Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. They are about responsibility: making sure that our migration system works for the long term, that it has the capacity to help those who truly need it and that it does not collapse under its own weight. Unless we are clear that indefinite leave to remain is a right earned through contribution and self-sufficiency, not an entitlement, we will create a system that fails everyone. These amendments strike the right balance: firm but fair, compassionate but responsible. They reaffirm that Britain remains open to those who will contribute and share in our national life, while ensuring that our generosity is not abused.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for proposing the amendment and for the support that she had from the noble Lord, Lord German, in relation to the contribution that he has made. I shall deal initially with Amendment 186, which was tabled by my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. My noble friend has made a very strong plea to the Government, but I remind her that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one, which is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship.

As my noble friend knows, the British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the Home Secretary to determine the good character policy. Changes to the policy are at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and the amendment proposed by my noble friend and other Members in Committee seeks to limit that discretion.

I hope my noble friend recognises that the good character policy is compliant with our international obligations, including those under the refugee convention. Guidance on the good character policy is clear that decision-makers have the ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. This includes disregarding immigration breaches if it is accepted, and I think my noble friend accepted this, that they were outside the applicant’s control—for example, if the person was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking or if they had entered illegally when they were a child. I argue that an explicit exemption in legislation is not necessary, as the existing policy guidance already provides flexibility.

My noble friend asked why we brought this in. The good character requirement is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Each citizenship application will always be considered on its individual merits, and the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there are exceptional, compelling or mitigating circumstances, or where it is necessary for us to comply with our international obligations. Small boat crossings and other dangerous journeys to the UK put lives at risk and undermine our border security. The change to the good character policy is part of the Government’s strategy to strengthen the asylum and immigration system, ensuring that those rules are respected and enforced. There is a legal basis for that, and discretion for the Secretary of State accordingly.

Amendment 191 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, who is not currently in his place, but I will continue to address his amendment. It places specific conditions on those applying for permission to enter, stay or settle in the UK, and removes the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant leave outside the Immigration Rules. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed.

The immigration system controls access to benefits already. The policy of no recourse to public funds is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. Most migrants will become eligible to access public funds only at the point when they gain settlement. The expectation under our current policy is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. This approach reflects the need to maintain the confidence of the general public that immigration brings benefits to our country rather than costs to the public purse.

There is an ability to apply for the condition of no recourse to public funds to be lifted. This relates to the safeguards that exist to protect the most vulnerable in certain circumstances. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for visas and settlement. We set out our plans to restore control over immigration in the White Paper.

I turn briefly to Amendment 196, which was also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It proposes to restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and to partners of British citizens, and to set the qualifying period for settlement at 10 years. Although settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement, the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in this amendment.

The expectation is that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement. There is currently a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for such settlement. Most of these are five years, with shorter periods for exceptional work routes and longer 10-year qualifying periods where, for example, we require people to demonstrate close ties with the UK over a longer time. There are also exceptions in place for the most vulnerable, which this amendment does not recognise. The provisions for settlement are set out in the Immigration Rules, so again I tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for settlement.

What we are looking to do with the Bill is strengthen our borders, go after smuggling gangs—which have caused much damage to migrants’ lives already—and secure our borders from systematic abuse. However, noble Lords will have seen that the Government have set out proposals for earned settlement within the immigration White Paper. As part of this, we will set a baseline qualifying period of 10 years for settlement in the UK, with the possibility of settlement being gained earlier based on contribution or skills. That will be subject to consultation later this year—I hope that will assist my noble friend Lady Lister—if people wish to express particular views, not just in this House but elsewhere. That consultation will be produced later this year.

Amendment 197, which the noble Lords have also tabled, would automatically revoke settlement in a wide range of circumstances, including where a person’s income falls below £38,700. I suggest to the noble Lord—I hope he takes this in the spirit in which I put it—that the amendment is unworkable and would lead to injustice. Let us give an example of a situation where a person relies on the benefits system for a very short period but has paid tax and national insurance contributions for decades. The amendment, if passed and in legislation, would mean that that person would have their settlement revoked. I do not think it can be fair that a short period of unemployment might well lead to the revocation of settlement.

I should note that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—namely, indefinite leave to remain. A migrant’s access is subject to the same eligibility criteria as any other claimant, including the need to be habitually resident, meaning that they will have made the UK their home in addition to having a legal right to claim benefits. Furthermore, provisions also exist to invalidate any leave granted to a foreign criminal who has been made the subject of a deportation order. Where a deportation order is not made, settlement can be revoked for acts of criminality, such as deception or fraud in obtaining a settlement, as well as other significant non-conducive reasons. Settlement, of course, can also be revoked where a foreign national is liable to be deported but cannot be because of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the refugee convention.

So, in summary, the Government are fully committed to making our communities safer by deporting those who break our laws, but, for the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask that my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, do not press these amendments now. Obviously, we can, if they wish, return to them on Report.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble Lord referred to the extension to 10 years of the period of waiting on indefinite leave to remain while seeking citizenship. That does not, I hope, apply retrospectively to people arriving now—people who came in on the understanding that the waiting period would be five years. I hope the Minister can confirm that, for them, the waiting period will still be five years.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The proposals will be set out shortly, subject to consultation. I hope the noble Lord can await that formal consultation on those proposals.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We can wait, but the people who fear that they will be affected are becoming increasingly anxious.

--- Later in debate ---

Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for a moment’s personal reflection on this topic. A few years ago I was debating, at the Cambridge Union, the future of human rights in this country and I dared to suggest that we might have to look again at the ECHR. The Labour Peer on the opposite side of the debate told the students that this sort of argument was last heard in 1930s Germany. I tried not to take offence, but I suppose it should be a matter of some modest satisfaction that what was once characterised as a neo-Nazi approach is now to be, or might be, Labour Party policy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, as ever, for the opportunity to have this discussion. I have to say straight away to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we are not really going to find common cause this evening on this issue. I suspect that we will have to reflect on this on Report and that we will have a Division in the House. I suspect that we will be on opposite sides in that Division, because this Government are committed to ensuring that we comply with our international law and protect our human rights.

We are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, which underpins international agreements that we have with partners, including the Good Friday agreement and the France returns agreement. We recognise the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary, going to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, in determining its applications. That does not mean that, at the end of the day, we cannot examine some issues, on which I hope I will satisfy the noble Lord in a moment, in dealing with these matters before us.

I say straightaway to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, that we will not agree on this. That is where we are. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the Human Rights Act to create what I would call meaningful reforms of our current system and processes. The Government have set out plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. We will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test, to take back control—to use the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—over who comes to and stays in the United Kingdom.

I hope to assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will set out how and when someone can make a claim. We are also reviewing the application of Article 3—

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I know that the Minister is in some difficulty because he has not been given clear riding instructions, but this is a fundamental point for the British public. They need to know the general direction of travel. The Minister has been good enough to be clear that there is no way the ECHR will be deviated from and that there will be no amendment to the Human Rights Act, so how will the legislation be framed so that it changes the courts’ approach, given the Minister’s correct acknowledgement of the importance of the independence of the judiciary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, this may or may not satisfy the noble Lord—I apologise if it does not do so—but work is under way to review the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases. We will bring forward legislation on how Article 8 of the European convention is implemented in immigration cases to give courts the further clarity that they need so that our Immigration Rules are respected. As we have always said on migration, we will secure our borders and, if we need to go further, we will. In a sense, I am trying to give the noble Lord clarity by saying that we will reform Article 8 approaches and review the application of Article 3, but that will be in legislation brought before both Houses, which will then be considered and accepted, amended or rejected by both Houses.

The point is that this is where the water—I am not sure whether we should call it blue or red water—between the Government on this side of the Chamber and His Majesty’s Official Opposition exists. I do not see a situation whereby withdrawal from the ECHR or human rights legislation is tenable or desirable or will assist in the processes that noble Lords opposite seek. The agreements that we have with France, the Good Friday agreement and other agreements are dependent on that co-operation on international regulation, supplied and backed up by that legislation.

That may or may not assist the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I say to him that the direction of travel is clear: further examination and potential legislation to assess that down stream versus the commitment to maintain our human rights as we have them under the current legislative framework, which noble Lords are trying to disapply with their amendments.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I would be grateful for one final intervention; I hope that the Minister will forgive me, as I appreciate that it is late. The Labour Party had 14 years in opposition to disagree with the policies of the coalition and the Conservative Party, yet now, more than a year later, there is nothing in the border security Bill before us—and there has been nothing in any manifesto—about rewriting Articles 8 or 3. Why has it taken so long?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are identifying challenges that the Government have responsibilities to identify and work on. The challenges that we are identifying exist for some of the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Issues to do with applications of Articles 3 and 8 are causing some challenges.

That does not mean we have to withdraw from human rights or ECHR legislation. We can either work with further UK amendments, to support changes to that legislation while retaining the spirit of the law that we apply, or—I was going to go on to say this before taking the intervention—actively engage with our European partners and the Council of Europe to consider what international reforms could restore the right balance between individual rights and wider public interest in controlling migration. As the noble Lord will know, this is a shared challenge. The basic rights set out in the ECHR and Human Rights Act are still valid today, but this does not mean that it is a static, permanent document that cannot be looked at in certain areas. As I have said, work is under way on reviewing the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In this new piece of legislation on Articles 3 and 8, will the Home Office be able to certify in its new Bill that the new provision will be compatible with the convention rights, or will it certify that they are not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord tests me on these matters when we have, as I have said, undertaken the work, reviewed potential legislation, brought forward proposals and put them before both this House and the House of Commons. Either I or a Minister in the House of Commons will have signed the Bill at that stage, in terms of those issues, but we are a number of steps away from that.

At the moment, we have assessed—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned—that Articles 3 and 8 have some challenges, but the principle is not to do what the Opposition seek, which is to withdraw from this in its entirety and, in doing so, withdraw from a range of international obligations that we share with many countries and which underpin the work of this United Kingdom in so many areas. That is not my natural approach to this challenge. With due respect to noble Lords, let us have that debate and, if need be, let us have that vote at some point. We will be on different sides of that argument.

To the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I say this: bear with us. We will bring forward the points that I have tried to make in tonight’s debate on Articles 3 and 8. They will be examined when the Government have had an opportunity both to examine them in detail—now that we are in government, as opposed to being outside the tent in opposition—and to bring forward proposals that will help in a way that builds consensus with our partners on what ECHR reform could look like. At the recent European Political Community Summit, 17 nations, including the UK, agreed to work together to ensure that the ECHR and other international frameworks are implemented in a way that safeguards against abuse so that Governments can tackle modern challenges.

The UK is committed to complying with international law. If we accepted the amendments from those opposite, we would not be, in my view, complying with international law. That includes implementing judgments of the European court and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases; when the court has reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, which I currently welcome, we will abide by those also.

In summary, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can be patient. To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, I say this: I am sorry that we are not going to agree, but I hope that I have explained the reasons why.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as expected, that created a good discussion on the amendments in this group; I am thankful to the noble Lords who took part in it. I am disappointed that, after all the legitimate deportations that have been blocked, the Government are still resisting these sensible proposals—if not, perhaps, a little confused by the Government’s variety of views as to where they are going with this.

I shall not detain the Committee for much longer, but I must stress that the Human Rights Act is not supporting or upholding the rights and freedoms that it was meant to enshrine. The Human Rights Act has become a shield behind which criminals, terrorists and abusers hide. We are clear that this is not at all right.

Let us not forget that varying degrees of this policy are supported by many of those on the Government’s own Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has publicly called for the Government to suspend parts of the ECHR to allow for more illegal migrants and foreign criminals to be deported. Another former Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has proposed decoupling human rights laws from the ECHR to permit more deportations. I note that the Government have committed to reforming how Article 8 is interpreted under UK law and we have heard that commitment again from the Minister. But the simple fact is that this is not sufficient. If we reinterpret Article 8, crafty defence lawyers will find a workaround for the new interpretation or will start using other provisions of the Human Rights Act to block deportation. We say that only a wholesale repeal will resolve the issue of vexatious legal challenges and allow us to regain control of our asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak broadly in favour of Amendment 203L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. At its core, this amendment seeks to prevent the abuse of the student visa route by using it as a back door to asylum. This recognises an important principle. Those who enter the United Kingdom in one set of circumstances should not then be permitted to rewrite those circumstances once they have got here.

A student visa is granted on trust. It is granted to those who come here to study, not to those who claim asylum. When someone applies for such a visa, they do so on the clear understanding that they are entering this country for educational purposes. If, once here, they make an asylum claim that was not mentioned at the point of entry and, indeed, do so days, weeks or months later, they are by definition acting under false pretences unless there is a good reason for it—and I will come to that in a moment. The asylum system exists to protect those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, not to reward those who seek to manipulate our visa system for other ends. Where individuals apply dishonestly, where they misrepresent their reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, we cannot simply turn a blind eye and reward that deception with the right to remain.

On this side, we on the Front Bench have a qualification: we cannot be blind to the fact that circumstances in someone’s home country may change after arrival. A student in the United Kingdom on a student visa may find that, in their absence, their home country becomes unsafe for them personally to return. They may therefore become eligible for asylum during the time they are in the United Kingdom on a student visa.

The amendment as drafted prevents any asylum claim being made if someone has entered on a student visa. That is a strong prohibition. If this were clarified in some way, with a carve-out for those who can establish that the situation has genuinely changed in their home country while they are here, we would commend consideration of an amendment to address that situation. So I ask my noble friend Lady Lawlor to consider whether the amendment should be redrafted.

For their part, the Government must stop the abuse of student visas under the current system. They should equally ensure that, in the appropriate but, I hope, reasonably exceptional circumstances where there has been a genuine change, such people are protected.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for Amendment 203L. I am also grateful for the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because it is very possible that someone arrives as a student and finds that the situation in their home country has changed since their arrival. I remember that, when I was at university, which is an awfully long time ago now, there were students who arrived when there was one regime in Iran and left when there was another regime. The flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred is very important, and this is one of the particular holes—dare I say it?—in the proposal brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. However, I have to say that there are several more holes in the argument that she put forward. If I point those out to her as part of this debate, I hope she will accept them in good faith.

The amendment seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers, so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa that was lodged more than two days after they arrived in the UK must be declared inadmissible. We had a large debate on inadmissibility on day 4 of the Committee, and we considered five amendments then. This is a very late amendment to this discussion, so we have had limited time to consider it. However, it is not an approach the Government consider appropriate.

The likely consequence of the amendment, as well as that pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without any obvious way in which to return individuals who make those claims. It would leave affected individuals in a state of limbo, with no certainty as to whether they qualify for refugee status or whether they should be returned to their home country. On the basis of that contention, it could prove both costly and ineffective.

Furthermore, in affording a more favourable position to those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, the amendment also risks benefiting those students who are more likely to have deliberately used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system.

The Government cannot support the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it does not achieve the objective that the noble Baroness proposed, and it is certainly open to the wide hole which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out to the Committee today. So I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on what the noble Lord said and, in general terms, to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in the debate and particularly to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for spotting this. I had thought about it in respect of other amendments, but I did not include it in this one, and that is indeed a gap—I agree with the Minister. Certainly, if I am to bring it back on Report, I will take account of that.

But my overall position remains that, with provision for the problems pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I really cannot see that we can tackle the problem of visa switching by those who enter in, or not in, good faith. There are indeed reports of students who came here and fraudulently deceived the university authorities, saying they would take a course when they subsequently admitted that they had no intention of doing so. This is a problem, and we have no way of dealing with it. Unless we crack down quite strictly on people claiming asylum when they have no reason to other than a desire to stay in this country, and when they have made this clear subsequently—it is clear from the evidence—then we will not tackle this problem. It is very grave for our universities, student communities and taxpayers. So I will consider this. Perhaps I can work something out with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I hope to bring this back again on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was intrigued to know what points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to raise. After listening to him, it occurs to me to ask the Minister whether HM Coastguard is a partner authority under Clause 3 of the Bill:

“a public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

Of course, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the Border Force commander—so I am asking about context.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on record in Committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are, sadly, dying or being put at risk at sea. I can give him the assurance that, if he wants to pass me Captain Schanck’s report at some point, I shall make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail and, if there are issues to which I can respond post that, I shall certainly do so.

The purpose of this Bill is several-fold, but there are two particular examples in the Bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table before the Committee. The first is the role of the Border Security Commander, which I shall come on to in a moment—and will, I hope, answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised as well. But I draw his attention to Clause 18, which we considered earlier, which provides a specific new offence of endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom.

Amendment 208 would introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law relating to the safety of vessels in relation to small-boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I do not think that it is responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel; our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also—and I hope that it is helpful to my noble friend to say this—existing maritime law in force. We should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vessels and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.

Turning to Amendment 208, the strengthening of the border command is important, and this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new border command established by the Bill is responsible for co-ordinating border forces, maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard for the purposes of border security. The Border Security Command established by the Bill provides strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats, not just for Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people-smuggling gangs. That is, I think, the spirit of what the amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do.

In addition, my noble friend will be aware that the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, is designed to co-ordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The JMSC is the UK’s centre of excellence for maritime security. I have myself had meetings at its headquarters in the past 12 months. It provides 24/7 monitoring and reporting of global waters, it plans the response to maritime events, and it looks at UK global maritime threats and sanctions-related understanding. To achieve this, the JMSC engages with a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and will also discuss with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening in the channel. So I understand why my noble friend has brought this amendment forward, but I argue that the new body would be essentially a duplication and is not required. The Border Security Command will be drawing together expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats, building on the expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in relation to Clause 3, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there is that link and the assumption is that there will be close co-operation.

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I will certainly make sure that the Home Office Minister responsible for this policy area gets sight of the report referred to, but I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive responses, which I shall read with great interest. On first reflection, it all sounds like a positive way forward, although I will have to investigate whether the right equipment is being procured and used, because people cannot rescue large numbers of people floating in the sea if they do not have the right equipment. But on that basis, I am very grateful to him and to other colleagues who have responded, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.