(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:04 - Division on Amendment 35 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 35 agreed.
13:27 - Division on Amendment 35A - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 35A disagreed.
13:38 - Division on Amendment 35B - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 200 - Amendment 35B disagreed.
15:55 - Division on Amendment 42 - Ayes: 66 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 42 disagreed.
16:06 - Division on Amendment 44 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 44 disagreed.
17:01 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 46 disagreed.
17:54 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 55 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 116 - Amendment 56 disagreed.
“Collection of data on overseas students subject to visa conditions and immigration rules(1) The Secretary of State must collate and publish—(a) the number of overseas students who have had their student visas revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences,(b) the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visas, and(c) the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visas.(2) Data published under subsection (1) must be broken down by nationality.(3) For the purposes of this section—“overseas students” means any person who is not a British citizen who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of partaking in an educational course;“student visa” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Rules.”
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I believe this amendment supports the main thrust of the Bill, which seeks to help make our country safer and more secure, a goal that I share. It seeks to have a robust immigration system, and I commend the Government on that. The first step in that process is having the information that you require to give effect to efficacious public policy. An effective immigration system that protects the UK and allows it to flourish needs to understand the people coming into our country and whether they are acting like the good, law-abiding citizens they ought.
It is as well to remember that at the heart of this amendment is the central fact that the Immigration Act 1971 was and always has been a permissive legislative instrument, in that student visas are issued with conditions, impose obligations and are in no sense an absolute civil or human right. Some 431,725 sponsored study visas were granted in the year ending June 2025. I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come, study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege —and it is a privilege. We have some of the world’s top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here.
In the 2022-23 academic year, less than a quarter of recent foreign students were on courses that the Department for Education deemed “strategically important” for the UK, such as in engineering, science, technology or healthcare, contrary to the hopes of Ministers in the previous Government when they launched the graduate visa route in 2019 and enacted it in 2021. Indeed, 69% had been on a course of only one year’s duration. The proportion of international students remaining in the UK after graduation climbed from 20% to 56% between 2021 and 2024, with only a minority of 23% studying a strategically important postgraduate course. Others studied, for instance, anarchism, television studies, recreation and leisure studies, hair and make-up, computer games, beauty therapy and alternative medicines and therapy.
This may be linked to the fact that 1.9 million foreign nationals are now claiming benefits in the UK; 30% of those benefits were paid to non-working dependants and family members, which adds up to £10.1 billion in universal credit payments in 2024. If you come to this country as a student, if you get a visa and the opportunity to come to the UK, you have responsibilities in our society and under the law. If you abuse the freedoms we allow here and break the law, you will be punished, and the legitimacy of your stay in the country should be questioned.
I tabled this amendment in the context of the serious public disorder linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the not unreasonable accusations of two-tier policing by the Metropolitan Police and others in the way that public disorder and rampant antisemitism were treated and policed. I made the point that other jurisdictions defend the integrity of their student visa regime and take a robust stance on individuals who flout or disregard their obligations to be good, law-abiding citizens while guests in the country. The relevance of this amendment has been recently brought to further attention with the jailing of two Chinese students who fraudulently claimed more than £140,000 in train refunds. Once again, most students come here and work hard, and I have nothing but respect for them, but the information should be collected so that those who commit offences here face the consequences.
Your Lordships’ House will want to know the context of why I brought this specific amendment. Regrettably, it is not a good story. For the last six months, I have been met in my Questions to Ministers with obfuscation, ignorance, stonewalling and answers to questions that I did not ask. I first asked the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, a Written Question in March as to whether the Home Office collects this information. He responded that it did not—fair enough.
On 26 March, I asked His Majesty’s Government,
“further to the Written Answer … why information about the removal of foreign nationals following the revocation of student visas is not collected and published”.
He said:
“Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics”,
et cetera—but he did not answer the Question.
On 30 April, I asked him
“what specific factors they have taken into account in deciding not to collect and publish data on the revocation of foreign student visas”.
He said, rather unhelpfully:
“I refer the Rt. Hon. Lord to the Answer he received on 26 March”.
Then on 8 May, trying a different tack, I asked,
“further to the Written Answers by Lord Hanson of Flint on 30 April … and 25 March … what plans they have, if any, to collect data on the revocation of student visas”.
He said:
“Obtaining the specific information requested would involve collating and verifying information from multiple systems owned by multiple teams across the Home Office and, therefore, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost”.
On 9 June, I tried again. I asked him
“what discussions they have had with representatives of the higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for those foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the United Kingdom”.
He said, apropos of nothing:
“Any foreign national who commits serious crimes in the UK should expect to be removed from our country, regardless of the visa on which they travelled here”.
So he did not answer that Question either.
So, on 11 June, I asked another Question, which was a bit more up front:
“whether they will now answer the question put, namely, what discussions they have had with representatives of the higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the United Kingdom”.
The noble Lord’s Answer was:
“The Home Office keeps all aspects of the immigration system under review, including compliance and enforcement issues within the education sector, in consultation with a wide range of experts and other stakeholders”.
So, he did not answer that Question either. We have clearly not had clear and concise Answers on this issue, and I have to say that the Minister, for whom I have inordinate respect from our time in the other place, really should understand that it is not acceptable and is a gross discourtesy to this House that he and his department will not answer straightforward Questions in a timely way.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Government cannot abdicate the responsibility of maintaining an immigration regime for students only to higher education institutions, which have a vested interest and, indeed, a conflict of interest. The Government have a proper responsibility to police our borders and protect the system from gaming criminality and abuse. You cannot design an immigration system, you cannot make effective and wise decisions and you cannot serve the British people as well as you want to without the right information. If a disproportionately high percentage of students come from certain countries and are more predisposed to criminality, that must be known and addressed.
In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, reassured us at the Dispatch Box that Immigration Rules are in place for the cancellation of entry clearance and stays, and that he was committed to reviewing the collection of statistics in order to
“identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1178.]
This is the time to make real that undertaking and that commitment to transparency. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure that the Government can make better-informed choices in our national interests. For that reason, I commend it to the House and hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 35C aims to stop people who come to the UK on a student visa abandoning that route for an asylum claim. Today, I will explain why such an amendment is needed, and then I will respond to the objections made by the Minister, take account of them and explain why this amendment meets the most substantive one.
First, why is this amendment needed? Around 435,000 people were granted student visas in the 12 months to June 2025. In the same period, 111,000 people claimed asylum, of whom 14,800 had entered the UK on a student visa. So, 13% of claims for asylum were made by student visa switches. The consequences—as I explained, so I will not run through them again in detail—are serious. For university finances, the ability to plan courses and allocate places suffers if students accept and are allocated a place but drop out mid-course or never show up, leaving empty places, damaging the finances and creating black holes for the university. They are not, except in a few cases, innocents overtaken by dangerous political changes at home, which my Amendment 35C now covers; rather, they are people who abuse the student visa route and exploit the laxity of our rules and the by now reluctant generosity of our taxpayers.
I may have mentioned a recent report of a couple from India who candidly spoke anonymously on camera to a reporter. The wife had got her student visa but had no intention, she said, of taking up her place. An agency had been engaged to see to the paperwork and fake the financial and other eligibility documents. That couple are now living on benefits and hope they will be given asylum because one of their children has a bad medical condition.
In Committee, the Minister made three sorts of objections to my amendment, designed to include claims from student visa holders made two days after arrival. The first was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I therefore take account of this, the substantive objection in both the Minister’s and my own Front Bench’s argument. A two-day time limit does not cover unfortunate students who dutifully pursue their degree courses but discover, sometime into it, that the political circumstances have changed and they could face imprisonment, torture or even execution if they go home. Today’s amendment allows for these changed circumstances.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 71A is an amendment to Amendment 71 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It should be seen in the context of my comments about modern slavery in the debate on Monday. This modern slavery system now supports more foreign citizens than it does British citizens—something that the public, I am sure, are not aware of and would rightly be concerned about if they did. Modern slavery victim support is a multi-million pound cost to the public purse, as well as having an untold cost in human misery. In fact, between 2016 and 2023, the Home Office spent over £40 million through the modern slavery fund to combat modern slavery overseas and reduce the threat of human trafficking to the UK, including from Albania and Vietnam. British taxpayers are funding these projects, but they evidently have not worked, so it is time for a different policy.
The top nationalities referred to the NRM now relate to Albania, Vietnam, Eritrea, Sudan, India, Iran, Romania, Nigeria and Ethiopia. But those who have been a victim of crime in this country commonly feel that their support by the British state is inadequate, and I am sure the general public would agree that our own citizens should come first, before we distribute generous welfare to people from those countries that I have just mentioned. Therefore, my amendment adds an additional visa penalty to those that are set out in my noble friends’ amendment and would ensure that those countries which do not do enough to tackle upstream causes of modern slavery, and therefore export their victims to our shores, feel the pain of not having done enough by having their visa access restricted. It is simple: if we are providing the carrot of visa access, we should ensure that we have a good, strong stick.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 35 and to pose a few questions to the Minister. I will not repeat what my noble friend said; he set out the case very compellingly.
I note from a Written Answer that the Minister said:
“The information requested is not available from published statistics”.
I am sure that is true; the Minister will have given a truthful answer. However, what information does the department collect that it does not publish?
When I was Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014, we were very clear about the importance of overseas students. We wanted them to come here, but we also wanted to make sure there was no abuse. The department at that point collected a lot of information about the risks involved in students coming here from a variety of countries, including, for example, the risk that they would overstay their student visa. We used that risk information to focus our checks when those students were applying for visas. I presume that work still exists. Has the department done any work on collecting information on the behaviour of overseas students in the United Kingdom—for example, criminality or other offences—that it does not put in existing published statistics? If it does collect that information, can it make it available? If that information is used by the department in decision-making and assessing risk, it is presumably good enough—even if it is not perfect and does not meet the criteria for published statistics—to be shared with Members of your Lordships’ House.
Those are detailed questions. If the Minister is not able to, or does not, answer them today, I am sure that either myself or my noble friend Lord Jackson, in his typically assiduous way, will table some Written Questions to follow them up. With that, I strongly support his amendment.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 35. We really need the data to understand the problem and how efficacious our measures to control it are. My noble friend asked a number of different questions in a number of different ways, and he has not been given the information the House requires. We need to understand why that is. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, is not in his place, because I was about to pay him a compliment. I managed to extract a truly startling statistic from him when I asked what proportion of people in these circumstances—those who have arrived through what is now termed irregular routes—are removed from the country against their will. The answer was 4%, so there is a 96% chance of success in remaining.
In order to understand the reasons why people typically want to come to the UK, one needs to understand the strength of the regime that deals with those applications, and the chances of staying versus being deported or removed from the country through one means or another. Unless the Government can really come forward and answer my noble friend’s question, or agree to his amendment, it is very difficult to take seriously the actions the Government are taking. We know that the Government do not know who is in the country at any one time; our systems do not record exits from the country as they do people coming in. It will probably lead us to a much wider discussion about how we can get the data and know who is here and who has overstayed the terms of their visa. It is entirely reasonable for my noble friend to ask those questions, and it is the Government’s duty to respond in detail.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am particularly interested in the student visa amendments, which are both very helpful. There is now an informal assumption that there is a problem with some overseas students playing the system and potentially using their student visas as a mechanism for seeking asylum. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, presented a balanced and sensitive case so that all of us can understand, first, the importance of overseas students to the UK and, secondly, the legitimate use of asylum seeking if circumstances change, while at the same time understanding that there is potential abuse of the system. The problem is that while there is a focus on, for example, small boats, maybe a focus on universities does not feel quite as newsworthy and headlines will not be generated, or it seems somehow more legitimate if they have come to do even a media studies course—they cannot be criminals. None the less, there is a problem if the system is abused.
There are two additional points that have not been referred to. I fear that UK universities themselves have mis-sold universities to overseas students, treating university courses as cash cows. One of my first more militant acts at university, many decades ago, was a week-long sit-in to defend overseas students from increased fees, and I have always thought that it was an important part of our education system to defend them. However, universities simply sell inappropriate courses for money to students who often cannot to speak adequate English for a degree. That is not to criticise them; I am criticising the university managements who sell their courses in that way. That kind of cynicism is likely to rub off on students, who will not necessarily come here and think, “I must take seriously my duties and responsibilities to higher education and the pursuit of knowledge”, because the universities have, in an entirely instrumental, business-like fashion, sold them a course that is maybe not very good and not taken any notice of their facility for education. Why would you not become cynical in those circumstances?
Finally, I hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by both these amendments to think about universities and overseas students, because this is very much in the news in the context of Sheffield Hallam University. We now know that Sheffield Hallam’s management betrayed one of its own academics and compromised academic freedom to guarantee a continued flow of Chinese overseas students, stopping that academic’s research because the Chinese state found it inconvenient. It is not in any of our interests to allow universities to become politicised instruments of overseas students, be it the state, using them in a particular way, or those who recommend that, if you study in the UK on one of these courses, you will easily get asylum. I know that this happens. It is a form of people trafficking that is just not hitting the headlines, but I can assure you, it is happening. I therefore support both amendments and I was very pleased to see them.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, as the House knows, I have sat in a lot of these debates and never stood up to speak, but I feel compelled to speak today. I declare my interest as having been chancellor of two universities, York St John University and the University of Cumbria, for well over 12 years. We had a lot of overseas students. I am not persuaded by what I am hearing today. It is very easy to cast aspersions when you are not within the university itself. Most of our universities do a fantastic job in registering people who really want to study here. Both York St John and Cumbria had training centres in China, so the students had a good command of English before they got here. All the students in those years actually went back, unless they remained to do some research, which was also allowed. Please let us not have these generalised statements about universities all being the same.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I want to clarify, in case there was any confusion, that I have worked with and have great admiration for many Chinese students in this country. My contribution was not an attempt, in any way, at smearing them. That is not to say that there is not an abuse of the system in some instances. I was querying whether we should be attentive to that, because the students are betrayed when they are not given proper education in this country and are used in a particular way for political ends. That does not mean, at all, that all Chinese students are doing that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My experience is quite different. I have been a chancellor of two universities that have actually recruited students from all over the world—for education, not for any other purpose. They were also wonderful universities for students within our own country. Before the founding of the University of Cumbria, students used to leave Carlisle to go to different universities in our country and they never went back. The creation of the University of Cumbria benefited local businesses —we have talked about manufacturing in places such as Barrow—so it has been wonderful seeing our own local students rising up to the possibility of being very good engineers, manufacturers, nurses and doctors, or being trained in other ways. I stood at the podium giving out degrees to students from all over the place. At York St John, there were always four ceremonies, each with about 400 students at a time. That is what I know from what I experienced—it is therefore possible for me to say that.
I must declare a second interest: I came here on a student visa in 1974, which was renewed every 12 months until I was ordained in 1979. Later, when I became Bishop of Stepney, I was given indefinite leave to remain but I never applied for naturalisation in this country, which was a possibility, until 2001. I was a faithful student who came here on a student visa. It is no good anybody telling me that if some Ugandans come here—let us say there are four of them—and involved themselves in criminal acts, we can then use those four as a test case to say that people from that country should not get visas. From all that I know, most of the students from Uganda went back—my circumstances were part of something different. Please can we not express guilt by association, where we say, for example, that if some people from Nigeria do something, all of them must be the same, so we must always gather the figures and numbers?
This has always been a free country for me, and it has helped quite a lot of people who have been in great difficulty. I came here because of Amin’s trouble; I had to give up my law job. My staying here has to do with me continuing to study and then being invited to become a chaplain of a prison in Richmond, which I did for four years. Indefinite leave was quite a different thing. I always resisted naturalisation to become a British citizen; at the time I thought that I was natural and that there was no need to be naturalised. Still, occasionally, whenever I hold my British passport, I say, “To get this, I had to be naturalised”. That term is pretty offensive, because there is nothing unnatural about me that needed to be naturalised.
My dear friends, yes, there is now concern about people, who either are on student visas or came here on asylum, having committed offences, but these amendments make it seem that Britain’s history has nothing to teach us. For that reason, should the amendments be voted on, I will move in the direction of the Not-Content Lobby.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will draw us back to the amendments before us. Amendment 35 requires the Secretary of State to collate and publish detailed data on overseas students whose visas are revoked due to criminal offences, and raises several important questions concerning data collection accuracy, resource allocation and the practical application of policy. The intent of the amendment is clear: to provide essential data to evaluate risks and ensure individuals who commit crimes are removed.
I almost have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for not getting answers to the questions he has asked time and again. What remains is that we have to look at the necessity of the subjects of those questions and their implementation. If the object of the amendment is to provide the data necessary to design efficient public policy, the first question must address the existing statutory landscape. The answers that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, got suggest that the Home Office did not collect the data relating specifically to student visas and criminality. What specific, new infrastructure or operational commitment would be necessary to collate this information reliably, particularly as the Minister implied that the Home Office already publishes a
“vast amount of data on immigration”—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 440.]
in regular publications that cover these themes?
Secondly, the amendment would require the publishing of figures on visa revocation, detention and deportation following a criminal offence. Given that 14,000 people who originally entered on a student visa claimed asylum in the latest year reported, and considering that subsequent detention or deportation is often tied to the outcome of complex asylum or human rights claims rather than solely the original criminal conviction or visa revocation, how will the published data accurately distinguish between detention related directly to government removal actions versus detention protracted by pending asylum appeals or other legal challenges? The Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay when conditions are breached. Would a statutory duty to publish retrospective data fully address the underlying problem, or would resources be better focused on the proactive enforcement and timely application of the existing Immigration Rules?
Thirdly, the amendment mandates that the published data
“must be broken down by nationality”.
That is intended to highlight countries associated with a high risk of abuse of the visa system, allowing the Home Office and universities to take risk into account when making decisions. What specific safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the publication of criminality data, broken down by nationality, does not lead to profiling or unfair discriminatory practices against students from those nations who are law-abiding citizens, especially given the clear parliamentary intention to use the data to identify countries of particular risk?
Amendment 35C, which is yet to be introduced by the Conservative Front Bench, proposes that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum or human rights claim inadmissible if the claimant entered on a student visa, applied for asylum more than two days later and there is “no evidence” of materially changed political circumstances endangering their life or liberty. This measure is flawed both practically and legally, and we must oppose it for three key reasons.
The proposed new clause establishes a near-automatic system of inadmissibility for a specific cohort of asylum seekers. The approach is inherently problematic because it fails to process cases based on individual merits and lived experiences. There is no substantive consideration of the asylum or human rights claim. Even if the primary motivation for the amendment is to counter visa abuse, refusing a person’s asylum claim without consideration of the merits and/or risks, placing the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention, specifically the prohibition on refoulement, is a matter of serious concern.
The amendment conflates asylum and human rights claims. Many human rights claims are founded not on a country’s general safety but on an individual’s personal connection to the UK, such as family ties. Automatically barring these claims simply because a person arrived on a student visa is an anomalous and unjustifiable imposition of a blanket ban.
The proposed new clause explicitly states that the inadmissible declaration is not a refusal of the claim and, as such, no right of appeal arises. Furthermore, it declares that the decision is
“final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court”.
Such provisions, which seek to exclude judicial review—we are going to have plenty of those today—of immigration decisions and to remove the right to appeal are repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR, which is of course part of our domestic law.
The intention behind the amendment may be to clamp down on those abusing the student visa route, especially concerning the 14,000 who claimed asylum after entering on a student visa in the last reported year. However, this absolute inadmissibility straitjacket would be functionally unworkable, echoing the failures of previous legislation. This amendment is ineffective, inhumane and legally unsound.
Amendment 71 seeks to fundamentally alter the established visa penalty mechanisms contained within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The stated intent of the amendment is clear: to force the Government to impose visa penalties immediately if a country fails to co-operate on removals or the verification of identity of its nationals. While we share the desire to see prompt and effective removal of those who have no right to be here, the amendment risks undermining that very objective by destroying the necessary operational discretion essential for effective diplomacy and returns policy. The mandatory penalty system removes the ability to use engagement, diplomacy and other means to successfully unblock co-operation with other countries. We simply cannot tie the hands of a Secretary of State with a rigid system that risks damaging international relations without guaranteeing an increase in removals.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord finally winds up, I have two points to make. One is in respect of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about Written Answers. We have all had many of them, and they have sometimes been useful and sometimes been awful. This is a problem of not just this Government; it goes back many years. The answer is just to keep going, but I sympathise with the noble Lord.
I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee of this House. We spend a lot of time talking about the shortage of researchers and students coming into our universities. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is a very good example of how to come in properly; he passed all the exams and made a career of it. But there are an awful lot of other people who do not get here because of the difficulties, cost and delay of these processes.
I do not think it really matters how they come. It is easy to criticise people because they come in a small boat or because they get a visa in some other way. We really need to look and see how we can attract the best possible students in the world to help our research and technology industries here. We have got the opportunities from many who would prefer to leave the United States at the moment. All over, if we do not get the students, we are not going to achieve our academic success. I do not think the amendments in this group are the way forward.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 35 from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Amendment 71 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel. We have seen disturbing instances of very serious offending by non-UK nationals on student visas. For example, there is the case of Zhenhao Zou, a Chinese national and PhD student at University College, London, who was convicted in March 2025 of multiple rapes of women in the UK and China, and who is now serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years.
The existence of such a case shows that the student route is not free of risk, yet we currently have no published data on how many overseas students commit crimes, have their visas revoked or are deported. Without that transparency, Parliament and the public are effectively working in the dark.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am sure the noble Lords opposite will also recall that we discussed these amendments in Committee at midnight. This debate is rather better attended and has rather more contributors than that one—but we were not turned into pumpkins anyway. Let me see how I go. I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the long list of his previous attempts, so let me have a try.
Starting with Amendment 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at the outset I should say, as many noble Lords have acknowledged—including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley—a vital economic and academic contribution is made by international students to this country. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, nodding too. I take very seriously the challenge from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that we should not taint everyone with guilt by association. That is absolutely central to the argument we want to make.
As your Lordships know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain, they are liable to removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and where appropriate we will pursue their deportation. I think I said in Committee that I know from my previous life, as the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, what an important priority that is.
On the specifics of the amendment about publishing data, as was set out in Committee, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detentions. I hope your Lordships do not think this frivolous, but if rather more attention were paid to the data that the Home Office publishes already, we might have a better-informed debate about some of these issues than we do.
I want to respond both to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the follow-up from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. We do publish stats on the number of asylum claims from people who initially came to the UK on a visa, by the type of visa on which they entered, in our quarterly immigration system statistics. In relation to the question from the noble Lord, Lord German, we also publish asylum data on routes and nationalities separately. Before the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, takes his decision about whether to divide the House, it is important that we are at least clear about what is currently published. I hope it is some reassurance to the noble Lord that this Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and the public in learning more about the number and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, and about what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted and completed their sentences. We discussed it only the other day.
The Home Office is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of foreign national offenders and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside other Home Office statistics. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate. The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I think I have gone a little further than I did in Committee, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Harper (Con)
Can I just press the Minister on my specific question, which was not just about the published data but about the information that the department collects to make decisions about the risks from people applying for student visas? Does it collect any information at all about the propensity of people from different nationalities to commit crimes and use that in its risk-based approach when making decisions about student visas?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for reminding me about that specific point. As a former Immigration Minister, he is much more familiar with the data than I am, or at least what it was when he was there. I take very seriously the general point about data for risk assessment, and I understand what the noble Lord is driving at. I cannot give him that information today, but I will be very happy to write to him. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, might raise a wry smile at yet another letter from a Home Office Minister, but on the specific question about risk assessment and data that is collected for it—which is different from the specifics of some of the data that I have already discussed—I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord.
Amendment 35C from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa lodged more than two days after they arrive in the UK must be declared inadmissible, unless there is evidence that political circumstances have changed in the person’s home country such as to endanger their life or liberty. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness has recognised some of the questions that were raised, not just on our side but from her own Front Bench, in the way that the amendment is now presented to the House, and that there has been a change there. But I am afraid that the other objections I raised in Committee, which the noble Baroness set out, still remain. Let me try to explain a bit better.
The likely consequence of the amendment—I think the noble Lord, Lord German, referred to this—would still be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without an obvious way in which to return those individuals who make them without potentially contravening the key principle of non-refoulement in the refugee convention. The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to that. This would still, I am afraid, leave any affected individuals in a state of limbo with no certainty, and—this is the point that makes for the difficulty—we would have no certainty as to whether they qualified for refugee status. It is not just a question of where they would be returned to and whether that would be safe; it is about whether they would be able to claim refugee status at all. The Government’s view is that sorting that out would potentially prove extremely cost ineffective, so I am afraid the view of the Government is that it just would not work in practice.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
May I press the Minister? If there are strong and perfectly amicable links between this country and the home country of a student who has blatantly failed to meet conditions and it is a perfectly amicable country, what does the noble Lord say to those in the country who would rightfully say, “Let that person go home; he has breached the good-faith arrangements under which a student visa was granted by breaking the conditions, and if there is a case for asylum, let him or her put it in the usual way and not jump the queue for asylum over those who are making their claims through the normal processes”?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I understand the point she is making. There is a sense in which other people coming through the immigration system might see this as unfair. But one of our worries is that the amendment that the noble Baroness proposes might, in fact, create a more favourable position for students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK and therefore create an incentive that would be the opposite, I think, of what she intends. The amendment might also risk benefiting students who are more likely to have used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system. For the reasons that I have given, I am afraid the Government cannot support this amendment, but I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, agrees that the reasons I have given are salient ones.
I turn to Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the attached Amendment 71A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on the use of visa penalty powers where countries are deemed to be unco-operative on the return of their nationals or citizens, or, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on the targeted use of powers with countries from which individuals making claims of modern slavery and trafficking typically originate. I stress that if we were to accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, it would amount to a significant departure from the original purpose of this section in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to secure improved returns co-operation. As I think all noble Lords know, improving returns co-operation is a very high priority for the Government. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, noted in a previous day on Report that the previous Government’s performance was “sub-optimal”.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who took part in the debate, in particular my noble friends.
If I can just clear up an issue for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, this amendment is colour-blind and is not about citizenship; in that respect, I hope I can reassure him. I defer to no-one in my admiration for his success; he came here as a student from Uganda and has made such an enormous contribution to our society. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for a thoughtful and helpful contribution in putting the questions to the Minister.
This debate has shown that there is a very significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation around these figures. I have been trying to get these figures for nine months and have thus far failed. There seems to be a void at the centre of public policy on data management of these figures, particularly for student visas. Notwithstanding the calming and insouciant voice of the Minister at the Dispatch Box, on the basis of what he said rather than the way he said it, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Duty to deport illegal arrivals(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person (“P”) to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to any person who—(a) commits an offence under section 24 (illegal entry) or 24A (deception) of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) enters or arrives in the United Kingdom at a time when they are an excluded person within the meaning of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (persons excluded from the United Kingdom under certain instruments), or(c) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected,on, after or before the day on which this section comes into force.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the exceptions in subsection (5A) of section 8B of the Immigration Act 1971 (exceptions to section 8B) do not apply.(4) Where P has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully by means of sea crossing, a deportation order must be made against P as soon as P is detained under section (powers of detention for illegal entrants).(5) Where P is given a deportation order under this section the Secretary of State must make the necessary arrangements for the removal of P from the United Kingdom so as to ensure that P is removed from the United Kingdom within the period of one week beginning on the day that P is detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants).(6) Where a deportation order is in force against P under this section, the Secretary of State must give directions for P’s removal to either—(a) a country of which P is a national or citizen providing that country is a safe country, or(b) where a country of which P is a national or citizen is an unsafe country, to a safe third country.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) A “safe third country” means a country of which P is not a national or citizen but is considered to be a safe country under this subsection.(8) Where—(a) a deportation order is in force against P under this section, and(b) P has a child (“C”) who was born in the United Kingdom after P entered the United Kingdom unlawfully,the Secretary of State must also make a deportation order against C.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to deport, within one week, any person who entered the United Kingdom illegally or who has had their asylum claim rejected.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I begin this group of amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, by stating that they are directed at illegal entrants and not genuine refugees whose claims are upheld or who enter by legal routes.
We began Report with a discussion about the Government’s new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who, during an evidence session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, said:
“What we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing, there is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else”.
The Government’s own Border Security Commander himself recognises that there need to be changes to reduce the pull factors and create a deterrent effect. This year alone there have been 36,954 small boat arrivals. We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The Government have argued that their new “one in, one out” deal with France will take up that mantle, but all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working. It is not deterring illegal entry and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally.
These amendments would achieve the aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as with the other amendments we have tabled to the Bill, which will be discussed in later groups. The arguments in support of these amendments were well ventilated in Committee. Amendment 35A proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under Sections 24 or 24A of the 1971 Act, is an excluded person under Section 8B of that Act, or who has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35B is a corollary to that. It contains the power of detention and, accordingly, mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person. That person would be detained in a removals centre or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary’s behalf and the person must then be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention.
When people cross the border unlawfully, claim asylum and then remain in limbo, it undermines the integrity of our system. Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly question whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat that these amendments are not about genuine refugees but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants—illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected—and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.
Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.
First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.
Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.
Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.
The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.
These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.
For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.
As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.
Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.
These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome, and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Katz, for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I do not accept the criticisms that they made. I suggest that these amendments are responsible, pragmatic and necessary and would restore faith in the principle that sovereignty means that we decide who may enter, who may stay and who must be removed. The backlog of claims, the scale of illegal entries and the long delays in removals all speak to a system that lacks credibility, and these amendments would move us towards a stronger, fairer, more sustainable regime. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel
“Powers of detention for illegal entrants(1) A person to whom this section applies (“P”) must be detained under the authority of the Secretary of State or the authority of an immigration officer for the purposes of P’s removal from the United Kingdom.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971 (“A”), or(b) has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected (“B”).(3) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained in a designated removal centre and may not be accommodated in any other form of accommodation.(4) For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in subsection (3) to “any other form of accommodation” includes hotel accommodation, houses in multiple occupation and military bases. (5) Where P is detained under this section, P must be detained for the relevant period.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” begins—(a) for A, on the day on which the person unlawfully enters the United Kingdom;(b) for B, the day on which the claim is rejected.(7) For the purposes of subsection (5) the “relevant period” ends on the earliest of the following—(a) for A, on A’s deportation from the United Kingdom;(b) for B, on B’s deportation from the United Kingdom.(8) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 (immigration bail) does not apply to a person detained under this section.(9) Section 141 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (fingerprinting) is amended in accordance with subsections (10) and (11).(10) In subsection (7), after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any person (“DA”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025;”.(11) In subsection (8), for paragraph (d) substitute—“(d) for D or DA, on D’s or DA’s detention or arrest;”.(12) In subsection (9), in paragraph (b), for “or D,” substitute “,D or DA,”.(13) Regulation 2 of the Immigration (Collection, Use and Retention of Biometric Information and Related Amendments) Regulations 2021 are amended as follows.(14) In paragraph (7)—(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g)(ii), at the end insert “; and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) any person (“H”) who has been detained under section (Powers of detention for illegal entrants) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”(15) In paragraph (11) –(a) in sub-paragraph (f), at the end omit “and”,(b) in sub-paragraph (g), at the end insert “;and”(c) after sub-paragraph (g) insert—“(h) for H, on H’s detention.”(16) In paragraph (12), after sub-paragraph (b), insert—“(c) for H, on H’s deportation from the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require any person that enters the United Kingdom illegally or has had their asylum claim rejected to be immediately detained in a removals centre, not a hotel or HMO, have biometric information collected, and then be deported within one week.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that allows a person’s EU Settlement Scheme status to be removed without applying procedural safeguards contained in the Withdrawal Agreement.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 36 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Oates. My noble friend expertly presented in Committee on 8 September our several amendments to Clause 42, explaining that, overall, we welcome this clause because of its intention to end the distinction that was created between the so-called true and extra cohorts. I will not explain that for those not in the know, as it is a bit nerdish. Anyway, we welcome the clause because it fulfils the Government’s commitment that they would not treat the cohorts differently by granting a separate route to withdrawal agreement rights for the extra cohort. Its intention is therefore extremely welcome, as these Benches have consistently said.
The problem I want to focus on now is that the Government have maintained, in debates and in correspondence, both with Members of the House and with the NGOs the3million and the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, whom I thank for its consistent support and briefing, that Clause 42, namely the enjoyment of Brexit withdrawal agreement rights, cannot apply to those whose leave was allegedly granted in error. Clause 42(2)(c) gives the Home Office the power to remove EU settled status or pre-settled status without affording status holders the procedural safeguards or proportionality test which the withdrawal agreement mandates, where it is contended that settled status was granted in error. What that really means is where the Home Office has come to believe that the status was granted in error, because obviously it does not always know.
The first problem is that withdrawal agreement safeguards are denied even if the error was by the Home Office, not the individual. The second problem is that the Government are creating a chicken-and-egg situation. The Home Office does not know whether the withdrawal agreement applies, yet it will not extend the safeguards in that agreement because it thinks that it does not apply. It is a slightly head-banging situation, but that is it. While it is true that someone genuinely granted status in error is not a withdrawal agreement beneficiary, those of us supporting Amendment 36 contend that the process of establishing that the status was granted in error, and then removing the status, must be compliant with the withdrawal agreement.
Let us think of the comparison with fraud. Status can be removed where someone obtained that status under the EU settlement scheme by fraud, with the result that they are not a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. However, they need to have a withdrawal agreement-compliant process before their status is removed. Article 21 of the withdrawal agreement has to apply for those who are alleged to have committed fraud when applying for status and, in those cases, it is also ultimately, after due process, agreed that the person was not in scope of the withdrawal agreement. It seems unacceptable to us that Article 21 will not apply to cases where the individual does not commit fraud, but instead the Home Office alleges that either it or the person made a mistake several years ago.
By contrast with the fraud situation, the withdrawal agreement says nothing about removing status granted in error, which is one reason why this sort of space exists. The Home Office objection to removing subsection (2)(c) from Clause 42 is that it would result in that person being treated as a withdrawal agreement beneficiary. It appears to think, for reasons which are not entirely clear, that this would mean that the Home Office could not remove their status at all. Home Office policy and practice is that, when it thinks that someone’s status is granted in error, it will simply let it expire—to fall off a cliff—rather than cancel, curtail or revoke the status via a decision that would entail procedural rights, including a proportionality assessment and a right of appeal. When it falls off a cliff, there are no rights and there is no due process.
Allowing the status to expire is a workaround to avoid due process, and one that frankly does not carry a huge amount of integrity because, if leave was indeed cancelled, curtailed or revoked instead of left to expire, safeguards would apply. It is the word of the Home Office against the individual’s when it says that someone’s status was granted in error. The Home Office can make mistakes: it can be wrong in thinking that someone’s status was granted in error. We are only asking for due process in all cases where the Home Office says that status was granted in error. Those entitled to withdrawal agreement procedural safeguards must receive them. This would ensure that those safeguards apply when the Home Office thinks that a person did not meet requirements when in fact they did. That is the chicken and egg: we just do not know in advance. The Home Office response suggests infallibility in Home Office decision-making: we know this does not exist. The Home Office does not provide any due-process safeguards should there be error on its part. This fails to reflect the realities of Home Office decision-making.
The Home Office position incorrectly regards as due process those opportunities for what it calls engagement to prove that status was correctly granted. This is insufficient. It does not amount to due process and it is not what the withdrawal agreement requires. In fact, due process demands a right of appeal against the decision to let leave expire, and a proportionality assessment in case the Home Office is in fact wrong to think someone was granted status in error. If the belief of the Home Office is right, it will win the appeal, and status can be taken away. This is not about people granted status in error indefinitely keeping it, along with all other withdrawal agreement rights. It is simply about not infringing the procedural rights potentially secured by the withdrawal agreement. The Government’s approach means that, by the time the Home Office is proved wrong, it is too late and the withdrawal agreement has been breached. By removing subsection (2)(c), Amendment 36 says that everyone—including those granted status in error—should be deemed to be a beneficiary of the withdrawal agreement, so they get the protection of Article 21 procedural rights.
Now we face an impasse, in so far as the Government have refused to allow these procedural safeguards to apply to the alleged error scenario. They seem to be saying, “We can’t do that because, if you deem these cases in law to be full and proper beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, then we can’t take their status away at all, because the withdrawal agreement does not provide for status being lost in the case of status granted in error”. This can be regarded as a somewhat unhelpful argument and I happen to think it is rather full of flaws. However, the3million and ILPA have suggested a compromise, which I hereby submit. If subsection (2)(c) is left in Clause 42, so that those granted status in error are refused treatment as full withdrawal agreement beneficiaries, a new paragraph dealing with the precise situation could be added. This would provide that the law at least confers a minimum set of withdrawal agreement-compliant procedural safeguards, so as to ensure that Home Office action to permit status to expire, when it contends that it was granted in error, is procedurally safe.
A new paragraph could be inspired by Article 15, and Chapter 6 of Directive 2004/38, which, as all noble Lords will know, is the free movement directive. The provisions of that directive are the ones cited in Article 21 of the withdrawal agreement. Knowing the genius of parliamentary counsel, it should be possible to do something along these lines: something which is sui generis, inspired by Article 21 and designed for this specific situation. I hope the Minister can tell me that he will try to do something along these lines in the interests of fairness, justice and respect for the spirit of the withdrawal agreement and our relationship with EU citizens, even if he still declines to accept Amendment 36 —although, obviously, prize number one would be the Minister telling me that he accepts Amendment 36.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I will not repeat the comprehensive arguments my noble friend has so eloquently set out in support of this amendment. I want to focus briefly on the point she highlighted that, by allowing settled status to expire rather than revoking or cancelling it, the Home Office is sidestepping a proportionality assessment and denying the status-holder a right of appeal.
The Home Office says that this is a generous thing to do to give people a bit more time before their status is lost but, as my noble friend has set out, it is in fact letting status-holders slide off a cliff without the withdrawal agreement safeguards. This should not be allowed to happen, fundamentally because the Home Office—extraordinary though it may seem—may be wrong in its assessments that status was granted in error. Regrettably, the Home Office has been known to make mistakes in the past—in fact, frequent mistakes, often with catastrophic human consequences.
This amendment would ensure that, where such errors are made, the victims of those errors are afforded the procedural safeguards that they should be. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, said in reply to me that those whose settled status was lapsed by the Home Office would be
“informed that they can reapply to the EUSS. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EUSS status in error also attracts a right of appeal”.
These are safeguards that the Minister said
“I hope the noble Lord will find adequate … in both these cases”.—[Official Report, 8/9/25; col. 1186.]
I regret that we do not believe they are adequate because this is not a right of appeal against the decision to allow status to lapse. It is a right of appeal against the refusal of a new application, which means that if the person concerned chooses to appeal, they are challenging a different decision, and the tribunal may well not allow the same arguments to be presented. Pre-settled status could also expire in the meantime, while awaiting appeal on the new application.
In closing, I thank the Minister for his engagement with my noble friend and myself on this issue. But, as he will appreciate from what my noble friend has said, we do not accept that the safeguards he referred to in Committee are sufficient. Therefore, we ask him, first, obviously, to accept this amendment, but if he is not willing to do so, to get the Government to reflect again and come back with a proposal that would meet these concerns.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as indicated in Committee, we have little issue with Clause 42. If the Government believe that it is also in line with the withdrawal agreement, we do not have concerns about it standing part of the Bill.
I listened to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. While I understand her concerns, we are satisfied that Clause 42 does not undermine the protections for European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss nationals and their family members who have leave to enter or remain in the UK granted under the EU settlement scheme. The government amendments in this group simply alter the commencement of Clause 42 so that it comes into effect on Royal Assent. Given that we have little issue with this clause, we are satisfied that its commencement on Royal Assent is not inappropriate.
I will only ask one question of the Minister. Can he explain whether he expects Clause 42 to increase administrative burdens on the Home Office and, if so, what steps have been taken to increase administrative capacity?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her amendment. I assure her that there is nothing nerdy about putting amendments down in this field. As a fellow nerd on many other topics, I welcome her contribution to the debate.
The amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, are on the important issue of the discussion on the safeguards for loss of status under the EU settlement scheme. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and I have had some meetings. I think we have got a position whereby Clause 42 is welcome. I am pleased that they welcome the addition of Clause 42, because it provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement, and it is the source of their rights in the UK. I hope, therefore, that they welcome Amendments 81 and 83. These will mean that Clause 42 comes into force on the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months later as was originally planned, so that those rights are guaranteed from when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I will move those amendments in due course.
The nub of the question goes to the nub of the nerdery of the noble Baroness, which we discussed when she introduced her amendments. The EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. As we know, there are two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: the “true” cohort, who are in scope of the agreement because they were economically active in the UK at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and the “extra” cohort, who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Clause 42 ensures that both cohorts will be treated equally in UK law by providing that all EU citizens and family members with EUSS status will be treated as being withdrawal agreement beneficiaries. This is a significant measure that gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.
Amendment 36 would remove subsection (2)(c). Its effect would be to confer withdrawal agreement rights in the UK on those who do not qualify for them because they do not qualify for EUSS status. Worse, it would mean that pre-settled status granted in error could not be curtailed or allowed to expire, because the withdrawal agreement does not permit rights to be lost on that basis.
The amendment would give such people unwarranted preferential treatment over those whose EUSS application was correctly refused. It would also undermine the integrity of the EUSS system by giving them the same rights in the UK as those of a pre-settled status holder who complied with requirements for that status. Those are outcomes that we cannot accept. A person whose EUSS status has been granted in error will not be in the “true” or “extra” cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.
None the less, none of this detracts from the proper safeguards against the loss of EUSS status. The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the importance of that issue, as are the stakeholders who have been engaging with the Home Office on this point. Nothing in Clause 42 affects the withdrawal agreement-compliant appeal rights in UK law for the refusal or removal of EUSS status. There is nothing disproportionate about allowing a pre-settled status granted in error to expire after its five-year term, given that the person had no entitlement to that limited leave in the first place.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about Home Office errors. I would argue that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and will have failed to do so. As with erroneous grants of limited leave in other immigration routes, our approach allows people to stay in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of that leave.
Importantly, it is also open for the person to reapply for EUSS status, and, if refused, they will have the right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned this. I said this to him in Committee, and I think that I have also written to him and spoken to him about it in our meetings outside the Chamber. It also applies to any family member whose application is refused because their sponsor’s EUSS status was granted in error.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to this matter. I hope I have set down that those settled rights will exist under Clause 42. In the event of errors, there are rights of appeal, as well as an existing allowance to continue work in that particular period.
Lord Oates (LD)
Can we have clarity on this? My understanding is that there is no right of appeal against the Home Office decision that an error was made. Instead, there is the right to make another application, and then appeal if that is refused. As I set out, that is a very different thing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The argument I put is that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly. If there was an error from the Home Office, there is a period in which they can make that argument. But if we get to a position whereby staying in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of leave happens, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that people reapply for EUSS status can happen and can be considered. That is a reasonable proposal. We may disagree, but I think it is a reasonable way forward and it gives fairness to the system as a whole.
The noble Baroness’s compromise suggests a number of things, and my argument is that it is not necessary. Procedural safeguards are not dealt with in Clause 42; they are contained in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations. They implement the position in Article 21 and they stand irrespective of this clause. The compromise that she offered is effectively available under the rights in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations.
I may not have satisfied the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked whether there are any administrative costs and burdens from this. I do not have an assessment in front of me, but I will take that question away and examine it. I realise that we will have passed this clause by the time he gets the letter, but I hope he can hold us to account on that issue. I will give him further detail at a later stage. I hope that the House can agree to our Amendments 81 and 83 in due course and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I was remiss not to welcome Amendments 81 and 83. I thank the Minister for those, but I am afraid I am disappointed with what he said. To be clear, my noble friend Lord Oates’s intervention was surely right: I think the Minister made a slip of the tongue and suggested that there was an appeal right if status was left to expire. If the Home Office took a decision to cancel, revoke or curtail the status then there would be a right of appeal under Article 21 of the withdrawal agreement. Our objection is about the Home Office workaround—I called it that earlier, but I could think of a much ruder term. What the Home Office is doing is, frankly, sneaky. It is saying, “We’re not going to give you any right to appeal or apply a proportionality assessment. We’re just going to let it fade out, and if you don’t like that scenario you can make a whole new application and go through all the hassle and, no doubt, expense and trouble of that. Then, if we turn you down, you can go through an appeal right”.
We are talking about letting the status just expire, and the Minister is saying that the individual concerned should have known that the Home Office had perhaps granted it in error. How are they supposed to know that? That knowledge is within the bowels of the Home Office. The individual does not necessarily know that. The Home Office is holding all the power in this situation. It may not even say, “We think we granted this in error”; it just lets it expire and leaves the person stranded. That does not seem a very honourable thing to do. I am not saying that about the Minister, because I like him very much, but I do not think it is a very reputable thing for the Home Office to do. It is a great pity that the withdrawal agreement did not cover this situation. It covers fraud, but it does not cover where the status is allegedly granted in error.
Let us not forget that we are talking about people here: we are talking about EU citizens who ought to have a clear right of appeal and to make a case under an appeal procedure, rather than just having it slide away from them because the Home Office may think—and it may only think—that it granted it in error or that the applicant made an error. They are left hanging there and it will never be established whether it is true because the Home Office says, “Oh, you can just make another application”.
I am afraid I still think that is an unsatisfactory situation, and it is a pity that the impasse continues. I had hoped that there might be some flexibility to provide some creative wording so that the Home Office could maintain its position on the withdrawal agreement that Article 21 did not apply and that it would find some workaround in favour of EU citizens who might be subject to this black hole treatment. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot provide that offer, but he does not, so there we are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prescribed period for newly recognised refugees(1) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704), for “28” substitute “56”.(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act, but the Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Asylum Support Regulations to increase the period following a positive asylum decision during which a newly recognised refugee is eligible for financial and accommodation support from the Home Office from 28 to 56 days. It allows the Secretary of State to set a different period, as long as it is more than 56 days.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names and to the Refugee Council. I also declare, and am grateful for, help received from RAMP as an associate.
The proposed new clause would ensure that newly recognised refugees have at least 56 days to move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support—commonly called the move-on period. I have tabled the amendment because, having introduced a pilot in December last year to extend the move-on period from 28 to 56 days to great acclaim, the Government, with minimal warning, reverted to 28 days in September for most childless adults of working age. Yet the pilot, together with the independent evaluation of it, had only recently been extended from its original end date in June. The Home Affairs Select Committee spoke for many when it recently said that it found the decision “extremely disappointing”.
I and other noble Lords made the case for the extension to 56 days in the debates on my Private Member’s Bill on the subject, because 28 days is simply not long enough to sort out the practicalities involved in the move from asylum support. The result is all too often homelessness and destitution, with devastating psychological effects. What should be a time of joy turns into a nightmare. Young people in particular, according to Young Roots,
“are thrown into crisis in which they may be unsafe and at risk of harm”,
just when they hope
“to get on with rebuilding their lives”.
We are talking not just about those officially considered vulnerable groups who will continue with the 56-day period, because all those affected are potentially vulnerable, as the Boaz Trust has shown.
In Committee on the PMB, I presented evidence from a range of NGOs on how well the pilot was working. In the words of NACCOM, the UK-wide No Accommodation Network, the extension to 56 days had
“proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”.
Similarly, London Councils called it a “vital support” and pointed to a number of positive effects. In a recent letter to the Minister, it states that
“extensive evidence shared by partners … shows that this was a successful policy initiative in reducing risks of rough sleeping and leading to better and more joined up responses across the system”.
British Red Cross reports similar findings from a range of local authorities. This is not surprising, given that an earlier LGA survey found that the extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen by its members as the single most effective change that could be made to the move-on period.
It is also not surprising, therefore, that the response to the reversion to 28 days for most refugees has been overwhelmingly negative. London Councils warns that it
“will put the progress that we have made so far at risk”,
and that it is particularly concerning as we approach the winter period. In a letter to the relevant Secretaries of State on behalf of more than 60 organisations, Homeless Link and NACCOM made it clear that they believed the change to be harmful, fearing that it would
“increase homelessness and rough sleeping, cause individual harm, put pressure on local statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and undermine the government’s commitment to ending homelessness through a cross-departmental strategy”.
The letter continued:
“The emerging evidence we have, including testimony from our respective member organisations and from a survey NACCOM conducted of its members, indicates that the 56-day pilot has helped reduce rates of homelessness and enabled more people to successfully move on from Home Office accommodation and begin to integrate and participate in their communities”.
Surely, this is exactly what the Government want to happen. Young Roots, which very kindly sent me evidence about the impact of the change, reports that:
“56 days works. It was very clear during the 56-day pilot that the longer move-on period was beneficial for everyone”.
Its front-line staff report that it helped with claiming universal credit, opening a bank account and finding accommodation. Importantly, its safeguarding data showed a 50% reduction in safeguarding incidents during the six months of the pilot. Previously, the most common reason for a safeguarding incident raised was homelessness.
Young refugees themselves are clear that they cannot manage the transition in 28 days. One said:
“28 days are not enough to apply for universal credit and open a bank account, so we need at least 56 days”.
Caseworkers have commented how the young people have been calmer, as
“there isn’t such a sense of desperation”,
and that a longer move-on period has helped them to
“begin planning their futures with greater stability and dignity”.
The longer move-on period may not be a silver bullet, but it has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect. I appreciate the pressure to reduce the use of asylum hotels, but it should not be vulnerable refugees who have to pay the price.
When questioned on “Panorama” about why the unexpected change, Minister Norris answered that
“artificially inflating the period that someone stays in a hotel is not doing them a favour”,
and that it is in a refugee’s interest for the period to be as short as possible. Is it in their interest to be turfed out on to the streets and made destitute? I think not. There is nothing artificial about increasing the period to that already operative in homelessness legislation. If anything, it was the original 28 days that was artificial, or “arbitrary”, to use the word used by the Home Secretary, who said something very similar earlier in answer to an Oral Question. This is worrying, as it suggests that the new team in the Home Office is simply out of touch with the evidence, yet surely this Government believe in evidence-based policy-making.
Young Roots tells us that,
“since the pilot was suddenly ended, we are already seeing the devastating impact on young refugees”,
with a
“50 per cent increase in the number of young people experiencing street homelessness”.
Referrals to supported accommodation are being rejected because they do not yet have the necessary universal credit documentation. The organisation is really worried about the health and well-being of young refugees as winter approaches. Similarly, Islington Council reports that
“far more people have been referred to our local Crisis homeless shelter”
and more are sleeping rough. It argues that,
“this is a clear indication that the shortening of the move-on period has shunted costs from central on to local government and the voluntary sector”,
as well as, as I have already said, on to refugees themselves.
In response to a topical Oral Question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, my noble friend the Minister repeatedly talked about “tweaking” rather than ending the pilot, but I hope he will accept that what he calls tweaking is causing real harm. My noble friend also responded more than once that “the vast majority” of newly recognised refugees are not affected, but given that we are constantly being told that most are single young men, and that in a Written Answer the Home Office was not able to provide data on the proportion of newly recognised refugees who are exempt, I cannot see how he can say that.
In conclusion, in a helpful letter to me, my noble friend the Minister said that the outcomes of the evaluation of the pilot
“will be used to inform longer term policy proposals”.
With winter approaching, I make a plea on behalf of organisations on the ground and the refugees they work with, as well as local authorities, to revert to 56 days immediately. At the very least, will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the evaluation reflects the positive evidence I have received of the pilot’s impact, the Government will, in the name of evidence-based policy-making, make the pilot permanent for all newly recognised refugees? I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in every single word of her in introduction about the move-on period. It always struck me as very strange that you create pilot scheme that you know you want to evaluate, then halfway through you take out part of the pilot simply to address a problem which is occurring in the community at that time. I accept that it was obviously a tough time for the Government when there were all those protests outside hotels in the summer. Our Amendment 73, which follows this one, would help the Government reduce the numbers on the waiting lists. However, having a smaller number of days as soon as you get your status is just impossible; 28 days creates a cliff edge between destitution and homelessness, which was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
The pilot is due to come to an end sometime during the autumn. I know that, in government terms, the parts of a year are flexible; autumn, in this case, is now going to be somewhere closer to Christmas—you might call it late autumn. However, the few weeks since the announcement in September have meant that there are a significant cohort who are being put into the homelessness category. That has been confirmed to me by people in local authorities, whom I met last weekend, who could not understand—with the success of the pilot on their doorstep, and making and seeing it work—why they were going to have to face up to the problem of homelessness.
There is a stronger point in that the longer period of 56 days was very important because it enabled asylum seekers to get crucial support during the period that they were looking after themselves. It assisted with their integration into society and allowed them to stand on their own two feet much more quickly. It also, of course, reduced hardship and homelessness. We reduced the burden of homelessness on local authorities, prevented newly recognised refugees from becoming completely destitute and enabled them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. Can the Minister say what consultation was had with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days? Clearly, if the problem is being dumped on to local authorities, which then have to deal with homelessness, they might have expected to have some consultation and time for that.
Amendment 73 deals with “Nightingale” centres. This is a means by which we seek to improve and speed up the approval system. It calls for the establishing of processing centres to clear the asylum backlog for initial decisions within six months. The primary objective is to speed up the process; successive Governments have promised greater efficiency and promptly created their own backlogs, demonstrating that efficiency and fairness must go hand in hand. A functioning asylum system is one in which people’s claims are assessed swifty and accurately. The benefit will be a reduction in costly hotel accommodation. The enormous backlogs have put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, forcing the use of expensive hotels at scale, costing the taxpayer significant sums—around about £8 million a day on hotel accommodation alone.
By enabling the creation of temporary facilities for expedited assessment closer to where people are based, rather than moving them some distance to have their assessment, we can move people out of costly temporary accommodation and thereby reduce the asylum support budget. There are more than 90,000 people stuck in the Home Office’s asylum backlog, which are cases awaiting an initial decision. Of those, over half have been waiting more than six months and over one-quarter more than one year. This is a humanitarian crisis—created, of course, by the Conservative Government, who just put people in limbo, which went on and on while people queued up without any potential for a decision. I know that this Government have had to pick up a very tricky issue here, but we need to move it on as fast as possible. The policy of housing asylum seekers in hotels is disastrous for asylum seekers and for communities —we all know that. The situation needs to be addressed urgently, as an emergency.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group.
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we unfortunately cannot support her amendment. This past year has seen the largest number of boat crossings since records began. We believe that the current Government are buckling under the numbers. It is a situation that calls for measures that disincentivise those considering making the dangerous crossing across the channel. It is not an answer to strengthen the incentives to come here and then wonder why there is more inflow and more of a public backlash—that would be the outcome of Amendment 37.
If we were to increase the periods of financial and accommodation eligibility, we would give migrants a significantly greater reason to come here, and the taxpayer would be burdened with an even greater bill. In fact, we know from reports last week that the asylum seeker deported from France under the Government’s “one in, one out” policy returned because he could not get housing in France. The only group of people that the amendment would benefit would be people smugglers, who make a living by trafficking humans and breaking our laws. Instead, we should take the opposite approach. If we want to stop the tragic deaths in the channel and ease public sentiment towards the asylum system, we should disincentivise those illegally arriving here.
We understand and acknowledge the sentiment behind Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, on Nightingale processing units, but at present cannot support that either.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word in support of Amendment 37, which would allow 56 days before someone who has been given asylum is thrown out. The six-month experiment of the Government trying to move to 56 days from 28 seemed to be very successful. I was therefore puzzled that its extension in July was rescinded in August. I do not know why we are heading back to 28 days, and I am sure we should have 56 days.
Why? It takes some time for the documentation to be made available to the person who has been granted asylum. It then takes some time for that person to obtain accommodation, for which he will need a bank account. He may need to go on universal credit, and universal credit applications take longer than 28 days to come through. He is in a Catch-22 situation. He cannot rent accommodation, because he has not got a bank account and has not got access to universal credit, so he is homeless. Safeguarding incidents, the main cause of which is homelessness, declined by 50% during the six-month period in which 56 days were allowed.
As I understand it, the Government’s position now is that they are not going back all the way to 28 days for everybody. They are allowing families, the disabled, the pregnant and the over-65s to stay a bit longer while they look for somewhere to live. But actually, most of the asylum seekers are young men, who will be put on to a 28-day regime, which creates a very high risk of their becoming homeless. To integrate these people properly into society, we need to be generous on the timing of their being thrown out and on to the streets, in many cases to become rough sleepers. I strongly support Amendment 37.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for Amendment 37, and for being able to listen again to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, speak in support of Amendment 37. Amendment 37 seeks to increase the period of financial and accommodation support for newly recognised refugees from 28 to 56 days and to allow the Secretary of State discretion to settle on the period following a grant of refugee status. The amendment is clear. It seeks to formalise what we are currently assessing as part of a pilot. I recognise that there have been changes to the pilot mid-flow, but, essentially, it is ongoing.
The Government recognise the importance of a smooth transition for all the reasons that have been mentioned by my noble friend and noble Lords who have spoken. I give the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the benefit of the doubt, in that he did not support the general thrust of what is been said, and I understand his position.
There is benefit in examining these issues. This is why—despite the fact that we have inherited significant pressures in the asylum system and our strategy has been to provide targeted, conditional support to restore credibility to the system and ensure value for money for the taxpayer—we are undertaking, particularly at the moment, the pilot. Extending the period by four weeks would put an additional strain on the accommodation estate, exacerbating pressures on the Government’s commitment to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend, referred to the pilot that was introduced to extend the move-on period to 56 days from the point an individual had been notified of their grant of leave. The pilot has been put in place to support local authorities during a period when we anticipated an increased volume of asylum decisions being made, and coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees.
The pilot, as my noble friend knows, is in place until the end of the year. In early September, the Government took the difficult decision to pause the pilot only for single adults due to pressures on the accommodation estate. But the pilot continues for those who were in the system prior to September, and it applies now to families and the most vulnerable. The key point is that there is an independent evaluation currently ongoing regarding the impact of the pilot. We want to look at the pilot and the lessons learned and make judgments on this issue before deciding the longer-term policy.
I give everybody in the House the firm commitment that the intention is that the pilot’s findings, when produced, will be shared with Parliament, so we will be transparent on what that says. Members who are today arguing that the pilot is of assistance will be able to scrutinise the impact of that assessment. Those who believe that the length of the period is too long, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will be able to judge whatever the pilot says and either revise or keep their opinions in due course. But it is important at the moment that we examine the outcome of the pilot.
A wide range of stakeholders have taken part in the evaluation, including—this was requested of me—local authorities, voluntary organisations and the community sector. Indeed, we are involving in the pilot individuals with the lived experience of going through the system. It is important that we do not see the extension of the move-on period to 56 days as a straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why we are looking at a wider range of support measures and initiatives, including improved communications and support, and we are working with migrant help and asylum move-on liaison officers.
I say to my noble friend that the Government remain committed to offering support, improving the process that underpins transition from Home Office asylum support, and ensuring that any changes to the system are informed by robust evidence, which is the very reason why the pilot is in place. I think I mentioned that to my noble friend when I dealt with her Bill earlier in this Session, as did my noble friend Lord Katz when he dealt with this Bill in a later part of the Session. We both emphasised that point, so I hope that will help her. The pilot needs to run its course.
Lord German (LD)
Can the Minister say when the pilot is due to end and when it will present its report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have said, even in the last few moments—as I am sure the noble Lord will remember when I tell him again—that the pilot runs to the end of this year. The end of this year is about seven weeks away. We have to evaluate the pilot. I do not have a date for him as to when the pilot’s evaluation will be produced, but the circumstances of where we are now remain in place. The pause on single individuals from September is in place, but people from before September will still have been dealt with under the old system, and individual families and others are still being dealt with under the terms of the pilot. I will report to the House as soon as possible, but the actual period of the pilot finishes at the end of this year.
Lord German (LD)
I am grateful for that answer. There will be a gap between the end of December and whenever the pilot evaluation takes place. Is it therefore expected that when the pilot ends, all people will go back to the 28 days rather than just some?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, again, tempts me. We are examining a whole range of issues and I will announce and report to this House when decisions are taken. As I have said to him to date, the evaluation is ongoing. Local authorities and others are looking at that. We will make decisions in due course and report them to this House.
That gives me a straight segue into his own Amendment 73, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seeks to provide “Nightingale” accommodation to clear the backlog of asylum cases. Again, I welcome the interest in and support for dealing with that backlog. We want to ensure, as a Home Office, that we invest in a programme of transformation and business improvement to speed up decision-making, reduce the time that people spend in the asylum system, decrease the number of people in that asylum system and maximise our capacity. The noble Lord, Lord German, is absolutely right to say that we inherited a massive backlog from the previous Government, which in part is due to the fact that they effectively paused asylum application assessments because they wanted to find a mechanism to send people to Rwanda, which failed miserably. That backlog built up before we took office in July last year.
At the end of June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision. By December 2023, the Home Office had completed processing the majority of the legacy backlog. However, everything was put on hold by the Illegal Migration Act. That meant that a number of decisions made by the Home Office in 2024 led to an emergency backlog being developed and, as noble Lords will be aware, the then Home Secretary laid a statutory instrument on 22 July 2024, not 19 days after the general election, to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act.
As a result, we have been able to take decisions on claims being resumed, and the number of people waiting for decisions has fallen again. We have seen in the past 12 months—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned—that despite the record number of people claiming asylum, we now have 28,000 fewer people awaiting an initial decision than in the month before the general election—a 24% reduction. The backlog inheritance left by the previous Government has now been cut by 18%, and the percentage of cases processed within six months has increased from 7% to 41%. So we are in the process of taking action to deal with the very backlog that the noble Lord mentions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken.
The formal position of the Opposition was on the grounds of disincentivising. How many of those who are willing to risk their lives coming over the channel even know about such a thing as a move-on period, and how many are aware how many days they get? I am sorry but it is just a ridiculous argument, and I do not accept it. Anyway, it does not really matter.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr, for their support. I note that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a question that was not answered about what consultation there was with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days. I am pretty sure that the answer was none, so perhaps I can answer that on behalf of my noble friend. They were taken by surprise; they were given very little warning. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly emphasised the question of integration and how we are undermining the integration of newly recognised refugees.
I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s response. In some ways, I would just like to quote back to him. He said, “The pilot needs to run its course”. Yes, exactly—that is our case. The pilot should have run its course before reverting to 28 days for some of those who are part of the pilot. I understand the pressures that are being placed on the Government in terms of accommodation, but there is a pilot and an evaluation, and in the name of evidence-based policy-making that should have been allowed to, as he said, run its course. I will also quote back at him the concept of breathing space. To be honest, I am a bit more concerned about the breathing space we give to newly recognised refugees to be able to get their lives in order—which needs 56 days at least, not 28—than about the breathing space the Government have. But the Government have their breathing space.
I did not expect the Government to accept this amendment. I tabled it only because of the reversion. If the pilot was running its course, I would have been very happy to wait and see what the outcome was. My Private Member’s Bill is currently suspended, waiting for that.
I asked for, and realise I probably will not get, an assurance about the independent evaluation, which is a very good one, as my noble friend said, including voices of lived experience and so forth. I have a lot of faith in the evaluation but find it difficult to believe it is not going to show what all the various organisations have said to me: that the 56-day period, as I said, is not a silver bullet and does not solve all the problems but eases a lot of the problems faced by refugees, local authorities and voluntary organisations. I hope that underlying what my noble friend said is an acceptance that, if the evaluation shows that, the Government will accept 56 days in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I remind noble Lords that the guidance in paragraph 8.82 of the Companion says that Members
“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
I say this because speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.
I add that there have been a couple of occasions where we have had Back-Benchers intervening in the middle of the process of Front-Benchers winding up. That is not the usual practice of the House either.
Clause 43: Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail
Amendment 38
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On that note, I will try to move Amendment 38 as quickly as possible to help support my noble friend. This group includes three government amendments to Clause 43. On this occasion, the Government have listened to debates that have taken place in the House. We have carefully considered recommendations in the JCHR report and listened to representations from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the light of this, government Amendment 40 does not alter the original purpose of Clause 43 but instead sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring and curfews placed on their leave to enter or to remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security, public safety or has been convicted of a serious crime or offence.
The powers in Clause 43 are therefore in place to protect the public and to meet our obligations under domestic and international law. The clause will end the disparity in powers available to protect the public in respect of immigration bail and conditions of leave to enter or remain. I know that the Government have listened to the points made in Committee and I will therefore move the amendments on their behalf.
I note that my noble friend Lord Bach has tabled Amendment 41. I will respond to any points he raises once he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is quite right. I have a short but important amendment that is very fittingly in this group. It is unusual in that lawyers who act in immigration cases and the Home Office itself are at one on the issue. Both sides agree that in paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, “specified in the condition” should be widely interpreted to mean
“that is known at the time of the grant or variation of immigration bail, or”—
and this is the important point—
“an address that is yet to be specified”.
This has been the Home Office’s interpretation of that paragraph for a number of years. There is evidence from 2018 that that is the Home Office’s view. It has occurred in cases, and guidance was issued as recently as this summer. In my submission, it is a practical and sensible way of interpreting it.
Why, then, does this amendment, with its proposed change of words in paragraph 9(1), need to be laid and discussed in your Lordships’ House at all? The reason is that there is a Court of Appeal case in Northern Ireland called Bounar, which was decided not many years ago, in which their Lordships in that court took a different view and decided on a much stricter interpretation of the words of the schedule: for a person to be given bail by the Secretary of State, they must already have been granted immigration bail—and here are the words that matter—with a condition to reside at a specific address. So one has on the one hand the decision of the court in Northern Ireland and, on the other, I submit, a practical, sensible way of dealing with a situation that arises more often than the House might think. The Home Office has dealt with it in that way, as have the lawyers on the other side.
Why does it matter that there are these two conflicting decisions about and ways of looking at this element of this schedule? It matters, first, because it is unsatisfactory in principle to have legislation that has been interpreted quite differently in the courts and in practice in government when dealing with this issue. Secondly, who knows what situations may arise where a court, for example, would prefer the Northern Ireland precedent. Thus, a bail claimant—someone who the Home Office wants to give bail to—might lose his or her bail merely because, for good, practical reasons, the specific address is not yet known. This is what happens in a number of cases.
There are already significant delays between grant of bail in principle and people being released to Home Office-sourced accommodation. In recent months, 21 people have faced a delay of more than three months. The Home Office wanted to bail them and was happy to, but there was no specified address at that moment so everything had to start all over again. Without amending the statutory provision relied on in the case of Bounar, every individual would need an address provided by the Secretary of State prior to applying for bail, resulting in wasted places and longer delays. My invitation to my noble friend, to whom I very grateful for having taken the trouble to meet me on this issue, is to accept this amendment to the schedule. I very much hope that he feels that he can do that today.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I shall address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, just raised. It seems to me, from having visited Harmondsworth IRC, met people who are ready for bail and seen them held back because of the bureaucracy, that what is being described is a bit of bureaucracy that ought not to be there. I hope the Minister will be able to say that he can deal with this matter. Unfortunately, it appears that it has to be in statute rather than simply a ministerial decision. Perhaps he will tell us how best this matter can be dealt with swiftly, because it is in no one’s interest for people who have the right to immigration bail to be kept at taxpayers’ expense in immigration detention when they need not be there.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the government amendments in this group would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in new sub-paragraphs (vi) to (x) of Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Clause 43(2), may be attached to a person’s limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. This does not require too much comment from me. This is, in my view, a tidying-up amendment which would clarify the circumstances in which these conditions can be imposed.
Clarity on this point is welcome. Can the Minister explain how the circumstances could be altered to either augment or narrow the scope of the circumstances which would come under this section? As we all know, the nature of the threats we face can change, and it is important that we do not have an unwieldy and prescriptive list to which these conditions can only be applied, although, that being said, it is imperative that this does not undermine the role of Parliament in scrutinising what comes under this section. If the Minister could update the House on how this balance will be achieved with respect to his amendments, I would be very grateful.
On Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, while I appreciate some of the intention behind this amendment, I cannot support it. If we want to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, we simply must ensure that those awaiting removal or further decision remain within the reach of the authorities. In short, while I understand the desire to make the system more flexible, this amendment would do so at the expense of the very oversight and accountability that make immigration bail credible and enforceable. For those reasons, I do not believe it would be wise to support it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The government amendments were tabled in response to requests in Committee, not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who I hope to see back in her place as soon as possible—but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others, including Members from the Opposition Back Benches and Front Bench. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we have taken all those matters into account in bringing forward the amendment today.
On Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with him outside the Chamber and get clarification on the points he is pressing me to examine. I hope that the explanation I give him now will meet his points of concern, but we will see whether that is in fact the case. We believe that the amendment, while testing the Government, is ultimately dealt with in other ways, and would make no material difference to the operation of the legislation. The Bounar case, which my noble friend mentioned, pre-dated changes to our bail accommodation guidance. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision was handed down in December 2024, and the Home Office guidance was republished on 31 January 2025.
There is a key extract from the guidance that I want to read to my noble friend, so I hope the House will bear with me:
“Where an individual is not subject to a residence condition, but they are applying for accommodation under Schedule 10, they may request for their bail conditions to be varied to include a residence condition on the BAIL 409 application form. Bail conditions can be varied to include a residence condition at an address yet to be specified, where the individual does not have a residence condition imposed and a refusal of accommodation would be in breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights”.
The key point for me in that extract is that in the case of Bounar the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found that the person could not be given bail accommodation because they did not have a bail residence condition. Although that is technically correct, I believe and hope that our guidance—and I hope this satisfies my noble friend—now makes it clear that bail can be varied to impose a residence condition that will enable a person to be granted bail conditions, where to refuse to do so would breach the person’s human rights under Article 3. The key point that I emphasise to my noble friend is that our guidance is now clear that the situation in Bounar should not arise. If the person requires a bail condition in order to prevent an Article 3 breach, we will create one rather than refusing the application, and the courts can now apply that, as our guidance makes clear.
I am genuinely grateful for the discussions that I have had had with my noble friend outside both Committee and Report. He has raised these issues with me regarding the Bounar case as recently as today, outside the Chamber, prior to Report commencing. I have tried to give him an answer based on our legal interpretation of the understanding of that case in relation to our guidance, and I hope that, with that clarification, he is able to reflect on that, if not today then later in Hansard. I am happy to have further discussions with him about the application outside the Chamber at a later date, but I hope that the explanation I have given meets the objectives in his amendment, and I ask him not to press it.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for his response. I cannot hide that I am disappointed by what he had to say, but I have not yet had the chance to read it in Hansard. I am sure I will want to take up his remarks with him, but I will not be moving my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
For clarification, it is the Minister, with the lead amendment, who must now seek to press his amendment, if he so wishes.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.
(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) A condition under any of sub-paragraphs (vi) to (x) of subsection (1)(c) may be attached to limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given to a person only if the Secretary of State considers that—(a) the person poses a threat to national security,(b) the person poses a threat to the safety of the public, a section of the public, a particular individual or particular individuals,(c) the person has committed an offence that is specified, or falls within a description specified, in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 (serious offences),(d) the person has committed—(i) an offence that is specified in Part 2 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified sexual offences),(ii) a sexual offence for the purposes of section 210A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (extended sentences), or(iii) an offence that is specified in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1216 (N.I. 1)) (specified sexual offences), or(e) the person—(i) has committed, or is suspected of having committed, an offence outside the United Kingdom, and(ii) the act constituting the offence would, if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom, have constituted an offence within paragraph (c) or (d) (other than an offence within paragraph (xxviii) of the definition of “sexual offence” in section 210A(10) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 2010). (1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(e) an act punishable under the law in force in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom constitutes an offence under that law however it is described in that law.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in section 3(1)(c)(vi) to (x) of the Immigration Act 1971 as inserted by clause 43(2) may be attached to a person’s limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
Lord German
“Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employmentThe Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42, I shall speak also to Amendments 43 and 44 in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Hamwee—who, unfortunately, is unwell—and Lady Brinton.
This group of amendments addresses the systemic failure to allow people seeking safety and justice in the United Kingdom the fundamental dignity of and opportunity to work. These proposals are not simply matters of compassion; they are pragmatic steps that align with economic self-interest and are essential for fixing a broken immigration system. The current restrictions on employment impose unnecessary costs on the taxpayer, cause misery and exacerbate the vulnerability of those fleeing persecution and exploitation. These three amendments would provide a future where efficiency, financial prudence and human dignity went hand in hand.
Amendment 42 seeks to require the Secretary of State to grant asylum applicants the right to work if their application has been pending for more than three months. This measure would offer immediate, tangible benefits. First, tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working and remain forcibly dependent on state support. This dependency contributes significantly to the enormous expenditure on hotel accommodation, which alone costs around £8 million per day.
Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget and the use of hotels, while simultaneously increasing revenue from both income tax and national insurance contributions. Allowing applicants to work ensures that successful refugees, who historically represent a majority of applicants, can stand on their own two feet much sooner. This would reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities and reduce state benefits claims following the move-on period. Work is integral to integration, cohesion and restoring human dignity.
The Government’s ambition to clear the backlog is welcome, but we must be realistic. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the last decade, reaching 59% at the end of 2024. The UK currently operates one of the most restrictive working policies compared with OECD member states such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier. It is interesting that a defence from the Government here is often that the French Government say that we are too open to people coming to work, yet the French have a scheme that is more flexible and liberal than the one in this country.
The argument that granting the right to work serves as a pull factor is unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in destination choice, whereas factors such as language and family networks are far more influential. In Committee, the Minister set out concerns that granting permission to work to asylum seekers would create a pull factor and undermine the work visa route. This is disputed by the Migration Advisory Committee, the Government’s own advisory committee. Logically, if it were a pull factor, the working rights in the United Kingdom would be more generous than in the country in Europe from which they leave. This is not the case, with the UK having one of the most restrictive policies on work, compared with some of our European neighbours. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier: after six months or three months, and in some countries even sooner.
Lifting the ban on working would bring the UK in line with other OECD member states, so I ask the Minister for evidence that granting work rights would undermine the work visa route. If he is saying that people will claim asylum with no case for protection in order to obtain working rights, an effective system would refuse that case speedily, before three months, and return the individual. An effective system would deter people from doing this.
Amendment 43 would give the right to work to potential victims of human trafficking and modern slavery in the national referral mechanism who have received a positive reasonable grounds decision and have been waiting for their conclusive grounds decision for more than three months. The median waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2023 was 526 days, which caused prolonged enforced unemployment. Those who rely only on the national referral mechanism for financial support soon become destitute, especially if they are trying to support families back home, which in many cases is the reason they came to the UK. This destitution forces some victims into irregular work, putting them at risk of re-exploitation while they are meant to be recovering in a protective system.
The stated purpose of the NRM is recovery from exploitation. Long-term unemployment is known to deteriorate mental health, due to a lack of purpose and agency. Granting the right to work is a significant component of recovery, restoring agency and dignity to survivors. There is no risk of this right creating a pull factor for the national referral mechanism, as individuals cannot self-refer: they must be identified through a mandatory two-step process involving a first responder and a Home Office competent authority. This amendment would enable people who are in the national referral mechanism to work.
Amendment 44 seeks amendments to the Immigration Rules to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers held under the original overseas domestic worker visa from 1998 to 2012. This includes the crucial right to change employers and gain indefinite leave to remain. The previous visa regime, in place from 1998 to 2012, permitted workers the right to change employers, registering any such change with the Home Office, and the right to renew their visa if they could demonstrate that their labour as a domestic worker was still required. Such rights also acted as safeguards and were instrumental in preventing abuse, as well as stopping exploitation from escalating. It enabled workers to access reporting mechanisms to hold employers accountable while in the safety of alternative employment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as well as Amendment 45 in my name, and that of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, I also strongly support the other amendments in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord German, has just spoken. In fact, I have added my name to two of them.
The current lengthy ban on asylum seekers working wastes talent. Lifting it would let an incredibly talented, resilient group of people—as those are the qualities they needed to even get themselves here—support themselves and their families. It would allow them to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence, at the same time as they would be filling vital UK labour shortages.
As the noble Lord has just said, it also makes financial sense. It could save the Treasury £4.4 billion a year in expenditure, generate £880 million a year in tax revenues and boost GDP by over £1 billion. As the noble Lord also said, it would cut the hotel and asylum support bill. Some 91% of people seeking asylum struggle to afford food. Against that background, the present work ban is actually driving people into exploitation and forced labour. It often means that they are paying exploiters for the so-called privilege of 14 hour-plus delivery shifts earning less than the minimum wage.
There are even more harmful forms of work. Surveys have shown that some 10% of women seeking asylum have felt forced into sex work to support themselves and their children. More raids, and more enforcement, will not stop this. It will only drive people into more hidden and dangerous situations to try to support themselves. Lifting the ban is the only way to protect people from exploitative and irregular work, and it saves the money that we currently spend enforcing that ban.
The stoking of division was exemplified by the riots last summer, but the community cohesion offered by letting people work side by side with those who are seeking asylum is invaluable. When we let people share their skills with their new communities, it helps them settle, improve their language skills and make friends; it leads to better integration outcomes. These are things that we are already seeing in the many churches in my diocese where asylum seekers worship while their claims are being processed. If they can also build those connections, meet people and become known, respected and loved sisters and brothers in the world of work, that can only help community cohesion.
I accept that, alongside the humanitarian and economic considerations to which I have referred, politics does understandably matter. Let me briefly address any concerns that lifting the ban would be an unpopular act in the country. YouGov polling shows 81% of voters support giving people seeking asylum the right to work after six months. That includes 87% of Labour voters and 81% of Conservative voters. On top of that, a Survation poll found that lifting the ban is backed by a two-thirds majority of business leaders. It is backed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of Labour Providers, the Entrepreneurs Network and the Federation of Small Businesses. That is a pretty widespread alliance, and it is not the sort of people who are normally associated with weeping-heart, left wing causes.
We have all heard the mantra from all sides of this House over many years that the UK needs to get people off dependence on benefits and into work. My amendment would seek to encourage us to do that. It is not the sort of amendment I believe should be taken to a Division, and I am not going to do that. However, I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister will be able to offer some assurances that we can make progress on this matter, not least so that His Majesty’s Government can achieve the target of closing the asylum hotels.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 42 seems to me to be something of a no-brainer. It would relieve the public purse in two ways. Local authorities might no longer have to find the cost of accommodation, and central government would no longer have to provide the pittance it does as a weekly allowance to people held in asylum hotels. It would be good for these people. It would be good for their self-respect and it would make it more likely that they would successfully integrate if they were, in the end, granted asylum.
The only people it would be bad for are people in the black economy. We all know that people in the situation we are describing tend to go out and find work and that work is available for them, thus they are launched into a criminal level of British society straight away. That is the wrong way to integrate people who have done no harm—people who are here fleeing persecution, famine or war elsewhere. It seems paradoxical and extremely dangerous that we do not allow people to work. I strongly support Amendments 42 and 43.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I think that, across the House, most of us are not supportive of illegal migration and would want those who should not be here to be removed. Equally, therefore, we tend to be supportive of deportation. But we need to look at those who are here and going through the various processes. I support all these amendments, and in particular the speeches made by noble Lords in support of them.
Amendment 42, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, seems to be a no-brainer. Why on earth do we not let people work so that we do not have to pay for them? It seems a very simple point. It would, as has already been said—it seems necessary to say it again as the current Government do not seem to recognise it, as indeed the previous Government did not recognise it—save money, save having to provide accommodation, and solve the problem of immigrants in hotels. It seems a sensible thing to do. I find it very difficult to understand. Added to that, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate, it is a waste of talent. There is no shortage of people who escape to this country who have qualifications. We have gaps in our workplaces, and many of these people would be valuable and useful to the economy.
Amendment 43 is rather different. I declare an interest as co-chair of the anti-modern slavery APPG and vice chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. These people are exploited. They very largely have not come to this country as illegal migrants; they have come to be exploited or have already been exploited. It is a particular group of people. As has been pointed out, it takes a very long time to get through the NRM. Why on earth can they not be useful? Again, they are a similar sort of people, many of them with qualifications, and again, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a waste of talent.
Take migrant domestic workers. There are the most appalling stories about the way in which they come to this country, where they work seven days a week, sleep on the kitchen floor and eat what remains on the plates of their employers. These are facts that various local organisations can prove. Kalayaan is a good example of a charity that looks after people who have been appallingly exploited as domestic workers. Currently, these workers do not have the rights that they had under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is about time that this badly treated group of people were given the opportunity to have another job in the same sector that they came here for. Therefore, for the various reasons I have just said, and for those that have already been given, I strongly support these amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support these amendments and agree with all the speakers, particularly my noble friend Lord German. We on these Benches have consistently supported the right to work, and I did so as a Member of the European Parliament. As my noble friend no doubt knows, the reason that so many European countries have a provision on the right to work is that it is in one of the EU’s asylum directives that the UK opted out of—or technically did not opt in to, not least because it included a right-to-work provision. That is a shame.
This does not make sense. We are in the worst of all worlds. Everybody knows that there is considerable work in the black economy. I think I caught on the radio this morning that there was a new BBC investigation into a criminal network that is recruiting people to work in mini-marts, as it called them, which I suppose are small local supermarkets. Journalists can find these people. We do not seem to have much labour market enforcement or inspection—the Government must forgive me if they do not agree with that—but it is amazing that journalists can find out about this while it goes on seemingly largely unchecked.
We have a reputation for being a country where asylum seekers and irregular migrants can work, which has a considerable amount of truth in it. But these people are open to exploitation and are not paying tax and national insurance, so we get the bad reputation without the benefits, either to the state and the taxpayer or to the individuals concerned, of them working above board in the regular economy.
Successive Governments have dug themselves into a hole on this, which is completely unnecessary. I think it was the right reverend Prelate who quoted the polling statistics. The public are ahead of the Government on this. They can see the perfect sense in allowing people to support themselves, and therefore reduce the burden on the public purse, whether from asylum hotels or the frankly miserable amount that these people get to sustain themselves.
My last point reinforces what others have said. Some people wait for years for their asylum claim to be determined. I remember one case I had when I was an MEP, dealing with a doctor from Syria, I think—it could have been somewhere else in the Middle East. He had waited nearly four years for his claim to be determined and, in the meantime, his personal resources and his whole professional standing, as well as his status within his family—he came from quite a patriarchal system—had utterly deteriorated. Even if he were granted asylum the very next day, it would have needed a great deal of effort by him personally, with support from training organisations and the NHS, to get him usefully into working as a doctor. It really does not make any sense whatever.
If the barrier to this is that the Government think that people should not work, I say: they already work, but in an irregular system. There is a great public perception that there is very little enforcement of the law, whether it is street crime, fly-tipping or whatever. People just have a sense that criminals are getting away with it. Here, there is a chance to crack down on the criminals by allowing people to be regularised into the mainstream economy to support themselves and for their dignity and their humanity to be recognised.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 44 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers. I added my name to it and send her my best wishes. I place on record my thanks to Kalayaan, Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Work Rights Centre, the TUC and trade unions, and many other front-line organisations pressing for this change.
All workers, regardless of immigration status, and all decent employers, share an interest in everyone having the power to speak up and secure justice at work. But here is the problem: the UK’s visa system means that, too often, workers, not bad employers, end up punished. One migrant worker told researchers at the University of Birmingham:
“I was left with nothing, no job, no house, no papers … because the sponsor broke the law, not me”.
As we have heard, Amendment 44 seeks to restore the rights and protections of overseas domestic workers, which, shamefully, were stripped away in 2012. It is true that in 2016 domestic workers were afforded the right to change employers, but only while their six-month visa remains valid. So, with no right to renew their visa, the worker has no meaningful right to challenge their conditions of employment. As we know, domestic workers are uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. According to Kalayaan, many do not have access to their own passport or their own private space, let alone a bedroom. Many are not paid regularly and may face threats of deportation if they do not comply with employer demands. This imbalance of power is stark.
In his response, my noble friend the Minister may be tempted to talk about rights under the Modern Slavery Act. These rights are vital, but they do not help with the more everyday cases of exploitation or poor treatment of domestic workers, such as overlong hours and underpayment of wages, or sex and race discrimination. I strongly welcome the Government’s plans to raise labour standards and to enforce them through a new fair work agency. But perhaps the Minister can tell us: how many overseas domestic workers have been able to enforce their rights to fair pay and working conditions through an employment tribunal over the last decade? How many times has a labour inspector visited residences where domestic workers are employed? Critically, what difference will the new fair work agency make to those domestic workers?
I know that this Government are committed to strengthening rights at work for all working people, and I know from his track record that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the plight of domestic workers. Will he agree to a summit, including front-line organisations, to determine how the Government can make good on the intent of this amendment, which is simply to ensure that migrant domestic workers get the same real rights to dignity at work as everyone else?
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak in this bit of the Report stage, but I want to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said. I speak as chair of both University College London Hospitals and the Whittington Hospital.
This is a real issue for health workers. We have a large number of asylum seekers coming to this country who already have health qualifications, and we are desperately short of workers in our health system. The fact that we do not allow them to work when we need them and our population would benefit from their services is an absolute disgrace. I ask the Minister to think about what the public reaction would be to having asylum seekers allowed to work and be doctors, nurses or whatever it might be. Would they not feel that it was much better than people being served in very short-staffed emergency departments or whatever?
I support all these amendments—but, specifically on the subject of health workers, we should let them work. It is absurd.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I also support these amendments on the right of asylum seekers to work, and in particular Amendment 45, which makes the eminently reasonable proposal for there to be opportunities to review the evidence, if necessary year on year, on the impact of the current policy and the case for an alternative approach. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, there is enormously wide support for this proposal from employers, trade unions and local authorities, which have to deal with the consequences of the current policy.
Asylum seekers, who wait many months and sometimes years for their application to be determined, want the dignity of work and the opportunity to provide for their families and to visibly make their contribution to their communities—and, yes, to use their skills in the health service and in so many other areas too—rather than being stigmatised as a drain on public resources. It would be good for them and for their integration in the community—and it would be good for the Exchequer too, given the tax revenues they would contribute in place of the benefits they would otherwise be reliant on. It would also be bad for the informal, exploitative part of the labour market to which they might otherwise feel the need to turn.
My noble friend the Minister may, I suspect, make reference to the argument about a pull factor, but there is deeply contested evidence on whether the opportunity to work is really a key motivating factor for those making the desperate decision to cross illegally into our country. Let us have a real opportunity to look at that evidence—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can indicate a recognition of the value that that might be able to contribute in determining our future policy.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.
I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.
Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.
Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.
Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.
The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.
As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.
It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I was afraid that the pull factor would rear its ugly head. There is a pull factor and it comes from the black economy. The smugglers have friends in the black economy and are often in it themselves—they are the employers. The pull factor exists now, but if we permitted people to work legally and not in the black economy, the pull factor would be reduced.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me turn to that in a moment. I have spent my entire life making sure that people have protections at work and are not exploited, and that unscrupulous employers are weeded out, tackled and dealt with according to law. That is why, in the previous Labour Government, we introduced justice measures on things such as the minimum wage, and have spent hours, with Members from the Opposition Benches opposing us, trying to put an Employment Rights Bill through this House. That is why we have fought long and hard; I refer to arguing against the changes the then Government made on overseas domestic workers in private properties, where they did not have the rights that were later restored to them in this House. I accept fully that there will be exploitative, unscrupulous businesses that try to employ people who are in the difficult situation of being here while their asylum claims are processed, and that is why we need to speed up asylum claims.
However, I am afraid that a legal requirement to work would still be a pull factor; we need to deal with unscrupulous employers, and we will do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. Ultimately, any policy change must carefully balance allowing asylum seekers to work and protecting fair job opportunities for British citizens and lawful residents. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
On Amendment 43, individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract. Support is tailored to each victim, according to their individual circumstances. Those with permission to work are helped to access employment and, through the modern slavery victim care contract, there is support for recovery and integration. Victims without immigration status who receive positive conclusive decisions may be granted temporary permission to stay, and that includes the right to work. There is no time limit on how long a victim can remain in support after receiving a positive conclusive grounds decision.
Therefore, there are several reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment; expanding access to employment at an early stage would, in my view, incentivise the misuse of the national referral mechanism. The current framework maintains a clear distinction between protection and economic migration routes, and this is essential to uphold the integrity of our immigration system.
Again, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, well. On her Amendment 44, moved ably by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government remain concerned about links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. As the noble Baroness will know, the immigration White Paper has already set out our intention to reconsider how this route operates.
My noble friend Lady Lister suggested that she would welcome the amendment. I understand why, but I believe that it tries to combine visas for two different groups of workers, and it would not be appropriate to do so. There are those on the overseas domestic worker route, who are accompanying private households visiting the UK for a short period, and there are domestic workers in diplomatic households, who are served by the temporary work international agreement visa and are required to stay longer to support them.
The conditions of each route reflect important differences. For overseas domestic workers, it is not the purpose of the route to establish them in the labour market full time. The visa grants permission for up to six months and cannot be extended, as this aligns with that of the overseas domestic workers’ employer, who, as a visitor, cannot intend to stay in the UK for longer than six months. They can also now change their employer during their stay. I argued for that when I was a Member of Parliament in opposition; we pressed for that and the Government listened. They should be able to change their employer because they are not slaves tied to an individual.
My noble friend Lady O’Grady made some very valid points, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I know that my noble friend is fully aware of this, both from her professional background and from her championing of these issues in this House, but I remind her that the fair work agency, which we are currently establishing, will strengthen the ability to identify and respond to labour exploitation —and rightly so; I celebrate the fact that it will do that. We will be able to share intelligence more effectively between enforcement partners, making it easy to spot patterns of abuse, in order to pursue the kinds of unscrupulous employers that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, it will provide protection for vulnerable workers, including those—this goes to the point my noble friend made—employed in private households. That was previously beyond its remit. This Labour Government will make those changes in the Bill, to provide people working in private households with those rights at work. I cannot accept the amendment in its current form, but I hope that my noble friend will know that we are not shying away from this, because people have a right not to be exploited at work.
In summary, Amendment 44 would significantly alter the purpose of the route—a route that we have already committed to reviewing. We welcome any views that the noble Lord, Lord German, wants to put through that review. We will also hear from some expert stake- holders, who are currently looking at how we can improve the route. The immigration White Paper is looking at that and, on behalf of the department, I will bring forward changes in that area in due course.
My noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke to Amendment 45, which seeks to produce annual reports on the restrictions placed on asylum seekers seeking to engage in employment. That is a noble and valuable point to make, but the Home Office already engages in policy reviews and stakeholder consultations, and Ministers are accountable to both Houses. Ministers directly responsible for this issue, such as my honourable friend Alex Norris, the Immigration Minister in the Home Office, meet regularly and review those matters. I hope that that information will be examined without the legal necessity of putting a provision in the Bill.
I remind noble Lords that the Government will shortly announce reforms to modernise the asylum system later this year in our asylum policy statement. I touched on that in the Statement I gave to this House on 2 September. Reforms are under way and forthcoming, and we will bring that forward in relatively short order. I always use that phrase and people ask me what it means; in this case, I expect it to be done, dare I say it, before Christmas. I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance. The Government remain committed to reviewing and improving the asylum system, including the permission to work policy, but that must be done with greater detail and evidence-based reform, not through statutory reporting obligations.
I recognise that I will not have satisfied noble Lords who feel very passionately and strongly about this issue; however, I say from the Dispatch Box that I am not in the business of supporting poor employers who exploit people or provide work opportunities that undercut British workers, who deserve our full support. That is why we, the Labour Government, have supported, through the whole of our existence, improvements to rights at work. However, I feel that this amendment would be, in the framing of today’s discussion, a pull factor; it would add additional burdens to the issues we are looking at. We will bring proposals back to this House in due course. I urge noble Lords not to press the amendment and to give the Government an opportunity to look at these issues in a new way over the next few weeks and months.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I just cannot understand why the Government are resisting placing the controls of work in the hands of the Government instead of in the hands of the black economy. It just does not seem the correct way to do things. There is so much support for letting people work in our communities and in the public sector that I think I must test the opinion of the House on Amendment 42.
Lord German
“Migrant domestic workers(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to make provision for the matters in subsection (2).(2) All holders of domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visas, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, must be entitled—(a) to change their employer (but not work sector) without restriction, but must register such change with the Home Office;(b) to renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period of not less than 12 months, provided they are in employment at the date of application and able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, and to make successive applications;(c) to apply for leave to enter and remain for their spouse or partner and any child under the age of 18 for a period equivalent to the unexpired period of their visa and of any subsequent visa;(d) to be granted indefinite leave to remain after five continuous years of residence in the United Kingdom if at the date of application their employer proposes to continue their employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers had under the terms of the original Overseas Domestic Worker visa, in place from 1998 to 2012.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is ill, and her name is attached to this amendment. I wish to see the safeguards which were instrumental in preventing abuse for domestic workers reinstated. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower
“Abolition of Immigration Tribunals(1) The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal is abolished.(2) The Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal is abolished.(3) The Transfer of Functions of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Order 2010 is repealed.(4) In paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 1971 omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6).(5) The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended in accordance with subsections (6) and (7).(6) In section 94—(a) omit subsection (3)(b), and(b) omit subsection (4).(7) Section 103 is repealed.(8) In section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, omit subsection (10A).(9) In section (8) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004—(a) omit subsection (7)(c), and(b) omit subsection (9A).(10) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended in accordance with subsections (16).(11) In section 36 omit subsections (3A) and (3B).(12) In Schedule 10 (immigration bail) of the Immigration Act 2016—(a) omit paragraph 1(3),(b) in paragraph 2—(i) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(ii) omit sub-paragraphs (7) and (8),(c) in paragraph 3—(i) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(ii) in sub-paragraph (2)(f) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(iii) omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (4),(iv) in sub-paragraph (5) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(v) omit sub-paragraph (6),(d) in paragraph 4 omit “or the first-tier tribunal.”,(e) omit paragraph 5(5),(f) in paragraph (6)—(i) omit sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (5),(ii) in sub-paragraph (6) omit “or the first-tier tribunal”,(iii) omit sub-paragraph (7),(g) omit paragraph 7(1)(a)(ii),(h) omit paragraph 8, (i) in paragraph 10—(i) in sub-paragraph (9)(a) for “the relevant authority” substitute “the Secretary of State”,(ii) omit sub-paragraph (10),(iii) in sub-paragraphs (11), (12) and (13) for each reference to “the relevant authority” substitute “the Secretary of State”,(j) omit paragraph 11,(k) omit paragraph 12.(13) In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 omit sections 27, 54 and 55.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would abolish the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First and Upper Tier Tribunals, so that no person can bring judicial appeal immigration and asylum decisions.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, before the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, passed by the Labour Government of Harold Wilson, there was no general right of appeal against Home Office immigration decisions. After the establishment by that Act of the system of adjudicators and the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, we have had several revisions of the system of appeals. We had the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, established in 2005, and then the current asylum and immigration chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal was created just five years later. With all these revisions and the litany of law that has grown out of immigration and asylum matters, we have ended up in a situation whereby the entire system is held in perpetual limbo.
The system as it stands incentivises endless appeals, procedural delays and the recycling of unfounded claims, all at the expense of the British taxpayer. We know the appeal and judicial review systems surrounding asylum and immigration cases have become a tool used by illegal migrants who should be deported to prevent their removal. There are cases where people have made repeated claims over time, covering human rights, modern slavery and asylum. These claims are often made at the last minute to prevent removal and are sometimes on completely contradictory grounds. For example, one man made a claim as an Iraqi and, when that was rejected, then made a further claim saying he was in fact Iranian. It took eight years to deport a Somali man, Yaqub Ahmed, who gang-raped a 16 year-old girl in 2008 following his release from prison. He used multiple modern slavery, human rights and asylum claims, costing taxpayers huge sums before eventually being deported in 2023.
Amendment 46 would abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals. This would prevent any person bringing a judicial appeal to a court or tribunal. Amendment 47 would remove the ability of any person to make an appeal to a court or tribunal in respect of an initial decision for an immigration or asylum matter. The decisions that cannot be appealed include any deportation order or removal directions; a decision to decline immigration bail; a decision to refuse asylum support; or a decision to refuse an asylum or protection claim.
The amendment includes a right of administrative review to a review board in the Home Office, which would consider initial decisions where there is an error in application of the law or rules but could not reconsider the substantive material of the decision. It would be able to overturn the initial decision if and only if it was satisfied it was made in error. The Secretary of State would have to make provisions about the review board by way of regulations subject to the negative procedure. The underlying principle here is that the judicial system should not have any role in the immigration and asylum process. As I have already stated, this used to be the norm. Instead, all reviews of any immigration decision will be decided by the review board in the Home Office.
Amendment 68 takes us to the logical conclusion: the removal of the ability to judicially review immigration decisions. The only exception here would be where the Home Secretary has acted outside their powers under the Immigration Acts. Importantly, it would not include review on the grounds of unreasonableness, proportionality, or the merits of a particular case. The current system diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need. Every pound spent on repeat litigation is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. True compassion is helping the genuine and deterring abuse of the system. I beg to move.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there cannot be any doubt that the system which has been working—if that is the right word—for some considerable time is very unsatisfactory. I think that is probably recognised by the Government and was certainly recognised by the previous Government. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, summarised the complex system that currently prevails, whereby applications are made and there are appeals and the like.
I should perhaps add that, until relatively recently, it was possible to judicially review the decision of the Upper Tribunal. The Supreme Court, in a case called Cart, had decided that, so there was yet another avenue available to those who wished to use the full possibilities inherent in the system. Parliament decided that that Supreme Court decision ought to be reversed. I declare an interest as having been chair of the Independent Review of Administrative Law. We recommended that and it was, in fact, supported by a number of judges who had sat on the decision itself. It became law, so these things are not sacrosanct.
As far as judicial review generally is concerned, I simply ask the Minister this. The ouster clause, as they tend to be described, in Amendment 68 is not a complete ouster but it is a substantial one. There was an indication in remarks that the Minister made earlier that any sort of ouster might be considered to violate the rule of law. Although there have been various obiter dicta of judges—I think in particular of the well-known case of Privacy International—suggesting that the courts could ultimately refuse to recognise an ouster clause, the Independent Review of Administrative Law took the view that Parliament was ultimately sovereign. It may or may not be a good idea to oust the courts, and that is a matter that Parliament will have to consider on the specific facts. I would very much like to know what the Government’s general view on that is.
What I want to address at this moment is the amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Jackson and Lord Lilley, in relation to the Human Rights Act. This Bill, entitled “Border Security”, was the Government’s first response to the various attempts by previous Governments to cope with illegal migration. The opposition to the various Bills that went through this House was firm, but I was never quite clear what the policy was on the part of the Labour Party. Ultimately, it came down to the idea that the Government would crack down on the smuggler gangs. The word “crackdown” came often into the debates, and the future Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was held out as being just the man to crack down because of his experience as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now, I yield to no one in my admiration for his discharge of that role, but I was always somewhat confused by the idea that someone who was in charge of macro decision-making as the Director of Public Prosecutions was in some way fitted to crack down on smuggler gangs.
The crackdown was apparently to start straight away when the Government came into power some 15 months ago, but I think it is fair to say that it has not been a success. We can see the figures, and I do not wish to weary the House with what those figures are. The Bill, which in some ways is uncontroversial, gives a little extra power to allow that crackdown to take place, but what we really have here is a complete vacuum of policy on the part of the Government. We know they did not like the Rwanda scheme, but what is to replace it? The position of those who opposed the previous Government was that we could not do anything to in any way amend the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, both of which obviously play a significant part in the whole process of gaining asylum, and anyone who suggested as much was considered almost to be in the headbanger category.
Things have moved on a bit, and a number of senior Labour figures are saying that we really need to think again about the ECHR. Indeed, I think 17 nations, members of the Council of Europe, are considering trying to do something about the ECHR in view of the fact that so many European countries do not find it to be working satisfactorily. When the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, gave evidence before a committee, he said that that might take as much as 10 years, but this is an emergency, and I am sure the Government will acknowledge that.
As for the amendment of the Human Rights Act, when I asked the Minister in Committee, he confirmed that there was no way in which there would be any amendment of the Human Rights Act—I have on me what he said in Hansard—nor would there be any deviation from the ECHR. That begs the question as to what is going to happen. What is going to fill the policy vacuum? The previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made some noises to the effect that the situation was far from satisfactory and something needed to be done, and her successor, Shabana Mahmood, has said that nothing is off the table. We know that nothing is off the table but we are entirely unclear as to what is on it, and it really is time that we knew.
I can remind the noble Lord that he said in Committee, on 13 October:
“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”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 132.]
How is that going to happen? Apparently there is going to be no amendment of the HRA and any changes to the ECHR are in the far distant future, yet he said to the Committee that there was going to be legislation. The only form of legislation that seems to be at all possible is some form of legislation that says that these decisions are not satisfactory and so the approach has got to be changed—in other words, guidance to judges. I am concerned about that, as it would be interference with judicial independence. The Government ought to have the courage, if they think the law is wrong, to change it. The Human Rights Act is a domestic statute and can be amended.
I come with help, I hope. The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray, Lord Jackson and Lord Lilley, provides for the suspension of the Human Rights Act in the face of this emergency. It is a domestic statute, and the powers of the Government enable them to do that if necessary. It may be that that will at least help. I do not pretend that changes to the Human Rights Act are the complete answer to the almost intractable problem that we face, but it is a very real suggestion. It is contained in the amendment and I suggest that the Government should take it seriously.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have sat with increasing interest listening to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, finding that I agreed with every word he said. My view is that Amendment 46 goes too far. It is excessive that we should get rid of existing courts. Perhaps everybody would expect me to say that, although I never sat as an immigration tribunal judge. However, the Government need to listen with a great deal of care to the fact that what is going on at the moment is not satisfactory—that it is too easy to go through the system, one court after another. I can see the force of saying that something should be done, but I do not think Amendment 46 is the answer.
Moving to the very interesting suggestion of suspending the Human Rights Act, we need to bear in mind that it is a British piece of legislation and this Parliament can change it. It may be that either there should be a degree of suspension or, as the Minister said in Committee, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that some changes could be made, particularly to Article 8.
Although I would not want to support the amendments here, they raise an issue that the public are particularly concerned about—those who understand it—and the Government should be listening very carefully.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I wish to address Amendment 79A, in my name, on the disapplication of the Human Rights Act for immigration legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for this amendment and for the support expressed for the principle by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has identified, there is presently an uncomfortable vacuum at the heart of the Home Office’s policy. We know that the “smash the gangs” mantra, which is at the heart of this somewhat performative Bill, has failed. Again, I do not wish to bore the House with the statistics; we all know them. The reality is that while taking the step identified by my noble friend on the Front Bench of abolishing the tribunals is certainly one course, and one which I would endorse, I would not expect the Government Front Bench to accept it.
In the interim, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, reasonably identifies, there is an alternative, and it is that set out in Amendment 79A. This would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration cases. As we know, the vast bulk of immigration cases are derived from or directly apply human rights provisions in their construction, and in so doing prevent the effective use of border control, so it is open to the Government to accept this amendment.
I simply add this. The Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the new Home Secretary asking for an explanation as to what the Government propose to do in relation to Article 8. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, dated 23 October, the Home Secretary said:
“My officials are currently reviewing the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in immigration cases. As set out in the Immigration White Paper (24 May 2025) we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system to ensure that the right balance is struck between individual and public interest in controlling migration. My officials are continuing to develop these proposals, and the Government will publish more detail in due course”.
In the following paragraph, she provided a mantra, saying that,
“the Government is fully committed to complying with international law and the protection of human rights. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the HRA to create meaningful reform”.
I am afraid that that is just inconsistent and plainly wrong. If the Government want an effective border control policy, they will have to take a measure such as that identified in this proposal or, I am afraid, the current state of chaos will continue.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled in my name in this group, but, before doing so, I will say that I strongly support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My amendments are to Amendments 47 and 68, and would ensure that modern slavery claims and appeals cannot be singled out in some way and still be used as a loophole for the merry-go-round of asylum claims that we see. The Home Secretary herself highlighted the vexatious last-minute modern slavery claim that was put in, in the case of the one-in, one-out asylum seeker. We have heard other examples as well.
Last year, noble Lords might wish to know, we saw that 65% of referrals to the NRM were found to have no reasonable grounds. This was compared with only 16% four years ago. So there is evidence that this is increasingly being used for last-minute, spurious claims, and I would like to make sure that these amendments are as bulletproof as possible. We should seek to restore public confidence in the modern slavery system, to make sure that it is doing what it was designed to do and what this Parliament designed it to do: that is, to be a lifeline for victims of horrific abuse. It was not designed, as it has increasingly become, as a route for Albanian men arriving on small boats.
The British citizens who are referred into the system are overwhelmingly children. I am sure that most people would agree that that is the right thing for the state to be doing. Foreign citizens referred in tell a different story: these are mostly adult men from Vietnam, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan. Supporting them is not the right priority for the taxpayers of this country. My amendment therefore ensures that only genuine victims can make use of our generous support and that these vexatious claims can definitely be thrown out.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment in my name, but only in passing, because I cannot better the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. They made a very strong case. I also associate myself with Amendment 68. But I really want to talk to Amendment 46, the first in this group.
We all have a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the faith and trust that our citizens have in that system. At the present time, I fear that people are losing faith in it. They are losing faith in the capacity of the judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it is perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those people driven to seek asylum in this country by poverty, famine, war and despotic dictatorships. However, a system that is intrinsically designed to be gamed—for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—is no longer a situation that we can tolerate. That is why we need to take what would appear to be immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis.
I do not often quote Labour Members of Parliament, but Mike Tapp, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal—I think he is the Minister’s colleague—has been criticised for quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there is effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this Government set their face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. Yet they go scrambling around parts of eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely correct; it is incumbent upon this Government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. With all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave to the Chamber on Monday was exactly the same speech, verbatim, that he gave on 8 September on undertakings to bring forward legislation and to the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right that we are now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things, because the system is broken.
If the system breaks, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme and who will scapegoat honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. It is incumbent on us to come up with solutions. Look at some of the egregious cases we have seen in recent years from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. “Egyptian migrant is ‘danger to the community’—but can stay in Britain”. “Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage”. “Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was ‘one-off’”. “Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair”. “Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts”. “Migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone”.
We may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. That is why Amendment 46 is so important. If the Government are truly of the view that nothing is off the table, they have to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they are reviewing, they are looking at the European Convention on Human Rights and they will bring forward legislation. They have had 16 months; they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. On that basis, I strongly support the excellent amendment from my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including Amendment 46 from the Front Bench.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this is obviously a lawyers’ paradise of a debate, where we normally have expressions of views. I am going to be much simpler than that. I want to look at Amendment 79A first, because it is important and I think I understand what is happening. I am in the fortunate position of being a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which enables me to have access, ask questions and find out far more than perhaps this House has been informed about at this stage. I would encourage all Members to talk to their party delegates on this matter to see what they have been doing about it.
My question about Amendment 79A is: does it mean withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights? Is that being suspended? If that is the case, which I understand is Conservative Party policy, quite clearly what we are heading for is Brexit 2. Is that the position?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, Amendment 79A seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act. It would revert the situation to that which pertained prior to the passage of that Act. Of course, we were a member of the European Convention on Human Rights from 1951 until 1998, when the Human Rights Act was passed, and, as the noble Lord will recall, the sky did not fall in.
Lord German (LD)
I understand that anybody wanting to claim could use the European Convention on Human Rights to do so. In that sense, we might want to ask what the sense of the proposal is.
The issue relating to this is quite clear. Somebody mentioned 17 countries; I know that to be a fact. I also know what is happening in the Council of Ministers and of the discussion that is going on. Part of the discussion is about what these countries agree and disagree on. Some people are going for different parts of the ECHR.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This discussion reflects some of the discussions we had in Committee and, as a sort of aperitif for the House, I am likely to say pretty much what I said in Committee. I hope Members will bear with me, because the Government take these matters seriously and welcome the scrutiny and discussion that we have had today.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their Amendments 46, 47, 68, 82 and 86, which seek to abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals, create a review board in the Home Office and limit the ability of an individual to challenge, by way of a judicial review, a decision of the Secretary of State as proposed by an asylum and immigration review board. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, was correct in saying that I would not accept those amendments. I hope I have not surprised him by saying that I will not accept them.
Amendments 47A and 68A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would further restrict the ability to challenge in the cases of those with modern slavery experience. I regret to tell the noble Baroness that I will not accept those amendments either.
That does not mean we are denying that there is a real challenge in the asylum system. I could say that we have inherited a mess, and I think we have. It is not satisfactory for published statistics to show appeals taking over a year to be determined on average. That is why the Government are working hard to end these exceptional delays.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Minister says that he inherited a mess, but I have scars from trying to promote the idea of the Rwanda Bill, which might have provided an answer. We were excoriated as being mad, bad and dangerous to know. We were told then that Labour had the answers. Where are the answers now, only 18 months later?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I mention to the noble Lord the deal with France, the deal with Iraq, the scheme we are taking upstream with the Germans to tackle various issues, the work of the Calais Group, the work of the Border Security Command being executed by this Bill, the important measures in this Bill to tackle illegal migration, the measures we are taking to speed up asylum claims and get them through quickly, the two new barracks that we announced last week would be opened to speed up asylum claims and get a deterrent in place, and the work on illegal working in migration. We have done a whole range of things. Although I never cross my fingers on these matters, the last couple of weeks have seen no small boat crossings whatever. It is a difficult challenge, but let us look at how we deal with these issues.
We know that more must be done to address the backlog in the immigration and asylum appeals system. Clauses 46 and 47 set a statutory timeframe on First-tier Tribunal decisions. We have put in place additional funding to increase sitting days in 2025-26 to speed up the processing of asylum claims. I know that more needs to be done, which is why we are introducing a new appeals body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals, fully independent of government. We are committed to setting out further details of our plans very shortly.
Although the Government share the frustrations about the inefficiencies and delays in the immigration and asylum system, there is still a need to ensure due process, which is a fundamental part of our legal system. That touches on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, because we have to have due process as part of our legal system. The amendments would remove any judicial oversight of Home Office decisions and prevent an independent review of a decision other than by a Home Office board—effectively putting the department in charge of marking its own work. That is not a good place to be; judicial oversight is an important matter. There would inevitably be legal challenges against the Government based on that lack of independence. It would also be contrary to important UK legal principles, notably the rule of law, the protection of rights and access to justice, as well as more proposals on the most vulnerable, including in modern slavery cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, mentioned this.
Without alternative ways of independent and impartial redress, these amendments would cause serious issues with the withdrawal agreement, which—like it or lump it—is in place. It is a legal agreement with the Government of the day. This also impacts upon the Windsor Framework and the relationship with Northern Ireland. All this points me to saying that I cannot accept those amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I might be wrong, and I hesitate to say this in the presence of so many eminent lawyers, but my understanding is that there is a precedent for this suggestion, in that coronial verdicts are not traditionally appealable unless there has been irrationality or the coroner has erred in law. It is not the case that every single decision made in the criminal justice system, or the justice system generally, is necessarily traditionally appealable.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I defer to those who have expertise in coronial decisions—that is an MoJ matter—but in this case, this is what we have, and I am not prepared to give it up. We can disagree on that, and there are Division Lobbies on either side if we need to sort this out, but I do not expect to support those amendments, on the basis of the arguments that I have put forward today.
Amendment 79A from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, would require the Home Secretary to disregard the Human Rights Act. I am not going to support that either. It would further limit when the UK could comply with interim measures and how they should be treated in domestic courts. The UK is fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as the Prime Minister has made clear—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he will have seen, the amendment would not require the Home Secretary to ignore human rights; it would require courts not to consider the Human Rights Act when considering applications in relation to immigration legislation, which would greatly help his department.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s comments clarify, from his perspective, what he seeks to achieve. I have to clarify again from my perspective that I still cannot support the amendment. I am very sorry—we are not going to get an agreement on these matters.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am just wondering whether it would be worth the Government looking at what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the margin of appreciation in looking at an international document. In particular, it may be that the courts are applying Article 8 too narrowly, and it might be worth the Government reconsidering how Article 8 should be applied. That would not be getting rid of the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, but it would look at how Article 8 is being applied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely valid point, and I shall come on to that issue in a moment. The commitment to the ECHR does not mean complacency on the Government’s part. To retain public confidence in our policies on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice, the ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. I must say to the noble and learned Baroness and the House as a whole that the UK is safer and stronger when we work with our international partners—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord German. That is why we need to co-operate with Europe, in answer to the noble and learned Baroness, to look at a whole-of-route approach to tackling these challenges. Membership of the ECHR is essential to our ability to work with our European partners, including on the trade and co-operation agreement, the sharing of intelligence and evidence, and practical agreements to stop people-smuggling.
The Government have set out their 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 answer the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Faulks, as well as the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the immigration system, and we are also reviewing the application of Article 3 in immigration and extradition cases.
I accept that I may be pressed on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pressed me on it in September in Committee. I have repeated what I said in November, now, on Report, but I hope the noble Lord will recognise that I have given a commitment that we will look at those issues and bring back things that this House can investigate, test, challenge and question to try to achieve the objective of giving greater flexibility on Articles 3 and 8, in line with what the Prime Minister has said and what the noble Lord, Lord German, has suggested, as well as what the noble and learned Baroness has just intervened on me to suggest. I ask the noble Lord for patience, after saying that it will be brought forward. I have given commitments to this House on two occasions, but I cannot do it in the way he wants it to be laid before the House today—but the commitments are there to achieve that.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I do not want the noble Lord to have to repeat himself, but he said earlier that there was going to be a statement in relation to the Government’s approach to asylum, but then he said to me that there was going to be legislation. Now, I understand that he has not yet got clear riding instructions. Is there to be a statement of intent or is there to be legislation? Which is it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me phrase it this way: the Government will always bring before the House, in the form of a Statement, matters on which we intend to provide policy changes. When we are in a position to make further policy announcements in this area, there will undoubtedly be a Statement in the House of Commons and in this House that Members can question and examine in detail. That Statement may include signalling for legislation; the two things are not incompatible. I know I said this in September and I have said it again today, but that is the direction of travel, and when we are in a position to make clear the policy direction the Government wish to take for public scrutiny, we will make that Statement and bring forward proposals accordingly. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
I cannot agree to the amendments, and I hope that Members will not press them. I hope too that, if nothing else, the case I have made today on Report is as clear as I can make it in the circumstances.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. I rather suspected that the Liberal Democrats and the Government would decline to support these amendments. I am aware of some of the concerns noble Lords have. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, had to say, but the public want us to end illegal migration via small boat crossings. They want us to deport illegal entrants. Ending the legal logjam of endless appeals is crucial to giving the Government the ability to get a grip on this border crisis. If the Government are too weak to act, then I submit that we will have to try to force them to. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot call Amendment 47A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 47.
Clause 48: Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime
Amendment 48
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the rebuttable presumptions in new subsections (5ZA) inserted into section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that a refugee convicted of a sexual offence would be considered to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime for the purposes of Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, therefore permitting their deportation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel raised the reinsertion of the rebuttable presumption into Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As he explained, that section contains our domestic interpretation of Article 33 of the refugee convention. The article relates to the refoulement of refugees, and states that a refugee can be returned to their home country if they are
“convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime”
and constitute
“a danger to the community”.
Initially, Section 72 contained two sets of presumptions that could be rebutted in court: first, that the refugee in question is presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime; and, secondly, that they are presumed to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 removed the first rebuttable presumption, owing to ambiguity surrounding which elements of that test an individual could rebut. The Act clarified that the only rebuttable presumption is the presumption that a person constitutes a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.
Clause 48 of the Bill seeks to alter the definition of “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of Article 33(2). It includes an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. However, the inserted subsections (5ZA) and (5ZB) state:
“A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if”—
thereby reintroducing the rebuttable presumption that was removed by the 2022 Act.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I just say to noble Lords that it is very hard to hear the speeches from the Front Bench if there is a lot of chattering on my right.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, to add to what noble Lords expect I would say, this seemingly small amendment and its consequential amendments seek to remove the words
“to be presumed to have been”
from Clause 48. It has enormous implications, in effect transforming a balanced legal measure into an irreversible and potentially unjust set of rules.
I will not read out Article 33 of the convention on refugees, but it is quite clear that it says that the person would have
“been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.
The explanatory memorandum from the UNHCR on what a serious crime is gives examples of murder, rape, arson and armed robbery. The amendment certainly does not meet that.
In short, the existing text in Clause 48 is carefully constructed to allow the courts to address serious criminality, such as sexual offences, while remaining compliant with our international obligations that require an assessment of whether the person poses a continuing danger to the community. Amendment 48 destroys this necessary balance and should be rejected.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.
Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.
Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.
Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.
The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I regret that the Government have not listened to the arguments advanced here. Clause 48 will complicate this area of law by reintroducing the confusion that was cleared up by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. No noble Lord raised any issue with that change at the time, so there is no reason to be reintroducing the rebuttable presumption. It is surely farcical that convictions for sexual offences could be argued to be not particularly serious crimes, when no other offence could be so argued. This seems like a case of intransigence on the part of the Government and a denial of the clear error they have made. As disappointing as this is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs
“Family reunion for asylum seeking children outside the United Kingdom(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to make provision for entry clearance or leave to remain for asylum seeking children outside the United Kingdom of persons granted protection status in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of family reunion.(2) In this section—“asylum seeking children” means children outside the United Kingdom who are—(a) under the age of 18, and(b) the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status;“protection status” means a person granted—(a) refugee leave, (b) refugee permission to stay,(c) humanitarian protection,(d) temporary refugee permission, or(e) temporary humanitarian permission to stay.(3) The immigration rules made under subsection (1) must provide that an application under those rules—(a) must not be refused solely on the basis of maintenance and accommodation requirements,(b) must not be subject to any application fee, and(c) must not be subject to the immigration health surcharge under section 38 of the Immigration Act 2014.(4) A person granted leave to enter or remain under the immigration rules made pursuant to this section must not be subject to a “no recourse to public funds” condition.(5) In determining an application under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, interpreted in accordance with Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,(b) the importance of maintaining family unity,(c) any emotional, psychological, physical, or financial dependency between the child and the person granted protection status, and(d) any risks to the child’s safety and well-being if the application is refused.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that children outside the United Kingdom can be reunited with close family members who have been granted protection status in the UK, where it is in the child’s best interests. The new clause removes existing financial barriers to reunion.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 55 is to ensure that asylum-seeking children from abroad who have family here can join them. It is a very simple bit of family reunion on behalf of some of the most vulnerable refugees that there could be. There is a history to this. When we were in the EU, under the Dublin convention, under Dublin III, there was a procedure whereby a child abroad could apply to join family here. That was passed by both Houses. It became the law in 2017, and then in 2019 the Conservative Government removed it. Nevertheless, it was part of the law of the land, and there is no reason why it would not have worked pretty well.
I am grateful to the many NGOs that have helped and supported me over a period of months, including the Safe Routes Coalition. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the Liberal Democrats and the Tory signatory; indeed, in the past, I have had the support of the Bishops as well.
The Government announced the suspension of family reunion from September until next year. That has caused even greater distress in terms of opportunities for children to come here. I do not know why the Government are looking at this and why there has to be such a delay. We are talking about something absolutely fundamental.
The group of children covered by this amendment is narrower than under the previous family reunion provisions. I am concerned with the most vulnerable of all: children separated by war and persecution who are alone and without family, hoping to join relatives in this country and find some safety. The numbers are relatively small, but I would argue there is a serious point of principle here.
The benefits of this amendment are many. It would lessen dangerous journeys across the channel, help to break the business model of criminal gangs, and reduce the number of cases in the appeals process. In short, it would save lives. Since 2018, almost a fifth of small boat arrivals have been children aged 17 and under. The Government have talked about English language provision. I am not quite sure how that relates to child refugees. All I know is that children can pick up English pretty quickly. It is harder when people become adults, but children pick up the English language very quickly in our schools, and indeed, it is a matter of survival in the school playground. So that would never be a problem.
The crucial point is that public opinion would support this measure, I believe. A survey was done which showed that two-thirds of the public supported a controlled official route for children to travel here safely. There are people who say, “Ah, but the hard right is on the warpath in this country, therefore we mustn’t go too far in giving it ammunition”. I believe emphatically that the hard right in this country cannot be defeated by measures to appease it. It can be defeated only if we stand on certain points of principle fundamental to what this country has long been about.
There is a principle at stake here: it is a matter of morality and of staying in keeping with British citizens over the years. I myself was a beneficiary of the Kindertransport. We took 10,000 children from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in under a year, in 1938-39, and that seemed to me to be a very positive step; we were ahead of other countries in providing safety to young people who were otherwise in danger from the Holocaust.
There is a fundamental phrase in this amendment, which is that it has to be in
“the best interests of the child”.
Surely that is crucial. We are talking about how we can best protect children who are vulnerable, alone and without family, mainly in Europe but somewhere in the world. They are children who could be housed in this country by members of their own family—by relatives. They should not need that much extra support. Of course, there will be some extra support—I cannot deny it. Children coming here would need to go into education, and they might have some health needs. But compared with other migrants coming in this country, their needs are relatively small. Having a safe and legal route for them would cut out the traffickers, who would have no opportunity. Surely the aim of government policy is precisely to deal with the traffickers and to cut them out. I cannot help thinking that this amendment is one means. We will not stop all the traffickers—we have to have a range of policies. But certainly, as regards children, this would help to cut out the traffickers.
In 2020, the Home Office did a report. Its own analysis suggested that the presence of family exerts a strong influence on decisions about the ultimate country of destination; in other words, it is a powerful incentive to children to come to join their family members, and if we have this in our legislation, it would be a very positive step forward. The Home Office has suggested in the past that being alone and separated from family in a third country such as Greece or France is not enough of a “serious and compelling” circumstance to warrant family reunion. That is absolute tosh—absolute tripe. How can the Home Office say that? But it said it in the past. It will not say it in the Home Office of my noble friend, but it said it in the past.
I will give an example which I may have cited before. I was visiting a refugee camp in Jordan, and a Syrian boy of 16 came to me. He had finished his education, could not find a job in the camp or outside and did not dare to go back to Syria, and he said to me, “What hope is there for me?” I thought to myself that human beings can put up with a great deal where there is some hope for them. I believe that this amendment would give hope to some of the most vulnerable child refugees. I believe that in the end, it is a question of morality. It is a question of fundamental principles and ethics, and I very much hope that the House will be supportive of this. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It is our polite custom to say what a privilege it is to follow the previous speaker. In this case, and on this subject, that is absolutely true. It is to this subject that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has devoted a life of public service, trying to do for others what was done for him in 1939. It does him great credit.
In 2016, as the noble Lord mentioned, his amendment was carried in this House and accepted at the end of the day by the then Conservative Government, and some 480 unaccompanied children got here who otherwise would not. It does him enormous credit.
Here he is again. This time, the noble Lord is concerned for the lone lost child left behind. He is concerned for the parent here who is a bona fide refugee, who has satisfied all the tests and has been given leave to remain in this country, but knows that the child is lost. The child is in a camp in Greece or Italy or, worse, on the streets of Calais. What is the father or mother to do? They have a heartbreaking choice. They can stay separated and forget the child, or they can go to the smuggler, pay up, and hope that the child makes it and comes in. That is not right. There has to be a third way.
There has to be a way in which a parent who has a right to be here, which has been established by our administrative systems and courts, can bring in the lost lone child. There used to be ways, before Brexit. But now there is only the option of a smuggler or of separation. We owe it to ourselves, to how we see our country, to stand with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this and pass Amendment 55.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I would have put my name to this amendment if I had got there in time. Every slot was taken, and I am not surprised. I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said my admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have supported him on this proposal ever since he put it forward. He raises, quite rightly, issues about the well-being and welfare of children, who I spent all my judicial life trying to help. He also talks about it being a moral issue and an issue of principle, with which, of course, I agree.
However, what might be more attractive to the Minister is the fact that it is very few children. We have heard that it has been 10,000 in the past. But currently, we are talking about a few hundred. I do not think the public are going to mind very much about a few hundred children coming to this country.
Some years ago, when Fiona Mactaggart was still an MP, she and I, with the help of Safe Passage, went to Calais to meet some of the children. I have told your Lordships’ House this before, but I say it again because among the children, mainly teenagers, were some quite young children who were seriously at risk, sleeping under the trees and waiting for the one meal a day that very good, kind French people were offering.
We are talking only about children under 18, for goodness’ sake, and I do not apologise for saying again that we are talking about hundreds. This is not something that will embarrass the Government like the crowds of people coming in who they do not seem terribly good at getting rid of—nor did the previous Government. We are talking about a small number of children whose welfare is seriously at risk. The Government really should do something about it. For me, as a mother and a grandmother, the idea that it is suspended is tragic.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
I rise with great diffidence—and apologise to noble Lords—because I have not spoken on this Bill, and I did not speak at Second Reading. This issue seems to me to be relatively simple. We in the Conservative Party had a rather odd ambition during the previous Government to stop the boats. It was an odd ambition because we had no method of doing it. However, this is something—and I pay such tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—that would help reduce the number of children coming across on those boats. It is something we really ought to do. Let us do it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I want to express briefly my support for my noble friend Lord Dubs. He talked about this being a question of morality. He talked about the importance of hope. At a time when among the wider public there is distrust of politics, to do something that is right would chime with them. They would look to this House to do the right thing. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about the children she saw in Calais. This is a safeguarding issue. We are constantly being told about the importance of safeguarding children in the context of other amendments, so surely we can support this amendment in the best interests of children following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, for the first time, I will be voting against my Government and in support of my noble friend.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I too, like my noble colleague, have not intervened on this Bill until now, but I feel compelled to, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If anybody has a right to speak on this issue, he has. If we have a duty to listen to anyone on this issue, our duty is to listen to him. A Labour Party activist, a trade unionist in my village, used to have a saying that anything that is morally right cannot be politically wrong. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is morally right, and we should support it.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. He has, obviously from personal experience, a great fount of knowledge of the difficulties that people are facing, coming from different parts of the world to this country, or trying to. He has studied over the years the different ways of trying to get here. It is not just in small boats; they could equally well be seeking asylum in another way. Bringing together a family, which was done by a small number of people—100—last year, is something on which I think we must support him. Let us hope that he carries on with getting as many families reunited as he can, wherever they come from. I shall certainly support him if we end up in a Division Lobby.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it falls to me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for taking this so far. I have had the temerity—he knows I have said this to him privately—to say that he probably ranks in this Chamber as a national treasure. That is because—I know he will not like it—if you have had his experiences and you have devoted your life to ensuring that the chance that you have had in life is given to others, you cannot fail to support this amendment. It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it is fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. This amendment is so tightly written and so tightly executed that it is not going to take a large number of people: it is not going to take huge numbers from all over the world, it is a small number of children.
Those of us who have been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk know that children sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. What are you to do as a parent if you have a child whom you cannot get to come to you? That is the most terrible thing you could possibly imagine to impose on parents. So I have no doubt that the empathy of this House is not just for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the causes he has put forward and this very tight amendment. It deserves the support of all sides of this Parliament and I hope the noble Lord will put it to a vote so we can all vote for it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.
I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.
To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubsfor tabling the amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue but his personal experience. I cannot imagine how my noble friend faced these issues as a child himself and I fully understand, and hope have empathy with, the driving motivation that he has brought to the House today.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Wigley and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, |Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Berkeley, all spoke in support. However, I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, being a voice that will have to test my noble friend’s aspirations in this amendment and try to offer him a way through that understands the issues he has raised, at the same time as putting down the policy that the Government seek to have this House endorse in relation to the Bill.
The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix child-relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation, maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend’s amendment would seek to ensure that the asylum-seeking children include children
“under the age of 18 … the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status”.
I make it clear to the whole House that the Government firmly uphold the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children. Self-evidently, we have to recognise that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and because of the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I gather that it is proposed to have a meeting. Would it be possible for other Peers to join?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I offered the meeting to my noble friend Lord Dubs but I am very happy— I am committing my honourable friend Alex Norris to a meeting—for, let us say, a representative group of Peers to join my noble friend, should he wish them to. Let us make an offer: we have space for a Member from the Liberal Democrat Bench, from the Cross Benches, from the Bishops’ Bench, should they wish to do so, and from His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that it is a fair approach, on a difficult issue, for him to take the case to the Home Office and bring with him a representative group of NGOs. Maybe it could be a separate meeting, if Peers want to meet the Minister personally. I will try to be present, given my commitments to taking the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as this Bill, through this House.
I do not want to find myself in the opposite Lobby to my noble friend Lord Dubs but, if he pushes the amendment, I am afraid that I will have to. I hope he can accept the offer and look at exploring further with Ministers the appropriate points which he has rightly put in a passionate contribution today, supported by Members across this House.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has gone out of his way. He will always be my friend, even if we are in different Division Lobbies tonight. I appreciate that he has done his best to meet me, and I have had discussions with him up until now.
I have listened to the debate, and I have talked to many people outside. We are faced with a position where, for example, we may have a 14 year-old in Calais, sleeping under the trees, who has an uncle or another family member over here and who wants to join them. The answer, unless we pass this amendment, is that he or she will not be able to do so. That would surely encourage that 14 year-old to use the traffickers, which is the last thing we want; I would rather see a legal and safe route for that child to come here. I do not want it to be so exceptional that it would hardly ever happen.
I say this with a heavy heart: I do not want to be in a different Lobby. I have never done this before—I am not a rebel anyway. With a heavy heart, I honestly feel—for the reasons to which over the years I have committed, the Labour Party in the past has committed, the whole House and the Commons have committed—that morality suggests this is the right course of action. I regret having to say this, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber: publication of decisions(1) All judgments of the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber must be published on a Government website within 14 days of being made. (2) Judgments published under subsection (1) may be anonymised to the extent considered necessary by the Tribunal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to ensure that judgments of the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) are published in accordance with the principles of open justice and public scrutiny of judicial decision making.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, we all know the perils of hanging around too long in the Chamber of the House of Lords on 5 November, so I will be as brief as I can in introducing this group.
I have four points. The first is that the principle of open justice is well known. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, made clear when she sat judicially in the case of Cape v Dring in the Supreme Court, the first purpose of open justice is
“to enable public scrutiny of the way in which courts decide cases—to hold the judges to account for the decisions they make and to enable the public to have confidence that they are doing their job properly”.
The second is
“to enable the public to understand how the justice system works and why decisions are taken”.
The First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) is one of the largest of seven chambers of the First-tier Tribunal. The other chambers of the tribunal—the Tax Chamber, the Property Chamber and the General Regulatory Chamber, which deals with Information Commissioner matters—routinely publish all their decisions, among other things, on the website. Furthermore, the employment tribunal also publishes all its decisions on its website. These are all tribunals of the same status as the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum). Accordingly, this amendment would require there to be a standard practice that the immigration and asylum chamber also publishes its decisions.
There is no small number of cases. In 2022-23 there were 38,000 appeals, and in the last year for which we have numbers, 2023-24, there were 39,000 appeals. There is plainly very significant public interest in the making of decisions, largely on human rights grounds, in the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum).
Presently, the decisions are not published. There is no good reason for this. In the First-tier Tribunal, it is open to litigants to apply for an order that the identity of everybody in the case be anonymised. The amendment would expressly allow that to continue, so there is no suggestion that it would expose anyone to any risk of reprisal or any other problem that would be posed by their identity being revealed, because they would be able to apply for anonymity.
In 2011, the Supreme Court made it clear in the Kambadzi case that, while anonymity needs to be justified in each case, there is now an expectation that there are frequently anonymity orders in asylum cases. So there is no argument that non-publication of First-tier Tribunal decisions can be based on a desire to achieve anonymity.
The reason why this is so important now is that there is a widespread amount of public interest in the decisions of the First-tier Tribunal. One need only recall the excellent journalism of the Daily Telegraph in reporting cases that it said demonstrated flawed human rights decision-making.
This cuts both ways. If this amendment is carried by the House tonight and then incorporated into the enacted Bill, we would see the publication of the decisions. That would have the effect of allowing the public to interrogate and understand the basis on which decisions are made in the immigration and asylum chamber. It would be a very significant myth-busting tool, because it would show how these decisions are taken. There would be no suggestion that these decisions are partial to one side or the other. This is simply the application of the normal principle of open justice.
Turning to the reason why it is not at present done, it is hard to identify an original reason why the practice of not publishing these decisions was adopted. There is a practice direction in the immigration and asylum chamber that allows the President of Tribunals to release a judgment on an application by a researcher or a journalist. The problem with that—the noble Lord, Lord Katz, encountered this when he gave his speech on this topic in Committee and said that this was in some way an answer to the point—is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, observed to him, you cannot apply for the disclosure of a judgment you do not know about. So that, I am afraid, is no good answer.
The other defence, as it were—or rather a flimsy stockade put up by the Government for not accepting this amendment—was that it is a matter for the judges. The answer is that no, it is not. It is actually a matter for this Parliament to decide that these judgments should be published, and, what is more, it is consistent with the common law, as set out so clearly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her landmark decision in Cape v Dring. As I said in Committee, this amendment’s time has certainly come, and I urge all noble Lords to support it.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom we are very glad to see in the Chamber after his most unfortunate accident. I apprehend that one reason he might support it—although, if he is able to, he could contradict me—is simply that it is a good idea that we know what is being decided. It may be that this confirms what many journalists identify as rather egregious cases, or it may be that it provides reassurance; whatever it is, we should know what they are deciding. It is hard to overstate how engaged the public is on this particular issue, and yet they do not know what is being decided in their name on what is probably one of the burning political issues of the moment.
I referred in Committee to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, which has been published. He said:
“A further difficulty in this area”—
he is talking about the decision-making—
“is that many of these decisions are not reported, making accountability difficult, and often these only come to light on appeal to the Upper Tribunal … there may well be low-quality decision-making going on in the initial stages, much of which is never corrected”.
So we have to rely on what journalists select, doing their job as journalists. People say that they are unfairly selecting certain cases and that there have been plenty of decisions that are wholly satisfactory, but it would be much better if there was some sunlight on this.
I fail to understand the Government’s objection. The only objection that we were given in Committee was, “The previous Government didn’t make a fuss about this, and that suits us”. I am afraid that is simply not good enough, and I therefore support this amendment and invite the House to join me.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of supporting this amendment, in the interests of transparency in the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for Amendment 56, which would ensure that judgments from the First-tier Tribunal immigration and asylum chamber are published. It is not enough that justice is done; it must be seen to be done. This amendment goes to the heart of that principle. Decisions taken in the immigration and asylum chamber affect people’s lives in the most profound way. It is therefore essential that those decisions are open to scrutiny and that the reasoning behind them can be examined by the public, Parliament and the press. Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system. Where judgments are hidden, mistrust grows. There have been too many occasions where controversial or apparently inconsistent rulings have circulated in the media without the full facts being available.
That lack of visibility risks undermining both the independence of our tribunals and the confidence of the public in their fairness. Publishing these judgments will help improve public understanding of how decisions are made and the principle that underpins them. Importantly, this amendment is carefully drafted; it includes clear safeguards to allow for anonymity when necessary. Personal details and sensitive information can and should be protected, particularly when disclosure might endanger an applicant or compromise ongoing proceedings. The amendment strikes the right balance between transparency and privacy. It is only right that the public should be able to see how the law is being applied in their name, especially in an area that attracts so much public attention and debate. By opening up this process to proper scrutiny, we strengthen accountability and trust in the system.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short but focused debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I hope that we do not see too many fireworks during the course of my response. It is good to be able to debate the matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I would add that, although he may not be very pleased with what I am about to say, I am very pleased, as I think we all are, to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place following his accident.
I fully understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in tabling this amendment. I will set out the Government’s position and I hope that noble Lords will appreciate why we are taking the position that we are. To be absolutely clear, the Government place the highest priority on ensuring that openness and transparency are at the heart of our justice system. They are also at the heart of the judiciary’s work, demonstrated in particular by the establishment of the Transparency and Open Justice Board by the Lady Chief Justice last year to, as she said,
“lead and coordinate the promotion of transparency and open justice across the courts and tribunals of England and Wales”.
Understanding the clear public interest in this area, work to consider the publication of all immigration and asylum chamber decisions began some months ago. Discussions between the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and the judiciary are ongoing. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further at this time. I can confirm that, in principle, the judiciary supports the publication of judgments. However, at this point it is important to restate, for the sake of comity between different arms of the state, that this really is a matter for the judiciary and something that Parliament has very rarely legislated on.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned, as he did when we discussed this in Committee, that Lower-tier Tribunals will publish their judgments. In response to that I can say that each chamber takes its own approach; some publish and some do not. Generally, chambers that handle sensitive matters, such as immigration but also mental health and special educational needs, have tended not to publish their decisions for what I would hope might be obvious reasons. However, it is clear that the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, giving it a similar status to the High Court, which means that its decisions can set binding precedents and are enforceable without further intervention. Because of this, transparency and accessibility are essential, and reported determinations are routinely published, whereas First-tier Tribunal decisions will, in practice, be more closely tied to the facts of a specific case and therefore be of more limited utility to those journalists or academics who wish to examine them.
I note, putting aside some of the technical deficiencies in the amendment, that the First-tier Tribunal does not make judgments but gives decisions. Let me be clear that this is not a straightforward proposal. Any decision to publish all FTT IAC decisions is not about operational cost and resource implications. From additional administrative resources to judicial training, substantial work would be involved in publishing decision notices and written reasons for all decisions, of which the First-tier Tribunal currently delivers approximately 2,500 per month. This includes thousands of decisions without reasons that are published every year, which would be fairly otiose—really just replicating the outcome of that decision.
It is important to note that publication requires judges to consider whether personal details need to be removed from a decision, or even whether an anonymity order is in place, and we would expect an increase in applications for anonymisation to be received. We would expect additional judicial training to be required. Also, decisions in the IAC can be delivered orally. Publishing these would involve an administrative process and judicial oversight, with an impact on the capacity of the tribunal, as I said. To conclude, the Government maintain our view that primary legislation is not necessary.
Lord Gove (Con)
I sympathise with the Minister, because obviously the judiciary has reassured him—or perhaps not reassured him but told him—that this will add to its burden. But given the clear view across this House that it is in the interests of strengthening confidence in our system, might he have a word with the judiciary and point out that this Bleak House-style obscurantism on its part does not foster confidence in the judiciary in the way that every part of this House would wish to see?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I am not sure it is really my position to go around having a word, as he put it, with any members of the judiciary, or indeed, that of any member of the Government to be having a word with members of the judiciary, because we quite like its independence. However, as I said, there are discussions going on between HMCTS, the MoJ and the judiciary about publishing, and in principle the judiciary supports the publication of judgments, but it is in its hands, and it is appropriate that it is its decision to make. That is because we value the rule of law in this country, and part of the rule of law is that we have an independent judiciary.
As I was saying, we still believe, as I said in Committee, that primary legislation is not necessary to effect change in this area, and such a change would be most appropriately delivered through non-legislative means or in procedural rules. In the meantime, members of the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of written reasons in a specific case. Decisions of the immigration and asylum chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against First-tier decisions on points of law, as I have said, are already routinely published online, and those are the ones that are of most interest and saliency when it comes to understanding the evolution of immigration to this country. Given that explanation, and also, I hope, the understanding that there is a process to consider publication going on, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions that we posed. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for the amendment, my noble friend Lord Davies and, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I am delighted to see back in the Chamber and, earlier today, chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as excellently as ever.
I am afraid I must let the Minister down gently. First, he said the use of “judgments” in the amendment was wrong, because the employment tribunal makes findings, and this was at the heart of his defence. If he looks carefully, he might find that a court would construe judgment in this section of the Act to include all findings and decisions of the tribunal, because that is exactly the word that is used in relation to the employment tribunal.
The Minister’s second reason was that they are having discussions with the MoJ, and the MoJ is having discussions with the judges; there are no timelines, no dates, no indication of what is going to be said, but noble Lords should feel reassured by that. I am afraid that is a warm bath of words. The long and short is that the resource implications of publishing these decisions are limited because we know that all these judgments are provided electronically, because that is the practice—one needs to look only at the immigration decision practice direction. So I do not accept that reason; it is very easy for them to be published, and the cost of it would probably be less than we spend on asylum hotels in a day or two.
For those reasons, I say to noble Lords that it is surely a right to get the facts about decision-making on human rights grounds out there for the public and journalists to see. To adopt the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, let us let the sunlight in. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“British National (Overseas) visa route: statutory protection(1) Notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, ensure the continuation of the British National (Overseas) visa scheme as set out in the Immigration Rules HC 395 (“the BN(O) route”), including the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence.(2) The provisions of this section may not be repealed except by an Act of Parliament.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place the BN(O) visa route, including the existing five-year path to settlement, on a statutory footing. It would require any substantial restrictions to the route — such as eligibility criteria or the qualifying period for settlement — to be made through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, and would prevent the repeal of the route other than by primary legislation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first, I express my thanks to many noble Lords, both those in the Chamber this evening and others outside it. I felt a tsunami of good wishes and kindness since experiencing a routine bus journey to your Lordships’ House at 8.15 am one morning, after which I ended up with a broken back, concussion and various other things.
The following week, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, responded to a debate about a Joint Committee on Human Rights report, which I should have been moving; the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, moved it in my place. He said that it was odd that someone who was probably the most sanctioned Member of either House of Parliament, with four countries having sanctions against him, should end up being silenced by a London bus.
That meant that I was unable to speak not only in that debate but on the amendments in the group currently before the House. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is overseas this week, for introducing Amendments 58 and 61 in Committee. I particularly thank my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who kindly said that, if it got too late this evening, I would be released so that I could get a train—not a bus—back to the north of England. I am grateful to her.
I am particularly pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on the ministerial Bench. He has been very kind to me over the intervening period in engaging with emails and the usual flurry of things that I tend to inflict on Ministers, so I am grateful to him.
In moving Amendment 58 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I should also mention that I am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong and a patron of Hong Kong Watch. In 2017, I was part of the team that monitored the last fair and free elections in Hong Kong. As a result of that, I was sanctioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, something that I regard as a great honour—to have been sanctioned for something as important as the promotion of democracy in a place such as Hong Kong.
Going right back to my earliest days in the House of Commons, I visited Hong Kong in 1980, and I have huge admiration for people who have been part of the pro-democracy movement. I count Jimmy Lai as a friend. I know many of those who are currently languishing in prison in Hong Kong as pro-democracy activists. I have nothing but huge admiration for those who have been allowed to be settled in this country. I thank the previous Government for opening the way for Hong Kongers to be able to come, settle and play their part here as they continue to defend democracy.
I move this amendment in defence of a promise, made not just by Ministers of this Government, but by the United Kingdom itself. It is a promise rooted in law, in honour and in the moral fabric of our democracy. When Britain and China signed the Sino-British joint declaration in 1984, we pledged to the Hong Kong people, our fellow citizens, that they would enjoy their rights and freedoms under the rule of law.
When that pledge was broken by Beijing through the imposition of the national security law, we created the British national (overseas) visa route as a means of upholding our end of the bargain. That route is more than a bureaucratic mechanism; it is a covenant. It says to the people of Hong Kong, “If your freedoms are eroded, Britain will offer you sanctuary, stability and, ultimately, the chance to rebuild your lives in freedom”. The amendment simply seeks to protect that covenant, to put the BNO visa route on a statutory footing to ensure that the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence cannot be changed by ministerial whim or administrative convenience.
This is about trust. Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers have sold homes, left careers and uprooted their families on the strength of this promise. They have enrolled their children in British schools, invested in our economy and enriched our communities. They have done so believing that this country stands by its word. To allow that route to be weakened, extended or quietly repealed by regulation would be a betrayal, not only of them but of Britain’s reputation as a nation of honour.
We have seen the power of this route. More than 230,000 people have already come to the UK under it. They are starting businesses, serving in the National Health Service, volunteering in our communities and contributing to civic life. They are an asset, not a burden. However, I have heard from many families who now fear uncertainty. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary, the right honourable Shabana Mahmood, for the statements she has made to try to reassure people, which have been very constructive and helpful. Nevertheless, there are rumours—unconfirmed but unsettling—about the possible tightening of eligibility or lengthening of the route to settlement, and those have created anxiety. People worry that what was promised as a five-year pathway could become 10; that the cost of visas and fees will rise beyond their reach; and that the scheme might one day close to new applicants altogether.
These families deserve better; they deserve certainty. That is why Amendment 58 provides that the scheme may not be repealed except by Act of Parliament. If there is ever to be a change, it should be done transparently, through primary legislation—debated and decided by both Houses, not slipped through in secondary regulations or quietly allowed to lapse. The Government have argued that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing global circumstances, but flexibility must not come at the expense of integrity. The Home Secretary should not be able, by regulation, to undo what was solemnly promised in the name of the United Kingdom. This is not an abstract issue. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. We stand at a time when the international rules-based order is under strain. From Ukraine to Taiwan, from Hong Kong to Tehran, authoritarian regimes test the world’s resolve. Britain’s word—our credibility—matters more than ever.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, spoke powerfully in Committee about the need for certainty for those who have built their lives here under this route. She reminded us that what we are offering is not a new privilege, but the honouring of a promise, and I entirely agree. We are not creating new rights: we are keeping faith with those who relied on our word. Let us recall what these families have fled. In Hong Kong today, people are imprisoned for peaceful protest, for journalism, or for simply lighting a candle in memory of Tiananmen Square. Civil society has been dismantled. The free press has been silenced. The rule of law has been subverted by decree.
The BNO route has been one of the few lifelines available to those who refuse to live under tyranny. It has been a quiet act of defiance, an assertion that Britain still believes in liberty. To dilute or imperil that route now would send the message not only to Hong Kong but to the world that Britain’s promises can be adjusted when convenient. I hope that we will not do that. There are those who argue that the route creates pressure on public services, and I acknowledge that concern; but we should also recognise the contribution of these new arrivals, which I have alluded to. When I meet Hong Kongers who have come under this scheme, I am struck by their gratitude and determination to give back. They see this country not as a temporary refuge but as a home, and they want to serve it.
By supporting this amendment, we reaffirm a simple truth: the promises made by Parliament should be changed only by Parliament. We would not tolerate a Chancellor quietly revoking a pension guarantee by regulation, nor should we tolerate the quiet dismantling of a visa promise made to hundreds of thousands of lawful residents. Some may ask why the amendment is necessary now. I would answer that it is because the trust of the people affected is not theoretical; it is real, it is personal, and it is fragile. Many of these families have known only broken promises from colonial powers, from authoritarian regimes, and from political leaders who said one thing and did another. Let us not add Britain’s name to that list.
In 1984, we gave our word. In 2021, we offered a route to keep it. In 2025, we must protect that route in law. If we fail to do so, we risk signalling to the world that Britain’s undertakings are conditional; its assurance, reversible; its word, negotiable. This House has often been at its best when standing up for principle over expedience. From the abolition of slavery to the defence of refugees, from Magna Carta to modern human rights, the thread that binds us is the belief that law should protect the vulnerable and restrain the powerful. That is what Amendment 58 seeks to do. It places a shield of legality around a promise of hope. Therefore, I ask noble Lords right across the House—whatever parties or groups they may be members of; whatever their views on broader migration policy—to please join me in supporting this amendment.
I will not detain the House by speaking at length on Amendment 61, but I am a signatory to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, is for good reasons unable to be here tonight. I commend to the House what he said in Committee and urge the Minister to look again at the position of people who have come from Ukraine and who have no immediate prospect of returning, especially those who are from areas that have been occupied by Putin and may never return to Ukraine. Women and children primarily are involved in that, and I tabled this amendment in Committee at the request of women and children from Ukraine. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his support for it, and I commend that to the House as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed both Amendment 58 and Amendment 80, which is consequential to Amendment 58. We have just heard very eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about why it is important. I will just highlight a couple of very brief points.
First, I lived in Hong Kong until 1960 and my family knew Anthony Grey, the Reuters journalist who was imprisoned by Mao Tse-Tung in 1967. As a young teenager, I wrote to him at his home in Peking where he had been imprisoned. Anthony died last week. His family have said that what China did to him, keeping him in solitary confinement with no charges or anything else for over two years, affected him for the rest of his life. We see an echo of that today in the treatment of people such as Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong in prison. Hong Kong is not a safe place for some people to be.
I just want to add that, two years ago, there were a number of incidents with border staff not understanding the British national overseas route and treating Hong Konger arrivals as if they were asylum seekers. They were not. I was grateful that, after our intervention in your Lordships’ House, Ministers ensured that this error was corrected.
Last week in your Lordships’ House we discussed the changes to the extradition arrangements for Hong Kong; again, I am very grateful to the Minister for those discussions. The reason that both these issues were important to the Hong Kongers who have come here to safety as British nationals, holding British national visas, is that their life here is very unsettled. Threats to their personal safety in the UK are bad enough, but their families are also threatened in Hong Kong as well.
The whole point of the BNO visa was to keep our word to fellow British nationals after 1984. We made that real in 2021. The tiny things that have been going wrong also add to the unease that many Hong Kongers feel in this country. Making sure that no decisions are changed on the BNO visa route other than by Parliament is exactly what needs to happen to give them the confidence that the UK still stands by them.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 70 and 85 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not with us today for reasons I explained earlier. We listened to what was said in Committee and this amendment mirrors what was placed on the agenda then. But, in tabling this amendment, we have made some changes, one of which is the need for biometrics to be taken prior to travel, and the amendment also proposes a capped scheme to control numbers and an initial pilot of 12 months minimum in order to have the opportunity to evaluate it.
To try to explain this scheme, which is basically about a legal route into the United Kingdom, I will just refer to the United States. A similar scheme to the one we are proposing—not exactly the same, but similar—was instituted there, and the US Government were able to reduce illegal border crossings from Mexico across the US border by 77% between December 2023 and August 2024: that is, in nine months.
It was achieved through a three-pronged approach, one of which was, of course, diplomatic efforts to make sure that there was a strong ability to manage the system in the countries where people started, and also then taking a tough approach to the irregular border crossings, significantly reducing the chance of successfully claiming asylum for those arriving without permission, and a substantial official scheme through which people could apply to come to the country. That is the bit that, of course, the humanitarian travel permit relates to.
The result in the United States was that it simply was not worth the expense of paying the smugglers any more and it undermined their business entirely. That is because you cannot look at just one side of the demand-supply equation. The demand is being met by the smugglers, and we have to touch both sides. Without a form of legal route, you will not get that demand reduced.
I will try to explain it very straightforwardly. In the United Kingdom, we put up with queues. We may not like them, but we follow, if there is a queue, in a proper and orderly manner—mostly. If somebody pushes in, either they do not get served when they get to the front, or they get sent to the back of the queue. This scheme means to do exactly that—to provide a scheme where there is a queue in which people can come to the United Kingdom. If you decide to jump the queue by taking the smugglers route, you get put to the back of the queue again.
That means, of course, that you have to have a quota attached to the scheme, and because the law in this country says that you cannot make a claim for asylum unless you are here, you have to have a travel permit in order to come here. But that would be controlled right back at the beginning of the journey. If you have paid a slab of money to a smuggler back in Egypt or Libya, you are certainly not going to be put off when you get to the end of the route. It is certainly the case that you need to tackle this right back at the beginning. This whole scheme is about trying to create a legal route and being tough on anyone who tries to jump the queue by coming in irregularly and moving them to the back of the queue.
It does not matter if the queue is not moving very quickly; what matters is that it is moving. It is surprising that people will be prepared to wait, as they did in the United States, where, in the case of Haiti, instead of 10,000 people turning up at the US border, it was just a handful every month. That is because people said, “It’s not worth my while doing that”. They saw that joining the queue meant that at some stage they would get to the front of that queue.
It works much better, of course, if you are doing it with other countries as well, because you can collectively create these routes, which can be dealt with in a very efficient way. That way, we control the borders. That is what this is about. It is a different sort of approach from what is suggested by putting your hands up and saying, “You can’t get in”, and “We’ll stop you in every way possible”, and all that stuff. That did not work.
It may be that, in time, the pressures to try to deal with this across the channel may well work in reducing the numbers. But we are looking at changing the whole model so that the smugglers’ model does not work. It has been tried and tested. That is why, if we are going to use this in a European context, it is important that it is done with a capped model, with one particular country perhaps, and certainly for 12 months, so that we can find out whether we can make this work here in Europe as well.
This system, this scheme, is one that is designed to provide safe routes and to take away the business of the smugglers. It will not solve it all, but if it reduces it by 77%, as was the case in the United States of America, it is certainly worth doing.
That is what this amendment is about. The other amendment, with which it is associated, is simply to create a pilot scheme with a capped number of people in it. I hope that we will consider this when we come back to it later in this debate.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. We cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal routes, which have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs.
Through the Hong Kong British national (overseas) visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those with whom we share deep historical ties. More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation’s history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family scheme and Homes for Ukraine programme have provided sanctuary to more than 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion have found not just safety but welcome and support in communities across our country. In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces.
The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we are willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively. Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all contributors to this debate. I am acutely conscious that I stand between noble Lords and the Recess—rather a short Recess, as it happens, but nevertheless. Before I make my remarks, I want to say that it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. I thought he sounded on pretty good form, but if he is not fully back to top form, I hope he soon will be.
Amendment 61 deals with the Ukrainian scheme. I hope that everyone in your Lordships’ House knows that the UK remains unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine and the scheme that we have in place. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked us to look again, and we have done that. Our commitment to the scheme is demonstrated by the Government’s recent 24-month extension to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the visa scheme. However, from the outset the Government have maintained— I think everybody knows this, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the country more widely—that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict, and they have been widely supported throughout the country. The Ukrainian Government share with us a strong desire for their citizens to return and contribute to Ukraine’s future recovery.
On Amendments 70 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, let me reaffirm, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. We have a strong history of protecting people in those situations. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR.
However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we could not possibly consider a scheme that accepts applications from large numbers of individuals overseas. I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will forgive me for not commenting on the situation in the United States. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Safe and legal routes are nevertheless an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out in due course.
Amendment 70 includes a provision that relates to biometrics. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control. They enable us to pay comprehensive checks against immigration and criminal records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety or immigration controls, or who are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has indeed done the issues justice. I am grateful to him, not least for the tone he adopted in the reply he gave to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I made in our speeches about Hong Kong.
I heard what the Minister said about flexibility. That is one of the problems outside this place: people are worried about what “flexibility” might imply. However, if they read carefully what the Minister has just said, I think they will be reassured at some level.
I also heard what the Minister said about continuing to listen, and I will convey that message back to the all-party parliamentary group and to others who are interested in this. We might well take him and the team at the Home Office up on what I think was an invitation to continue to engage on this question.
The way in which the noble Lord has dealt with this amendment is exemplary, and I am grateful to him. As I say, I thought the tone was well struck. On the issue of the Ukrainian amendment, I will talk to his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, when he is back here next week, and maybe we can go and see Ministers to talk about that situation. But they are different categories of people and the issues are separate.
If the Minister was worried about standing in the way of noble Lords and the Recess, I would be even more worried, so the noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that I have no intention of dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.