Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Monday 13th October 2025
(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (9 Oct 2025)
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.