Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I particularly thank all the fathers who contributed; they made it very much an issue for fathers and brought their personal experience to it. That was very important, and I value it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, pushed and pushed on the question of the timeline. As far as I understand it, it is starting to happen and will start within the first year of a Labour Government, but there remains a question about when it will finish. Perhaps the Minister can take away that question and see whether he could bring back in a letter before Report a clearer idea of what the timeline will be and exactly what it will look like. I must say that, if the scenario that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, laid out is how it is going to be, I would find that disappointing. It would be very disappointing for many people in this Committee who have supported the raft of amendments so powerfully.

I ask that a copy of this debate is given to the Minister responsible for this review. I think it would help that Minister, whoever it is, to see just how strong the feeling is, across this Committee, that this needs looked at—in particular, from the perspective of fathers and the raw deal that they get.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, this is a human rights issue. I am more used to talking about women’s rights than men’s rights, but I hear that this is one of those issues where the two come together and the one supports the other. It is so good to see this acknowledged across the Committee in that way.

My noble friend the Minister said he hoped that we had been reassured, but I have to admit that I was not—I am sorry. There was a lot of talk about better support for working families. What I did not hear—I will read Hansard—is a clear acknowledgement that this is about a better deal for fathers, and that from that then flows a better deal for mothers, children, families and the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked a bit about the costs, but this could be good for the economy and for business, and I think that perhaps that needs to be recognised more.

I will not say any more now. I ask that my suggestion that this debate be brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for the review is taken seriously—there is nodding from the Front Bench in front of me.

I cannot speak for the body language of all my colleagues here on the Back Benches, but I think it has been a very good debate and worth having. We need to think about what we want to do on Report, and I am sure this will come back in some form then. I ask that officials give more thought to what was really motivating this debate in what is presented back to us on Report, because I am not sure that they really got it—and this is too important for it not to be got. I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I look forward to continuing the conversation across the House.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Both these amendments speak to a vision of a more compassionate, inclusive and economically resilient society, which recognises and values unpaid carers and removes the barriers that they face. I urge the Committee to support both these amendments.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 135, to which I have added my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, especially given that she spoke from lived experience, which I think is really important.

I recently attended a policy breakfast about support for working carers, sponsored by the Centre for Care, Sheffield University. The unanimous view was that the leave has to be paid to make a real difference, and that is the message received from carers themselves, gathered by Carers UK. Many, especially those on low income, many of whom as we have heard are women, simply cannot afford to take unpaid leave. In the words of the Centre for Care:

“A statutory right to unpaid carer’s leave in the context of a gender-segregated labour market with a substantial gender pay gap is likely to substantially exacerbate inequality”.


The evidence it has collected shows that we compare badly to many other countries where paid carer’s leave is now taken for granted.

As I said on Second Reading, the argument rests not simply on the social and moral case—the huge difference it would make to the lives, health and well-being of carers—but on the strong economic case. It would increase the likelihood of carers entering or remaining in the labour force, thereby supporting the Government’s aim of increasing employment and promoting economic growth. As a Government-supported task and finish group noted, supporting carers to remain in paid work represents an economic opportunity. TSB, which provides its own carer’s support scheme, is clear about the value it provides for it as an employer, and therefore is one of many organisations calling for the Bill to include provision for paid carer’s leave. It is not just big employers that are supportive: a CIPD consultation with its members found that support among SMEs was not much lower than among large employers.

The original new deal for working people promised paid carers leave. I have a different quote from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. At the Commons Third Reading of the Private Member’s Bill which introduced unpaid leave just a couple of years ago, the Front-Bench spokesperson said that

“the next Labour Government will be committed to building on this legislation and introducing a right to paid carer’s leave in our new deal for working people”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/23; col. 580.]

However, although he responded sympathetically on the issue on Report for this Bill in the Commons, the Minister could only say that, because the right to unpaid leave was enacted recently, the Government were

“reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/25; col. 952.]

I echo the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about whether my noble friend the Minister could explain this shift in attitude. I completely understand that the Government need to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we need to learn from other countries. Yet what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given the body of evidence which overwhelmingly demonstrates the case for it? Surely, we can show our commitment to unpaid carers by writing into the Bill an in-principle provision to cover the introduction of paid leave once a review of the details is completed. This would be wholly in line with the spirit of the Bill and consistent with the Government’s missions—not least their overriding pursuit of economic growth—while demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty.

The Government have demonstrated their commitment to carers, with action already taken on carer’s allowance, although its loss for thousands of carers as a result of the planned PIP cuts points in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is all the more important to use this Bill to demonstrate our commitment to carers who are desperately trying to juggle their responsibilities in the labour market and to their loved ones and our recognition of the importance of care to our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We may be talking at cross purposes. I am very happy to write with more details of the way that we plan to take foster care forward.

On paid carer’s leave, Amendment 135 would introduce a statutory entitlement for unpaid carers to receive their usual wage while taking carer’s leave. As drafted, the responsibility for covering these costs would lie with the employer. At Second Reading, and this evening, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Young of Cookham, spoke powerfully on the vital role played by unpaid carers. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley for all the work she has done on fighting for carers, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for speaking about her direct experience of caring. As my noble friend Lady Lister remarked, it is this sort of lived experience that brings so much to our House’s considerations of these matters.

I emphasise that the Government are committed to supporting those who combine work with care. However, there are not insignificant concerns with the amendment, which has not been changed since it was first brought forward in the other place. It does not give due consideration to the potentially significant costs it may place on businesses—particularly small businesses. It would create a situation of differential treatment between those taking leave to care for a family member or loved one under the Carer’s Leave Act and those taking other forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity leave. Those taking carer’s leave would be paid their normal wage, while other forms of leave are paid at a statutory rate, meaning that unpaid carers would be treated more favourably.

Although the Government do not support this amendment for these reasons, I assure noble Lords that His Majesty’s Government is fully committed to ensuring that unpaid carers can combine work with their caring responsibilities. We are reviewing the Carer’s Leave Act, which was introduced in April 2024 and gave employed carers a new right to time off work. We have heard tonight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, expressed, the depths of feeling and concern that this is done properly. We have had the baton of the Carer’s Leave Act passed over; we want to make sure that we get this right, hence the review that we are undertaking.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I quite take my noble friend’s point, but we were not saying how it should be paid; we were asking for an acknowledgement of the principle that it should be paid and leaving it up to the Government to then review the details of how it should be paid. It would be good to have at least an acknowledgement that that is where the Government are heading.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I fear I may disappoint my noble friend slightly, but it is important that, if we are going to review these things, we review them in the round, and that I do not pre-empt that review at the Dispatch Box tonight. We are considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of potential impacts on businesses.

It would be worth spending a little more time discussing the review, as several noble Lords have now asked about it. The review is under way and officials in the Department for Business and Trade have already spoken to over 70 employers, third sector organisations and charities, such as Carers UK, in the course of undertaking the report. We have held events across the UK, in Wales, England and Scotland, and this engagement will continue as the review progresses, alongside both qualitative and quantitative research.

I will answer a couple of direct questions on the review. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we will be considering international examples. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, we will be taking into account the immigration White Paper, which he so keenly observed has just been published. The review will assess the impact of unpaid carer’s leave, introduced last year, while considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave, while being mindful of any potential impacts on businesses.

To respond again to my noble friend Lady Lister, we do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review. We must allow it to run its course, to ensure that we make a considered, evidence-based decision about what further support would most benefit unpaid carers.

As time is running on, I will speak to Amendment 134. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing attention to this issue. I pay particular tribute to the work done by the charity It’s Never You, which worked with the noble Baroness on this amendment. I join her in paying tribute to Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who have so bravely and tirelessly campaigned in memory of their son, Hugh. I am so pleased that they could join us in the Committee to understand how seriously the whole House takes the issue they have raised—it gives us the opportunity to thank them again for their hard work on the issue.

This amendment would extend provisions on neonatal care leave and pay to the parents of all children up to the age of 16 who are seriously ill for an extended period of time, entitling parents to paid time off work at the rate of statutory neonatal care pay. As I have said, this is a very important issue, and I wholly acknowledge how incredibly difficult childhood illness can be for parents. Equally, I recognise the vital role played by parents and other family members who provide care in such circumstances. The importance of being able to spend time by the bedside of a loved one who is unwell cannot be overstated.

To respond directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the Government are reviewing the existing entitlement to carer’s leave, as I have already mentioned, and considering whether further changes may be helpful in supporting those who provide care to loved ones alongside work. For instance, employers are able to offer enhanced parental leave beyond the four-week limit in a year, and we encourage employers to consider doing this in unusual circumstances, such as a child becoming seriously ill. It is important that parents of disabled children are supported to return to or remain in work, if this is what they choose to do. Parents of disabled or seriously ill children may be protected from employment discrimination, by association with a disabled person, under the Equality Act 2010. These may well be more appropriate avenues through which to consider the issue.

While I am afraid that the Government cannot support the amendment at the present time, I understand that officials in the Department for Business and Trade have extended an invitation to the It’s Never You campaign to further discuss its proposals as part of the ongoing review of carer’s leave. I hope that noble Lords take that as a promissory note of how seriously we take the issue. I certainly hope that the Menai-Davises will be able to contribute their valuable perspective on this ongoing piece of work.

Amendment 144, on carers and equality action plans, would require employers to consider caring as a matter related to gender equality within any equality action plans, with reference to Clause 31 of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for drawing attention to the disproportionate impact that is felt by women when it comes to providing unpaid care, and particularly women in the workplace. This is undoubtedly a very important issue.

The provision in the Bill is designed to emphasise gender equality issues, but this amendment risks inadvertently strengthening existing assumptions about who provides care within our homes, families and society. The clause as it stands can already accommodate consideration of the needs of carers. We want to ensure that a variety of actions can be taken to support employees in a range of circumstances, so we fully expect action plans to consider those with caring responsibilities. Action plans are a vital step in supporting employers to make progress on closing the gender pay gap. Acknowledging the needs of those who provide unpaid care will no doubt play an important role in this, given that it is a significant contributing factor to the gap.

Finally, I will speak to Amendment 81, tabled by my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton. I think the whole House was moved by his words on the issue. He calls himself a vessel, but he was certainly no empty vessel—if he will excuse my rather poor pun for this time of night. The amendment would extend the scope of bereavement leave to include pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. It would apply to those who experience miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, a molar pregnancy, a medical termination or an unsuccessful attempt at IVF due to embryo-transfer loss.

The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly sad and difficult. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, it is not a disease or an illness. The Government acknowledge that there is a clear gap in support for those who suffer a pregnancy loss before 24 weeks and that there is a need for time to grieve and recover, which, as many noble Lords from around the Committee recognised, was so helpfully highlighted by the work of the Women and Equalities Committee. It would be most remiss of me now not to join my noble friend Lord Brennan and indeed other noble Lords in paying tribute to the work of the committee, and in particular of my friend and comrade Sarah Owen, who has so movingly told of her own experience and has thought about the wider piece around this important and sensitive issue. We appreciate the way in which the committee has brought this issue forward.

We fully accept the principle of bereavement leave for pregnancy loss, as raised in the amendment, and we look forward to further discussions with my noble friend and other noble Lords as the Bill continues in this House. As my noble friend Lord Brennan said, this can help bring a more compassionate and humane face to the workplace as people deal with events that, frankly, at this current point in time, carry far too much stigma, secrecy and basic misconception of the facts.

Asylum Seekers: Hotels

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I note my practical support from RAMP.

I fear that hotels, together with small boats, have become an obsession of the right, used by some to whip up hostility to asylum seekers, the dreadful results of which we saw last summer in the riots. The impression given is that asylum seekers are living a comfortable life in four-star hotels. Not so, as shown by three recent reports from the Helen Bamber Foundation and Asylum Aid, IPPR, and Women for Refugee Women. They paint a picture of “terrible living conditions”: unhygienic and dilapidated accommodation; overcrowding and lack of privacy, with enforced room sharing; very poor and inadequate food; and accommodation that is often unsuitable for children. Women, many of whom have fled gender-based violence, can be subject to various controlling practices, isolation from support networks, and degrading and voyeuristic behaviour from hotel staff. Overall, the effect is frequently exacerbation of mental health problems and re-traumatisation.

Of particular concern is the situation of children, including those wrongly assessed as adults, who are forced to share rooms with adults with no safeguards, to the detriment of their mental health. I gently remind my noble friend the Minister that he owes me a letter on this issue from when I raised it at Oral Questions in November.

I am not defending the use of hotels—far from it—but in the immediate short term they are at least preferable to even worse large sites, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, which is thankfully closed now, and to homelessness, the lot of all too many asylum seekers when they receive refugee status. The extension of the 28 days move-on period to 56 days for a trial period is thus welcome, even if it means a longer stay in a hotel—though the consensus is that this should be made permanent.

In the longer term, the current policy of moving towards dispersal to community-based accommodation in collaboration with local authorities is the answer and has Local Government Association support. It chimes with calls from many groups and the Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I urge my noble friend the Minister to read the commission’s report if he has not yet done so. Also, is he considering triggering the break clause with private providers next year?

Finally, as noted at Oral Questions last week, an immediate step that would reduce pressure on accommodation would be to allow asylum seekers to undertake paid work after six months. The chair of the Migration Advisory Committee notes that if the laudable aim of processing asylum claims within six months is met it would cease to be relevant, but otherwise there is a strong argument from both integration and public finances perspectives. The standard Home Office response—that it would act as a pull factor—was dismissed by the Institute for Government as an example of policy based on “ill-founded assumptions” rather than good evidence. I am afraid I do not find my noble friend’s argument that he made last week—that it could lead to illegal work—very persuasive, either.

A new Government provides the opportunity to develop a comprehensive and positive integration policy for asylum seekers and refugees that would make the use of hotels redundant. This should be the priority.

Asylum Support (Prescribed Period) Bill [HL]

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to make as smooth as possible the move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support for newly recognised refugees, an aim on which I am sure we can all agree.

To this end, the Bill would do simply two things. First, it would increase, from 28 to 56 days, this move-on period to give newly recognised refugees the time they need to make this transition. Having 56 days would synchronise with the period local authorities are given to work with households at risk of homelessness under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. It would also provide sufficient time for a universal credit claim to be processed, which 28 days does not.

Secondly, the Bill would require the Home Office to inform an asylum seeker when their asylum support will end at the same time as they are told the outcome of their asylum claim, and it would ensure that the eviction notice is at least as long as the overall move-on period. In other words, it would mean that all the documentation had to arrive at the same time, which it rarely does at present, and it would provide a more reasonable eviction notice period in line with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Renters’ Rights Bill. It is thus very welcome that, just over a week ago, the Home Office told local authorities that, from this week, the first clause of the Bill was in effect being implemented, but—there is always a “but”—only as an interim measure during the period of increased decision-making and the transition to e-visas, expected to last until June next year.

In view of this, and in introducing my Bill, I will do two things. First, I will explain why, as positive as this move is, the problem it addresses is long-term and systemic, and not simply a product of current policy developments, even if they have aggravated it. Secondly, I will raise some practical concerns and questions about the interim measure, many of which emerged at a meeting of the APPG on Refugees last week.

Before going any further, I thank Jon Featonby and Hayden Banks of the Refugee Council and Heather Staff of RAMP for all their help. Here I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. I also thank the myriad organisations and individuals who have been in touch, generally unsolicited, to voice their support and to offer their help. Many took part in a very helpful Zoom call last month. I have been bowled over by the strength and extent of the support I have received from around the country and by the number of organisations—refugee, homelessness, such as Crisis, and local authority—that have been calling for this change.

I first attempted to do something about this during the passage of the then Immigration Bill 2016. To be fair, since then there have been a number of attempts to make the whole process work better, and I am grateful to various members of the previous Government for their role in that. However, a promise made during the passage of that Bill to bring forward a proposal to amend the regulations, if an evaluation pilot through which assistance was provided with the transition did not solve the problems, came to nothing. Even though it has become patently clear that such assistance might be helpful, including now asylum move-on liaison officers, it does not address the issue that 28 days simply is not enough time.

I would have difficulty navigating the complexities of trying to secure a stable home, apply for UC, open a bank account and look for work all in 28 days. How on earth do we expect someone who is relatively new to the country, may have language difficulties and may have undergone trauma, to manage it? It is not long enough, even if all the processes were done properly. As was clear from our Zoom call, all too often they are not done properly, so all kinds of practical problems arise. I will detail the hurdles that a refugee can face claiming UC—identified by the UNHCR and British Red Cross—but, even if all goes smoothly, UC is not paid for five weeks. An advance payment spells hardship down the line, when it is deducted from the weekly benefit, especially given that newly recognised refugees are very unlikely to have savings to fall back on.

I note here the problem of digital exclusion—identified by the British Red Cross in particular and strongly reaffirmed at last week’s APPG meeting—as I fear that this might loom even larger with the advent of e-visas in place of biometric residence permits. Indeed, there is a general concern among refugee organisations, such as the Refugee Council, that e-visas could aggravate the difficulties of the move-on period. Can my noble friend the Minister throw some light on how they will work and what their impact will be on the move-on period? In particular, can he explain how the digitally excluded will access their UKVI account, and can he assure me that the move-on period will not commence until a UKVI account and e-visa have been accessed? My understanding is that this will not be the case, which could mean a move-on period of less than 56 days in practice. If so, would refugees at least be able to apply for UC and access housing services without the e-visa? This all underlines the importance of the Bill’s requirement that all documentation is sent together.

The impact of the inadequate move-on period on newly recognised refugees is both material and psychological. Barnardo’s has detailed the damaging effects it can have on children, and, as the BRC points out, this can include age-disputed children awaiting a local authority age assessment or challenging an assessment, while having to navigate the complexities of adult support. Two words jump out when considering the evidence of the material impact: homelessness and destitution. These are not new problems, even if they have got worse over the past year. Not only is homelessness all too frequent but destitution means that, once asylum support is withdrawn, refugees are left with no money to buy the most basic necessities, such as food, shoes or toiletries, and, as the BRC warns, they are at heightened risk of exploitation.

It does not take much imagination to grasp the psychological impact of the stress, anxiety and mental distress caused by all this, especially when taking into account that many of those affected have already suffered trauma and torture. They believe that they have reached the promised land of refugee status, but instead they are left without any support at a particularly vulnerable time. It is more like a state of purgatory. It was evidence of the despair that this caused that first alerted me to the issue a decade ago. It was highlighted recently by an email from one of the many volunteers supporting the Bill. She wrote from Derbyshire:

“Just this last week I have had to try and comfort a man who was in despair having received his good news on his leave to remain, news that had immediately left him overwhelmed by the task in front of him. To see a man in tears at what should be such good news, after knowing that he had already survived so much suffering, left me feeling sick and helpless and also ashamed at how many obstacles this country presents to those whom we offer shelter and safety”.


As well as the immediate impact on refugees, the inadequate move-on period undermines this Government’s own aspiration to ensure their integration, a point made forcefully by the Commission on the Integration of Refugees and by London Councils, as well as by individual local authorities such as Islington Council, which is unable to undertake resettlement work as a consequence. Here it is worth noting the need for more funding for local authorities if they are to provide newly recognised refugees with adequate support.

Many of the points I have made are illustrated by a case study I received from Young Roots, which it says is typical of the homeless young refugees it is supporting. Sayed is a 21 year-old who fled the war in Sudan and suffered torture en route to the UK. After two years, he was granted refugee status in August. His relief at finally realising his dreams of rebuilding his life were short-lived. Despite him immediately taking all the practical steps necessary with the help of the Young Roots youth club, his appointment with the local authority housing team to assess his needs was not until four days before he was due to be evicted. Although Sayed tried to use the time to find something himself, he was hindered by the fact that he had no income and would not receive his first UC payment for five weeks. The local authority was unable to help him within the 28-day timeframe and he ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of his asylum hotel. He was approached by drug dealers who offered him money and accommodation if he would work for them. Eventually, after 24 days of rough sleeping, he was offered a room by the local authority, in an area where he knew no one. The experience of those at Young Roots tells them that the practical and psychological effects of all this are likely to be long-lasting on someone so young and vulnerable.

At this point, I had planned to try to pre-empt the arguments that I thought my noble friend might make in defence of 28 days. Happily, I no longer need to do so. However, I will raise a number of concerns and questions about the interim measure, which I have shared in advance with him.

Although it is good that the change will take effect as the weather gets colder, it does seem rather rushed. What steps have been taken to ensure that individual local authorities and front-line staff are aware of the change and of their responsibility to provide homelessness assistance as soon as the decision letter has been received? How will the policy be communicated to voluntary sector organisations, especially those that the Home Office is not in direct contact with? Will the details be published on GOV.UK, so that they can be easily referred to?

I have to say that the process seems unnecessarily complicated—I needed a wet towel round my head to make sense of it. I suspect that newly recognised refugees could have real difficulties in knowing what it all means for them. Is there a reason why the documentation process has not been simplified so that it can all be received at the same time, as proposed in the Bill?

I have already warned that receiving e-visas later than the decision letter could, in practice, reduce the 56 days. Could my noble friend clarify whether the 56 days starts from the date of decision or does it, as now, allow for two days for the letter to be received? If the decision letter is sent to the wrong address—which happens all too frequently—will the move-on period be extended to allow for lost time?

I welcome that the evaluation will be carried out independently, but can my noble friend assure me that the Home Office will take account of the potentially negative impact of the switch to e-visas when determining the interim measure’s success? Could he explain the criteria that the interim scheme will be evaluated against—beyond the impact on homelessness—and the data on which it will be based? One point made strongly at the APPG meeting was that the evaluation should involve newly recognised refugees themselves, so that it captures the lived experience of those most affected. Will this be the case? Finally, will the findings, including the interim findings, be published, and will Parliament be able to debate them?

I still believe that there is a need for this Bill, to address what is a long-term problem, although we all realise that it is not a silver bullet. Tellingly, a survey of Local Government Association members found that extending the move-on period to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen as

“the single most effective change”

to the move-on process—a position supported by London Councils also.

Moreover, this is a policy change that does not require extra spending. According to research conducted by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the LSE, it could save money.

As my noble friend Lord Coaker said from the Front Bench in 2022, echoing the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2017, chaired by the current Home Secretary:

“The 28-day move-on period is simply not long enough to put basic arrangements in place … we should be able to do better”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1068.]


In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Best, who regrets that he is unable to speak today because of a funeral, the case “seems unanswerable”.

At our last—I trust friendly—encounter, my noble friend was warned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I and others pressing these issues have gained the reputation of being terriers, not all of whom could be here today. He generously extolled the virtues of parliamentary terriers and, in effect, gave me carte blanche to continue chewing his legs, as he put it. After nearly a decade chewing at ministerial legs on this issue, only for it to get worse despite administrative tweaks, I fervently hope that the Government will respond positively to the widespread, strong support for the Bill and that we can put an end to the misery caused by the 28-day move-on period, not just on an interim basis but permanently and enshrined in law. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of the Bill, as all but one person did. Although the Minister did not give me the Christmas present that I might have liked—I did not really expect that—he did, in a sense, accept the principles behind the Bill.

I will be brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reminded us that we are talking about accepted refugees. She also emphasised the importance of listening to those with lived experience of the move-on period. I am not sure that my noble friend the Minister said anything about that in terms of evaluation. I will read Hansard, but I may have to come back to him on that and a few other details. It is important that the evaluation is not just of a top-down, statistical type but that we listen to what people are going through.

I am not going to get into metaphors about Good King Wenceslas, but I very much agree with the question of the right to work, because it is crucial to integration. If this group had had the right to paid work, the move-on period would be less problematic than it is.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and my noble friend Lord Davies for emphasising the extent to which this is particularly experienced in London. But it is experienced not only in London. I live in the east Midlands, where I am a patron of the Nottingham Refugee Forum; I spoke very briefly about this at its recent AGM. The result was like a wildfire telegraph around the east Midlands by people working on this issue, some of whom have written to quite a few noble Lords. This is a real issue in the east Midlands as well, and more widely. It might be experienced more acutely in London but it is not just a London issue; it is much wider than that.

I cannot cover everything that was said, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked an important question, which I am not sure was answered, about whether or not somebody already in the 28 day-period is covered by this. It seems a bit unfair if one person finds that they have a much shorter period than, say, the person they have been sharing a room with. Perhaps the Minister can look at that. I must admit I had not thought of it, so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will look at that point. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for not answering her. I can give her limited reassurance, and I will write to both her and my noble friend Lady Lister on that point. I will also cover the Syria point, which I did not mention in my response because of the lack of time.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend; I realise that it was not possible for him to cover everything in his response. A follow-up letter to everyone who spoke would be very helpful.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Blower who, like many noble Lords, supported the right to work and talked about the impact on children. I am pleased that my fellow terrier the noble Lord, Lord Russell, raised the question of age assessment. I should warn noble Lords that another group of terriers will in the new year be chewing away on the question of age assessment, so they have that joy awaiting them.

I loved the point by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that a grace period is never for a limited pilot period and that a true period of grace would be permanent. I hope that will be taken back to the Home Office; even for those such as myself who do not have faith, it was a very telling point.

My noble friend Lord Davies asked about research. Will the evaluation try to find out the time that it takes to move on? I have noticed that a point that has not been made by Ministers recently, but that used to be made, is that somehow it is all the fault of the refugee because they do not move fast enough and do not get on with it. That is partly why I chose the particular case study that I did. Here was a young man who did everything he was supposed to do at once and ended up homeless, sleeping in the car park of the asylum hotel he had been in.

Moving on to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I have been reliably told that, during the period that he was Home Office Minister, there was a 302% increase in the number of refugee households in England owed either a relief or prevention duty after leaving Home Office accommodation. The noble Lord might have wanted to reflect on whether the 28-day period was working satisfactorily. I do not care who introduced it. I am very critical of a whole lot of things that my party introduced—I think it took away the right to work, but that does not make it the correct thing to have done. I am sorry that he did not reflect on that.

The noble Lord talked about costs. As I said, the research suggests that this would save money and achieve net savings. The amount is not huge, at probably £4 million to £7 million a year. The question is who bears the cost. Is it the Home Office? Is it individual vulnerable refugees? Is it local authorities? Is it the voluntary sector? It is a question of where the costs are borne; it is not an extra cost at all.

I will continue to argue, and I think noble Lords agreed, that, welcome as this interim scheme is, the assumption should be that it will be permanent. If it all goes pear-shaped then it may be that we will want to look at it again, but we need to think about how we make it legally permanent. I intend to continue to press the Bill. If the Minister wants three cheers from me, it is a question not just of the right to work but of accepting the Bill. Although he very kindly said that he would be pleased for the terriers to continue to chew at his ankles, I would much prefer not to have to chew at ministerial ankles. I want an outcome—I do not want to carry on chewing, despite the change of Government. I will leave it at that. I commend the Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Migration and Border Security

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, a report in Sunday’s Observer indicated that the quality of decision-making on asylum claims suffered significantly in the interests of speed under the previous Government, leading to an increase in appeals, nearly half of which were successful. What steps are being taken now to improve the quality of decision-making?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point on which the Government are not only reflecting but taking action. The slowness of asylum appeals, the poor quality of some decision-making and the level of appeals taking place all added to the pressures on the asylum system and therefore on accommodation, hotels and the other aspects of providing for people who had an asylum claim that was not yet finalised. We are focused on that area. We are trying to speed up asylum claims, and to ensure that we reach earlier decisions and that the quality of decision-making is improved. They are hard challenges, as she will understand, but they are certainly on the Government’s agenda.

Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I appreciate the suggestion and will take it as a representation from the noble Lord as to government policy. We are concerned with trying to reduce the use of asylum as a whole, to stop people coming and to undertake deportations where they are appropriate. On the asylum figures, 10,000 claims every month are now being taken through the system. When the noble Lord, Lord Murray, was the Minister it was 1,000 a month, so it is a massive increase in relation to asylum support. We put additional officers in to do that. We have put an additional £75 million into the border security scheme, with a brand new border command, and stopped the wasteful Rwanda programme, which has cost us £700 million to date and would have cost us billions of pounds accordingly. I will take the representation but the Government’s focus is to speed up asylum claims, stop the boats in the first place, ensure that we repatriate that money and, in answer to the noble Lord’s question, exit hotels as quickly as possible to save the taxpayer resource.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that my noble friend did not mean that he wanted to reduce asylum, because it is a legitimate—

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I did not.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Good. I am glad and wanted to put that on the record. Last week, a round table of academics and stakeholders heard of children wrongly assessed as adults being put in hotels with adults, to the detriment of their mental health. Are the Government looking at this as an issue?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that the Government have a proud role in accepting people with legitimate asylum claims. The key question, which relates to the questions from both Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, is about the speed and efficiency, and the prevention of illegal entry where there is no asylum claim. The Government will take that on board and I will certainly take away the point that my noble friend mentions. I will look at whether we have figures and facts on children being used and accommodated in that way. If she will let me, I will report back to her and place any letter in the Library of the House.

Small Boat Crossings

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord might be interested in the fact that the top five countries for migration are Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and Eritrea, and individuals come for a range of different reasons. I will bring that suggestion to the attention of my colleagues in the department who have direct responsibility for this area, who are Members of the House of Commons.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, when asked about safe routes, the Minister in the Commons yesterday said that they would not stop all the channel crossings—but all the refugee organisations argue that they would stop some of them. Following on from the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord German, can the department look more positively at the range of suggestions being made about safe routes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The department is open to suggestions generally. We have a triple-track approach of long-term prevention, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Deben; long-term issues on smashing gangs and people smugglers through conviction and arrest; and modernising and improving our asylum system so that we can deal with asylum claims properly. We are open to suggestions about other matters that may help to resolve this problem. We are not going to be blind to the fact that there are a range of potential options, and what we need to do for the sake of those people who are being exploited by people smugglers is to try to reduce this trade dramatically.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024, laid before the House on 30 April (SI 2024/573).

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Session 2023-24 (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations were introduced by the previous Government, so a take-note Motion seemed more appropriate than a regret Motion as there was no time to debate them before the election. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for meeting me to discuss them when he had hardly had time to breathe in his new role. My understanding is that the Government will look at them again as part of a wider review of detention matters, but I thought it important that we debate them now to ensure that noble Lords’ concerns are adequately addressed in the review.

Before I turn to the regulations, we would all find it helpful, I am sure, if the Minister could say more about the review when he comes to respond. In particular, what will it cover, what will be the timescale, will expert organisations be consulted and will both Houses be able to debate the outcome? This would also be helpful to the organisations that provided a joint briefing on the regulations—in particular, Medical Justice, to which I am grateful for its help. Here I should also declare my interest as a RAMP associate.

In effect, the regulations reduce the protection provided by statutory guidance to adults at risk in detention, which could increase the risk of the kinds of human rights violations uncovered in the Brook House inquiry. There are two main concerns. The first is the deletion of the key principle, introduced in 2016, that underlines the intention that fewer people with a confirmed vulnerability will be detained in fewer instances and that, where detention becomes necessary, it will be for the shortest period necessary. Of course, this concerns the wider question of the role of detention, which I assume will inform the more general review.

The second concern is about the reinstatement of the Home Office’s power to seek a second opinion from a contracted doctor on detained individuals who have already received an independent medical assessment that documents the impact and risks to their health of their continued detention. The second-opinion policy was in place from June 2022 to January 2024, when it was deemed unlawful by the High Court following a judicial review brought by Medical Justice.

Three main criticisms have been made of the policy. First, it introduces an additional delay, which could result in an unnecessary prolongation of the period of detention. Secondly, it exposes an already vulnerable person to the risk of retraumatisation. This was emphasised in a witness statement to the High Court from a clinical adviser at Medical Justice. Citing the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ general concern about how detention might trigger reminders of an original trauma, she warned of the dangers to mental health of a reassessment requiring a detainee to relive their experiences yet again.

Thirdly, the policy could have a detrimental effect on the quality of decision-making. Indeed, the UN Istanbul protocol counsels against downgrading the findings from external clinical assessments. There are good reasons why a detained person might be more willing to open up to an independent medical assessor than to one contracted by the Home Office, who might not be trusted. How are Home Office caseworkers, who lack medical knowledge, supposed to decide between any differences that there may be between an external assessment and an internal one? Adopting the lowest common denominator, where both assessors agree, is no answer. If the Home Office has concerns about any particular clinician, should it not take them up with the appropriate regulatory body, as argued in the witness statement to the High Court?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concluded that the data provided by the Home Office

“does not provide compelling evidence either way on the need for the second opinion policy”.

It therefore simply recommended close monitoring of its operation and the publication of the results. Can the Minister confirm that such monitoring is taking place and, if so, can he share any results at this stage?

Before turning to the Home Office’s justification for the new guidance, it might be helpful to put it in the context of the original official review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, conducted by Stephen Shaw, and the more recent official Brook House inquiry, chaired by Kate Eves. The Shaw review identified a systemic overreliance on detention and, in particular, that too many vulnerable people were being detained for too long and were not being protected adequately by existing safeguards. This led to the introduction in 2016 of the adults at risk statutory guidance, which aimed to improve protection for this group.

In addition to the statutory guidance, further safeguards are supposed to be provided by rules 34 and 35 of the Detention Centre Rules 2001, but the Brook House inquiry concluded that these rules were not being properly applied, so that adults at risk continued—and evidence, including the recent report of the independent Gatwick removal centre monitoring board, and new research from Medical Justice, suggests continue—not to receive the protection promised after the Shaw review.

Extraordinarily, when questioned by the Home Affairs Committee, Ms Eves said that she found it difficult

“to decipher exactly which of the 31 recommendations to Government are being accepted or rejected”.

A year on from the report, she concluded in media interviews that only one recommendation had been categorically accepted.

The lack of clarity in the previous Government’s response means they did not even get to the starting point when it comes to the monitoring of accepted recommendations, as called for by the Statutory Inquiries Committee’s recent highly critical report. Ms Eves expressed her disappointment to the HAC

“that I do not have confidence that, actually, there has been a meaningful engagement with what was really found and what the recommendations really mean”.

I hope that the new Government will look at this again, including via their review of detention, and that they will now engage meaningfully with the inquiry’s recommendations. May I ask for an assurance that this will be the case?

The Brook House inquiry and numerous other reports, including one just last week from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have detailed the injurious impact of detention, particularly on the physical and mental health of vulnerable groups. One aspect emphasised by many is the absence of any time limit. According to Ms Eves, it is a profound cause of distress, due to anxiety and uncertainty. I ask that the current review looks again at the previous Government’s rejection of her recommendation of a time limit, which echoed that of countless reviews and reports, including from the HAC when it was chaired by the current Home Secretary.

In her evidence to the HAC, Ms Eves made it clear that she considered the regulations that we are debating today constituted a move in the opposite direction from what she recommended, as they appear

“essentially to be moving towards weakening the protections for vulnerable detainee populations”.

The Home Office’s justification for the regulations, set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, is that the purpose is

“to reflect the current Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention”,

in response to the challenge of what it dubbed illegal migration, in contrast to the context and priorities of 2016, when the focus was on reducing the use of immigration detention.

Of course, the reference to the “current” Government was to the then Government and was made in the context of the Rwanda policy, which involved an expansion of detention. Happily, the Rwanda policy is no more and I believe that it is officially accepted that the seeking of asylum does not constitute illegal migration, as my noble friend in effect confirmed in Oral Questions last week.

However, regrettably, the Government have nevertheless announced that they will go ahead with the reopening of two detention centres, which has provoked widespread concern. Despite this, I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government’s priorities and approach to immigration detention are not the same as the former Government’s and that they will prioritise the human rights of asylum seekers. I hope he will confirm that they will therefore withdraw these regulations in due course, as part of the wider review of detention policy. This would be consistent with the statement about detention made by a Home Office spokesperson last week in response to the IMB’s call for the end of the detention of families with children in the Gatwick detention unit. It said:

“We are fully committed to … providing a service which prioritises people’s safety and wellbeing”.


In conclusion, I hope this debate will encourage such an outcome. In the meantime, the SLSC encouraged us to press for further details on the Home Office’s plans for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on the changes, so I look forward to hearing what monitoring is currently being undertaken.

I finish by quoting from someone who has experienced detention: Jonah, who wrote a foreword for a recent Jesuit Refugee Service report detailing continued abuses after Brook House. He wrote:

“When I arrived in detention, the first thing I observed is that everybody … is treated like a prisoner. … I was in immigration detention for 7 months. It still affects me even today. Detention is like a war camp. They really want to break you, in the hope that you’ll leave and go back to a terrible situation. You are more or less treated like an animal … you’re just a number. In detention, nobody even knew my name … The horrendous things that the Brook House Inquiry brought to light continue to happen … Detention is a terrible place”.


We can all learn from those with lived experience of detention, so I hope that the current review will do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I warn the Minister that during the previous Session the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, gained a reputation as a terrier on these issues. Actually, a number of us were badged as terriers, and she was the leader of the pack. She was very energetic in her critiques, particularly and quite successfully on the detention of pregnant women.

It is depressing to have to have this debate. When the Brook House scandal surfaced, three of us, cross-party, met the relevant Home Office Minister. I asked why the Home Office had not terminated the contract with the provider and whether the contract gave the Home Office the right to terminate in the event of such egregious behaviour. The answer was that the same individuals would be rehired whoever the provider was. This was not a matter of TUPE; it was about who would apply. I continue to have anxiety about the terms of the contracts that the Home Office lets, but, of course, commercial confidentiality means that one cannot go further than that.

We have not got the running of detention right, if there is to be detention, especially for more than a minimum period, but that is not for today either. However, this compounds the importance of guidance. I have always thought that anyone seeking asylum or who is detained, is likely to be vulnerable—this is “and” not “or”. I had forgotten that the 2016 Act refers to people who are “particularly vulnerable”. The whole of this population is vulnerable, but not all of them are protected under the legislation and the guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have answered the questions put by noble Lords. If I have not, I will reflect on Hansard in good order and respond on those issues. I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the concerns they have raised are being absorbed by me and other Ministers. The review is ongoing and will be completed. At the end of that review, we will produce a regime that will have been revised in some ways based on our assessment of the need to protect people in detention, the need to maintain detention and the need to ensure that we do so in as humane a way as possible, respecting the fact that all individuals—even those who have no right to stay in this United Kingdom—are human beings and deserve to be treated in a way that respects their integrity and individuality. We may come a decision that they ultimately do not agree with, but it will be done in a fair and open process.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I assure noble Lords that I do not plan to speak until 7.45 pm, as some people might have been expecting. I am grateful to everybody who spoke and who, in many cases, amplified what I was saying.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am not very good on the Bible but he said something about “a sinner who repenteth”. I would love to reread what the noble Lord said about pregnant women at the time, but I thank him for acknowledging that we have ended up at the right place on that; it is appreciated.

I take quite a lot of reassurance from what my noble friend has said. It sounds like this review will look at a lot of the issues we are concerned about and genuinely look again at these regulations. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, congratulated the Government on retaining them, but I hope they will retain them only for a limited period and that they will emerge from this review different from what they are now. I hope we will revert to the original situation.

A few questions were not answered. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about alternatives to detention. My noble friend said that we have to detain people sometimes—yes, but the previous Government had until quite recently taken seriously community-based alternatives to detention that the UN had been promoting. I hope that will be taken seriously as part of this review, and that the time limit will too. Some noble Lords agreed with me on that; not surprisingly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, did not, but it will keep coming back. I am grateful to my noble friend for, in a sense, giving me carte blanche to carry on chewing at his leg for as long as is necessary. The question of the time limit on detention will be one of those issues on which not only I but others will carry on chewing.

I appreciated everyone who spoke and—I hope other noble Lords did as well—the open way that my noble friend spoke about what is happening. It was worth while having this debate because there are a lot of things that we were not clear about which will now be on the record. I thank him for that. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migrants

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern said, legal migration is people who come to university, who come to create jobs and who bring skills to this country. We need that managed migration, and to ensure that illegal migration is cracked down on. That is the objective of the Government: to ensure that we have a sensible net migration target that we can control, at the same time as making sure that illegal migration and the criminal gangs that exploit people are tackled. This will be a difficult process—nobody said it is easy—but border control and border command have focused us on doing that. We will take action to ensure that we use migration for the benefit of the UK economy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Further to what my noble friend Lord Dubs said, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that asylum seekers are not illegal migrants and that the adjective “irregular” better recognises the humanity of migrants than “illegal” does?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say again to my noble friend that the Government accept that we have an international obligation to continue to examine and approve legitimate asylum claims. It is a core part of this Government’s task to make sure that we do that, but in a much quicker, more efficient and more productive way than the previous Government did over the last 14 years. We have had backlogs of asylum claims that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has now pledged to tackle. At the same time, yes, there will be people who wish to enter the United Kingdom illegally, and that is not acceptable. There are legal routes for migration and asylum that should be encouraged and adopted. Proper decisions should be taken. I cannot stand by and allow criminal gangs to exploit vulnerable people and to bring them across the channel. That is why we have established border command and will continue to focus on that as a matter of priority.

Illegal Migration Act: Northern Ireland

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we do not believe that this will induce people to go to Northern Ireland. The cohort we are detaining has been considered under existing legislation, so those who are part of that cohort can and will be removed to Rwanda. There would be no benefit to their going to Northern Ireland to avoid this removal. The NABA cohort is anyone who arrived in the UK on or after 1 January 2022 and who received a notice of intent prior to 29 June 2023, which informed them that their asylum claim may be considered inadmissible and that they may be removed to Rwanda.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, until any appeals in relation to the Northern Ireland cases are concluded, will the Minister undertake not to commence Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act, concerning age assessment, which has now been disapplied in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot make that commitment. I will come back as and when I have more to say on the subject.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That this House regrets that provisions in the Statement of changes in Immigration Rules (HC 590), laid before the House on 14 March, will initially increase the minimum income requirement for family visas from £18,600 to £29,000 without consultation or sufficient justification; will cause family separation, contrary to respect for family life, the best interests of children, and community integration; and will have a discriminatory impact; and regrets the Government’s failure to publish an impact assessment or equalities impact assessment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has produced an excoriatingly critical report of the Home Office’s handling of these regulations, which introduce what it describes as a “substantial increase” in the minimum income required—MIR—to bring a partner to the UK, from £18,600 to £29,000, with further increases to £38,700 planned by early next year. Indeed, it was so dismayed by this

“further example of the Home Office failing to provide adequate information to Parliament to allow informed scrutiny”

that it held a special evidence session with the Minister. But this did not assuage its

“doubts about the appropriateness of the Home Office’s overall approach to policymaking, which too often”

fails to proceed from

“rigorous analysis … supported by evidence”

and, where appropriate, consultation.

The committee declared “unacceptable” the failure to publish an impact assessment and equality impact assessment, even though the Explanatory Memorandum states that a full IA has been prepared. In its follow-up session with the Minister, the latter acknowledged that the situation was “regrettable” and publication was “urgent”. Yet, seven weeks later, it still has not appeared. The committee pointed out that this has implications not only for Parliament’s ability to scrutinise legislation but for the development of policy itself, saying:

“That the Home Office may still have no accurate idea of the expected impact of its policies, even after they have come into force, is alarming”.


In response to written questions from the committee, the Home Office blamed the “complexity of analysis” for the failure to publish the IA as planned and assured the committee that it was

“working at pace to ensure this is published promptly so the impact of changes can be assessed”.

That was in March. It is now well into May and we still are not in a position to assess impact.

The same goes for the EIA, yet it is obvious that the impact is likely to be indirectly discriminatory, as submissions received by the committee warned. Whether we are talking about gender, ethnicity/race, disability, age or region, any EIA worth its salt would demonstrate the unequal impact of such a high earnings threshold. The response to a petition to the Commons on 11 March said that the EIA would be published “in due course”, which smacks more of indifference than urgency.

In the Commons, the Minister for Legal Migration simply did not answer the questions about the failure to provide either an IA or EIA. Will the Minister please explain now why, despite the SLSC’s criticisms, they still have not been published? I cannot believe the analysis is that complex. If it is, surely the policy should have been paused until it was clear what its impact would be. Call me a cynic, but my suspicion is that the impacts revealed by the assessments were so damaging that it was decided it was safer to keep them under wraps.

The committee’s concerns were

“compounded by a lack of consultation … which might have helped to shed light on the real-world impact”.

It was dismissive of the Home Office’s argument that consultation

“would be disproportionate given the nature of the changes”,

and noted that advice had not even been sought from the Migration Advisory Committee. Why was advice not sought from MAC, which, in its 2020 annual report, had advised that it was now time to look again at the MIR? Perhaps the Home Office preferred not to hear its views, given that it had suggested that, hitherto, too much weight had been placed on fiscal arguments and not enough on the benefits to families and society from partner migration. I hope the Minister can give a more lucid response to the question than that offered in the Commons to my right honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms MP.

As if that was not all damning enough, the SLSC criticised the lack of any coherent overall rationale for the increase and what it is trying to achieve. According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the MIR

“is being amended as it has not been increased for over a decade and no longer reflects the … income required by a family to ensure they are self-sufficient and do not need to rely on public funds”.

Where to start? First, the point about public funds simply does not make sense, given that anyone allowed entry by this route would have no recourse to public funds for five or 10 years anyway, and the proportion for whom the condition is lifted is tiny.

Secondly, there is no real attempt to justify linking the level of the MIR to the skilled worker visa requirement if the key objective is a family’s self-sufficiency. On that basis, half of UK employees would not meet the current self-sufficiency test, and as many as seven out of 10 would not do so when the MIR is raised again next year.

Thirdly, can the Minister explain how the salary of the sponsoring partner represents a test of the contribution that the migrating partner would make to the economy and the public finances, another element of the supposed rationale, given that no account can be taken of the latter’s current or prospective earnings, even if they had a job offer in this country?

As it is, the policy is likely to cause hardship and heartbreak, even more so than it already does. Reunite Families UK reported in 2020 that the consequences

“included not just emotional impacts of separation”

from partners, and of children from parents,

“but financial, mental and physical hardship”.

The stress created by this situation often had a serious impact on both mental and physical health. One woman said she was scared of her own desperation, and another affected had attempted suicide.

In this context, the Minister’s statement in a Written Answer that

“family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense”

reads as distinctly callous and misleading, given that those seeking to bring partners here are themselves taxpayers and, by the time their partners had recourse to public funds, family life would already be well established. For the once self-styled party of the family, it would seem that only some families count. Indeed, the previous Children’s Commissioner, after the introduction of the original MIR, commented that

“the UK’s family migration Rules are among the most family-unfriendly of any of the developed countries”.

Can the Minister tell us whether the Government’s family test was applied to the MIR increase? If yes, what did it conclude, and if no, why not?

Where there are children, the state is in effect creating lone-parent families, who are more likely to have to claim social security support because of sole responsibility for looking after those children, and the abolition of the child element of the MIR does not change that. The Explanatory Memorandum advises that

“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”

continues to apply. Can the Minister explain how the welfare and best interests of children, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are promoted by splitting up their parents against their will?

In a recent study by Reunite Families UK, even on the original MIR, two-thirds said that their child received a formal diagnosis of a mental health condition. The earlier study on behalf of the former Children’s Commissioner also found children suffering distress and anxiety as a result of separation from a parent, compounded by the stresses faced by some lone-parent families. She concluded:

“If the price of the public policy is interference with children’s rights that impact on their emotional and mental well-being, sense of stability and security, and ultimately happiness and development, then the interference is disproportionate and is not in their best interests”.


The situation will be much worse now than when she wrote that warning.

The Minister’s Written Answer also stated that

“family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life”.

Will he please explain exactly what he meant? Since when is integration measured by the size of your partner’s pay packet? If anything, keeping families apart is likely to reduce integration overall. To quote from one of the submissions to the SLSC:

“The MIR makes it harder rather than easier for mixed nationality families to participate fully in society”,


given the sacrifices that they have to make to survive. It warns that

“marginalising these families fosters societal division and tension”.

The Home Office’s response to many of the criticisms has been to point to the possibility of an exceptional circumstances application, such as under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but such an application is far from straightforward and the price for the few who succeed is a 10-year path to settlement, which carries its own problems and insecurities. Moreover, the Home Office has acknowledged that it has no idea how many successful applications there might be, so we do not even know how likely the increase is to meet its own objectives.

The SLSC asked the Home Office for its response to suggestions for the mitigation of the rules, in particular through how other sources of income are treated. Its answer was simply to say that there was no flexibility and that it was “right and fair” that the rules be

“consistently applied in all cases”,

but no one is asking for inconsistency, as potentially the mitigations could apply to anybody, nor is it explained why there is inconsistency between this group and the Armed Forces and those who are called “high potential individuals”.

My Motion to Regret was partly prompted by an email I received from the mother of a young woman in a long-term relationship with an American who had recently got a new job which meant she would finally meet the MIR after six months, only for the goalposts to be moved under her feet. Not surprisingly, the family are upset and angry about what in their view is the very opposite of a fair approach, as the Home Secretary described it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot but, for now, at least means at least.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with an apology; I should have said that I too am an associate of RAMP. I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke: all more or less in favour of the Motion, apart from the Minister.

I am conscious that colleagues want to carry on with the discussion on the Bill but, frankly, I felt as if I was listening to Alice through the looking glass. Between us, we demolished the arguments that have been put forward, and the Minister simply repeated them—without convincing anybody, I think. He did not explain why the Migration Advisory Committee has not been consulted. He did not even have the courtesy to address the point I made at the end: now that there is a pause, they should now be consulted, and so should experts by experience.

I cannot believe that we were told the impact assessment will come forward. This is the scrutiny, so when are we going to scrutinise this again? What is the point of an impact assessment that comes after it has been scrutinised in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords? Will we have a chance to have another go when the impact assessment is finally published? I hope so because, otherwise, it is beyond belief.

I asked a question about the family test. Government departments are supposed to apply the family test to every policy that might affect families; this is a policy that is cutting families down the middle. Did the department apply the family test? I do not know, because the Minister did not answer the question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With respect, I did. It is all very well to lob accusations of a lack of courtesy, but I do not think that is entirely fair. I think I dealt with the House with a great deal of courtesy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Sorry, I am not saying that the Minister did not show courtesy—although he did not have the courtesy to address the soft-cop option that I offered at the end, and actually I think that was discourteous. I am sorry if I missed his answer on the family test. I will read Hansard and see what it says; if he did not answer it, I will follow it up in Written Questions.

I will leave it there because, as I said, colleagues want to carry on with the other business. Those who are affected by this, who have been listening, who will read it or who are watching will be very disappointed that the Minister was not able to answer any of the questions that we asked. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.