.”(3) After section 2 insert—“2A Declaration of Incompatibility(1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with the Convention.(2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.(3) Subsection (4) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of subordinate legislation, made in the exercise of a power conferred by primary legislation, is compatible with the Convention.(4) If the court is satisfied—(a) that the provision is incompatible with the Convention, and(b) that (disregarding any possibility of revocation) the primary legislation concerned prevents removal of the incompatibility, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.(5) In this section “court” means—(a) the Supreme Court,(b) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary sitting otherwise than as a trial court or the Court of Session, or(c) in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, the High Court or the Court of Appeal.(6) A declaration under this section (“a declaration of incompatibility”)—(a) does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given; (b) is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made.””Member's explanatory statement
These two new clauses follow the model of the Human Rights Act in attempting to ensure harmony between international convention and domestic law. Primary and secondary legislation, immigration rules, and guidance are to be interpreted in compliance with the Refugee Convention so far as possible. Where it is not possible to interpret primary legislation in compliance, the higher courts may make a declaration to that effect.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will introduce Amendments 184 and 185 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Both amendments are inspired by the Government’s commitment in last year’s election manifesto that we will once again be a defender of the international rule of law.
The late Lord Bingham of Cornhill’s eighth principle on the rule of law is that it
“requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle that safeguards against arbitrary power. What are we here for if not to protect the constitution?
Throughout debates on this Bill and other annual asylum Bills of recent years, noble Lords have raised concerns about compliance with international law, including the 1951 refugee convention. More than 20 years ago, in 1993, a Bill was passed through Parliament, with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as Home Secretary. It was implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and contains a section titled “Primacy of Convention”. This section, still in force, provides that:
“Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the”
refugee convention.
My Amendment 184 is in the spirit of this provision, but addresses the relationship between the convention and our domestic legal system more holistically. Drawing from the hallmark constitutional balance agreed by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998, it seeks to ensure harmony between primary legislation, subordinate legislation, the Immigration Rules, executive guidance and the refugee convention, so far as that is possible. It would give effect to Parliament’s intention to legislate in compliance with human rights. As with the Human Rights Act, courts would interpret laws only with the grain of the legislation and do no more than necessary to ensure compliance with human rights standards. This would help realise Parliament’s overarching intention and rectify drafting errors or address factual circumstances not foreseen by legislators.
Just as our courts have exercised judicial restraint in using Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, our independent judiciary could be trusted to exercise restraint in using this proposed new clause. Where primary legislation cannot be compatibly interpreted, then, as with Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, a declaration of incompatibility could be made which would not affect—I repeat not affect—the validity or continued operation of that law.
Those who rail against judicial human rights decisions with which they disagree should be reminded of this relationship between Sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act. It explicitly protects parliamentary sovereignty and, in contrast with, say, the US Bill of Rights, prevents our Supreme Court reinterpreting, let alone striking down, explicitly incompatible primary legislation. For the sake of completeness, the injunction in Section 2 of the Act is to “take into account”, not be bound by, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Amendment 184 would, so far as is possible, ensure, for example, that our criminal penalties do not violate the immunity provided by the refugee convention, that our guidance on nationality does not treat refugees for evermore as not of good character if so to do would breach the refugee convention, and that refugees would not face being sent to places called safe where they will, in fact, face persecution.
Amendment 185 is specific to the question of immunity from criminal penalties. As your Lordships have heard time and again, Article 31.1 of the refugee convention protects refugees from
“penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence”
if they come directly from the country persecuting them,
“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
The reason for this immunity is simple. People fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary are often compelled to arrive, enter and be present in a state irregularly. It is clear that Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is intended to cover this defence. Indeed, it is titled:
“Defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention”.
However, it is insufficient and does not reflect the full scope of that article. It provides only a narrow defence to an insufficient list of offences, including forgery and connected offences, possession of false identity documents, deception and falsification of documents.
Therefore, while there is a statutory defence for arriving with false documents, there is no statutory defence for arriving without requisite documents. Someone who uses a fake passport to get on a boat or plane directly from where they face persecution is provided with a narrow defence, but as we know, with our ever-tightening visa regime and with airlines afraid of penalties, refugees cannot board safe planes—if they could, they might not risk crossing Europe on foot or the channel in dinghies. If they had instead walked barefoot or been trafficked and arrived in Libya, Turkey or France, having lost or had stolen any papers they had along the way, they would have no statutory defence against prosecution for irregular arrival or entry in the UK, or indeed against the new facilitation offences in this Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 before it.
This is not a mere hypothetical. The best available data shows that 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted—a number of them young people, who are treated and prosecuted as adults, with insufficient initial age assessments. The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and/or torture, but had to share prison cells with adults before being released into the care of local authorities.
In its recent report on this Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:
“Article 31 is partially incorporated into domestic law by way of section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, the Committee agrees with its predecessor that this provision is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.
Therefore, my amendment is one endeavour to ensure compliance. I appreciate that there are other such attempts, including from the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his Amendment 203. I am sure that we all wish him a full and speedy recovery from his recent injuries.
In Amendment 203I and other amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has proposed a restrictive interpretation of Article 31.1 of the refugee convention. Our courts have interpreted the term “directly”—as in coming directly—broadly and purposively to ensure that refugees who have crossed through and had mere short-term transitory stops in other countries, such as while crossing deserts and seas, may still be exempt from penalties if they were en route to their place of intended sanctuary. The late and much lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in Adimi provided a clear test for interpreting whether someone has come directly, looking at the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reason for the delay and whether or not the refugee sought or found protection in that intermediate country. We must return to and uphold that common law position, as the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill did in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in Afshar.
As we repeatedly discuss, the entire system of international refugee protection would collapse if this were not the case—if every person were subject to penalties if they passed through or stopped in a safe country. The UK could say that all refugees are the responsibility of France. France would look to Italy, which would no doubt point to Tunisia. Tunisia would say “Libya”, and Libya would say “Sudan”. Thus, immediately, neighbouring countries would bear all the responsibility, of which they already bear a great share, or refugees would be pushed back into their countries of persecution. This was never the intention and could never logically have been the intention of a refugee convention. With this approach, like dominoes, our system of post-war legal protection and the international rule of law would fall. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, not because I have any legal training but because I trust her judgment on this. I was hoping that some of our estimable Cross-Bench KCs and former judges would stand up and say, “This is rubbish; you can’t do this”. In their absence, I will say just a few words.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the amendment is legally coherent and that is very much in its favour. It contains a tacit acknowledgment of the dualist system that we have in this country. That means that we are bound by domestic law and bound by international law only in so far as it has it has been incorporated in domestic law. The noble Baroness is right that there are references to the refugee convention in domestic law—for example, Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
The main provision of the refugee convention that attracts attention is Article 33, the non-refoulement provision. Does membership of the refugee convention require a particular response from the courts of this country? There is reference to it in the Supreme Court decision on the Rwanda policy, although it was not entirely clear, to me at least, what effect it had on the outcome of the case. The much greater part of the judgment was taken up with the review of the relevant articles of the ECHR, which are incorporated into our law by the Human Rights Act.
What is quite clear is that it is always open to Parliament to exclude references to international law from domestic legislation. In which case, any obligations that this country has under the refugee convention exist only as a matter of international law. I say that without meaning to diminish the importance of international law; we should comply with international obligations as far as possible. However, there is an increasingly recognised view that the 1951 convention was of its time and that it is necessary to look again at its application in the light of the challenges that immigration now presents not just to this country but to other European countries and to countries such as Australia that have signed up to the convention.
If the leaked memo reported in Saturday’s Times is correct, the Attorney-General himself acknowledges that the time may have come to look again at the convention and its application to the immigration and asylum system. It is important to stress that no body or institution is empowered to determine authoritatively what the convention means. This distinguishes it from the ECHR, where the European Court of Human Rights performs that task.
My view is that it would be best to remain a member of the refugee convention but to remove any references to it from domestic legislation, so that Parliament can determine the proper policy in relation to immigration and asylum without fearing interpretation of that legislation by reference to the convention. This amendment does precisely the opposite of that, which is the reason that I oppose it, despite its legal coherence. I anticipate that the Government may not altogether be inclined to accept the amendment either, because to do so would hard-wire the convention, with all its imprecision, into our domestic law. This would create just the sort of difficulties that we have had with the European Convention on Human Rights and the obligation, under Section 2 of the Human Rights Act, to take it into account.
It should be possible to remain signed up to the refugee convention without unduly or unnecessarily hampering our obligations. Australia has managed this, as I said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in his 188-page analysis of the various issues that are thrown up by the convention. He is right that we may have to think again, even without this amendment, if our courts interpret domestic law in a way that appears to incorporate international law. Important though it is, it confuses the issue. Parliament ought to be sovereign in these matters and to decide the correct policy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I really support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who very articulately and with legal adeptness explained some of my reservations. I will raise just a few other points.
I am particularly opposed to Amendment 184, because it would further institutionalise—this is even its title—the primacy of the refugee convention. I think that emphasising that primacy undermines democracy.
I listened carefully to the expansive debate on refugee family reunion in the first group. One of the most insightful comments came in the very moving contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about her family’s experience of refugees fleeing Nazi antisemitism. It was a reminder of that historic period, but also of the importance of historic specificity. This matters today—which is such a joyous day, by the way, with the return home of the hostages; I spent most of the morning crying, but with joy in this instance. Jew hatred is alive today—it is still happening—but it is not the Nazis or the Second World War. This is a completely different version; something else is happening.
That issue of history is one of the reasons why I wanted to speak on this group. I have long argued that the refugee convention is long past its historic sell-by date and that it is time for us to consider leaving it or maybe amending it in some way, as has been discussed. So I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has given us a chance to consider the issue.
Of course, when the refugee convention was established in 1951, it had noble aims. It was designed for a world coming to terms with the aftermath of a world war and mass displacement. But if you think about the way that the term “refugee” is used today, you will find that it has become so expansive and flexible that it has been used recently to describe a trans-identifying burglar from Algeria and a Zimbabwean paedophile, both of whom say that they are entitled to the same protection as women and children fleeing a war zone.
Earlier today the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that language and words matter, and I agree. In this instance, “refugee” has become completely corrupted and confused. So we urgently need to review terms such as “refugee”, as interpreted by today’s reading of the refugee convention, because these stoke resentment among the public and actually harm the interests of those who might legitimately be refugees in need of protection. It bundles up a whole lot of things.
The history of the convention means that it is not the rule of law—an act of God that cannot be challenged at any time—because it has an interesting history. Established in 1951, as I say, it was a practical solution to the existence of hundreds of thousands of people in Europe who had still not been resettled after the Second World War. It is interesting that, when it was introduced, the convention applied only to refugees in Europe, and only in respect of those who had acquired that status due to the events that happened before 1951. The convention has therefore changed because it did not assist with refugees who fled Hungary in 1956. That did not mean that people were not humane in 1956; the convention was not something that could be used—as is regularly done—just to say, “Where’s your humanity? Don’t you care about refugees?” It was very specific.
It was only in 1967 that the regional and temporal limits of the refugee convention were lifted to give rights to refugees around the world. That was motivated, as many historians have noted, by the Cold War. It was used to say that all refugees are welcome in the West and to show the superiority of democracy over communism. Actually, rather a small number of refugees came on that basis.
With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the refugee convention seemed to lose its raison d’être. It is interesting that, in 2004, Tony Blair, no less, noted how the convention,
“first introduced in 1951, at a time when the cold war and lack of cheap air travel made long-range migration far more difficult than it has become today, has started to show its age”.
Following Blair’s lead, in the 2005 general election the Conservative Party had a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the convention. There have been discussions about whether it is showing its age. I would say that the refugee convention is not just showing its age but has outlived its usefulness and shackles democracy.
My concern about this amendment is that it tries to do something that is already a problem. We spend all our time in this Chamber scrutinising pieces of law. If we are then told, “No, you can’t do that because of the refugee convention”—or if we pass laws and they are usurped by the refugee convention through the courts—what is the point of democracy and the decision-making here if they are so undermined by international treaties? The refugee convention therefore betrays democracy and the public.
If we in this place get frustrated that laws are made and conventions are then used to undermine those laws, can noble Lords imagine what it is like to be a voter? I know it has been a while for a lot of us, but it is worth remembering that voters’ frustration is even more palpable. This does not help refugees; it is a way of bypassing democratic accountability and is a hindrance, rather than a help, to refugees and the British public.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I do not like doing this, but I am conscious that a number of noble Lords have arrived here for the buses Bill ping-pong. While it is not ideal, we may need to break mid-group and come back to this important group after the ping-pong.
I note that my noble friend Lord Hendy has just popped out for two seconds, so perhaps we should adjourn during pleasure—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I will keep talking while we get my noble friend Lord Hendy in. He will be here shortly. I thank all noble Lords particularly for their consideration today at Question Time, which was much appreciated by everyone here. My noble friend is, I hope, here now. No, he is not.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Can I interrupt my noble friend for a moment to say that I understand the reasons for breaking mid-group but that the period of the break will give me a little longer to reflect on the many positive contributions that precede my other noble friend’s return to the Chamber?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for assisting me there. With that, I will now sit down.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL]
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:46 - Division on Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8) - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 189 - Motion 8A disagreed.
19:58 - Division on Motion 8B - Ayes: 57 / Noes: 134 - Motion 8B disagreed.
20:43 - Division on Motion 31A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 31) - Ayes: 138 / Noes: 175 - Motion 31A disagreed.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 1.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I apologise to the House for my brief absence. In speaking to this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 1A, 8A, 8B and 29A. It is a pleasure to bring the Bill back to the House for its final stages and to engage on the remaining areas. This is an important Bill that empowers and provides local authorities with the tools to make the right decisions on bus services for their local areas. Debate on the Bill has considered the importance of local bus services and how we need improvement, so I hope that noble Lords will continue to support this ambition.
There have been changes since the Bill was last in this House. These include the removal of some amendments, such as the purpose clause, the assessment of the impact of national insurance contributions on accessing socially necessary local services, and the review of the provision of services to villages. There have been changes that extend the existing zero-emission vehicle measure to Scotland, which replicates the application in England. There is also a carve-out for Wales on some measures, and there are smaller changes on removing unnecessary data overrides and on the variation of franchises.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for tabling Motion 1A on the purpose clause. The Government have made it clear throughout the stages of the Bill that improving buses is a priority, and that includes services, performance and accessibility. But the Bill also goes wider, including cleaner and safer travel and providing the ability for local transport authorities to make their own funding decisions. The purpose clause would run contrary to this and could also have unanticipated effects on the interpretation of the Act and the exercise of powers under it. This is something that the Government cannot support.
Motion 8A from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, seeks to review the impact of the £2 fare cap on socially necessary local services. My department has already published an evaluation of the first 10 months of the £2 bus fare cap. This showed that the cap delivered low value for money. Work is already under way to undertake a review on the £3 cap. Therefore, a legislative requirement for further evaluative work would be duplicative and unnecessary.
Motion 8A also looks at reviewing the impact of national insurance contributions on the provision of socially necessary local services, including transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND. This would be impossible to implement, because it seeks a review three months after Royal Assent. Socially necessary local services are likely to take some time to be identified and agreed by local authorities, making any assessment premature.
I understand the ambition behind Motion 8B from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, but I cannot support Amendment 8C, which seeks to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services. I have already set out that the £2 fare cap has been assessed as poor value for money and that work is under way to review the £3 cap. Therefore, any further legislative requirement would be duplicative and unnecessary. In addition, socially necessary local services have not yet been identified and any review into these will take time.
Finally, I turn to Motion 29A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on reviewing the provision of services to villages. I thank her for her engagement on this issue. I reassure her and others that the Government expect local transport authorities to consider the needs of everyone in their area, including those in more rural parts. Measures such as franchising or setting up a local authority bus company take time, so an assessment within two years would not leave enough time to capture and assess the full impact.
However, following discussions, the Government will commit to undertake a review of socially necessary local services and rural services after five years, which will include local bus services used by children with special educational needs and disabilities. The Bill is about improving local bus services. Therefore, this is the appropriate scope for a review of its impact. It is important and right to understand how these services are performing and supporting the local communities who truly need them. I hope this therefore delivers on the ambitions of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and those behind Motion 8B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon.
For special educational needs and disabled children beyond this Bill, the Government have committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools so that fewer children need to travel long distances to a school that can meet their needs. The Government will bring forward a White Paper with plans to improve the SEND system.
I hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not yet been debated. I beg to move.
Motion 1A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 1)
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion 1A, I will speak to the other Motion that I have tabled in this group. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for being distressingly frank. The background to the Bill is the Government’s payment of the Danegeld, if you like, to their friends in the trade unions and in a network of left-wing local authorities, who have seethed with resentment for many years at the success of the private sector and want to see it effectively eliminated from the provision of public transport services in this country—the same motivation that lay behind the passenger railway services Bill, which we passed before Christmas.
That is why the Conservative group and the House as a whole supported amending the Bill on Report to include a purpose to which the Government could be held to account as to its effect, putting passengers and their needs at the heart of the Bill from the outset. The Government, using their majority in the other place, have deleted that purpose. There is no standard, no accountability, no measure to which we can turn from the Bill itself and say to the Government, “You promised you would achieve this by these measures. You promised that this was the purpose you were setting out to effect and we can hold you to it”. None of that is there. The Bill simply stands on its own, a great experiment with the provision of public transport but with no accountability for the Government behind it. That is the simple fact behind Motion 1A but, as it happens, I do not propose to test the opinion of the House on it.
I turn, then, to Motion 8A, which covers two subsections that have been removed from the Bill, Clause 14(5) and (6), which your Lordships added on Report for a very good reason. The first, subsection (5), related to the £2 bus fare cap. The fact is that the Conservatives pledged to keep this going for another year. The Government removed it. Of course putting the fare cap up by 50% had an effect on the most vulnerable people, because it is the most vulnerable people—those who are low-paid workers—who depend most on buses for getting to work, for example. Yet the Government say, “We don’t need to consider that. We’re going to look at the effect of the £3 fare cap, so we don’t need to consider the effect of the £2 fare cap”. What is the point of looking at the effect of the £3 fare cap unless you can compare it with the effect of the £2 fare cap? Comparison is the very purpose of that study. The Government having made no concession on that—they could easily have said, “We will do something on the £2 fare cap as part of our review of the £3 fare cap”—and I will, when the time comes, test the opinion of the House.
Finally, on the SEND review, we talk about vulnerability. I remind noble Lords of the fragile structure of the services on which SEND pupils depend. It may be that the Government will resolve all this in the long term and there will not be any distinct SEND pupils because, as the Minister said, they are all going to be mainstreamed somehow, so they will not need to travel, but the fact is that today they do. They rely on a network of small providers, engaged by local authorities, that depend on part-time workers, many of whom earned less in each year than was required to be eligible for national insurance contributions. Because of the drop in the threshold from roughly £10,000 to £5,000, they are now caught by those national insurance contributions, which is having a devastating effect on the cash flow of those small operators, many of which now refuse contracts or are withdrawing from them where they are permitted to do so by their terms. The only result of that will be higher costs for local authorities, with fewer providers—the worst possible outcome.
The Government say they have provided money to local authorities to cover those costs—which, of course, they have. I do not doubt what the Government say as a matter of fact; they have provided money to local authorities. So what is the problem with a review that will actually identify whether that provision has been directed towards those local providers, is working and has been effective, and that the sum involved is correct? There can be no problem with such a review—except that the Government are keen to hide something. Again, when we come to Motion 8A, which captures both those subjects—I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that it has two parts to it: SEND and the £2 fare cap are both comprised in that Motion—I will test the opinion of the House.
I think it is time that the Government listened to what this House says. When it sends modest amendments, simply calling for reviews, to the other place, the Government should start listening and not simply turn everything down as a matter of course, which increasingly seems to be the way in which they want to conduct themselves. I beg to move Motion 1A.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was pleased to hear what the Minister had to say about my amendment. I thank all those who voted for it on Report, including my new Tory best friends, who were very kind to vote for it, and the Lib Dems. It was a novelty and wonderful, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for arranging that.
I think this Bill is doing quite a good job of bringing back quality bus services to urban areas, but we also need to bring good services back to rural areas and villages. That is obvious because rural areas and villages should have just as much love and attention as urban areas. I would see this review as the first step in reducing isolation for those who experience poverty and deprivation, age or ill health and are stuck and cannot go out. For a Green, it is also about reducing car dependency, the number of cars on the road, pollution, road deaths and injuries, so it pays off in every way.
I am glad the Government have accepted the idea of a review. I had hoped they would accept my amendment and put it into their Bill so that I could say that I had changed government legislation. The Minister has told me that what he has done comes under Pepper v Hart. I have no idea what that means, but presumably some of the older Members of this House know. The Opposition Chief Whip says she knows what it is. That is wonderful. However, even when the Minister was telling me that the Government are going to do the review, I was a bit worried about the length of time because five years puts the end of this review into the next Parliament, and who knows what the next Parliament is going to look like? If we have a lot of other types of MPs and perhaps Peers, am I going to be able to hold them to account for the bus review? I am not sure I am. I am glad that the Government are going this way, but I regret that it is not a more powerful signal.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his work on this Bill and for meeting me to discuss any concerns that may remain. We on these Benches are pleased to hear from the Government a commitment to a comprehensive review that will cover many of the issues that we discussed at earlier stages of this Bill and were the subject of many amendments to the Bill earlier in the year. These, we hope, will include the impact on SEN bus services, the £3 bus fare cap and the impact on villages and rural areas. The Government have already mentioned their published review of the £2 bus fare cap.
Within this group, for our Benches, the one key area remains the affordability of bus fares. We think the overall package of legislation in this Bill will help to transform bus services across the country and equip local transport authorities with a wide range of powers to deliver the right services to their local communities in the right way, but this needs to go hand in hand with affordable bus fares. The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. Budgets are tight for many families, forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials. Bus fares outside cities such as London are very expensive. Without addressing fares, we think the Bill risks deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. This legislation is about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have a choice about how local services are provided, but unless there are affordable bus fares, we think there is a hole in the plan.
The amendment that passed in this House on Report was about a review. It was not about providing a £2 bus fare scheme to support bus routes, particularly socially necessary routes, which are a lifeline for many villages and rural areas. The Motion in my name that we will get to would insert Amendment 8C into the Bill and ensure that the legislation contains a statutory commitment to the £2 bus fare scheme for socially necessary routes. It would require the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using socially necessary local services. We believe this is a far clearer amendment to the legislation, putting into action what we are committed to and ensuring a focus on the £2 bus fare cap by the Secretary of State. I hope Members on all sides of the House will see the merit in this provision to enhance further this bus legislation. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and look forward to testing the opinion of the House on this later.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this issue as the introducer of the £2 bus fare cap and the person who wrote the relevant sections of our manifesto, which committed to keep it for the duration of the Parliament and fund it, importantly, from savings that we were going to make in rail services. We do not spend enough time in this country talking about buses. Two and a half times more journeys are made by bus than by the national rail network. You would not know that from the national press, which is very London-centric on this subject, but in most parts of the country buses are critical, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I shall say a word or two about my noble friend Lord Moylan’s purpose clause and his remarks on that. He talked about the Government trying to help their friends in local authorities. What is interesting about this legislation is that, if you look at what has happened to bus services, the real challenge, and one of the problems, is that what happened during the pandemic is that a significant number of people stopped using buses for rather obvious reasons and never returned. That caused a huge financial problem for the bus network and has caused lots of routes that were previously profitable not to be profitable. The thing that is missing in the legislation is that you can offer local authorities the powers to franchise services all you like, but unless the Treasury is going to give local authorities the money to pay for those bus services, all you do is take loss-making services that are being reduced by private sector operators or by local authorities that cannot pay for them, and the local authority ends up having to take them away because it has no ability to pay for them.
When this legislation gets on to the statute book, I will be interested to see whether the Government fund the powers to the level that you would have to in order to deliver an improvement to bus services. I suspect, given the dog’s breakfast the Chancellor is making of the economy and the fact that there is less rather than more money available for public services, that that is not going to happen, but we will see how that develops in the future. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan does not have to worry in one sense, because I do not think this cunning plan that the Government have implemented to help local authorities is going to help them at all.
Specifically on the cap, the Minister talked about the review of the £2 bus fare and said that it was not good value for money. What he missed out was that the Government decided, without having concluded the review of the £2 bus fare cap, to have a £3 bus fare cap, which suggests that they like the principle, but introduced it and picked a number without having done the review on the £2 bus fare cap in the first place. That demonstrates not sensible, evidence-based policy-making but a Treasury-driven “Let’s just reduce the cost of the policy and not look at the impact it was having”.
When I talked to bus companies, I found there were two issues relating to the bus fare cap that were important in driving up bus ridership. One was the obvious one, which is that it reduced the cost. Particularly in rural areas—as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords—where you often have to take a number of parts of a journey with a number of fares, it drove down the cost of those journeys. That is really important for people going to work or accessing education, so that had a big impact.
The other thing was the clarity and the consistency that it provided in communicating the level of bus fare to people, which had, I have to confess, a rather surprising impact. When talking to bus companies, I asked the question, “If we were to take this away, what would you do to your pricing structure?” What was interesting was that they all said having a round-number bus fare had a surprisingly powerful effect on their ability to market services to consumers, rather than people not knowing what a bus fare was going to be and a whole range of complexity. I think it needed a bit more time to bed in, and that is why I support a proper review having been carried out.
To go back to the point I made about funding, what we suggested—to take savings from the reforms that we were going to put in place for rail services and use some of that to fund the bus services—would have rebalanced where people chose to take their journeys. More people depend on bus services for important local journeys. Whether to access education, to access the health service or to access employment, far more people across the whole of the country use bus services to do that than use the rail network.
The Government have done the reverse. The first thing they did was come in and give railway drivers—some of the best-paid public servants—a pay rise and ask for nothing in return; they got no productivity improvements for the rail user. That money could have been spent on improving the quality of bus services across the country. That would have been the right decision, and it is the decision that we were going to make. When we do not see increases to funding for bus services—when we simply give local authorities the powers to franchise but with no money to deliver that—then people on all sides of your Lordships’ House will think that making savings in the rail network and putting the money into buses would have been the right decision. I am sorry the Government chose not to do so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Harper for reminding us of the importance of funding and the fact that the Bill is almost meaningless unless large amounts of funding are attached to it for local authorities. That is not an original point; it is one that was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, at an earlier stage of debate on the Bill, but we have still heard nothing about the large amounts of funding that the Government are going to have to put into buses in order to make the Bill a reality.
I turn to the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who happens today to be sitting behind me, and who is apparently my new best friend. I understand—I hope I am not traducing her here—that she is not intending to divide the House on her Motion, but if she did then we would stick loyally with her as we did before. The Conservative Party is and always has been the party of villages, and whoever speaks up for villages in your Lordships’ House will have our support. It is a tragedy that the Government are willing to defer for a whole five years—into a new Parliament, when there is no doubt that they will not be the Government—a commitment to look at the effect of their policies on villages.
None the less, I have made it clear that I do not intend to divide the House on Motion 1A, so at this stage I beg leave to withdraw Motion 1A.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 2 to 7.
“Miscellaneous amendments
(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 123B (assessment)—
(a) for subsection (3)(b) substitute—
“(b) whether the proposed scheme would contribute to the implementation—
(i) by neighbouring local transport authorities of those authorities’ policies under section 108(1)(a), and
(ii) by neighbouring relevant local authorities of other policies affecting local services that those authorities have adopted and published,”, and
(b) in subsection (7)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (b), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or”.
(3) In section 123E (consultation)—
(a) in subsection (4), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed scheme;”, and
(b) in subsection (5)—
(i) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (e), and
(ii) after that paragraph insert—
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005, or”.
(4) In section 162(1) (interpretation of Part 2), at the appropriate place insert—
““council in Scotland” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;”.”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 8.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I should advise the House that if Motion 8A is agreed to then I will not be able to put the Question on Motion 8B on the grounds of pre-emption.
Motion 8A (as an amendment to the Motion on Amendment 8)
Baroness Pidgeon
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 8C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—
“(5) The Secretary of State must take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using services that have been identified as socially necessary local services in accordance with section 138A of the Transport Act 2000.””
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 9 to 27.
“(4A) Where a local service is provided both inside and outside England, subsection (4) does not authorise the provision of information which relates to any part of the service which is provided outside England.”
“29AA Application of section 29A duty: services in Wales
(1) Section 29A (duty to check barring information) applies in relation to a school service that takes up or sets down passengers at one or more points in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for that section to apply in relation to—
(a) a service for the carriage of passengers by road at separate fares—
(i) that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(ii) to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a service that is provided under arrangements made by a body to which the duty in section 15(1) of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 applies (duty of local authorities and governing bodies to have regard to guidance given by Welsh Ministers).”
“144G Application of training requirement: services in Wales
(1) Subsections (1) and (2) of section 144F apply in relation to a local service which has one or more stopping places in Wales only if regulations made by the Secretary of State so provide.
(2) But the regulations may not provide for those subsections to apply in relation to—
(a) a local service that is provided in fulfilment of a duty imposed on the Welsh Ministers by an Act of Senedd Cymru, or
(b) a local service to the extent that it is provided in Wales under a permit granted by the Welsh Ministers under an Act of Senedd Cymru.”
“(8A) The Rights of Passengers in Bus and Coach Transport (Exemptions and Enforcement) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1865) are amended in accordance with subsections (8B) and (9).
(8B) In regulation 8, after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to the enforcement of the requirements of paragraph 1 of Article 16 of Regulation 181/2011 as they apply to a terminal managing body by virtue of paragraph 1A of that Article, and the designated body responsible for the enforcement of those requirements as they so apply is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.
(1B) The enforcement authority in relation to the requirements of regulations made under section 36 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 is a traffic commissioner who is subject to the duty in regulation 10A(1) of these regulations in relation to those requirements.””
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 28.
“Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland
(1) The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 is amended as follows.
(2) Before the italic heading preceding section 36 insert—
“Zero-emission vehicles
35B Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services
(1) The operator of a service that falls within subsection (2) may not use a vehicle that falls within subsection (3) to provide the service in Scotland.
(2) A service falls within this subsection if it is a local service which has one or more stopping places in Scotland and which—
(a) is registered under section 6 of the 1985 Act, or
(b) is not required to be registered under that section because of section 13B(1)(a).
(3) A vehicle falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is constructed or adapted to carry both seated and standing passengers, with the number of seated passengers being more than 22 (determined in accordance with regulations made under section 26 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981),
(b) it is first registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 on or after a date specified in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, and
(c) the tailpipe emissions from it include any of the following—
(i) carbon dioxide,
(ii) carbon monoxide,
(iii) hydrocarbon,
(iv) nitrogen oxide,
(v) particulates.
(4) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations—
(a) specify descriptions of document that may be relied on in order to determine for the purposes of this section what is included in the tailpipe emissions from a vehicle,
(b) specify descriptions of vehicle in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply, and
(c) specify local services or descriptions of local service in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply.
(5) The date specified under subsection (3)(b) may not be before 1 January 2030.”
(3) In section 39(1) (penalties)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c), and
(b) after paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) operated a local service in contravention of section 35B(1) of this Act, or”.
(4) In section 81(4) (regulations and orders), in paragraph (b), after “35A(1)” insert “, 35B(3)(b)”.”
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group and to Motions 30A and 31A.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his Motion 30A and efforts to raise the important issue of bus safety throughout the Bill’s passage. He is pursuing a Vision Zero programme for the bus sector, which would aim to eliminate serious injuries in the course of bus operations. As I said on Report, the Government are sympathetic to the aims of this Motion and we take safety incidents very seriously—in the bus sector and, indeed, on any mode of transport. The Government are committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads and will publish a road safety strategy in due course—the first such strategy since 2011.
The noble Lord has been an excellent advocate for bus safety, and I am pleased to confirm to him that buses will be included in the strategy. This will be an opportunity to highlight existing good work in the sector, including that of Transport for London and the Bus Centre of Excellence. To take the Bus Centre of Excellence example, it has convened the bus knowledge sharing and incident network, bringing together industry experts, safety specialists and bus professionals to share knowledge, develop best practice and shape policy and regulatory improvements in bus safety.
Of course, road safety is inherently multimodal. It is important that we consider all road users and the environment they operate in, be that on foot, by bicycle, in a car or indeed on a bus, to protect people as much as possible. That is why my department has been looking closely at the safe system principles. This is an internationally accepted, evidence-based approach to road safety, underpinned by five pillars: safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road users, safe speed, and post-crash care. These principles are a core component of Vision Zero programmes that have been adopted both internationally, including by Australia and New Zealand following early adopters Sweden and the Netherlands, and locally by authorities such as West Midlands and West Yorkshire.
The Government will look to utilise these principles in their delivery of the forthcoming road safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership while providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances.
This means that local areas can adopt Vision Zero programmes if they deem it suitable. Increasingly, local areas are doing just that. London’s Vision Zero programme is underpinned by a dedicated bus safety action plan and bus vehicle standards. It provides an exemplar of best practice for other local areas to aspire towards. This is already happening. The noble Lord will know that Greater Manchester and Oxfordshire, among others, have recently adopted Vision Zero strategies of their own. The Government welcome other local areas considering bus safety programmes, or even Vision Zero strategies for their areas, but it must be right for them.
I now turn to Motion 31A, which was previously brought by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, and is now tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on the recording and publication of data on assaults. This Government wholeheartedly want to make the bus network safer for everyone, and this includes combating violence against women and girls. In considering whether to increase the level of reporting, it is important to also be conscious of the privacy of those who report incidents and whether individuals are comfortable with sensitive data being recorded and shared with external organisations.
I hope noble Lords will take comfort from the fact that the Government are already taking action to address violence against women and girls. We are due to publish a new violence against women and girls strategy shortly. We have also developed an evidence-based programme to tackle violence against women and girls on transport, working across government and with partners such as the British Transport Police.
I would also like to stress the importance of considering what is already captured by the police and avoiding any duplication. Statistics captured by the police include all incidents that have been reported to them, meaning that incidents of serious assaults and violence that occur on buses are already recorded. This is the case irrespective of whether incidents have been reported by victims, witnesses or third parties. These statistics also include incidents whether they are crime related or not—for instance, incidents not immediately recorded as a crime are still captured in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. Bearing in mind, sadly inevitably, the sensitivity of some of the details in reports from individual women and girls, it is surely much preferable for these details to be held by the police rather than by local transport authorities or bus companies.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Lords feel reassured that the Government have and will continue to take action and that the amendments do not need to be pursued. I also hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords and have not been debated today. I beg to move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 30A in my name. I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement during this part, including an email sent rather late last night. Since we last discussed this Bill, about 16 people per day have been injured in bus accidents and one person is killed per month in London alone according to TfL’s own figures. TfL has a Vision Zero policy for bus accidents.
I am sure the House will join me in sending best wishes for a full recovery to those 16 people hospitalised in the recent Victoria bus crash, including my noble friend Lord Alton. As he said to me, you do not expect to pick up a broken back on your Oyster card on the 8.15 journey to Westminster.
I am greatly heartened, however, by the Minister’s response, and I am glad that the Government are sympathetic to the Motion. The road safety strategy sounds like it is going to be a good thing, as long as it looks at this idea of zero tolerance towards accidents, and at Vision Zero. Having seen how much this has been successfully adopted elsewhere, I look forward to the road safety White Paper.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these amendments; first, about safety. I bring the House’s attention to the fact that, although we had a debate in Committee on the question of safety with regard to blind and disabled people, particularly at bus stops, to speak from memory, my noble friend the Minister said that he would take away the concerns expressed in that debate and come back later. There is a particular problem—and it was debated fully in Committee—about what have been called floating bus stops, so I do not intend to go into it at any great length now. If safety is to mean anything, it must apply to those who wish to use buses as well as those actually on the vehicles.
Since that debate, my attention has been drawn to British Standard 8300-1 of 2018, headed “Design of an accessible and inclusive built environment”, and to paragraph 6.2.2 on bus stops. It was drawn up in January 2018, and the paragraph on bus stops reads:
“Bus stops should conveniently serve key facilities and services by being located within a reasonable walking distance. They should be adjacent to, but not obstructing, pedestrian routes; and pedestrians should have access to and from the bus stop without crossing cycle routes, including where these run between the pedestrian route and the vehicle carriageway”.
I draw my noble friend’s attention to the fact that concern was expressed from all quarters of the House about the design of floating bus stops and the problems that such a design causes for the blind in particular. The BS that I have just quoted was drawn to my attention only today by the National Federation of the Blind UK. I apologise for raising it at the last minute, but it is a relevant point with regard to this amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy my concerns as well as those of other noble Lords on this problem.
The other point that I wish to make is about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, although he has not said very much so far. Listening to him earlier, I felt nostalgia sweeping over me at the fact that this legislation and other legislation in the transport field was drafted at the behest of the trade union movement. He did not actually name which trade union he had in mind. A feeling of nostalgia came about because I remembered the days of “reds under the bed” that the Conservative Party was obsessed with at one time—and that has obviously returned. I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us not only the names of the unions that have such enormous power that they draft legislation these days but those left-wing local authorities to which he referred.
As for the noble Lord’s amendment, it was originally drafted by my noble friend Lord Woodley, who unfortunately could not be present in Committee to move it, so it was never actually discussed. The fascinating thing is that, having attacked these wicked trade unions, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, should pick up an amendment that was tabled by the former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It is a pleasure to see the noble Lord advocating trade union matters, although he will forgive me for thinking that it is a somewhat cynical approach on his part.
Indeed, I looked at the amendments that the noble Lord moved throughout the passage of this Bill, and most of them demanded inquiries, committees and reports to Ministers. I calculated that at least 40 or 50 new employees would be needed to draft responses to all the requests that he made. The Conservative Party would be the first to complain about the addition of bureaucrats, as it would call them, and the unnecessary recruitment of such people. But one can only describe the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, as a one-man employment bureau with regard to bureaucracy. Few of his amendments have had any relevance for bus passengers or the bus industry—and I look forward to him rising shortly to advocate the policy of a former general secretary of the Transport and General Workers’ Union.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Snape. I endorse everything that he said about British Standard 8300. We had a long and extensive debate around floating bus stops and the difficulties for accessibility and inclusion as well as for safety, as the noble Lord rightly points out, for all prospective bus users, not least the blind and sight impaired. Does the Minister believe that current floating bus stops comply with BS 8300, and does the Minister believe that they should? Does he believe that local authorities should comply with BS 8300? What does the Minister see as the role for the British Standard, which clearly sets out a key phrase—although there is much in it—about being able to access the bus without having to cross a live cycle lane.
It is the lived experience for blind, sight-impaired and indeed all prospective bus passengers, with an increasing number of these floating bus stops being tragically laid out and commissioned up and down the country, to have to cross a live cycle lane or, worse still, to stop going out, to be effectively planned out of their local communities, a public realm that was previously accessible before the laying out of these so-called floating bus stops. So, I ask the Minister, when he comes to sum up, what is his view on BS 8300? Does he believe the Government should be very supportive of the work that British Standards do and should it not be that all local authorities and, indeed, all those in planning any public realm, when it comes to bus stops should be fully compliant with this very well thought through, very clear, very comprehensive BS 8300.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion 31A and declare my interest as chair of Amey, which works with councils to identify and capture data on road defects. My motion this evening, however, is on a completely separate issue. If I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, as much as I could see that all the praise he was lauding on my noble friend Lord Moylan with regard to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was wholly appreciated on the Front Bench here, it was me who raised the subject when we were last engaged on it and I would say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape, knows, when it comes to safety in any aspect of life, praise where praise is due and collaboration where collaboration is needed, across party lines. I had no hesitation whatever in praising the unions for their response to the Piper Alpha disaster when I was Minister for Energy, and that has been a characteristic throughout all my political work.
Tonight, however, I am focusing on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, because I thank him and indeed the unions who supported him for first introducing this amendment. I think it is an important amendment, and I have to say that it beggars belief that Labour Party MPs in another place should be voting down the considered and well-argued wishes of the unions on this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked me to name the union. I understand that the RMT did a lot of good work in drafting the original amendment.
Lord Snape (Lab)
The fact is that the amendment was never actually debated in Committee because the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, could not be present. The fact is that it has now been adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, who I suspect—I hope I can say this without upsetting him too much—is doing it more for political purposes than concern about women and children. The fact is that when men, women or children are assaulted on public transport, those assaults are recorded by the police, so there is no need for that particular amendment, which was never moved in the first place.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that this was never mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moylan. He did not even respond to it, if memory serves me correctly, when we did debate it, and, as he knows, it is perfectly proper and in order for anybody to move an amendment in Committee and people do so. I was intending to speak on it in any event, but, in his absence, the opportunity arose for me to move it because, sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, was not here for what I think was an extremely important issue.
We heard earlier this evening about the number of people who are on buses, as opposed to trains, and the safety of people on buses, particularly the vulnerable—not just the women and girls. I appreciate what the Minister said about the initiative that he is taking for women and girls, but it is also about the vulnerable, the disabled and the children. Many people face abuse and even violence in incidents late at night, in particular on buses, which I think should be a matter of concern to the Committee, which is why I raised it in the first place and why I believe that the unions were right to demand stronger sanctions. Late-night shifts expose drivers and staff to higher risks of violence, abuse and anti-social behaviour. Existing protections were seen by the unions, by the Cross-Benchers and indeed by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party as being inadequate. They all called—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Snape, would as well—for increased action against the night-time risk; against underreporting and poor follow-up; against the lack of a legal mandate. There is a need for accountability and, above all, for protection for vulnerable passengers.
The Minister in another place argued that the clause duplicates work done by the Home Office, and again the Minister this evening highlighted that point. However, I do not think that that bears comparison with what happens in the world of rail. The Railway Accident Investigation Branch, the RAIB, which does very good work, was introduced in order to recognise and to fill the void that existed in terms of what normally happens with police reporting. We needed to go further on the rail, and I believe we need to go further, as I am sure the unions did in helping with this amendment, when it comes to buses. According to the Unite survey last year, 93% of UK bus drivers experienced abuse, with 79% saying that there had been an increase over the previous year and many reporting an inadequate employer response to assaults. I think it is time for action and I think that this modest amendment can go at least one step in the right direction.
The Liberal Democrats were very supportive in another place as well. I will quote Steff Aquarone, who said:
“Here lies the point: at present, too many of those incidents go unrecorded, or are not handled consistently across different operators and regions. Clause 40 would put a stop to that, creating a clear and consistent duty that, if an operator is contracted to run services, it must record this data and share it with the local authority. That is the very least the public expect. Furthermore, the inclusion of a duty on a local transport authority to consult with relevant trade unions regarding issues of staff safety arising from the data collected is a good step. It will ensure that the data is used in practice and could lead to increased safety for staff and passengers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/25; col. 231.]
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to firmly support my noble friend’s Motion 31A. I will not repeat the arguments made so forcefully by noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Morgan of Cotes on Report, but I would like to draw the House’s attention to the findings of the 2025 Girlguiding Girls’ Attitudes Survey, released since Report. It found that 56% of girls and young women surveyed between the ages of 11 and 21 felt unsafe taking public transport by themselves, and 31% avoided it altogether. It is totally unacceptable that women and girls do not feel safe on our public transport network, and it is vital that operators monitor assaults on buses. We need action, we need it urgently, and I will support my noble friend should he choose to divide the House tonight.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on Vision Zero, rightly put safety on buses at the heart of this Bill. Who can argue with the aim of zero fatalities on our roads and a culture in the bus industry of safety throughout? The Government’s clear response in taking this forward, including best practice internationally and the new road safety strategy—I think the Minister said it is the first since 2011—really does show action is taking place in this safety space. It is a great assurance to our Benches.
On collecting data on violence on the bus network, we are in absolutely no doubt about the Government’s commitment to this, especially given the awaited VAWG strategy. Given the clear acknowledgement that this data is already collected by the police across the country, and that this new strategy is due, we are satisfied that this concern is being properly addressed, so the amendment is not needed. What is needed is more resources for our police, but that is a debate for another day.
As this Bill seeks to improve bus services across the country, safety in every aspect will be key. We are pleased to hear the way forward to address safety outlined by the Minister.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I was depressed by the remarks of the Minister, but I have been depressed further into almost silence by the astonishing remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. The complacency they both show on these two really important issues is staggering.
Since we last debated this, there has been an appalling crash at Victoria bus station, and what is going to change? Nothing. We will have a road safety strategy that will encompass all modes of transport by road, including foot, bicycle and whatever. That is a good thing, and we should have it, but for buses changes are needed in operator mentality and practice. We see no sign of those happening. They will not emerge from a strategy, but only if the Government say, “This is our objective and we will make this happen”. That is what the Minister is not saying. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, did not hear him not saying it clearly enough.
As for my noble friend Lord Moynihan and all this nonsense about what was discussed when, none of that matters. What matters is what my noble friend Lady Owen said—the actual experience of women and girls travelling on buses. They do not feel safe. The Government again come forward with astonishing complacency about this, saying that it is already being done and there is nothing to be added. It really is not good enough. If the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan choose to divide the House on these matters—I make the point clearly to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, that that is their choice; I have known my noble friend for what must be nearly 50 years now, and he has never been my glove puppet during all that time—then we will support them, because we think these issues are very important.
Finally, as far as dark influence within the Labour Party is concerned, it is astonishing that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, should make his naive remarks on the day on which Mr Paul Holden’s book The Fraud is published, a tract dedicated to exposing the conspiracy behind the Starmer Government, the undeclared funding and the actions of Mr Morgan McSweeney in destroying Jeremy Corbyn and inserting Sir Keir Starmer as his substitute as leader of the Labour Party. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Snape, is a byword for naive credulity among his colleagues, but I suggest that he should get hold of a copy of the book published today and sit down, perhaps this evening, with a stiff whisky by his hand so that he can prepare to anaesthetise himself against the shocks that will be revealed to him. Then he will realise what nonsense he has just said about my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord about the nonsense, if he would like. For five years during that period I was a member of the Labour Party NEC, and, to my knowledge, whatever is in that book is probably a lot of nonsense as well.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions on the important topic of bus safety. To be clear, this Government want a safer bus network and that is why there are already measures in the Bill aimed at supporting this. The Government take this issue extremely seriously and are committed to delivering road safety improvement across the transport system.
Having listened to the points made on the recording and publication of data on assaults, I reiterate that the Government are already undertaking a programme of work to tackle violence against women and girls, particularly on public transport. We are also keen to avoid any duplication of data that is already captured by the police and to ensure that any captured data is kept by an authority that is supremely capable of looking after it.
We are no longer on Report, but I have listened to my noble friend Lord Snape and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for whom I have great respect. The matter of floating bus stops was discussed on Report. I made a commitment, as did the Minister for buses in the other place, which I will not repeat but which we will stand by. I therefore hope that noble Lords are satisfied and feel able not to pursue their Motions. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 29.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 30.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister said. I am hopeful that safety will be at the top of this Bill, or at least in the Government’s mind. Therefore, I am minded not to move my Motion 30A.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendment 31.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That this House do agree with the Commons on their Amendments 32 to 55.
“(1A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) extends to Scotland only.”
“(3A) Section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland) comes into force—
(a) for the purposes of making regulations, on the day on which this Act is passed;
(b) for remaining purposes, on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by regulations appoint.”
“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Use of zero-emission vehicles for local services in Scotland).”
“(6) For regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (3A)(b) or (4A), see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).”
“(ba) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”
“(ea) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation,”
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”
“(zi) a variation of additional facilities identified under section 123A(3)(d) in the scheme;
(zii) a variation of the plans for consultation included in the scheme under section 123A(9);”
“(ai) the Welsh Ministers if, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, any part of Wales would be affected by the proposed variation;”
“(ea) a Transport Partnership created under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2005,”
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will continue where other noble Lords left off. In particular, I commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who gave a very perceptive analysis of the problems that the noble Baroness’s amendment revealed. As he said, the amendment is legally coherent, and I also note that it is well motivated.
I add only this. We have adhered to the convention since 1951 or thereabouts, and it has not been domesticated into our law, as the European Convention on Human Rights has been, through the Human Rights Act 1998. I recall, when I was on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place, when discussing the Human Rights Bill, as it then was, and the then Government’s proposals to domesticate that convention into our jurisdiction, that one of the points I made was that one could be entirely in favour of our membership of the European convention—and I remain in favour of it—without necessarily supporting bringing it within the British domestic legal system.
I say in relation to the 1951 convention that one could be entirely in favour of our remaining a member of it without introducing the problems that are caused when these international treaties become part of domestic law. I said in 1998 that by bringing the European convention into our law and permitting British courts to adjudicate on cases which had to do with disputes under the convention would introduce a dangerous political element into the deliberations of our courts. I do not think I was wrong to say that. The last 25 or 30 years or so have demonstrated that a number of highly political cases have found their way through the courts, both at the lower court level, but also right the way up to the Supreme Court. Whether that has been to the advantage of the litigants or to the development of justice policy and to the development of the law in this country is a matter of debate, but it has created inconveniences, and it has created clashes between Parliament and the courts, and that is not to be wished for.
I gently urge the noble Baroness, when she comes to consider the good sense of her amendment and whether to push it, that she might find it better to leave things as they are. We have adhered faithfully, I think it is fair to say, to the 1951 convention since we ratified it, and there have been immigration and asylum statutes passed by Governments of both parties—the Labour Party and the Conservative Party—since, which have not, in my view, been unfaithful to the convention, either in its spirit or its implementation. I leave it there. I urge her to think carefully about what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and others have said, and perhaps to allow the convention to exist as a convention and to allow Parliament, this Government and any future Government to make up its or their own mind about the way in which it should be implemented on the local stage.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting group with two distinct parts. I must confess that I am not immediately drawn to Amendments 184 and 185 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. They would, in effect, incorporate the refugee convention into the domestic law of the UK, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I therefore cannot accept that, given the unhappy experience that we have had of the Human Rights Act and the unpredictable effect of incorporating an international convention into domestic law. I am not tempted to repeat that mistake. I therefore support the Government in their sensible and inevitable rejection of the amendments that the noble Baroness proposes.
I shall not be drawn into a broader conversation about the suitability of the refugee convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, were. It is clearly an interesting and important debate, which builds on comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about whether, in principle, a well-founded fear of persecution is the correct test for the grant of asylum. These are important and justifiable discussions, but a debate on these amendments in Committee is not the place to have them.
All this takes me to the wording of my Amendment 203I. I invite Members of the Committee who have a copy of the amendment just to look at it for a moment. This amendment emulates the one laid by the noble Baroness in seeking to revise the provisions of earlier statutes. It would amend Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by inserting a new subsection (2). This would provide:
“For the purposes of subsection (1) a person is not to be taken to have come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life or freedom were threatened as mentioned in that subsection if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life or freedom were not so threatened”.
That provision accurately reflects the provisions of Article 31 of the refugee convention.
It is clear that, in 1951, the state parties were of the view that, for an appropriate claim for asylum to be made, it must be made by someone who had come directly from an area where their life or freedom were threatened. The stretching of the term “come directly” to include spending a number of years in another safe country where they could have claimed asylum is a matter of domestic law, which this Parliament is able to revisit. It ties in with my Amendment 203J, which the Committee will recall we debated on 3 September. It is clear that one option open to the Government in creating a disincentive effect is to go back to the original intended wording of the refugee convention.
Amendment 203I is a stand-alone provision because it protects the rights of the United Kingdom as a state party to the convention. It is intended to avoid the deeply regrettable state of our domestic law in respect of this provision of the refugee convention, which has gone far beyond what our international obligations actually are. If noble Lords are worried, as some may be, about our possible repudiation of the refugee convention by some future Government and/or a sizable fraction of the public, they should support measures that reinforce and restate the United Kingdom’s rights as a state party under the refugee convention, and they should align domestic law with the international law.
As Professor Ekins, professor of constitutional law at Oxford, made clear in his 2019 article in the book The Political Philosophy of Refuge, case law has rendered the right afforded to a nation, as stated in Article 31, effectively nugatory. This undercuts self-government and warrants condemnation, I submit, from this Parliament. But its consequences are broader than that, in that, as a consequence, it encourages hundreds of thousands of refugees to become economic migrants, leading to the deaths of potentially thousands at sea; the vast extension of the people trafficking industry, with all the horrors that that entails; and the exposure of European peoples, especially in Greece and Italy, to an ongoing stream of new arrivals, few of whom will ever return home.
The state’s right to exclude asylum seekers and some refugees is an important power that protects the common good of the political community. It preserves the distinction between citizen and non-citizen, on which decent social life and effective self-government depends. The commitments that the states undertook in 1951 in the convention were carefully framed to require refugees to be treated well but not to expose states to an open-ended liability to accept persons fleeing persecution or war, let alone poverty. This amendment restores the meaning—the correct meaning on any reading—of Article 31 of the refugee convention. I commend it to the Committee and the Government.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here right at the beginning. I hope no one will object if I none the less intervene, as I was here for the previous discussion. I think I understand the motivation behind Amendment 184, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It would not perhaps be regarded by her as necessary if it were not for the nibbling away at the refugee convention in recent years.
I must confess that I am not attracted by the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, which is to say that we will have a complete disconnect between being a party to the refugee convention—sort of parking it over there—and saying that in domestic law we can do whatever we like. Sorry, I do not wish to parody what he said, but he was basically saying that we will do our own thing in domestic law and Parliament will decide what we want to implement. I am not sure that that really honours being a party to the refugee convention.
I am not quite sure whether my legal analysis matches that of other contributors to this debate but, as I read it, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, does not seek incorporation in the way that the ECHR was incorporated through the Human Rights Act. It is a bit stronger than the assimilation that we have had, such as in the Conservatives’ 1993 immigration appeals Act, which absorbed some of the definitions and wording of the refugee convention. Perhaps some kind of rather British compromise is going on.
What has happened in recent years is that there has been an attempt to ignore aspects of the refugee convention. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is more expert on the refugee convention than I am, but I cannot really follow his assertion that his Amendment 203I would restore the correct reading or interpretation of Article 31. I do not know where he gets that from. Article 31 is worded as it is; it says anyone “coming directly”. It does not incorporate any kind of wording like that in his amendment. It just says someone “coming directly”; it does not say that they have not come directly if they have passed through or stopped in another country. I have a vague recollection that there is case law that says if someone passes through rather quickly—there are probably other qualifications, but with no intention to stay and not staying several years somewhere—then that would be ignored. That would be de minimis and it could still be concluded that they had come “directly” to the UK. I do not think the definition of “directly” has to be absolutist. No doubt the noble Lord will correct me, but I do not understand where this assertion that he is restoring the correct interpretation of the refugee convention comes from.
Rather like with the ECHR, if there is a belief that the convention itself is wrongly worded or not fit for purpose—I do not agree with that interpretation of either the ECHR or the refugee convention—then we should attempt to get an assembly of the state parties to change it. Obviously, there are some people who want to pull out of the ECHR, which is something that I vehemently disagree with, but even going short of that and saying, “We can stay a member but we’ll just make sure that we subvert and undermine it”, seems disingenuous and even dishonest. Be up front: if you want to try to change the refugee convention or the European Convention on Human Rights then try to get all the parties together and attempt to do so, but trying to pretend that we belong but do not really want to implement the provisions seems the worst of all worlds.
For instance, it is true that Article 31 of the refugee convention refers to “illegal entry or presence” but that has morphed, in current terminology, into describing people as illegal—“illegal immigrants”, a term that I will never accept. People cannot be illegal. I prefer the term irregular entry, because if someone arrives, applies for asylum and is granted it, having been described as illegal seems an unfortunate beginning. I am stuck with the fact that the refugee convention uses that term, but it does not refer to the persons themselves as illegal, which is what has happened in modern political and media commentary, which I deplore, frankly. That is just an example. I would prefer the refugee convention to be changed to say “irregular entry and presence”, until it is illegal presence. Once they have been refused asylum and they need to leave, they then have a different status. Anyway, I digress slightly.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I am perhaps not as warm towards this amendment as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just was. It seems to me that it does give away its intention in the title,
“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”,
which fundamentally is an assault on whether we think Parliament has primacy in our view. Of course I will give way, although I have not got very far in my argument.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As a point of information, does the noble Lord realise that the title,
“Primacy of the Refugee Convention”
is directly adopted from the Conservative’s Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, as brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne?
Lord Harper (Con)
I was not aware of that, but I am not sure it changes my argument. As we have just discovered by listening to the debates about Article 31 of the convention, part of the issue here is that the interpretation of the words is contested, as we heard from the points my noble friend Lord Murray set out when he talked about restoring what he feels is the original definition—indeed, that has already been done in the Nationality and Borders Act, which I think has about half-a-dozen interpretation sections interpreting parts of the convention—and from what the noble Baroness said when she disagreed that that was the original intention.
The whole point is that, if there are disputes about what the convention means, somebody has to decide what it means. It can be either be courts and judges or Parliament setting out what we think we have signed up to and being clear about that, and Parliament has done so in a number of cases. If you put this amendment into statute, it would effectively say that judges could assert that what Parliament said was not the interpretation of the convention and a judge would decide what to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that she has been careful to word this amendment so that the court could not strike down primary legislation. If I may say so, I do not think that is a terribly good safeguard, because an enormous amount of our immigration legislation is not primary legislation but secondary legislation. All the Immigration Rules are secondary legislation made by Ministers using primary legislative powers, so unless there is something explicitly in the primary legislation which gives Ministers powers to make Immigration Rules that specifically forbids a court being able to do this, if this amendment were carried, a court could strike down our Immigration Rules.
That would in effect mean judges, not Ministers, making the decision. Of course those Immigration Rules are not just made by Ministers; Ministers draft them, but they are put before both Houses of Parliament and approved by Parliament. In the end, my contention is that, if you want to have an immigration system that carries the support of the public, decisions have to be made by people who are accountable to the public.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the convention being chipped away. Part of the issue is that a large number of members of the public do not think that it works for them. They think that people can come to this country as economic migrants, put their hands up and say that they are asylum seekers, and that that somehow gives them a free pass.
When I was Immigration Minister, I argued that we should have a tough system that lets people with a good claim stay but is clear that, where people do not have a good claim, we will kick them out. All that the charities that end up supporting them do is damage the public’s support for our asylum system. If people think that this is a way of getting around the system for economic migrants who get here, and that courts interpret the legislation in a way that is not intended by Ministers who are accountable to Parliament, it damages public support for the very principle that the noble Baroness is setting out; that is incredibly damaging.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way a second time. My point is on not the big stuff around public opinion but the specific question of the danger of courts striking down the Immigration Rules. Does the noble Lord realise that the 1993 Act, which he said a moment ago does not really matter, is still in force; and that the provision I cited already prohibits the Immigration Rules breaching the refugee convention?
Lord Harper (Con)
Parts of the Act are still in force, obviously, but, if what the noble Baroness says were true, there would be no need to have her amendment. The fact is that, if you say that the courts can decide that the convention—as they interpret it—can override legislation, that is damaging. The world is a very different place now from what it was in 1951 when the convention was adopted. You have to reflect that by democratically accountable Ministers and legislators making decisions about how we interpret it in the modern era; that is how you strengthen the principles underpinning it, but in a way that works in the modern world. If you do not do that, you will just have more people thinking that the whole thing is nonsense and that we should pull out of it. Actually, I do not think that we should pull out of it—it needs work and it needs to be amended, but we also need to interpret it correctly. My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment, which sets out a definition that is relevant in the modern world around people who pass through a number of safe countries then choose to come to the UK, is sensible; it would, I think, have the support of a large number of people in the United Kingdom.
In the end, the decision on whether that is the correct interpretation of the convention should, in my humble opinion, be taken by Ministers and by Parliament. It should not be taken by judges being able to insert their interpretation of the 1951 convention, as it was drafted for a very different world, and how they think it should be interpreted now. That would be a retrograde step and would not do what the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Ludford, are trying to do. I think that they are frustrated that the public do not support the provisions of the convention and they are being chipped away at, but what the noble Baroness is proposing, supported by the noble Baroness opposite, would actually make things worse, not better. If the public think that the asylum system is not under any democratic control and that decisions are taken by courts, not accountable people, the system will become less supported by the public—not more—and the whole thing will unravel. If you believe in an asylum system, which I do, and you want to strengthen it, you have to allow democratic institutions to reflect the world in which we now live, not the world in which the convention was drafted. If you do that and make it a convention that is able to be interpreted in the modern world, you strengthen it and make it more likely to succeed than doing the opposite.
For those reasons, it would strike at the primacy of Parliament to put this into law, but it would also do something that I think, fundamentally, both noble Baronesses would not support: it would weaken public support for the asylum system, which, in the end, they will come to regret.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I think that he is misrepresenting me, but I will not linger too long over that. I have absolutely nothing at all against, for instance, this Government wanting to go to Strasbourg to seek to change the wording of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights —good luck with that—but it is also open to them to analyse, as I think they are doing, whether Article 8 on the importance of family considerations is being wrongly interpreted or implemented in British tribunals and courts. They are then completely able—I do not oppose this being done—to issue guidance to the court on the analysis, interpretation and application of Article 8. I am sure that there are similar articles of the convention where that could be done.
What I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is doing in his amendment is rewriting the refugee convention, which is a different matter. I am not up for rewriting things, but I am perfectly prepared to see guidance issued to the courts if they are overly generous or wrong in their interpretation. I certainly want precision and integrity in the law; if the noble Lord is trying to imply that I do not, I reject that.
Lord Harper (Con)
I had sat down but, given that the noble Baroness intervened on me, I will make a brief response since we have gone over the time—although that was largely to do with her rather than me.
I was not saying that the noble Baroness was in favour of imprecision; I was saying that it is about who decides what things mean. I think that Parliament should decide what they mean. It can keep the convention updated with the modern world, rather than courts doing that in a way that is not compatible with the views of the public. That is all I am saying; it would fundamentally strengthen the convention that we have signed up to and is likely to keep it in force for longer, with the support of the public. That is the thrust of my argument. I am content to leave it there.
Lord German (LD)
Let me go briefly through my quick summing up of what I have heard.
It seems that there are those who wish to leave things as they are; those who wish to have a more relaxed regime in terms of getting further from the convention; and those, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who want to lock them together. We have just heard those three different positions but I have never heard, except from my noble friend Lady Ludford behind me, the view that what you can do is to seek to change, alter or amend while seeking definitions of “internationally”. After all, this is an international document that we signed up to. If we believe that we are on our own in this world and that there is nobody else who will support us in making any changes, then, surely to goodness, we are not going to be stuck in saying that everybody else is out of step except us. That is not an argument I can accept.
The crucial issue here is how we make the best use of the convention and of our laws with it together. Whether or not we change from the position where we are now to a more fundamental change, in wrapping the two together, is an issue that requires a lot of debate and discussion—and by wise heads who are in this area—but it seems that what we have is a suspicion, which I can hear from those on my right, that we need to slacken our application of the refugee convention. In the sense that we have not tried to seek accommodation with others who might feel the same way, that strikes me as an incorrect way of dealing with something that has been integral to our law and integral to the way in which we operate for such a long time.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry not to get in before the noble Lord, and I am grateful for the tolerance of the House. I will be as brief as I can. I support Amendment 203I in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray. He has explained the reasons for his amendment, which seeks to restore the initial intention behind the refugee convention, on which Section 31 of the 1999 Act is based. This is an important amendment because as we have seen, even today, there is a lack of clarity on and a great deal of debate about the refugee convention, its status and its very meaning. I will touch on two of the problems I see, which my noble friend’s amendment would overcome.
The first is the problem of the convention itself. It does not oblige the refugees themselves to seek refuge in the first country; it is an agreement between states, and therefore it is for the states, not the individuals. That has given rise to a lot of the discussion we have heard about whether they have to make a claim in the first safe country. The second problem is the guidance, updated by the Home Office on 27 June this year, which explains the inadmissibility rules in respect of safe third countries and where asylum should be claimed if asylum has been claimed, should be claimed or could reasonably have been expected to be claimed,
“(or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing”
the claimant—which I understand is to reflect the case law. Therefore, we have all kinds of obstacles and not very much agreement on the problem.
I recognise how far the Government have gone to tackle the problems of historically high levels of not only immigration but asylum claims, and the small boat arrivals pose a particular problem, with people crossing the channel from the French coast, having travelled through France and probably a number of other safe countries in the EU, as has been stated. We paid France £476 million to deal with this problem and try to control their coastal departures but, sadly, it has not worked. This year we added the one-in, one-out agreement, but so far that has not paid many dividends: as of last Thursday, we have seen 26 people sent to France and nine people come in from France, which is a drop in the ocean of the 32,000 recorded in September.
We have a problem, and so do the French. Their immigration figures are higher than ours: last year, 1.6 million people came in from outside Europe—that is, non-EU citizens—and they had 157,000 asylum claims compared to our 110,000. They have a much less stable regime at the moment, with President Macron unable to command a majority in Parliament and losing Prime Ministers regularly. So, I cannot blame the French, either. Migration is top: the party with the majority is Madame Le Pen’s.
Good though the Government’s intentions are—and they are good intentions—returns agreements will not work as well as a proper legal amendment, such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Murray, which would control the problem at source, in the law, of whether or not we admit claims from people who have passed through a safe country. That is why I support it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this group is certainly a tale of two halves. We on these Benches are unable to support the first two amendments. The United Kingdom’s problems with the current migration crisis stem not necessarily from the refugee convention itself. Rather, the problems lie with the metaphorical scaffolding which has been built around the convention. First, the Government are unable to carry out the will of the British people and turn away those who arrive here unlawfully. To all intents and purposes, the convention already has primacy in United Kingdom law. Those who qualify as asylum seekers have their subsistence paid for by the British state. They have an army of lawyers to hand.
Secondly, the problem lies with processing. Because this Government have continued to expand the incentives for people to come here, asylum processing remains severely backlogged. Removing legal safeguards against illegal migration will only make this problem worse. We already know the impact the Human Rights Act is having on our ability to control our borders and end this crisis. We will debate that Act further in a later group, so I will not go further now. Suffice to say that further incorporating treaties and conventions into domestic law is not the right way to reduce crossings by small boat.
Amendment 185 is another attempt to promote a world view divorced from reality. It is a measure that would allow people claiming to be asylum seekers to face no penalty for illegally entering this country regardless of the country they directly came from. It would open the door to even wider and more egregious exploitation of our already generous system. Let us consider what the effects of this amendment would mean. Asylum seekers, having arrived in France or a similarly safe third country, would have no disincentive to make the dangerous crossing over the channel. Not only would they be enticed by free board and lodging which we provide, alongside many other amenities on offer, but they would face no recourse to justice should they be forging their identity or embellishing their story.
What is the result? More money on the taxpayers’ bottom line, more stigmatisation and scepticism of actual and true asylum seekers, and more casualties among those crossing the channel. Our legal system, so long as we are part of this convention, should be practical and prudent. We cannot decriminalise all illegal migration so that we may feel virtuous when discussing refugees. We should reject this amendment.
Amendment 203I tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor is very pertinent. It seeks both to clarify and vindicate the rights of the United Kingdom under Article 31 of the refugee convention. It does so at a time when, as we have heard, its provisions are under increased scrutiny. While other Members of this House—those on the Benches opposite—attempt to dilute our sovereign right to control our borders, I am grateful to those on this side who have the resolve to prioritise Britain’s interests while keeping us in line with our international obligations.
This is a moderate and necessary amendment. As it makes clear, only asylum seekers fleeing genuinely dangerous and war-torn countries will be able to enter the United Kingdom without fear of persecution. Those who pass through or stop in another country where their freedoms were not so threatened will not be able to claim in a court of law that they were fleeing persecution, for the evident reason that they will have chosen not to stop in a prior safe country. This should be our starting point.
The refugee convention exists to provide respite for those fleeing persecution and violence; it is a measure that was born not out of necessity but from pragmatism and benevolence. However, unending benevolence, which gives every person who enters our country the benefit of the doubt and allows everyone the same defences in court regardless of their last country of departure, will undermine confidence in the asylum system. It damages the national interest and endangers national security.
This amendment is in the national interest. We have seen for too long the effects of an over-lenient legal system that has not adequately dealt with those who arrive here illegally, those who seek not true refuge but our generosity. By articulating and vindicating the United Kingdom’s rights under Article 31 of the convention, we do a service not only to people of this country but to those who are genuine refugees who flee persecution.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an extensive and wide-ranging debate—certainly for the last day in Committee. None the less, I shall try to address the major points raised in the debate while being brief, given the hour.
Amendment 184, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to require that legislation, Immigration Rules and guidance are to be interpreted in compliance with the 1951 refugee convention. Where any such provision may be found by a court to be incompatible with the convention, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
I wish to thank my noble friend for her amendment, also noting the reflections that she made during Second Reading, including on how the refugee convention was a direct result of some of the worst atrocities seen in the last century. I might note that possibly Second Reading was a better place to have a long discussion of the rights and wrongs of the refugee convention and its fitness in this day and age than is Committee. I make it clear on the record, in addressing the comments of many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that the Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I have not had the pleasure of reading the Times as extensively as maybe I should have done at the weekend, but even so I shall not be drawn into commenting on leaked memos. However, I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for mentioning, although it was not entirely germane to the debate but an important thing to register on this day, the international developments, particularly the release of hostages. I take this opportunity to join her, as I am sure that all noble Lords would wish to, in welcoming that development.
To go back to the Bill, all claims that are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against a background of published country information. We assess that Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 as already drafted on the statute book, which sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in relation to Immigration Rules, is already a sufficient safeguard for ensuring that we remain compatible with our international obligations. As such, we do not consider this amendment necessary.
My noble friend’s other amendment, Amendment 185, seeks to amend Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 by applying Article 31 of the refugee convention directly. In effect, this would require the courts, when considering whether a refugee is entitled to a defence provided by Article 31 and should not be convicted of an immigration offence, to make their good faith interpretation rather than interpreting the will of Parliament, as set out in Section 31. That picks up on some of the comments made by noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Harper.
Section 31 provides a defence for refugees charged with certain document-related offences if they entered the UK directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened, presenting themselves to the authorities without delay and claiming asylum as soon as reasonably practical. This defence is conditional on the refugee not having reasonably been able to seek protection in another country en route. While the defence under Section 31 of the 1999 Act provides important protection for refugees, it applies only in the circumstances outlined above—namely, to those who come directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened or who could not reasonably be expected to seek protection en route. In practice, we know that very few migrants will meet these criteria. Most will have transited through multiple safe countries where they could have sought protection, and therefore do not qualify under Section 31.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord says, rather speedily, that it would undermine the intention of Article 31. How does he know what the intention is if it uses the words “coming directly”?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I think we know from our experience of asylum seekers and migration that, generally speaking, one cannot take that almost continuous journey through many countries from a place, as indeed my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti set out in greater detail and with a greater grasp of geography than I can muster at this time of night, where people could potentially not be seen to have stopped in a safe country. We know that that does not happen and I think it would be a reasonable interpretation, not so much of the convention but just of the reality of what happens, that if we were to take on the interpretation as set out in the noble Lord’s Amendment 203I, we would be taking in practically nobody. That is not, as I say, the intention of this Government’s policy towards asylum seekers, refugees and migrants.
Lord Harper (Con)
The Minister is presenting one counterfactual, which is that we would take almost no one in. The alternative is to do what we did, which is Ministers make decisions about quite large groups of people that we take in. I just point to our Afghan schemes and our schemes for Ukrainian refugees and British national passport holders from Hong Kong. Those were very significant and there is something very important about them: because they were decisions taken by people who were democratically accountable, supported by Parliament, they were largely supported by the vast majority of the British public. I think that is a better model than having a convention which is interpreted by courts in a way that the public do not support. I think that is a better alternative model and one which we delivered in practice with considerable public support. It is a better model, and I urge him to support it.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, I was not talking about schemes that were set up for specific groups of people in specific situations, such as those from Hong Kong, Ukraine or Afghanistan, which the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, I am absolutely clear as well that I do not disagree with him or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on the principle that we would not want to leave that purely up to the courts rather than having it as part of legislation that has been proposed by Ministers and supported by both Houses of Parliament. I do not disagree with that, but the counter-counterfactual is also the case: if we excluded anyone who passed through any country in which they could reasonably stop, as a safe port of call, then we would not be taking anybody else in outside those established schemes. I do not think that is a reasonable, practical interpretation of the facts on the ground. For that reason, I am afraid that we will not be able to support Amendment 203I from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth.
Before I finish, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had the courtesy to say that she would not be able to be in her place until the end of this stage of the debate. She took the opportunity when speaking to rail against the increasing authoritarianism and blaming of refugees for all the ills of this country. I urge her, and indeed all noble Lords, if they think this is the case for this Government, to read carefully the words of our Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Labour Party conference. He set out a clear case, with humane and progressive reasons, for controlling borders. Indeed, I point to the words of our new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. She is very clear that for people from, as she says, an ethnic minority, having a controlled system of borders is a good thing. There is nothing progressive about insecurity, whether insecurity of income, on our streets or on our borders. This Government were elected to tackle all three things, and we are determined to tackle them.
Given that, and given the time of night, I will conclude and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement in this group, even though some engagement was with a rather broader brush than ideally one would like in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, did not need to be self-deprecating about not being a lawyer, nor did other noble Lords need to damn my amendments with faint praise for being surprisingly “legally coherent”, even though they disagreed with the substance.
Some noble Lords were of course going to use these amendments for the big debate that rages in our countries at the moment around the refugee convention. However, to go to the detail of my amendments, neither of them would affect the big debate about whether we should be in or out of the refugee convention, or whether we should be in it but periodically ignore it. My amendments were attempting to achieve some coherence in our statute book, which I think is what a Committee stage on a borders Bill should be about.
There are anomalies in the way that we are half-pregnant with the refugee convention at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, did not quite believe me when I said that Section 2 of the 1993 Act already provides that the Immigration Rules may not conflict with the refugee convention and therefore courts may decide on that matter. I would like him to believe me or, if he does not, to look at the statute, because Section 2 of the 1993 Act is still in force. The noble Lord then said that if what I say is correct, we would not need my amendment, but of course the rules are just the rules. Underneath the Immigration Rules there are executive decisions and guidance, and above the rules there is legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly and understandably brought up the question of democracy, and other noble Lords engaged in the age-old debate about what democracy is and the relationship between elected parts of the constitution and the courts. There must be a relationship between the two because there is no democracy without the rule of law and arbitrary decisions could be made. The moment you legislate, you are passing some role to the judiciary. Some of us are happy with that and some of us do not want quite so much of that, but my amendments would expressly preserve parliamentary sovereignty as the overriding principle in our legislation, even under the Human Rights Act.
On Amendment 185, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for identifying the point I make about the anomaly in the current position. I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because clearly I did not make myself clear enough in my opening remarks; he said that my amendment would be a licence for people to come with forged papers. The anomaly I refer to is that, as a refugee with forged papers, you get protection from prosecution now, but not as a refugee with no papers. That is the detail of what I was trying to achieve in these specific amendments, notwithstanding this very general debate, and I am grateful for that. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) The good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law relating to immigration and asylum.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets the good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance on the good character requirement published at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section "the good character requirement" refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 186 on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much regrets that she cannot be in her place as she feels strongly about this issue.
The amendment concerns a change in official guidance for immigration staff assessing good character in nationality applications. Refugees claiming citizenship after 10 February who entered the UK “illegally” will now normally be refused regardless of when they entered the country. The policy change, in effect, reintroduces sections of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill repeals. That repeal was described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as
“a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”.
Without this amendment, this Bill is one step forward only for guidance to take us one step backwards.
Following a Private Notice Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, there was considerable criticism of the new guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, commented that
“this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force”.—[Official Report, 12/2/25; col. 1256.]
There was no such scrutiny, but this amendment provides such an opportunity now. It would do three simple things. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting consideration of a child’s irregular entry to the country. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity further to uphold the rule of law. I will consider each in turn.
First, in a letter to ILPA, to which I am grateful for its assistance with the amendment, the then Minister Dame Angela Eagle said that
“the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship … where necessary to comply with our international obligations”.
I will return to the discretion question later. Here I simply note that the amendment seeks to turn “may” into “must”. In the PNQ debate, my noble friend Lord Boateng warned that the policy contravenes Article 34 of the refugee convention, which calls on states to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees as far as possible. The UNHCR makes the same point, citing a similar provision in the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. It also expresses concern that the policy may result in breaches of Article 31 of the refugee convention, discussed in the previous group, which clearly states that countries
“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”.
According to the UNHCR, Article 31 is central to the object and purpose of the refugee convention because it ensures that refugees can gain access to international protection and the rights associated with it without being penalised for breaches of immigration and other laws.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to repeat all that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, but I agree with every word. If we wish people to become full citizens of, or to integrate into, our country, looking back at the way in which they came into the country actually damages that process. People who could have been working here for years, and brought families up together, are being denied that opportunity.
It is quite clear that this is a case of one step forward, one step back. The repeal of some of the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act, in Clauses 38 and 39 of the Bill, was absolutely the right thing to do. But then the Secretary of State overturned that by stating simply that, from 10 February 2025, individuals applying for citizenship who arrived by “a dangerous journey”, or who entered the UK irregularly, “will normally be refused” British citizenship, with no carve-out for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children—and it is retrospective to people already in the United Kingdom.
Because it is such an important issue, I managed to ask whether Britain was standing alone on this matter. I have arranged, through a system in this Parliament that I did not know about, to ask all 46 Parliaments of the Council of Europe a question. When considering a citizenship application from an individual who is legally recognised as a refugee, to what extent does the method by which they entered the country impact their eligibility for citizenship? For example, does entering national territory without permission normally make an applicant ineligible for citizenship, including if they are later recognised as a refugee?
That was dealt with by the Parliaments of the Council of Europe, and we received responses from 31 member countries. Not one of them has the rule that the Secretary of State has just applied to this system. I will read out the names of those countries, because they ought to be on record: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada—which is an associate of the Council of Europe—Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. None of them carries out this policy.
Why are we standing alone? Why are we the ones who are marching out of step with everybody else? Why is it that we do not want these people, who are coming here and spending their lifespan here, to be integrated fully and granted citizenship? They have worked their way through our society. It is absolutely shameful and the Government ought to rescind the Secretary of State’s statement and fall back on what is done in this Bill. In the Bill, we have done the right thing. By contrast, the Secretary of State’s statement needs to be re-dealt with, so that we can fall in line with every other country in Europe that decided to respond to this. Incidentally, it was only the small countries that did not respond, such as San Marino and Andorra; all the big countries of Europe are in there.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly about the first amendment in this group, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, before moving on to those in my name and those of my noble friends.
The “good character” assessment may, in the view of some noble Lords, have a slightly antiquated name, but let me take a moment to go into some more detail. A person will not normally be considered to be of good character if there is information to suggest that any of the following apply: if they are a criminal, if they are a terrorist, if they have failed to pay tax, if they are dishonest or if they have breached immigration laws. That is not an exhaustive list, but those are the main points set out by the Government.
I know that the amendment is well intentioned, but we on these Benches believe that the requirements currently set out to be considered a person of “good character” are not only valid but important for maintaining national security and the safety and well-being of our citizens. For us to say that a person should not be a threat to national security, that they should be honest and that they should seek to nurture our community rather than harm it, as a prerequisite, is, I am sure all noble Lords will agree, an entirely valid principle. I therefore cannot support any measures that threaten the watering down of this principle and cannot back the amendment.
I turn to the amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. We need to acknowledge in this debate that, despite our various disagreements on the Bill and, to some extent, on how we approach the issue of migration more widely, we share the same fundamental ambition to see our country succeed. We all want a country in which everyone contributes, in which communities thrive and work together, and in which our economy and public services are properly supported. But, if we are to get closer to achieving this ambition, we must face up to the reality that our social security and welfare systems are not limitless. They exist to protect the vulnerable here at home and to support those who fall on hard times. That is why these amendments are so vital.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for proposing the amendment and for the support that she had from the noble Lord, Lord German, in relation to the contribution that he has made. I shall deal initially with Amendment 186, which was tabled by my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. My noble friend has made a very strong plea to the Government, but I remind her that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one, which is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship.
As my noble friend knows, the British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the Home Secretary to determine the good character policy. Changes to the policy are at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and the amendment proposed by my noble friend and other Members in Committee seeks to limit that discretion.
I hope my noble friend recognises that the good character policy is compliant with our international obligations, including those under the refugee convention. Guidance on the good character policy is clear that decision-makers have the ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. This includes disregarding immigration breaches if it is accepted, and I think my noble friend accepted this, that they were outside the applicant’s control—for example, if the person was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking or if they had entered illegally when they were a child. I argue that an explicit exemption in legislation is not necessary, as the existing policy guidance already provides flexibility.
My noble friend asked why we brought this in. The good character requirement is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Each citizenship application will always be considered on its individual merits, and the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there are exceptional, compelling or mitigating circumstances, or where it is necessary for us to comply with our international obligations. Small boat crossings and other dangerous journeys to the UK put lives at risk and undermine our border security. The change to the good character policy is part of the Government’s strategy to strengthen the asylum and immigration system, ensuring that those rules are respected and enforced. There is a legal basis for that, and discretion for the Secretary of State accordingly.
Amendment 191 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, who is not currently in his place, but I will continue to address his amendment. It places specific conditions on those applying for permission to enter, stay or settle in the UK, and removes the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant leave outside the Immigration Rules. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed.
The immigration system controls access to benefits already. The policy of no recourse to public funds is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. Most migrants will become eligible to access public funds only at the point when they gain settlement. The expectation under our current policy is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. This approach reflects the need to maintain the confidence of the general public that immigration brings benefits to our country rather than costs to the public purse.
There is an ability to apply for the condition of no recourse to public funds to be lifted. This relates to the safeguards that exist to protect the most vulnerable in certain circumstances. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for visas and settlement. We set out our plans to restore control over immigration in the White Paper.
I turn briefly to Amendment 196, which was also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It proposes to restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and to partners of British citizens, and to set the qualifying period for settlement at 10 years. Although settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement, the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in this amendment.
The expectation is that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement. There is currently a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for such settlement. Most of these are five years, with shorter periods for exceptional work routes and longer 10-year qualifying periods where, for example, we require people to demonstrate close ties with the UK over a longer time. There are also exceptions in place for the most vulnerable, which this amendment does not recognise. The provisions for settlement are set out in the Immigration Rules, so again I tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for settlement.
What we are looking to do with the Bill is strengthen our borders, go after smuggling gangs—which have caused much damage to migrants’ lives already—and secure our borders from systematic abuse. However, noble Lords will have seen that the Government have set out proposals for earned settlement within the immigration White Paper. As part of this, we will set a baseline qualifying period of 10 years for settlement in the UK, with the possibility of settlement being gained earlier based on contribution or skills. That will be subject to consultation later this year—I hope that will assist my noble friend Lady Lister—if people wish to express particular views, not just in this House but elsewhere. That consultation will be produced later this year.
Amendment 197, which the noble Lords have also tabled, would automatically revoke settlement in a wide range of circumstances, including where a person’s income falls below £38,700. I suggest to the noble Lord—I hope he takes this in the spirit in which I put it—that the amendment is unworkable and would lead to injustice. Let us give an example of a situation where a person relies on the benefits system for a very short period but has paid tax and national insurance contributions for decades. The amendment, if passed and in legislation, would mean that that person would have their settlement revoked. I do not think it can be fair that a short period of unemployment might well lead to the revocation of settlement.
I should note that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—namely, indefinite leave to remain. A migrant’s access is subject to the same eligibility criteria as any other claimant, including the need to be habitually resident, meaning that they will have made the UK their home in addition to having a legal right to claim benefits. Furthermore, provisions also exist to invalidate any leave granted to a foreign criminal who has been made the subject of a deportation order. Where a deportation order is not made, settlement can be revoked for acts of criminality, such as deception or fraud in obtaining a settlement, as well as other significant non-conducive reasons. Settlement, of course, can also be revoked where a foreign national is liable to be deported but cannot be because of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the refugee convention.
So, in summary, the Government are fully committed to making our communities safer by deporting those who break our laws, but, for the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask that my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, do not press these amendments now. Obviously, we can, if they wish, return to them on Report.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Lord referred to the extension to 10 years of the period of waiting on indefinite leave to remain while seeking citizenship. That does not, I hope, apply retrospectively to people arriving now—people who came in on the understanding that the waiting period would be five years. I hope the Minister can confirm that, for them, the waiting period will still be five years.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The proposals will be set out shortly, subject to consultation. I hope the noble Lord can await that formal consultation on those proposals.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
We can wait, but the people who fear that they will be affected are becoming increasingly anxious.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
That is an important point. I was going to say we have been asking this question for many months and are still waiting for an answer to it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his very strong support for the amendment and particularly for his really helpful research in the Council of Europe. It is still not clear to me why we are out of step and are the only ones doing this.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. There was one particular thing I asked—which I will not ask him to pursue now because it is late, but perhaps he could write to me—on the guidance, which does not make clear the position of children. Perhaps he could look at Hansard and write to me and to the right reverend Prelate about that.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration legislation(1) For the purposes of any provision made by virtue of this Act or the relevant immigration legislation, and for any decision, action or policy made under this Act or the relevant immigration legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply.(2) Where a court or tribunal is considering any decision under the relevant immigration legislation, the court or tribunal must disregard the Human Rights Act 1998.(3) For the purposes of this section “the relevant immigration legislation” means—(a) the Immigration Acts as defined by section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007, and(b) the Immigration Rules made under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.(4) In the Human Rights Act 1998—(a) in section 3, after subsection (2), insert—“(3) This section does not apply to any provision made by or by virtue of the relevant immigration legislation as defined by section (Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for immigration legislation) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”;(b) in section 6— (i) in subsection (2)(a) omit the last “or”(ii) after subsection (2)(b) insert—“(c) the authority was exercising powers or fulfilling functions conferred on the authority by the relevant immigration legislation as defined by section (Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 for Immigration Legislation) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(5) In the Immigration Act 1971—(a) in section 8AA—(i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”,(ii) in subsection (2)(a)(i) omit “, or”;(iii) omit subsection (2)(a)(ii), and(iv) omit subsections (3) to (6), and(b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A).(6) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2.(7) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—(a) in subsection (1) after “must” insert “not”,(b) in subsection (2) after “must” insert “not”,(c) in subsection (2) for “section 6” substitute “any section”, and(d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”.(8) In the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Act 2004 in section 2 (offences relating to entering the United Kingdom without a passport), in subsection (12) for the definition of “leave or asylum interview” substitute—“leave interview” means an interview with an immigration officer or an official of the Secretary of State at which a person seeks leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(9) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)—(a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section, and(b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.”
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we now turn, in my submission, to probably one of the most important groups of amendments on the Bill, which I am sure will promote some discussion and likely much disagreement. That is perhaps something to be welcomed.
The stated aim of the Human Rights Act, when it was introduced, was to bring rights home. It incorporates 16 rights derived from the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law and was itself enacted to satisfy the obligations placed on the British Government by Article 1 of the ECHR. This was all to satisfy a noble purpose: to make sure that human rights in the United Kingdom were protected and upheld. But we have seen the corruption of this noble purpose no more keenly than when we see how it has been applied to matters of immigration and deportation.
To give an example, noble Lords will no doubt be familiar with the horrific abuses inflicted on girls by the Rochdale grooming gangs. Two of the Rochdale grooming gang ringleaders, Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf, fought deportation by claiming their right to a family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. Rauf even gave up his Pakistani citizenship just to make sure that we could not deport him. He lost his appeals, yet he is still here: still in Rochdale, still living among the people whose lives he destroyed.
It is clear that, under the straitjacket imposed on us by the Human Rights Act, our country has lost control of the asylum system. Hundreds of thousands of people have come here claiming to be refugees—far more than politicians before us ever imagined—almost all passing through neighbouring countries which are perfectly safe. Tens of thousands of them will receive taxpayer-funded legal aid, which is spent on lawyers competing to devise ever more ingenious legal arguments to keep them in the country.
Let me give your Lordships some more examples. One woman, who was refused leave to remain, deliberately joined a terrorist organisation to manufacture a claim that she risked imprisonment back home. A convicted paedophile evaded deportation by claiming he was gay and that his life would be at risk in his home country. And let us not forget the Albanian criminal who claimed in February that he could not be deported because of his son’s sensitivity around food, the sole example given in court being his aversion to foreign chicken nuggets. The immigration tribunal ruled that his deportation would breach his Article 8 rights, as it would apparently have an “unduly harsh” impact on his son.
Every day we see these kinds of cases reported, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, mainly adult men, take the risk of crossing the channel in small boats because they know that we cannot remove even criminals and terrorists. Indeed, we pay their legal fees to help them stay. We have seen this unjust situation unfold further with the Government’s returns deal with France. The week before Parliament broke for recess saw the first two flights leave with no migrants on board. Those who were due to be deported on those flights had their deportation orders halted by the High Court due to concerns about human trafficking and torture. The new Home Secretary herself admonished those trying to use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR to prevent their deportation as
“making a mockery of our laws”.
How can this situation be a reflection of the laudable aims that heralded the incorporation of the ECHR into our statute book in 1998? The simple answer is that it is not. The dream has become a nightmare, and the time has come for us to do something about it. That is why I and my noble friends on these Benches have tabled this amendment.
There is a point I wish to clarify here. After the excellent, thorough report of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Conservative Party has committed itself to repealing the Human Rights Act and leaving the ECHR. While it is no longer the policy of the Official Opposition simply to disapply the Human Rights Act for immigration cases, this Bill does not present us with the opportunity to repeal the HRA. To do so would require a Bill of its own. This amendment is therefore the avenue through which we are able at this stage to facilitate discussion on the impact of our continued membership of the ECHR.
I know that some noble Lords in your Lordships’ House today will disagree with me. As I have already said, the debate is welcome, but I ask those who disagree whether our situation now, this minute, is one that the Human Rights Act is working to improve. Has the Human Rights Act protected the victims, their families and communities in Rochdale? Has it protected our people from the paedophiles who continue to languish in the United Kingdom because we cannot deport them? Does it help or hinder people smugglers who use it to reassure the people they are transporting that they will not be removed? The answer is clear: the Human Rights Act in this context does not uphold human rights. It aids and abets abusers in their abuse. Trauma is continued and renewed because of the Act. The rights of our people come second to the rights of child abusers and terrorists, who hide behind the Act to remain on our shores, to remain a threat to our people and to remain a source of terror and pain for the people they have already harmed. We are prevented from deporting those who show flagrant disrespect for the laws passed by our sovereign Parliament, but even more fundamentally it prevents us enacting the wishes of the British people. This is an untenable situation that we must swiftly seek to remedy.
I further welcome the amendments to Amendment 189 tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth; they perform an important function in strengthening its purpose. While that amendment would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration legislation, my noble friend’s additions would ensure that the mechanisms contained in Sections 4 and 10 of the Human Rights Act are also expressly excluded. In practice, this means that the courts would not be able to issue declarations of incompatibility in relation to immigration law; nor would Ministers be able to use remedial orders to alter such legislation on human rights grounds. That would close off any backdoor reintroduction of Human Rights Act challenges into this field, and it would provide the clarity and certainty that are essential if this policy is to be delivered effectively. I therefore strongly support these amendments as a logical and necessary reinforcement of the central principle of Amendment 189.
As has been said in the other place, now is the time for radical decisions. This is an amendment the Government should welcome if we are to stand up for the rights and well-being of the British people. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as foreshadowed by my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, I have two amendments in this group that seek to amend the Front Bench disapplication provision for the Human Rights Act. Of course, disapplication feels rather “yesterday”; the Overton window on the question of human rights law is now clearly swinging in favour of repeal of the Human Rights Act, following the excellent report produced by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the announcement of the party’s new policy. Be that as it may, for the purposes of this Bill, the correct approach, which I suggest the Minister should grasp with both hands, is to disapply the effect of the convention and the operation of the Act in the sphere of immigration decisions.
Disapplying the Human Rights Act from this area is not unprecedented. As the Minister will recall, this provision was incorporated, in a slightly different form, in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act, and it was clearly a matter that passed both Houses of Parliament. It is both a precedented and a necessary step.
I turn briefly to the context for my amendment. The amendment itself would add two further provisions to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Davies: that is, to include in the operation Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, which is the court power to make a declaration of incompatibility, and Section 10, which is a power to remedy any incompatibility by means of a statutory instrument. As Policy Exchange observed in its paper on the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act in December 2023, that disapplication provision did not mention Sections 4 and 10 and was the worse for it, because the experience has been that, where a court can make a declaration of incompatibility, those matters are taken almost automatically by the Government as warranting some sort of remedial step.
No Government so far have ignored a declaration of incompatibility, to my knowledge. For example, in the recent case where the Northern Irish High Court found an incompatibility in the legacy Act, the decision of the Government was to bring forward a remedial order to have the effect of suspending the operation of the provisions of that Act without waiting for primary legislation, itself a controversial move. To avoid that situation recurring, I have tabled these amendments to exclude from any potential challenge to immigration-related decisions a decision by a court to make a declaration of incompatibility, or a decision by a Government to attempt to remedy it by making a remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act.
It is clearly time that we took back control of the United Kingdom’s borders. This Government, and particularly this Home Office, know the difficulties that trying to operate within the constraints of the Human Rights Act has generated as it has evolved. I encourage the Minister to accept a provision similar to this so that he can implement the policies of his Government.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when the Government first came into power last year, great emphasis was placed by the Prime Minister and his Attorney-General on the importance of the rule of law and in particular respect for international law. We were told that there was no way the Government would revisit the Human Rights Act or seek to amend the ECHR. Attitudes appear to have changed.
The previous home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said that the Government would bring in
“a clear framework set out by parliament that then can be much easier for the courts to interpret”.
I am not quite sure what that means, but she was talking about the application of human rights guarantees to various claims for asylum, in particular in relation to Article 8. It may have been a coincidence that this statement followed quite shortly after Reform had announced its policy on asylum claims.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful, as ever, for the opportunity to have this discussion. I have to say straight away to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we are not really going to find common cause this evening on this issue. I suspect that we will have to reflect on this on Report and that we will have a Division in the House. I suspect that we will be on opposite sides in that Division, because this Government are committed to ensuring that we comply with our international law and protect our human rights.
We are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, which underpins international agreements that we have with partners, including the Good Friday agreement and the France returns agreement. We recognise the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary, going to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, in determining its applications. That does not mean that, at the end of the day, we cannot examine some issues, on which I hope I will satisfy the noble Lord in a moment, in dealing with these matters before us.
I say straightaway to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, that we will not agree on this. That is where we are. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the Human Rights Act to create what I would call meaningful reforms of our current system and processes. The Government have set out plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. We will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test, to take back control—to use the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—over who comes to and stays in the United Kingdom.
I hope to assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will set out how and when someone can make a claim. We are also reviewing the application of Article 3—
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I know that the Minister is in some difficulty because he has not been given clear riding instructions, but this is a fundamental point for the British public. They need to know the general direction of travel. The Minister has been good enough to be clear that there is no way the ECHR will be deviated from and that there will be no amendment to the Human Rights Act, so how will the legislation be framed so that it changes the courts’ approach, given the Minister’s correct acknowledgement of the importance of the independence of the judiciary?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, this may or may not satisfy the noble Lord—I apologise if it does not do so—but work is under way to review the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases. We will bring forward legislation on how Article 8 of the European convention is implemented in immigration cases to give courts the further clarity that they need so that our Immigration Rules are respected. As we have always said on migration, we will secure our borders and, if we need to go further, we will. In a sense, I am trying to give the noble Lord clarity by saying that we will reform Article 8 approaches and review the application of Article 3, but that will be in legislation brought before both Houses, which will then be considered and accepted, amended or rejected by both Houses.
The point is that this is where the water—I am not sure whether we should call it blue or red water—between the Government on this side of the Chamber and His Majesty’s Official Opposition exists. I do not see a situation whereby withdrawal from the ECHR or human rights legislation is tenable or desirable or will assist in the processes that noble Lords opposite seek. The agreements that we have with France, the Good Friday agreement and other agreements are dependent on that co-operation on international regulation, supplied and backed up by that legislation.
That may or may not assist the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I say to him that the direction of travel is clear: further examination and potential legislation to assess that down stream versus the commitment to maintain our human rights as we have them under the current legislative framework, which noble Lords are trying to disapply with their amendments.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I would be grateful for one final intervention; I hope that the Minister will forgive me, as I appreciate that it is late. The Labour Party had 14 years in opposition to disagree with the policies of the coalition and the Conservative Party, yet now, more than a year later, there is nothing in the border security Bill before us—and there has been nothing in any manifesto—about rewriting Articles 8 or 3. Why has it taken so long?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are identifying challenges that the Government have responsibilities to identify and work on. The challenges that we are identifying exist for some of the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Issues to do with applications of Articles 3 and 8 are causing some challenges.
That does not mean we have to withdraw from human rights or ECHR legislation. We can either work with further UK amendments, to support changes to that legislation while retaining the spirit of the law that we apply, or—I was going to go on to say this before taking the intervention—actively engage with our European partners and the Council of Europe to consider what international reforms could restore the right balance between individual rights and wider public interest in controlling migration. As the noble Lord will know, this is a shared challenge. The basic rights set out in the ECHR and Human Rights Act are still valid today, but this does not mean that it is a static, permanent document that cannot be looked at in certain areas. As I have said, work is under way on reviewing the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In this new piece of legislation on Articles 3 and 8, will the Home Office be able to certify in its new Bill that the new provision will be compatible with the convention rights, or will it certify that they are not?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord tests me on these matters when we have, as I have said, undertaken the work, reviewed potential legislation, brought forward proposals and put them before both this House and the House of Commons. Either I or a Minister in the House of Commons will have signed the Bill at that stage, in terms of those issues, but we are a number of steps away from that.
At the moment, we have assessed—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned—that Articles 3 and 8 have some challenges, but the principle is not to do what the Opposition seek, which is to withdraw from this in its entirety and, in doing so, withdraw from a range of international obligations that we share with many countries and which underpin the work of this United Kingdom in so many areas. That is not my natural approach to this challenge. With due respect to noble Lords, let us have that debate and, if need be, let us have that vote at some point. We will be on different sides of that argument.
To the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I say this: bear with us. We will bring forward the points that I have tried to make in tonight’s debate on Articles 3 and 8. They will be examined when the Government have had an opportunity both to examine them in detail—now that we are in government, as opposed to being outside the tent in opposition—and to bring forward proposals that will help in a way that builds consensus with our partners on what ECHR reform could look like. At the recent European Political Community Summit, 17 nations, including the UK, agreed to work together to ensure that the ECHR and other international frameworks are implemented in a way that safeguards against abuse so that Governments can tackle modern challenges.
The UK is committed to complying with international law. If we accepted the amendments from those opposite, we would not be, in my view, complying with international law. That includes implementing judgments of the European court and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases; when the court has reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, which I currently welcome, we will abide by those also.
In summary, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can be patient. To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, I say this: I am sorry that we are not going to agree, but I hope that I have explained the reasons why.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as expected, that created a good discussion on the amendments in this group; I am thankful to the noble Lords who took part in it. I am disappointed that, after all the legitimate deportations that have been blocked, the Government are still resisting these sensible proposals—if not, perhaps, a little confused by the Government’s variety of views as to where they are going with this.
I shall not detain the Committee for much longer, but I must stress that the Human Rights Act is not supporting or upholding the rights and freedoms that it was meant to enshrine. The Human Rights Act has become a shield behind which criminals, terrorists and abusers hide. We are clear that this is not at all right.
Let us not forget that varying degrees of this policy are supported by many of those on the Government’s own Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has publicly called for the Government to suspend parts of the ECHR to allow for more illegal migrants and foreign criminals to be deported. Another former Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has proposed decoupling human rights laws from the ECHR to permit more deportations. I note that the Government have committed to reforming how Article 8 is interpreted under UK law and we have heard that commitment again from the Minister. But the simple fact is that this is not sufficient. If we reinterpret Article 8, crafty defence lawyers will find a workaround for the new interpretation or will start using other provisions of the Human Rights Act to block deportation. We say that only a wholesale repeal will resolve the issue of vexatious legal challenges and allow us to regain control of our asylum system.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber)(1) All judgments of Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) must be published on a Government website within three days of being made.(2) Judgments published under subsection (1) may be anonymised to the extent considered necessary by the Tribunal.”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 203F and 203G deal with the publication of tribunal decisions. First, I thank my supporters in this amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Alton of Liverpool. These amendments deal with an important issue and I should outline what the current position is in relation to the publication of judgments.
In the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), decisions of the judges are not routinely published. In the Upper Tribunal, which hears appeals from the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), decisions are published, although not all decisions may be reported. Bearing that in mind, I then invite the Committee to note that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, sitting judicially in the case of Cape Intermediate Holdings v Dring, 2019, United Kingdom Supreme Court 38, found that the purpose of the open justice principle was twofold.
The first purpose is to enable public scrutiny of the way in which courts decide cases, to hold judges to account for the decisions they make and to enable the public to have confidence that judges are doing their job properly. The second is to enable the public to understand how the justice system works and why decisions are taken. The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) is one of the largest of the seven chambers of the First-tier Tribunal. Of the other chambers, the Tax Chamber, the Property Chamber, formerly the Lands Tribunal, and the General Regulatory Chamber, which deals with Information Commissioner matters, among other things, all routinely publish their decisions on the website. Furthermore, the Employment Tribunal, which, although not part of the First-tier Tribunal, is a tribunal of even jurisdiction, also publishes all its decisions on the website. But the First-tier Tribunal does not do that. Its decisions are made behind what is effectively a curtain of secrecy.
This is no small number of cases. In 2020-21, the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) disposed of 20,000 appeals. In 2021-22, it disposed of 41,000 appeals. In 2022-23, it disposed of 38,000 appeals and in the last year we have numbers for, 2023-24, it was 39,000 appeals. It will come as no surprise that it is plainly in the public interest to have openness and transparency of decision-making. There should be public scrutiny of the decision-making of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber). There is no basis for there not being transparency and publication of judgments of the First-tier Tribunal.
It is of course open to litigants in the First-tier Tribunal to apply to the tribunal for an order that the identity of everybody in the case be anonymised in the decision, so no risk to anyone participating in the case would be occasioned by the publication of the decision. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kambadzi in 2011, made it clear that, while anonymity needed to be justified in each case, there is now an expectation that in asylum cases there are frequently anonymity orders. So there is no argument that the non-publication of First-tier Tribunal decisions is to protect the people participating in the cases. There is, in fact, absolutely no coherent basis for not publishing these decisions, and this is made all the worse because there is very significant public interest in this decision-making.
I venture to suggest that the judges of the First-tier Tribunal would welcome the additional openness and transparency. We hear cases reported in the press: for example, the famous “Case of Theresa’s cat”, as it was called in the Daily Mail, and the “Chicken Nuggets Case”. We can all think of cases which have been reported by reason of matters which are identified as amounting to a breach of Article 8 or Article 3 of the convention. If the decisions were published in an accessible way on the internet, like all the other decisions in the other tribunals I listed, the press could immediately go to the decision and see whether that particular feature was, in fact, decisive in the decision-making.
And it cuts both ways. Not only would it be open to a journalist or researcher to analyse the methods by which decisions are taken by the judges of the First-tier Tribunal; they could analyse it by reference to the individual judge. Allegations of bias may be rebutted, or indeed it may be found that particular judges are refusing all cases. It does not favour one side of the argument or the other; it is simply fair and appropriate that these judgments be published.
The only reason which I can discern that these decisions are not published at present is that it has been the practice hitherto. Since 2007, on the formulation of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) chamber, there has been a practice direction. There is nothing in statute, and the judges one speaks to can see no good reason why those decisions are not published. We know the tribunal service can manage it, because it manages it in the tax chamber, the property chamber, the general regulatory chamber and in the employment tribunal; it is the same tribunal service. Furthermore, it has all the judgments electronically in any event, so there is no cost argument and no process argument.
This is an amendment whose time has come. The Government should accept it at this stage and appreciate that this is something that warrants careful consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is not obvious how there could be any sensible objection to this group of amendments. They are all concerned with open justice. There are many well-known judicial utterances about the importance of this, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, quoting the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I like a recent one from a Scottish judge, Lord Carloway, who said this:
“Open justice has two key elements. The first is that proceedings are heard and determined in public. The second is that the public should have access to judicial decisions, including any reasons given for them and the identity of the parties. As a proxy for the wider public, the media have an important role. Reporting on court and tribunal cases is vital to ensuring public confidence in the justice system and the rule of law. The public would lose confidence in the courts if they could not understand what decision had been reached and why it had been reached”.
The 188-page report from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has already been mentioned on more than one occasion. Referring to these decisions, in paragraph 48 he said this:
“A further difficulty in this area is that many of these decisions are not reported, making accountability difficult, and often these only come to light on appeal to the Upper Tribunal”.
There, he is referring to the First-tier Tribunal. In paragraph 50 of the same report, he said
“there may well be low-quality decision making going on in the initial stages, much of which is never corrected”.
In whose interests can it be to keep these decisions out of the public domain? For those who defend the decisions, they can illustrate the point; for those who attack them, they will have much better evidence. It cannot seriously be doubted that the decisions at the moment are of particular importance. Please can the public know what is being decided and why?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I have a short intervention. If the First-tier Tribunal is open, as I understand from my noble friend Lord Murray it is, I see no reason for not allowing publication in the interests of confidence in our tribunal system.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group raise a serious and important issue. As we have heard, tens of thousands of decisions of real importance to both the individuals and the wider public go unreported every year. We on this side are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing these amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Alton, who unfortunately is not well at the moment, for their support for them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Faulks, for their Amendments 203F and 203G, which seek to introduce mandatory publication of immigration and asylum judgments from the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal. I agree that accountability and transparency are absolutely vital for building trust and credibility in the immigration system. However, it remains the case that the judiciary is responsible for decisions on publishing individual judgments, including judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. The Government do not consider it necessary to legislate to change the current arrangements.
Members of the public and the media can still apply to the First-tier Tribunal for a copy of the judgment in a specific case, and the request will be considered by the president of the immigration and asylum chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. On the other hand, judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against First-tier decisions on points of law, are already routinely published online. Appeals to the Upper Tribunal are made on points of law, meaning that these decisions are likely to be of most interest and use to practitioners of the law and to the public through the lens of media outlets. Given the status quo, we see no reason to change it, and we feel that it is not simply a matter of transparency but of independence of the judiciary—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Is it the Government’s position that they would like to see the publication of these decisions, but it is a matter for judges to decide? Or is it the Government’s position that they would not like to see the publication of these decisions? If it is the former, what are the Government going to do to encourage judges to make that change, if they will not accept this amendment?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Members of the public or any interested parties can apply to have decisions of the First-tier Tribunal published, and it is the case that that can be decided by members of the judiciary. We see no reason—to sidestep the binary choice the noble Lord presents—to enforce that position on the judiciary.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
How does a member of the public ask about a decision and say, “Can you publish a decision in this case?”, if they do not know the name of it and do not know that it has been decided? The whole point of this exercise and these amendments is so that they are all there and you do not have to know about a case; you can look at a case and you say, “That is an excellent decision” or “That is an interesting decision” or “That is a very strange decision”. But if you do not know that the decision has been made, because you are sitting there like we all are here, how are you going to know to ask for it, other than to ask for every single decision to be published?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that, in April 2022, the National Archives and the Ministry of Justice launched Find Case Law, which is an online service allowing everybody to access freely accessible court judgments and tribunal decisions.
It remains the case—I suppose it ill behoves me to point this out, but this is something that the Opposition Front Bench is a sudden convert to—that, in various passages of immigration law that the previous Government put through your Lordships’ House, Members opposite could have made this proposal. It is convenient that they have now decided that this is a worthy thing to do.
I do not think it is unfair to suggest that people with an interest in accessing judgments can make the application. Those persons are most likely to be interested journalists or other legal practitioners. I am sure that it is the case that, despite some of the other tribunals that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, enumerated for us, such as the land tribunal, just because it is openly accessible that does not mean that everybody is regularly searching through it.
We see no reason to change the status quo; it is for the judiciary for decide whether to publish decisions. This suited the previous Government, and this suits us as well. That is why I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord said that it “suits us”. What does that mean? Is he happy with a situation where the general public do not know, because the previous Government apparently did not make much of a fuss about this? Is that what he is saying?
Lord Katz (Lab)
No, I am simply saying that cases in the Upper Tribunal are regularly published, which are the cases that present the most case law which is actually of use to legal practitioners and of interest to the media and the public. We should protect the independence of the judiciary in being able to make its own decisions about it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I have one further question, if I may. We understand from the Minister’s colleague that there is likely to be legislation coming telling tribunals how they should make these decisions and how, in particular, they should perhaps be changing their approach to Article 8 and Article 3. In order to inform themselves as to how this is going, in terms of the First-tier Tribunal, would it not be rather useful if the Government at least knew what they were deciding on a regular basis?
Lord Katz (Lab)
It would probably ill behove me to predicate my answer on legislation that I have yet to see. As and when we get to the passage of that legislation, we can perhaps revisit this conversation, and he might want to bring back my words to haunt me, but as it currently stands, I cannot talk about legislation that, frankly, I have not seen.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister. I am obviously familiar with how difficult life can be at that Dispatch Box, and I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, who is of course deputising for the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. However, I am afraid his answers were not very satisfactory. In fact, if you had asked a First-tier Tribunal judge whether they would accept submissions made on the basis that “We like it how it is”, I suspect that you might get short shrift.
Therefore, although I am of course content to withdraw the amendments for now, I anticipate that we will bring them back on Report. I anticipate that this House will pass these amendments—it is obviously very interested in open justice and in the publication of judgments—so the world can see how our human rights decisions are made in immigration claims. Would the Government really try to overturn this in the House of Commons on the basis that “This is how it has been done, so we will leave it”? I find that difficult to believe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lawlor
“Refusal of certain asylum claims (2)(1) The Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim or a human rights claim made by any person to whom this section applies inadmissible.(2) Subsection (1) applies to a person who—(a) entered the country on a student visa, and(b) made the asylum claim more than two days after entering.(3) A claim declared inadmissible under subsection (2) cannot be considered under the immigration rules.(4) A declaration under subsection (3) that a claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and as such no right of appeal under section 82(1) (right of appeal to the Tribunal) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 arises.(5) For the purposes of this section, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply.(6) A declaration under subsection (3) is final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Amendment 203L, on the refusal of certain asylum claims, seeks to exclude asylum claims made after two days from those who entered the country on a student visa. The aim is to prevent the abuse of the system, whereby those entering on the student visa to study on a course in the UK—perhaps, or perhaps not, in good faith—subsequently make an asylum claim.
The figures are significant. Of the 111,000 claims made in the year ending June 2025, the highest figures since comparable records began in 1979, apart from the 43,600 which came on small boats, 41,000 came from those who entered the UK on a visa or other leave with relevant documentation, including an electronic travel authorisation to visit from 2024 onwards. Of those, 14,800 were on a study visa, so well over one-third of the 41,000 claimants were on a visa or entered on another type of permission.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps I may add one brief point in support of my noble friend’s amendment. The statistics clearly show that the abuse of student visas by people who come here, have a period as a student or as a purported student, and then choose to try to extend their time here by claiming asylum is a significant problem. The amendment would force a genuine asylum seeker to lodge their claim once they reached the safe country of Britain, and two days is plenty of time to do that. On their arrival, they can make that claim for asylum. Having this rule in place would provide a significant deterrent for those who seek to abuse our asylum system in an attempt to extend their stay in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I certainly support this amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak broadly in favour of Amendment 203L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. At its core, this amendment seeks to prevent the abuse of the student visa route by using it as a back door to asylum. This recognises an important principle. Those who enter the United Kingdom in one set of circumstances should not then be permitted to rewrite those circumstances once they have got here.
A student visa is granted on trust. It is granted to those who come here to study, not to those who claim asylum. When someone applies for such a visa, they do so on the clear understanding that they are entering this country for educational purposes. If, once here, they make an asylum claim that was not mentioned at the point of entry and, indeed, do so days, weeks or months later, they are by definition acting under false pretences unless there is a good reason for it—and I will come to that in a moment. The asylum system exists to protect those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, not to reward those who seek to manipulate our visa system for other ends. Where individuals apply dishonestly, where they misrepresent their reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, we cannot simply turn a blind eye and reward that deception with the right to remain.
On this side, we on the Front Bench have a qualification: we cannot be blind to the fact that circumstances in someone’s home country may change after arrival. A student in the United Kingdom on a student visa may find that, in their absence, their home country becomes unsafe for them personally to return. They may therefore become eligible for asylum during the time they are in the United Kingdom on a student visa.
The amendment as drafted prevents any asylum claim being made if someone has entered on a student visa. That is a strong prohibition. If this were clarified in some way, with a carve-out for those who can establish that the situation has genuinely changed in their home country while they are here, we would commend consideration of an amendment to address that situation. So I ask my noble friend Lady Lawlor to consider whether the amendment should be redrafted.
For their part, the Government must stop the abuse of student visas under the current system. They should equally ensure that, in the appropriate but, I hope, reasonably exceptional circumstances where there has been a genuine change, such people are protected.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for Amendment 203L. I am also grateful for the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because it is very possible that someone arrives as a student and finds that the situation in their home country has changed since their arrival. I remember that, when I was at university, which is an awfully long time ago now, there were students who arrived when there was one regime in Iran and left when there was another regime. The flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred is very important, and this is one of the particular holes—dare I say it?—in the proposal brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. However, I have to say that there are several more holes in the argument that she put forward. If I point those out to her as part of this debate, I hope she will accept them in good faith.
The amendment seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers, so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa that was lodged more than two days after they arrived in the UK must be declared inadmissible. We had a large debate on inadmissibility on day 4 of the Committee, and we considered five amendments then. This is a very late amendment to this discussion, so we have had limited time to consider it. However, it is not an approach the Government consider appropriate.
The likely consequence of the amendment, as well as that pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without any obvious way in which to return individuals who make those claims. It would leave affected individuals in a state of limbo, with no certainty as to whether they qualify for refugee status or whether they should be returned to their home country. On the basis of that contention, it could prove both costly and ineffective.
Furthermore, in affording a more favourable position to those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, the amendment also risks benefiting those students who are more likely to have deliberately used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system.
The Government cannot support the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it does not achieve the objective that the noble Baroness proposed, and it is certainly open to the wide hole which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out to the Committee today. So I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on what the noble Lord said and, in general terms, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in the debate and particularly to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for spotting this. I had thought about it in respect of other amendments, but I did not include it in this one, and that is indeed a gap—I agree with the Minister. Certainly, if I am to bring it back on Report, I will take account of that.
But my overall position remains that, with provision for the problems pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I really cannot see that we can tackle the problem of visa switching by those who enter in, or not in, good faith. There are indeed reports of students who came here and fraudulently deceived the university authorities, saying they would take a course when they subsequently admitted that they had no intention of doing so. This is a problem, and we have no way of dealing with it. Unless we crack down quite strictly on people claiming asylum when they have no reason to other than a desire to stay in this country, and when they have made this clear subsequently—it is clear from the evidence—then we will not tackle this problem. It is very grave for our universities, student communities and taxpayers. So I will consider this. Perhaps I can work something out with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I hope to bring this back again on Report.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime in this clause with the punishment for offences relating to articles used in immigration crime in clauses 13 and 14.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this is a simple group with some simple amendments. As we are close to reaching the end of six rather long days of Committee on this Bill, I will be brief. Amendment 204 seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime in Clause 49 with the punishment for offences relating to articles used in immigration crime in Clauses 13 and 14.
It is slightly strange that Part 3 has found its way into this Bill. The provisions around serious crime prevention orders and articles for use in serious crime were part of the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which unfortunately fell due to the election. Although it is welcome that this Government are taking these provisions forward, it would have made more sense to include them in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, which we will consider later this week, rather than in an immigration and border security Bill. But, since these clauses have found their way into this Bill, there is good reason to consider them holistically as part of the general measures aimed at deterring immigration offences. That is what the amendments in this group aim to achieve.
Amendment 204 therefore changes the maximum period of imprisonment for possession of an article for use in a serious crime from five years to 14 years. This would be the same as the maximum imprisonment for the new offences of supplying or handling an article for use in immigration crime. Similarly, Amendments 204A and 204B would expand the class of applicants for a serious crime prevention order to include the directors-general of Border Force and Immigration Enforcement, as well as the Border Security Commander. This would permit those senior officials to apply for these prevention orders as part of their duties in protecting our border security and enforcing immigration laws.
Amendment 208B would expand the definition of a “serious crime” for the purposes of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Currently, the only crime under any of the immigration Acts considered to be a serious crime is the offence of assisting unlawful immigration and helping an asylum seeker enter the United Kingdom. If a serious crime prevention order can be given for these offences, why can one not be given for all offences under Sections 24 and 24A of the Immigration Act 1971? Certainly, why can one not be given under the new immigration offences in Clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill?
These amendments, taken together, are intended to strengthen the ability of the authorities to tackle immigration crimes by giving them the necessary legal tools. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 207 in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that it is rather odd that the serious crime prevention provisions are in this Bill. I wondered whether it is because the Crime and Policing Bill was “overloaded”—would that be the term to use? But that is the extent to which I agree with the noble Lord.
I am not alone on these Benches: the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I have raised a number of times over the years our concern about civil orders morphing into crime without any finding of guilt. The Bill extends serious crime prevention orders with the inclusion of electronic monitoring and the creation of interim orders, extends the list of parties who can apply for an order—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, would extend it further—and gives the Crown Court jurisdiction in this area. So it will be no surprise to anyone who has heard us before to see this amendment.
It is not only the extensions that make the need for a review all the more important. There is very little evidence or data, if any, to show that the orders work. They overlap with other orders, so there is some confusion. There is inconsistency in their use, which I have become very aware of in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where it became clear that some police forces were not even aware that they could pursue equivalent orders. There is a lack of resourcing and infrastructure to monitor and enforce orders. Breaches are common, which is not surprising, because individuals do not have adequate support to comply with the restrictions and requirements that orders can contain and so, as has been put to us, they are set up to fail.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights made recommendations with regard to these provisions:
“Given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the test should be one of ‘necessity and proportionality’, not whether it is ‘appropriate’”,
and,
“To ensure respect for Convention rights, the prosecuting authorities and the courts must be careful to only seek and impose these interim orders where risks are imminent”.
Rather than proposing those provisions specifically, we on these Benches feel that it would be helpful and important for there to be a review of prevention orders in the round before we make piecemeal additions to them, and a review would certainly extend to the issues of necessity and proportionality.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in the first instance, if I may, for their careful consideration of these new provisions and for tabling Amendment 204. I recognise that the amendment stems from a shared commitment to robustly address serious crimes. With regard to objectives, I think we are largely on the same page here. I am hoping that I am going to be able to explain why the provisions are framed as they are in a way that will satisfy the noble Lords.
This amendment seeks to align the sentencing framework for this new offence with that of Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with articles intended to for use in immigration crime. The articles for use in immigration crime offences require that the individual charged knew or suspected that what they were supplying or handling was for use in immigration crime. People, such as smuggling gangs, know that, although the items involved may be very everyday items, they are being supplied and sold to vulnerable people, and in doing so they contribute to the tragic loss of life at sea and in the back of refrigerated lorries. This is a serious crime leading to endangerment and loss of life and, as such, combined with the mens rea threshold, the sentence is set appropriately and proportionately high.
By contrast—this is the distinction, because it relates to both the amendments that I want to clarify—the new offence in this clause targets items that are rarely if ever used for lawful purposes. There is a strong justification in the Government’s view for shifting the evidential burden in those cases. I will come in a moment to the question of reviewing and monitoring that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. For example, where someone is found with a 3D firearm template or a pill press, the suspect will need to demonstrate a lawful purpose, which will obviously be very difficult. Standardising the punishment across these two offences would ignore those important differences and, with that in mind, while I understand the intent behind the amendment and the seriousness with which we take the commitment to address the issues in both immigration crimes and serious crime prevention orders, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Turning now to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am grateful to her and the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Davis and Lord Cameron, for their careful scrutiny of these provisions and for tabling Amendments 204A, 204B, 207 and 208B. Amendments 204A and 204B, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, propose expanding the list of agencies that can apply for a serious crime prevention order to include Border Force, Immigration Enforcement and Border Security Command. I reassure the noble Lords that the Government share their intention to ensure that front-line agencies can apply directly to the High Court for an SCPO and therefore remove some of the difficulties. That is why the Bill is already expanding the list of agencies to include the police in all cases, as well as the National Crime Agency, HMRC, Ministry of Defence Police and British Transport Police. It is likely that, in many cases where criminal proceedings are not being pursued, these agencies, in our view, will be best placed to lead the process of applying for an SCPO as they will already have an in-depth knowledge of the case.
However—I come to the point of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower—to add these three Home Office commands to this list would be ineffectual. That is because we believe they are not resourced to monitor and enforce SCPOs effectively. Rather, their focus is rightly on protecting the UK’s border while working alongside law enforcement agencies. I think we are suggesting that, without stating it too baldly, there is a conceptual difference in our mind between border security and pursuing that and law enforcement and monitoring that. We think their focus should be on protecting the UK’s border while working alongside law enforcement, such as the National Crime Agency, referring cases and sharing intelligence as appropriate. Therefore, on that basis, I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, that has to some extent answered the point I was going to make, but the noble Lord has made me realise that we missed a trick in not seeking to leave out the power to extend these provisions, as he has just mentioned. He said that the use will be monitored and that there will be data. I take it that that will be published. Will the evaluation of the monitoring be published, because monitoring without assessing what is going on is not terribly helpful? Does it fall within the reporting to the House? He may not in a position to answer that this evening—or rather this morning—but perhaps he can write to me on that.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I am very happy to write on that point but, speaking as a practitioner of the dark arts of evaluation, I am generally in favour of its publication.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his response and will be very brief in closing this group. The amendments considered here all focus on provisions drafted by the previous Government and continued by this one, so it is not surprising that I support them. My amendments in this group do not signify my opposition to these clauses of the Bill. Rather, they serve as suggestions to further improve and expand the ability of immigration authorities to combat immigration crime—although I perhaps take issue with what the noble Lord said in respect of Amendment 204B. Perhaps that is a debate for another time. I understand his view on this and I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Berkeley
“Duty to enforce maritime safety in United Kingdom waters or the UK search and rescue region(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of Part IV of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (safety) against any migrant vessel operating in United Kingdom waters or the UK search and rescue region that is dangerously unsafe and being used to transport persons to the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to maritime enforcement authorities (including the Border Force, His Majesty’s Coastguard and Maritime & Coastguard Agency) about the exercise of powers under sections 95 and 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (detention of, and offences relating to, dangerously unsafe ships) in relation to migrant vessels in the English Channel.(3) It shall be the duty of any designated maritime enforcement authority to act in accordance with the guidance issued under subsection (2) and to cooperate in the detection, detention and prosecution of migrant vessels and persons who commit an offence under section 98 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (owner and master liable in respect of dangerously unsafe ship) in respect of a dangerously unsafe migrant vessel.(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)—“dangerously unsafe” has the meaning given in section 94 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995;“migrant vessel” means a ship being used for the unlawful or clandestine carriage of persons by water with the intention of facilitating their entry into the United Kingdom (whether or not those persons intend to claim asylum);“ship” has the meaning given in section 313 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and includes any small boat or other vessel used in navigation for carrying persons by sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to impose a clear duty on the Government to leverage existing maritime safety law as a deterrent against dangerous small-boat crossings in UK waters.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 208 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs, I will also speak to my Amendment 208A. This is a rather odd end to this part of the Bill, but it relates to the issue of saving lives across the channel, regardless of whether the people whose lives may be saved are asylum seekers, illegal immigrants, people in fishing boats who have sunk, or whatever. It comes from a very interesting report that I received earlier this year from Captain Matthew Schanck, Integrated Maritime Policy for Managing Maritime Migration in the English Channel: A Comprehensive Approach. If my noble friend has not read it, he can have my copy when I have finished with it. The captain raises two issues, both of which need further study.
The first is that we have a duty in this country to save people’s lives if they are at risk in the sea. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 already prohibits taking dangerously unsafe vessels to sea, with quite severe penalties—two years’ imprisonment and £50,000 fines, I believe. Of course, this would cover most if not all of the vessels that come across, which many people want to try to deter, shall we say. What amazes me—perhaps my noble friend can confirm this—is that there seem to have been no prosecutions since the 1995 Act, apart from one, of a gentleman called Ibrahim Abah, which led to an arrest but under different merchant shipping legislation. Those people who are coming across in whatever vessel in whatever direction for whatever purpose should have a safe captain or skipper on board, and if they do not, they are liable for prosecution. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to inform me why there have not been any prosecutions, as far as I can gather.
The second amendment relates to search and rescue—SAR—enabled boats, which I am afraid are not fit for purpose. At the moment, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution does a wonderful job, mostly from the Dover lifeboat station, picking people up out of the sea, as does the coastguard, the security ships and things like that, but it is very difficult picking large numbers of people out of the sea, as some noble Lords will know. We have nothing that makes that particularly easy. Captain Schanck produced some very interesting statistics. Greece has 250 SAR-enabled boats, 8,000 staff and 8,500 miles of coastline. Italy has a similar number. We have no SAR-enabled boats, 400 staff, who of course are all shore based, and a 7,700-mile coastline. I am not being critical of the coastguard, because it does a fantastic job, as does the RNLI, but it lacks the right equipment and control to do the job properly. One example is that the coastguard, which is responsible for co-ordinating rescue, has no ships of its own, so it has to call on other ones.
Reading Captain Schanck’s excellent paper, one suddenly realises that, yes, there is a lifeboat, but getting people to climb over the side of a lifeboat when they are in their 50s, or 100s, is actually very difficult. It is possible to procure or build specialist SAR equipment when it is necessary, which they have done in other countries, but we have not. My noble friend will probably say—if he is still awake and listening to me; I am sorry about this—“Well, who is going to fund this new equipment?” I think the coastguard should be put in charge of all the rescue arrangements, including having the equipment to deal with it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 208 and 208A tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Dubs. I begin by saying that we on these Benches agree very much with the underlying principle: the importance of taking action against those who endanger lives at sea.
We appreciate the passion behind this amendment. Indeed, I fully appreciate it, having been a maritime Minister. That is a principle that we have strongly supported. Indeed, it is one already reflected in the amendments we have tabled to this Bill. There can be no doubt that the small boat crossings in the channel are dangerous, reckless and exploitative. Time and again we have seen the devastating consequences of criminal gangs putting men, women and children into overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, knowing full well the risks to life that this involves.
However, this amendment as drafted, we believe, is flawed. It appears to rest on an assumption that some of the vessels are safe and some are not, and that it is the task of enforcement authorities to distinguish between the two. That is not a distinction that exists in reality. The simple truth is that one endangers lives at sea purely in the act of getting into one of these boats in the first place. Every single vessel making an illegal crossing of the channel is, by definition, dangerously unsafe. Everyone involved in launching or boating those vessels, from the organisers to the passengers, is participating in an inherently perilous act which should be treated as such under the law.
We cannot afford a situation in which authorities must first determine whether a vessel is dangerously unsafe before intervening. We cannot wait for tragedy to occur before action can be taken. The legal position must be absolutely clear: all such crossings are unsafe, unlawful and unacceptable. That is the principle that underpins the approach that we have advocated throughout this Bill and the one that we believe that the Government must continue to uphold.
On Amendment 208A, I appreciate the noble Lord’s intention to ensure effective co-operation between the Border Force’s maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard. However, it is not clear that the creation of an additional co-ordinating body, as this amendment proposes, would make any practical difference on the ground. The Border Force and the coastguard already operate under well-established protocols for joint working through the Joint Maritime Security Centre. We must trust the professionals on the front line, the experts in the Border Force and the coastguard, to exercise the powers granted to them safely, responsibly and in the national interest.
The answer to the challenges in the channel lies not in expanding bureaucracy or creating new administrative structures but in ensuring that the powers and resources that we have already legislated for are used effectively. Both these amendments proceed from understandable and serious concerns, but in our view the right way forward is not to introduce new uncertainty into the law nor to create additional layers of oversight but to maintain clear, firm principles—that all small boat crossings are inherently unsafe and that those charged with policing them must be trusted to act decisively and professionally to prevent loss of life and secure our borders.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was intrigued to know what points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to raise. After listening to him, it occurs to me to ask the Minister whether HM Coastguard is a partner authority under Clause 3 of the Bill:
“a public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.
Of course, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the Border Force commander—so I am asking about context.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on record in Committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are, sadly, dying or being put at risk at sea. I can give him the assurance that, if he wants to pass me Captain Schanck’s report at some point, I shall make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail and, if there are issues to which I can respond post that, I shall certainly do so.
The purpose of this Bill is several-fold, but there are two particular examples in the Bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table before the Committee. The first is the role of the Border Security Commander, which I shall come on to in a moment—and will, I hope, answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised as well. But I draw his attention to Clause 18, which we considered earlier, which provides a specific new offence of endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom.
Amendment 208 would introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law relating to the safety of vessels in relation to small-boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I do not think that it is responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel; our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also—and I hope that it is helpful to my noble friend to say this—existing maritime law in force. We should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vessels and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.
Turning to Amendment 208, the strengthening of the border command is important, and this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new border command established by the Bill is responsible for co-ordinating border forces, maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard for the purposes of border security. The Border Security Command established by the Bill provides strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats, not just for Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people-smuggling gangs. That is, I think, the spirit of what the amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do.
In addition, my noble friend will be aware that the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, is designed to co-ordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The JMSC is the UK’s centre of excellence for maritime security. I have myself had meetings at its headquarters in the past 12 months. It provides 24/7 monitoring and reporting of global waters, it plans the response to maritime events, and it looks at UK global maritime threats and sanctions-related understanding. To achieve this, the JMSC engages with a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and will also discuss with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening in the channel. So I understand why my noble friend has brought this amendment forward, but I argue that the new body would be essentially a duplication and is not required. The Border Security Command will be drawing together expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats, building on the expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies.
I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in relation to Clause 3, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there is that link and the assumption is that there will be close co-operation.
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I will certainly make sure that the Home Office Minister responsible for this policy area gets sight of the report referred to, but I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive responses, which I shall read with great interest. On first reflection, it all sounds like a positive way forward, although I will have to investigate whether the right equipment is being procured and used, because people cannot rescue large numbers of people floating in the sea if they do not have the right equipment. But on that basis, I am very grateful to him and to other colleagues who have responded, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.