Asylum Policy

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:58

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 17 November.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publish the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.

This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it. Our world is a more volatile and more mobile place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use and abuse our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries, searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.

The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy: 400,000 have sought asylum here in the past four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived. To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way because it is. The pace and scale of change have destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place. There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger and ends in hatred.

I have no doubt about who we really are in this country: we are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country and who must leave. To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.

Rather than deal substantively with this problem, the last Conservative Government wasted precious years and £700 million on their failed Rwanda plan, with the lamentable result of just four volunteers removed from the country. As a result, they left us with the grotesque chaos of asylum seekers housed in hotels and shuttled around in taxis, with the taxpayer footing the bill.

My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this dreadful inheritance and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system. Decision-making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased, reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government. Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year. The Border Security Bill is progressing through Parliament, and my predecessor struck an historic agreement with the French so that small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.

Those are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published Restoring Order and Control, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are twofold: first, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here. It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer compared with many of our European neighbours. That generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40% come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal proportion come legally, via visitor, work or study visas, and then go on to claim asylum. They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years and is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status.

In other European countries, things are done differently. In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims in Denmark have hit a 40-year low, and now countries across Europe are tightening their systems in similar ways. We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last for two and a half years, not five years. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five years.

I know that this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and who are willing and able to, we will create a new work and study visa route solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement. To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to. Outside the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee able to bring family over only if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.

Although over 50,000 claimants have been granted refugee status in the past year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer-funded accommodation. We know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings. We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative. We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a duty to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal power to do so instead. We will continue to support those who play by the rules, but those who do not—be that through criminality or anti-social behaviour—can have their support removed.

We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work. It is right that those who receive support pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. That will end the absurdity that we currently experience, in which an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayer’s expense, and the courts judged that we could do nothing about it.

The measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. That will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused. In recent months, we have begun the voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again. However, many failed asylum seekers from Syria are still here, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.

We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups, even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims—despite an existing returns agreement, and Albania being a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. So we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.

Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action. I can announce that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms, we will impose visa penalties on them. I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.

Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government have already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure that early legal representation is available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered. Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.

While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights has contributed. This is particularly true of Article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of that right. As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming. That includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison, whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer. More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.

Article 8 is a qualified right, which means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is in the public interest. To narrow Article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and to our immigration rules. First, we will define what, exactly, a family is—narrowing it down to parents and their children. Secondly, we will define the public interest test so that the default becomes a removal or refusal, with Article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances. Thirdly, we will tighten where Article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.

We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the convention: the application of Article 3, and the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment. We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’ has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own. As Article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns.

It is not just international law that binds us. According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed that they were modern-day slaves. That well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal, so I will bring forward legislation that tightens the modern slavery system, to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it. Taken together, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.

We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did in recent years when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hongkongers. For that reason, as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by government. We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises across the world, as they happen.

I know that the British people do not want to close the doors, but until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger. It is our job as a Labour Government to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is—one that restores order and control, that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation, and those to come. I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant, and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in, not the littler England that some wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary’s Statement to the other place announced a number of reforms which are very welcome. When the Government bring forward strong measures, we will support them. The Home Secretary should be praised for accepting a simple truth—that Britain’s asylum system is far more generous than that of many other European countries.

It is a truth that, unfortunately, many Labour Back-Benchers cannot seem to grasp. The true test to these reforms will be whether the Government can face down opposition from within their own ranks and implement them.

There is another welcome truth that the Home Secretary has implicitly accepted: up to now, the Government’s measures to tackle illegal migration have failed. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we have spent many hours debating in this House, is woefully inadequate to deal with the issue. It is a shame that it took the Government so long to realise this, but we are where we are. We will have to have another immigration and asylum Bill next year because the Government were too slow to reach the logical conclusion that their plans are not working. These new announcements are at least a tacit acceptance that that Bill did not go anywhere near far enough to seriously tackle small boat crossings.

There are a number of proposals here that are very similar to amendments I tabled during the Report stage of the border security Bill—amendments that the Government completely opposed. It is heartening to see that they have finally come round, but it might have been easier for all of us if they had compromised earlier.

For example, the Government opposed my amendment to create third-country removal centres. The Minister criticised it for wanting to rehash the Rwanda policy, but that is a complete falsehood. The Rwanda policy would have sent illegal migrants to Rwanda, where their asylum claims would be processed. The amendments I brought to the border security Bill would automatically reject that asylum claim brought by an illegal migrant and then return them to either their home country or a safe third country. Their claims would not be processed in Rwanda because they would never be allowed to make a claim in the first place.

That amendment was about having safe third countries where we can send failed asylum seekers and illegal migrants who cannot be returned to their home country. Now, in their policy statement, the Government say:

“We will continue to explore the use of ‘return hubs’ which are safe third countries that failed asylum seekers can be sent to instead of their country of origin. Negotiations with a number of countries are ongoing”.


This is precisely what we were pushing the Government to do, and I am pleased that they have announced that they will look to send failed asylum seekers to safe third countries, but this all could have been much easier if they had come to this conclusion earlier.

The Government have also announced changes to the appeals procedure. The Statement says that the Home Office will

“create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators”.

However, it does not mention whether this appeals body will run alongside the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) or replace it. Could the Minister please clarify this?

Would the Government run this new body alongside the judicial appeals tribunals? If so, how would they decide whose appeal is heard before which body? Or are they proposing to abolish the immigration and asylum tribunal and replace it with the Home Office review body? If so, then that was exactly what I proposed by way of Amendments 46 and 47 to the border security Bill. On Report on 5 November, 128 Labour peers voted against that. If they have changed their mind on this, it is very embarrassing to say the least; it is disappointing for them to vote against that proposal and then come up with something very similar.

The Home Secretary has claimed that she is following the lead set by Denmark, but this is only a partial truth, because Denmark requires asylum seekers to prove full-time employment for several years before they qualify for permanent residence.

The Government’s plans extend the waiting time to get indefinite leave to remain to 10 years once a person’s refugee status has been granted and if they entered legally. This would be 20 years for those who entered illegally, but this does not impose any conditions. Theoretically, a person could enter illegally, languish on benefits for 20 years and then be granted the right to indefinite leave to remain. While I am pleased to see asylum status become temporary, and for anyone whose home country becomes safe to be returned there, it is absolutely wrong that a person could enter illegally and still be allowed to remain, especially given the Government’s opening of new safe and legal routes. If we are to have legal routes for refugees, we absolutely cannot reward those who enter illegally. That would make even more of a mockery of the whole system. Why would a person bother to apply for the legal route if they know that they can board a boat and be allowed to stay here? The Government need to follow this plan to its logical conclusion and ban asylum, human rights and protection claims from any illegal migrant.

Finally, the plan to reform Article 8 is all well and good, but the Government have to know that this will not be enough. While we have the Human Rights Act in force and are party to the ECHR, we will face the same barriers to removals that we do currently. Reforming the interpretation will simply allow crafty human rights lawyers to find innovative new ways to circumvent it. Only a wholesale repeal of the Human Rights Act and withdrawal from the ECHR can finally remove the legal barriers to deportation.

The Government have started moving in the right direction. As my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we will support the Government in making these changes. But I fear that they will not be enough and that the Government will end up coming back to us next year with further changes. If they simply accepted that now, and went even further with these changes, it would save us all a lot of time down the line.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, and I am supported by the RAMP organisation. I am minded to think of the title of that great film, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”; I am afraid that these proposals have all three within them. I will go through some of those.

Starting with the positive, we support the Government’s intent to bring order in the asylum system, and we welcome the announcement of new, capped, safe and legal routes for refugees. These pathways, with security checks and controls, are the correct way to fulfil the UK’s responsibility to those in need. Confirmation that the Government will not leave the European Convention on Human Rights is welcome, as is the recognition that early legal advice should be a core part of the appeal system.

Moving on to the bad, or impractical, the argument that asylum seekers should contribute is undermined when they are denied the means to earn their way. Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. Why are the Government persisting in stopping asylum seekers from working when there is no evidence that this is a pull factor? We question the assumption of the UK as a magnet, given that we receive far fewer asylum seekers per capita than our European neighbours. Home Office analysis itself found that asylum seekers have little to no understanding of welfare policies before arrival. Shared language, diaspora communities and perhaps even colonial connections are the primary drivers for asylum seekers taking irregular routes to the UK. Can the UK Government provide evidence, rather than simple assertion, on this matter?

Revoking the duty to support risks creating more destitution and pushing more asylum seekers towards illegal working and exploitation. What assessment has been made of this risk? What action are the Government taking to avoid passing the financial strain onto already struggling local authorities? The use of immoderate language is also unhelpful and risks stoking division. Why do the Government feel the need to create a whole new asylum appeals structure? Why not simply expand the existing system?

The most severe criticisms target the core protection model and its administrative fallout. Core protection requires a status review every 30 months and delays permanent settlement for 20 years, which in our view is unnecessary and cruel. This prolonged state of instability will inhibit successful integration by making it difficult for refugees to secure tenancies, employment or higher education. The Home Office is currently struggling with a backlog, yet this policy would impose what has been called bureaucratic madness, requiring a huge increase in capacity to review the status of an estimated 1.45 million people by the end of 2035, potentially costing £872 million. Do the Government accept these figures or have they alternative ones to offer?

Scrapping the refugee family reunion route pushes children and spouses into the hands of smugglers, directly contradicting the goal of safe migration. Has this risk been assessed? How will the long-term separation from family impact refugees’ ability to contribute and reduce their reliance on state support? Will the Government be detaining and deporting children who were once accepted as refugees but will subsequently not be when their home country is deemed safe?

Given that Denmark’s temporary protection scheme clearly failed to result in returns for Syrians, how do the Government justify the massive cost and profound uncertainty imposed by the UK version? What is the timescale for these changes? When will they be implemented and what method will be used to implement them?

Finally, do the Government agree with the report in the i newspaper that deportations will be retrospective? It says:

“It means that, if a refugee has not already been granted indefinite right to remain before the Home Secretary’s new legislation comes into force, they will be deported if their home country is subsequently deemed safe by the Government”.


I look forward to the Government’s response to these questions.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and I will try to answer his questions first of all. I am grateful for the welcome he gave to some of the Government’s proposals. I remind him that the reason we are undertaking these reforms is that we have inherited a very broken system: a system that has been in operation for 14 years, where the number of asylum claims has risen, where the backlog has grown and where the deportations have not existed where they are rightfully proposed to exist. We have a duty, on behalf of the British people, to take some difficult decisions to sort this out.

The noble Lord mentioned that the border security Bill, which has completed its passage bar one Commons amendment, has not been effective. Let me remind him that we have introduced a border security commander, who has negotiated deals with France, negotiated deals with Iraq, negotiated deals with the Germans and has been put on a legal footing by this Bill. We have put extra measures in place to support penalties for people smugglers, which will now, once Royal Assent is achieved, allow us to take some further deterrent actions against people smugglers to end that vile trade. We have put in place mechanisms to stop the manufacture and use of boats, to seize engines and to do other things which will take effect once Royal Assent is agreed. I do not, therefore, accept his contention first and foremost that the border security Bill, about which we have had many hours of discussion, is pointless.

I have to say to him, however, that the Government have to keep these issues under review because it is self-evidently a broken system, which is why we put in place additional people to speed up the backlog. The measures before the House today, outlined in the Statement, will be brought forward in legislation, subject to consultation. We will also look at a range of other measures we need to take to fix the system we have inherited from the noble Lord and his political party. He may not like that—I do not want to politicise that: I want his support for this—but we have had to take those steps because of where we are, and I think that is reasonable.

The support he has given for some of those steps is particularly good. He mentioned, for example, the tightened criteria. I think it is fair and proper that, if a country is deemed safe after two and a half years, the individual concerned is encouraged and supported to return to that country; or, as is in this proposal, they can apply for a different route through work or study to get permanent residence downstream. If the country is safe, however, it is perfectly reasonable to look at how we can remove that individual.

The proposals include tackling increased enforcement on illegal working. I think it is perfectly reasonable to put some pressure and heat into the system to tackle people who are being employed illegally, to look at increasing the right-to-work checks, to provide digital ID requirements—which I suspect he will oppose—to ensure there are mandatory right-to-work checks and collaboration to verify companies. I think that is reasonable. I think it is reasonable to look at return hubs: not Rwanda, not £700 million being wasted, not two people being removed voluntarily, but discussing proper return hubs for people who do not have safe countries but where their asylum claims have failed. It is perfectly reasonable to remove people whose asylum claims have failed because their asylum claims have failed. That is perfectly reasonable to do.

It is perfectly reasonable to do what we are doing in this proposal to speed up assessments and appeals. He asked about the First-tier Tribunal. We are going to put extra hours into the tribunal and we are going to ensure that we look at improving the legal system to get appeals dealt with and tribunals dealt with much more quickly. It is reasonable—and this is, again, where we will have a bit of blue and red water between us—to be committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, to be committed to legislation to uphold human rights, but actually to say that we want to look at how we can tweak that to make sure that it acts in the interest of our country, at the same time as being part of our international obligations, which is where we are. He wants to leave those conventions. I do not, and the Government do not, but we need to make sure we make them work in a better way to deal with this issue. I think it is reasonable for us to do all those things and I hope for and look forward to his support on them.

I welcome the welcome from the noble Lord, Lord German. It has been overlooked in this, but there are safe and legal routes that we want to develop, as we have done, for example, in our bespoke schemes for Ukraine and for Syria. There are bespoke routes that we can develop. There are safe and legal routes that we can look at. In this Statement, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that we wish to look at doing that. We are committed to human rights, but we are committed to looking at these particular issues. We will encourage people to look at the work route, if necessary, for safe and legal routes, and we will ensure that a range of other issues are examined.

The noble Lord takes issue with the core protection measures that we have before us in this proposal. I think, again, that it is reasonable, given where we are, to look at how we can ensure that those people are assessed very quickly, within two and a half years, or 30 months. If the country is safe to return to, they can return. If not, let us get that asylum claim approved, or let us get that asylum claim rejected and the individual then returned. I think that is a reasonable proposal. It is reasonable that we look at family reunion, and the noble Lord asked about child deportations. I do not want to see child deportations, but what I want to see is, if people have failed their asylum claim or if they are a foreign national offender—of which we have many languishing in UK jails at the moment—we must find mechanisms to return those individuals fairly and properly to their communities if they are safe, or, if not, to look at the issue that we have talked about here of an alternative holding establishment. All of this will be consulted on.

The noble Lord asked about when and how this will be brought in. There will be legislation brought before both Houses of Parliament, at a point to be determined, and the consultation will take place. However, I ask all those noble Lords who may criticise the proposals: are they happy with the status quo? Do they think the status quo is a good place to be? I think nobody in this Chamber will say that the status quo is a good place to be. Therefore, my objective with the Home Secretary and the Home Office is to look at ways in which we can maintain our international obligations, welcome genuine refugees and asylum seekers, but also speed up a broken system to make sure it works effectively.

12:17

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, who will decide whether a country is safe? The previous Government decided that Rwanda was safe, but the Supreme Court, following a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, said that it was the body with the responsibility for deciding whether a country was safe. So my question to the Minister is: who, under the Government’s proposals, is to decide whether a country is safe—the Government or the Supreme Court?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question. I take the view that the Government will determine ultimately which are safe countries. The Government will make that judgment. We are open to challenge and discussion, but the Government will have to make a determination on that. In doing so, we will look at a range of factors. What does the United Nations think? What do the other agencies think? In the end, however, the Government ultimately will have to determine. Again, let me just say that it may not even be a blanket “safe” for a particular country. It may be safe, for example, now, for individuals post an Assad regime to return to Syria, but it may equally not be safe for some individuals to do that. There is a case-by-case basis for the individual, but, ultimately, we have to make that call.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to human rights, and I know it is a sincere one, but the Statement itself appears to express some irritation with both Article 8, respect for private and family life, and even Article 3, the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture. In the light of our own justice and prison system being found in breach of Article 3 in the High Court just two days ago, can the Minister say a little more—give us a little more specificity—about the detail of the proposed renegotiation of Article 3 that the Statement refers to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are seeking international reform of the application of Article 3. We will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment. That means we have to discuss it with our partners and get joint agreement, but it is an objective to which the Government are committed. It is one that will be tested. It will be in our consultation in due course. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. That will be subject to scrutiny, but it will be within the spirit of maintaining our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights application. Those are fair and legitimate objectives, and I hope that my noble friend will support them in due course.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary ended her Statement by saying that her reforms

“are designed to bring unity where others seek to divide”.

My greatest worry about them is that making refugee status only temporary, and subject to review every 30 months and deportation, will have the opposite effect. It will not bring unity, it will not encourage community or integration, and it is not very British. The Attlee Government did not try to deport the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in 1945. The attempt to send trucks round south London to generate a hostile environment and tell people to go home was called off very quickly because of the public revulsion. I remember being very warmed to see crowds in Glasgow blocking the streets to prevent the deportation of their neighbours.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, he did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about retrospection. Can he assure us that the change from five years to 10 years or 20 years will not be applied retrospectively to those people who are here, have been allowed to stay here and came when the rule was that they could obtain citizenship after five years? It will not apply to them, I trust.

Secondly, the Statement says that

“as order and control are restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country”.

Does “as order and control are restored” imply a sequence: that we need first to see order and control restored, then we will open safe and legal routes? If it does, is that not wholly illogical? The best way of putting the traffickers out of business and ensuring that there are no deaths in the channel is to open safe and legal routes. Will the Minister also tell us how a system of capping safe and legal routes will work? How will the caps be set and how will they be made compatible with our obligations under the refugee convention?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will try to answer the three broad issues within that. The first is the reduction in time from five years to 30 months. It is not, “At the end of 30 months you are deported”; at the end of 30 months, an assessment will be made about whether the country the person has come from is safe, to go back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Howard. I hope that we will not have long backlogs on asylum claims in the first place. That is why other measures are being sped up. Part of the problem, and the reason why people are waiting for five years and beyond, is that asylum claims are not met. From our perspective, if an asylum claim can be met and sped up then a decision can be taken to grant asylum, in which case the individual has asylum—admittedly with a longer period for final settlement—or they are removed from the country under a deportation route. The purpose is to try to put some energy into the system to get that sped up very quickly.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about safe and legal routes, and the annual cap. The Home Secretary will examine and consult on this as part of the proposals, but it is perfectly reasonable to try to set an annual cap, in discussion with our refugee convention and other obligations, to see what the country can bear in terms of housing support and everything else so that annual cap is based on community capacity. We can then look at safe and legal routes that help support individuals to come here so they do not use the illegal routes that are universally condemned across the House. We will maintain the flexibility that we have for things such as the Ukraine scheme and the Gaza scheme. If I had been putting this before the House six years ago, we would not have been talking about a Ukraine scheme. Who knows what will happen next? We retain our international obligations to do that.

The noble Lord asked about retrospection. That will be part of the discussion and consultation. Legislation will be brought forward to address what will happen, and that will be subject to tests by both Houses of Parliament.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a participant in the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Three and a half years on, we have a delightful Ukrainian family still living in our house. In the section of the report on safe and legal routes, the options in the policy document include a route to safety for students and skilled workers. Such schemes may be a useful adjunct to sufficient open safe and legal routes, but does the Minister share my concern that, in a world where safe and legal routes are limited, we may send a message that young, healthy, skilled people are more deserving of sanctuary than others?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

No. We need to look at individuals’ asylum claims based on their merit. An individual who is not of working age or is not going to be involved in education or study can have an asylum claim. The key point in the safe and legal routes aspect is that we need to look at what that is and design a scheme. We will consult on that. The work and student visa route will be one that individuals can apply for during the course of their asylum claim. If their asylum claim is granted, that gives another route into longer-term settlement, which would be valuable if the individual wishes to do that. I retain an openness to examine individuals’ claims and positions on the basis of their individual status.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement and the acceptance that the current system is unsustainable. It is interesting that perhaps a year or two ago, people proposing some of these measures would have been accused of being racist, so I welcome the Statement. The Government will have to get support from other political parties to get these measures through. Does the Minister accept that he will have to work with Reform UK, whose leader, whatever noble Lords may think about him, was one of the first people to raise the issue of the difficulties and the possibilities of migrants coming in on small boats?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will welcome support for the Government’s proposals wherever they come from, but if the noble Baroness thinks that I have anything in common with the honourable Member for Clacton and his crew, she is sadly mistaken. I come from a position of trying to ensure that we build a coterminous, cohesive society that is open and tolerant but manages its borders effectively. I do not seek to cause division, which I think the honourable Member for Clacton seeks to do. He wants us not to solve this problem; he wants it to continue. He wants the small boat routes to continue so that he can spread division. That is not on this Government’s agenda. We are here to fix this problem, not to exploit it.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to think again about the sequence of events regarding safe and legal routes. Many of us believe that introducing safe and legal routes would take away the business of the traffickers. Therefore, leaving it until the end of the line seems to allow the traffickers to go on doing their business. Could we speed that up, please? Secondly, on the 20-year period when people may or may not feel secure in this country—the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has already referred to this—is the problem not that if people feel insecure in this country then local communities will feel less likely to support them, and integration will suffer? Is there something the Government can do to make people feel more secure, because 20 years is a long time when families are here and children have been born here? It is not a humane way to proceed.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I know my noble friend takes a great interest in this, and I am very happy to discuss safe and legal routes with him and my colleagues in the Home Office, because I know that he is committed to this issue and we must ensure that we explore it extremely safely. I want to see community cohesion, and longer-term integration is an issue the Government have set their stall on. That is subject to consultation. Again, I want to work with my noble friend to ensure that we deal with this in a proper and effective way. The door is open to him at any time.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, the Minister made it quite clear that the Government would not in any way amend the Human Rights Act 1998 and that they were very concerned about the independence of the judiciary. Yet the Statement refers to potentially changing the approach to Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 2 of the Human Rights Act requires the judiciary to take jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights into account; this has been followed and built upon by judges in this country. How will the Government alter the approach to Articles 3 and 8 without amending the Human Rights Act and without impeding the independence of the judiciary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On the question of Article 8 claims, Article 8 is a qualified right, which means that interferences with it can be justified where it is proportionate to the public interest. We will bring forward primary legislation with a definition of family life for the purposes of Article 8. On Article 3, we will work with partners to reform the application of the ECHR’s prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. Both of those are potential tweaks, which will be subject to legislation and consultation, but which we believe can be done within our international obligations. We are not the Official Opposition who wish to withdraw from those international obligations; we wish to maintain them. But I think it is fair, open and proper that we can examine legislation to tweak them.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, there is not a word of the Prime Minister’s foreword to this Statement that was not true on the day that he became Prime Minister. It is welcome that the Government have got to where they have. The Minister referred to our record; my recollection is that, every time we proposed tough things, they were opposed by the party opposite. I do not remember us ever being challenged because we were not being tough enough.

My question is this: having read through the Statement and the policy document carefully, there are a number of measures that require changes to the Immigration Rules, which is obviously secondary legislation, but there are also a number, as has just been referred to, that require amendment to primary legislation. Certainly, my sense of the Home Secretary’s demeanour is that she feels that this is a very urgent matter to deal with. Has the legislation been drafted and is it ready? When is it going to be introduced? Will it be introduced in this Session to carry over or will it have to wait until the next Session of Parliament? If the latter, it does not strike me that the Government are treating it very urgently.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I remember serving as the noble Lord’s shadow about 10 or 11 years ago, when he was the Immigration Minister and we were both Members of Parliament. I supported a number of the measures that he brought forward then, which were very difficult. We, too, will take some very difficult decisions, and I hope to take Members of both the Government’s party and opposition parties with us.

On the question of legislation, he will expect me to say this, but I am going to say it anyway: legislation will be introduced in due course. I cannot comment on legislation in the second Session yet, but legislation will be introduced in due course.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

I declare an interest, having been engaged with these matters for rather more than 20 years as the co-founder of Migration Watch, together with Professor David Coleman of Oxford University. I have read the Government’s Statement with great care. It covers a huge amount of ground, as previous questions have indicated, but it is clearly a serious attempt to deal with a matter that is a real and growing public concern. Further measures will certainly be needed, but this is at least a useful start.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support. A number of Members of the House have asked why the Government did not do this a few months ago and what the Government will do next. Life is not static. There are competing challenges at all times. We are trying to bring forward the immigration Bill and bring forward proposals here. My right honourable friend will soon be making a Statement on other aspects in the House of Commons, which I suspect I will have to repeat early next week, and there is an immigration White Paper proposal as well.

This is a journey to try to ensure that we bring order to a system that is currently failing while maintaining our international obligations, being fair to people who are escaping war, poverty and terror, and at the same time making sure that we support United Kingdom citizens in finding integration and welcome where that is required. That is an ongoing process, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s support for any measures that we bring forward.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the status quo might not be where we want, but where the Government are moving to causes me some deep concern, not least about integration and the dehumanisation of migrants and people seeking sanctuary. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention some interesting polling by HOPE not hate, which reveals that most people are not anti-migrant; they are angry that they do not have access to public services, a GP, hospitals and housing for themselves and their children. They are worried about the future and they need good schools. Does he not realise that, until we deal with these issues, people will always look for somebody else to blame, particularly the stranger in our midst?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a strong case for what I believe is the Labour Government’s intention, which is to rebuild public services and public trust in government. If he looks across the board at employment measures in the Employment Rights Bill, at housing measures in our housing proposals and at public transport measures with my noble friend here, he will see that we are trying to rebuild public services that have been hollowed out and to raise aspirations for an equal, prosperous society where everybody can contribute and reach their full potential. That is what the Government are trying to do. I take his point that people will always try to find scapegoats on issues where they feel uncomfortable that they are not having a fair crack of the whip. We need to encourage that integration and look at the social issues that my noble friend mentioned.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the Minister and the Home Secretary that this set of measures is to be welcomed, but I am afraid that it does not quite go far enough. I have one specific question for the Minister on the Statement. The Home Secretary said this in the other place:

“We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of ‘degrading treatment’”,


in Article 3 of the ECHR,

“has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous. Today we have criminals who we seek to deport, but we discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own”.

She is absolutely right to say that. She goes on to say that, in order to address this problem,

“we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 512.]

I am afraid the reality is that that sort of international method to seek amendment to the European convention will take years and years.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an objective that we have set, one that we are trying to achieve and one that the activities of the last few weeks have shown the Home Secretary to be very focused on delivering. We want to make sure that we can effect those changes. There is an appetite in certain parts of Europe to begin that dialogue and process. Perhaps I should say in conclusion that it is only a shame that the noble Lord did not do any of these things when he had the chance.