Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the very reasons she gives. Clause 34 is very welcome and I am very glad that the Government have put it in, but it is very narrow. There is a considerable overlap between family reunion cases and evacuees, and this is about evacuees. I would like to bring the two together, as the noble Baroness said. The top five countries from which family reunion cases come are Syria, Sudan, Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan, so we are in exactly the same territory of facilitating evacuation. It does not work very well at the moment, for the reasons that the noble Baroness spelled out.

The double journeys point is really worrying. To collect the visa, you have to go to a visa centre. In the top five countries I have listed, there are no visa centres, for obvious reasons—in most of them, there is no embassy—so you have to cross a frontier. When we are talking family reunions, more than 50% of those involved are children. Are we asking them to cross a frontier and go somewhere that could be a very long way away to get their visa? No, we are not; it is worse than that. We are asking them to go twice: once to give their biometric details and, secondly, to collect the visa—they cannot get it the first time. Could they not have the biometric details taken when they pick up the visa, when the family reunion case has been established and they are going to be let in? They would then need to make only one journey. It seems to me that this simple improvement to the process would save a lot of heartache and probably a lot of lives, in cases where it has been decided by the system that family reunion is appropriate and should be facilitated.

I support the two amendments ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I hope that the Government will go a little further and think hard about changing the procedure for the collection of the visa so that the biometric details could be given at the time the visa is picked up and thus the double journeys could be avoided.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support. I, too, am supported by RAMP, and that is in the register—that is done for Committee now. I warmly welcome Clause 34 as well, but the amendment being proposed is a very modest one, which would not be difficult for the Government to accept. The case has already been well made and I will not reiterate it, but I will give an example from the British Red Cross, which I think has made a very persuasive case to Members of the Committee. It gives the current example of Iran:

“The visa centre in Tehran has been temporarily closed since 15 July 2025. This visa centre was the base for many Afghans and Iranians to submit their family reunion applications. Now families are unable to access the centre and will need to take a dangerous journey to a neighbouring country just to submit their biometrics and have their application processed … This amendment would allow biometrics to be taken at different locations within Iran where people could travel to safely rather than crossing borders”.


Safety must be one of the criteria that we use in thinking about displaced people. It is a very modest amendment and I hope that my noble friend will be able to look kindly on it.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will say a couple of words in support of these amendments from my noble friend. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, just remarked, it is not as if these changes would be difficult to make: the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to them as simple improvements to the process. My noble friend referred to the current summit: to be honest, I have not seen the results, as I was in meetings all morning. Are there any yet? It has obviously been widely trailed that President Macron will talk about improving the reception by this country of applicants for family reunion. It would be perhaps a little ironic—well, there would be a nice coincidence of efforts—if, from this side, we are proposing simple improvements in process and we also have an ally in President Macron, who is saying, “Please simplify and streamline your family reunion efforts”. That would be a nice entente amicale.

I will make a point that I am not sure any of the other speakers have, which is made in our briefings. Families often become separated, so not only does a family together have to make possible multiple journeys but dispersed members of a family, including children, might have to make multiple trips from different locations. So you are multiplying the risks and the possibility of violence and distress. I think my noble friend referred to one in five families saying they had to resort to using smugglers to reach the visa centre. Well, surely one of the major purposes of the Bill, which we all support, is to try to put the smugglers and people traffickers out of business. Here is a government policy that is helping to give people smugglers more business—we regret it, but it is the reality—which you could avoid by the simple shortcut of making biometrics collectable other than at visa centres and not requiring at least two journeys. The thought of a lone woman or a family with children having to expose themselves to all the threats to safety that we can imagine and are told about is really unconscionable, when it really would not take a great deal of effort by the Home Office to keep people safer, streamline the process and satisfy President Macron, as well as us, all at the same time.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

The numbers speak for themselves: the removal of the deterrent has encouraged a massive increase in the number of crossings and the Government are instead proposing to legislate themselves out of the situation, while welcoming greater and greater numbers of migrants at the taxpayer’s expense. On this side of the Committee, we oppose the question that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome Clause 37 very warmly. For some of us it is the best bit of the Bill. I am really pleased, for once, to be able to unequivocally support my Front Bench and my noble friend the Minister.

My noble friend the Minister did not have the pleasure of sitting through the debates about the Rwanda Bill in this House; I do not really want to put him through it all again, because it is like a nightmare in my mind and it is quite difficult to recall everything that was said at the time. But I remind the Committee that, on a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House rejected key bits of the Bill, and it went through only because of the majority in the Commons. We had ping-pong, ping-pong, ping-pong, and eventually we had to give in. To now try to resurrect it through this clause stand part device seems a bit perverse.

I will just remind noble Lords why we were so opposed to the Rwanda Bill. First of all—I have to see whether I can read my notes here—there was the failure to meet the concerns of the Supreme Court. Saying Rwanda is safe then and for always does not make it safe. I can remember noble and learned Lords and others on the Cross Benches—one of whom may well want to speak today—saying, “We’re being asked to say that night is day and put that into legal form”. It was ridiculous. So, for the lawyers among us, it was really quite distressing that we were having to put our name to that.

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees had concerns, at the heart of which was the belief that the Act was not compatible with international refugee law—the refugee convention. There was the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the current chair is no longer in his place, but I am sure he would agree with what the previous committee said. That committee emphasised the universality of human rights, which this piece of legislation rode a cart and of horses through.

There were particular concerns around the treatment of LGBTI+ people, who would potentially not be treated well, as well as concerns about children, which was one of the main issues that I took up during the passage of the Bill. On the treatment of age-disputed children, there were fears that they would be removed to Rwanda because they had wrongly been assessed as adults, and then there was a difficult provision, if they could prove that they were children, for them to be sent back to the UK, in effect as parcels. Many of us thought that was dehumanising of children and went against children’s rights.

I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be terribly pleased to hear that we will be debating age assessment later in Committee. But it is worth pointing out at this point that just yesterday, the i newspaper published the latest analysis by the Helen Bamber Foundation of FoI data. That found that in 2024, at least 678 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were initially classed as adults but then found to be children by local authorities, and that was over half of those who were so referred. Had the Rwanda Act been in operation now, how many of those children might have been sent to Rwanda and got stuck there? That is the question that I would put. In addition, there was never a proper child rights impact assessment or anything like that.

Finally, the noble Lord talked about a deterrent. I seem to remember that, in all the paperwork we were given—it was probably an impact assessment or something—that there was a very clear reference to academic work which suggested that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect in this kind of legislation. The noble Lord also talked about us being a soft touch for illegal migrants. Please can we remember that most of those who come across on the boats, putting their lives at risk, are seeking asylum? They have an international right to do so. Please do not let us write them off as “illegal migrants”.

That is all I wanted to say. I warmly welcome that the Government have taken this step, because it is a very positive step in the name of human rights and international refugee law.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was a little unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who made an admirable speech: gallantry in a hopeless cause is always extremely impressive. I thought Owain Glyndŵr was speaking to us. I was reminded of the gallant knight in “Monty Python”, who has all his limbs struck off, but bravely says, “No, no, it’s only a flesh wound”, and fights on. It was tremendous.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also slightly abbreviated the history of the Rwanda Act in this House. It began with the Rwanda treaty, which this House recommended, on the advice of its International Agreements Committee, could not and should not be ratified until the various supervisory and legal constructs needed—and set out in the treaty itself—existed. Because they did not exist; they were to be set up. Various judges were to be appointed, courts were to be formed and supervisory monitoring procedures were to be put in place—none of that existed. This House recommended that the treaty should not be ratified.

The Bill itself had three fundamental problems for this House. First, as the noble Baroness said, there was the fundamental “Alice in Wonderland” absurdity that we can, by so voting, change facts: we can make Rwanda safe by declaring Rwanda safe. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, spoke powerfully on that subject.

Secondly, there was the problem of our international commitments. It was impossible—in the view of this House, which voted several times on it—to reconcile the Bill and the treaty with our international commitments. We were telling people, “You may never have your claim for asylum heard in this country. You may claim asylum in Rwanda. You may claim from the Rwanda Government the right to become a citizen of Rwanda. But you may never claim the right to become a citizen of the United Kingdom. We are going to send you to Rwanda, we are never going to let you come here and we are never going to hear your case”. To make that fit with the refugee convention is impossible—that is what this House determined. Keeping the Rwanda Act on the statute book would be absurd. If we mean what we say about a rules-based, legal global order, we really need to pay attention when what we are doing ourselves is clearly in breach of a central plank of the rules-based order.

That is completely different from what this Government are, as I understand it, seeking to do with offshoring the exercise. Although I do not like that—it is a very bad idea that people’s claims should be considered abroad, because it will be harder to ensure that they get appropriate legal advice and age assessment, if their asylum case heard in a foreign country—it is completely different from what we were going to do with Rwanda. With the Rwanda Act, we were not just offshoring but offloading; we were putting on the Rwanda Government the responsibility of considering the future of these people. We were saying, “It’s absolutely nothing to do with us and we refuse to touch it”. That simply will not do.

We have to applaud the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I note that his Scottish colleague was cunning enough to disappear before we came to the question of whether Clause 37 should stand part. I am a Scotsman and know that there are some battles that it is best not to fight. It is very gallant of the noble Lord to be here to make his case, but it would be absurd if he were to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower. Unlike a number of noble Lords here, I was unable to take part in the earlier iterations of debate on the Bill. I was a very strong supporter of it, but, as a member of the Government, it was not within my area of responsibility, and I was, sadly, excluded. Therefore, unlike others, I relish the opportunity to volunteer my support for it this afternoon.

Fundamentally, this argument is about whether or not you believe in the deterrent effect. As was mentioned in Tuesday’s debate, and on previous occasions, the challenge we face—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted this in the Joint Committee’s report when he was introducing his amendments earlier in the week—is the enormous number of displaced people around the world who, under the refugee convention, would potentially have a claim for asylum. The fact is that those volumes cannot all be accommodated here. The extra challenge we get from the issue of small boats crossing the channel goes directly to one’s interpretation of that convention; this was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised when she talked about people coming across the channel from France.

It is the Joint Committee’s view, but it is not a universal view and it is not my view, that the refugee convention protects people fleeing persecution who come directly to the United Kingdom. Most of these people enter the European Union on the southern borders, so they have crossed—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I will finish the point and then of course I will take the noble Baroness’s intervention. They cross a number of safe European countries before they get to their final safe EU country of France. I absolutely accept that a number of them—not all of them; some of them are economic migrants—are absolutely fleeing persecution, but they have not come directly to the UK, and therefore I do not feel that they benefit from the protection of the convention. On that point, I will take the noble Baroness’s intervention, and then I will make some progress.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. It is not simply what I say or the Joint Committee on Human Rights says; it is the UN High Commission on Refugees, which is given the responsibility of overseeing the refugee convention. It is very clear that the Rwanda Act went against that convention, and it does not accept this interpretation of what coming immediately from a safe country means.

While I am up, the noble Lord talked about all these people coming here, but what proportion of asylum seekers do we in this country take in, as opposed to other European countries? My understanding is that we are not a country that is taking more than our share.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I shall deal with those points briefly. First, I do not accept that the UN is the arbiter of what the convention means. It is our job in this House and the House of Commons to make laws and set out our immigration policies. We should not subcontract that to outside organisations that sometimes have a very eccentric view of the world, and it is not one that is supported by the British people.

This comes down to the point about numbers. I am a strong supporter of our long tradition of taking genuine asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom, but we can do that only if we retain public support for it. I say to those who oppose stronger and tougher controls on who can come here and make it clear that it is only people who follow our laws that they are in danger of forfeiting that public support and confidence. If we do not deal with this issue, at some point—and I think we are getting very close to it—the public will say, “We just don’t want anybody. We’re not interested in their circumstances. We’re not interested in what’s happened. We want to control the number of people that are coming here”. I think that would be a tragedy. I say to those who oppose tougher border controls that they are running a real risk of altering public opinion so that it does not support it.

When we get these schemes right—I referenced earlier in the week the scheme that we set up for those fleeing the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine—they have huge public support. In my part of the world, I had no complaints about the Ukraine scheme. But when people think people are taking the mickey out of us, as they do with these small boat crossings, public support is not there and is not supportive. In a democracy, we should be mindful that we have to carry the public with us.

On this issue of deterrence, I think you have to have a deterrent. My noble friend demonstrated earlier the success in Australia. It was very telling that one political party in Australia opposed the scheme, and then when it came back into government it recognised that it was necessary. Although it would be politically convenient if that happened to this Government—if, in the end, what they are proposing was a failure and they suffered some political damage from it—the bit of me that wants my country to be successful, having had some responsibility for our borders in the past, does not want that to happen. I want to get this right. If we had won the election and been able to implement the Rwanda scheme, it would have been a deterrent. It would have sent a very clear message to people that paying thousands of pounds to people smugglers to cross the channel was a fruitless endeavour. The one thing we know about the people who pay people smugglers is that they expect to get what they pay for and, if they were not able to get to the United Kingdom and stay here, they absolutely would not have carried on paying people smugglers and that business model would have collapsed.

I completely accept that it was perfectly reasonable for people to disagree with the Rwanda scheme in the way that it was set up, whether it was Rwanda or a different country, but the problem the Government have is that Clause 37 repeals our scheme and, as my noble friend said, replaces it with no alternative deterrent at all. We have just seen this afternoon what the Prime Minister has announced. Obviously, we have not seen all the detail—we have just seen the headlines—but a one-in, one-out scheme has now been announced. The problem with that is twofold.

First, as my noble friend said, I am not sure what the legal underpinning of that is. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out whether the scheme that has been announced today, in both its pilot and its full form, will require any further primary legislation to make sure it can be implemented, and if it does need primary legislation, whether it is going to be inserted into this Bill before it leaves the House. Also, I fear it will be subject to enormous legal challenge and the Government will have exactly the same problems as we had with the Rwanda scheme. It will take them ages to be able to scale it up. The final flaw is that the public want to stop the volume of people coming here and, although a one-in, one-out scheme might alter the composition of the people coming, by definition a one-in, one-out scheme will not reduce the numbers. If we can only send somebody back to France and get another person, we might change who they are, but we are not going to deal with the numbers problem at all, so for a lot of the public the scheme will be a failure by its very definition.

As I said, I strongly support what my noble friend said. I think the Government are making a terrible mistake with this clause—not from my perspective, but from their own perspective. They are going to find that, welcome though some of the measures in this Bill are that support the powers the Government have—I have already referred to some of the later clauses that strengthen the controls on those working illegally, and where the Bill has measures in it that are strengthening the system, I support them—completely removing a deterrent without putting anything in its place, not amending it but completely scrapping it, is a mistake, and I fear that the Government will come to regret it. That will not be a good thing. It might be a short-term political advantage for us, but it will not be a good thing for the country. I would rather, if they had some disagreements with the detail of the scheme, that they had reflected on that and altered it.

If there was a clause here that was making changes to the Rwanda scheme—for example, the way it was dealing with the processing, or maybe even picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about who did the processing—that would have at least been an argument that we could have entered into, and it would have been a better argument than scrapping it overnight without anything at all to replace it. I fear the Government will come to regret having done so. We will know from the robust remarks of my noble friend that we did our best to stop them making that terrible mistake. I only hope that we are not proved to be correct.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

102A: Clause 38, page 31, line 9, leave out “11” and insert “12”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add section 12 (period for which may be detained) to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is not in her place, I will move Amendment 102A and will speak to the consequential amendments, because I was planning to speak in support of this amendment.

I had assumed that the noble Baroness would be here to explain it, so I will briefly quote from briefings that some of us have received from ILPA, BID and Detention Action. The briefing says:

“Section 12 IMA, since 28 September 2023, has sought to enable the Executive to (a) decide the reasonableness of the length of all forms of immigration detention, intending to overturn an established common law principle which provides for judicial oversight over the length of detention as an important safeguard against arbitrary detention, and (b) continue to detain persons after the reason for their detention (pending examination, removal, or deportation order/decision being made within a reasonable period of time) falls away”.


I probably will not be quite as helpful to my noble friend the Minister as I was on the previous group, but I will start by welcoming the repeal of most of the Illegal Migration Act; needless to say, I do not support the other amendments in this group. However, the omission of Section 12—one of the very few sections to survive—is worrying, because I fear it may reflect an attitude towards detention that I had hoped we had seen the back of with a change in government.

We will be returning to the question of detention and the case for a time limit at a later date but, as I will probably be away then, I hope the Committee will bear with me for raising some more general points about detention. In justification, I cite the UNHCR’s observations on the Bill. It emphasises:

“Detention of asylum-seekers and refugees should be a measure of last resort and both necessary and proportionate in each individual case”.


It therefore recommends the repeal of Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act, which it fears could mean in some cases detention for periods inconsistent with standards in international refugee and human rights law. Previously, it had pointed to the policy of indefinite detention as a key point of concern. This concern has to be the greater so long as Section 12 remains on the statute book.

It has been a full decade since the inquiry into the use of immigration detention on which I served, established by the APPGs on refugees and migration, called for a 28-day time limit on detention. It argued that detention should be an absolute last resort, with a presumption in favour of community-based solutions. It is depressing that, despite countless reports, including that of the official Brook House inquiry, making the same case in the intervening 10 years, here we are again.

One of those reports was by the Home Affairs Committee in 2019, chaired by the now Home Secretary. It pointed out that the UK is the only country in Europe without a limit on the length of time someone can be held in immigration detention. Having reviewed the evidence, it concluded:

“There is a rapidly growing consensus among medical professionals, independent inspectorate bodies, people with lived experience and other key stakeholders on the urgent need for a maximum time limit”.


The committee called on the then Government to

“bring an end to indefinite immigration detention and to implement a maximum 28-day time limit with immediate effect”.

That was in 2019. Of course, nothing happened. One has to ask: what has changed the Home Secretary’s mind?

The consensus is still very much there. Indeed, the evidence of the harmful effects on health, particularly mental health, has mounted, including last year from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Moreover, as Refugee Tales, which met with some of us the other day, found during its walking inquiry into immigration detention, the damaging impacts last long after release. It notes that:

“For those with lived experience, ‘detention never leaves you’”.


A series of reports by Women for Refugee Women over the past decade have underlined the particularly damaging impact of detention generally on women, the majority of whom are survivors of rape and other forms of gender-based violence. Their most recent report warns:

“Locking up women who have already survived serious violence and abuse retraumatises them, causing profound and longlasting damage to their mental health”.


Shockingly, its latest research found that despite the Home Office banning such practices, male detention centre staff still subjected women in intimate situations to constant supervision.

For a brief period, the previous Government flirted with alternatives to detention with two pilot schemes. In an assessment of these pilots, the UNHCR wrote that:

“Alternatives to Detention provide a people centered approach to supporting asylum seekers whilst waiting for case resolution without any evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives”.


The evidence from the pilot shows significant improvement in the mental health and well-being of participants and that alternatives to detention are cheaper and offer better value for money compared with the cost of detaining asylum seekers. One would have thought that would appeal to Governments of any persuasion.

It was thus disappointing that, when we debated the guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons last October, my noble friend the Minister told us it was the new Government’s policy to “expand the detention estate”. Apropos of that, I understand that the review of that guidance is still ongoing. Can my noble friend the Minister give me an assurance that any changes it proposes will strengthen, and not weaken further, the safeguards for vulnerable people in detention?

Just about finally, returning to the question of indefinite detention, whenever I raised the issue with Ministers in the previous Government, I was met with the semantic response that detention is not indefinite because it comes to an end. We all know that, in this context, “indefinite” means without a specified end or time limit. I hope this semantic distinction did not lie behind Minister Eagle’s recent response to an Oral Question, when she stated:

“Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention”,—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 18.]


because, if there is no reasonable prospect of removal, the person has to be released. Yet in the year ending 31 March 2025, just over a third of those leaving detention had been held for 29 days or more, and as many as 533 for six months or more.

I trust that my noble friend will accept that we do apply indefinite detention, with important, limited exceptions, in this country. I hope he will acknowledge the harm that this does to those affected. Will Members of your Lordships’ House still have to be making the case for a time limit and minimal use of detention a decade on from now?

In conclusion, repeal of Section 12 of the IMA is the absolute minimum needed to even begin to meet the UNHCR’s concerns, echoed by the JCHR, which, like the UNHCR, also called for its repeal:

“to restore certainty and ensure compliance with Article 5”

of the ECHR. This point is underlined by the Bar Council, which, along with numerous other bodies, argues for repeal with reference to the rule of law and access to justice.

I hope that my noble friend will give serious thought to this, and also to the case that will be made in later amendments for a clear time limit and the development of alternatives to detention. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment. I am afraid—and she will not be surprised, I suspect—that I broadly disagree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said. Let me set out the reason why.

First, she mentioned that the Home Secretary changed her mind and wondered why that might have been. I obviously cannot get inside the Home Secretary’s mind. I suspect what has changed, between chairing the Home Affairs Committee and now, is that she is now the Home Secretary and responsible for protecting the borders and the security of the United Kingdom. Whoever holds that responsibility is sometimes confronted with reality; despite things that they might have liked to have done, they are confronted with the reality of keeping the country safe. What the Home Secretary, I suspect, will have realised is that there is a cohort of people here who she thinks should be removed, as they have no legal right to be here, and she has realised that unless you detain them, you are not able to carry out your functions of keep the country safe.

Now, I do not know whether that is the reason why—the Minister may or may not confirm it—but I suspect that the realities of office have changed her mind, for this reason. We do not detain people indefinitely. The power to detain people is in order to facilitate their removal from the country and to protect the public. The Home Secretary has to have reasonable grounds to believe that, and people are able to challenge that through the judicial process.

The noble Baroness quoted some statistics; I will quote the same statistics but the other way around. Two-thirds of people are detained for 28 days or fewer. It is true that some people are detained for a long period of time. In most of those cases, the reason for the lengthy detention is the responsibility of the individual themselves: it is because they are trying to avoid being removed from the country that they have no legal right to be in, throwing up legal challenge after legal challenge. That is the reason why they are detained. If they wish to cease being detained, they could comply with the deportation order that they have been issued by the Home Secretary, get on a plane and leave the country. It is the fact that they do not wish to comply with the law that means they are held in detention.

The Home Secretary must have a reasonable belief that she can ultimately remove them—otherwise, she would not have the legal power to detain them. If we were to have what the noble Baroness suggests, which is a fixed statutory time period of 28 days, all that would do would give a bigger incentive to people with no right to be in this country to legally challenge decisions. Unless you could get all those legal challenges heard and decided within 28 days, all those people would have to be let out of detention, and we would cease to be able to remove any of them from the country. That would include some people who are not just here illegally but a present danger to people in this country. I strongly support the ability of the Home Secretary to detain people and not to have a fixed time limit, which would simply be an incentive for those people to delay.

If the noble Baroness looks into the details of who stays here in detention for a long period of time, it is people trying to avoid having to leave the country when they have no right to be here, throwing up legal challenge after legal challenge. The alternative way of dealing with it, if you really want not to detain people, is to reduce the opportunities for them to challenge the decision, and for deportation orders to be able to be carried out swiftly. Then we would not need to detain people. I am afraid that I suspect the Home Secretary has realised that detention is necessary to protect the public and to make sure that we can enforce the necessary deportation decisions.

I understand why people do not like it, but I am afraid it is a bit naive to think that everyone who comes to this country, or who overstays their welcome and is in this country without legal authority, goes when they are asked to. You sometimes have to use the power of the state and detention, and you sometimes have to enforce their removal, because otherwise they do not go. If you do not demonstrate that you have a robust system, you will have even more people coming here because they think that, once they get here, they are never going to be removed.

One of the important reasons for having a deterrent is that, if you look at the total number of people we remove, you want to get to a position where the balance between enforced removals and those who go voluntarily is much more in favour of those who go on a voluntary basis, because it is quicker and cheaper for everybody, but that happens only if people realise they are going to have to go at some point. If people think they can get away with staying when they have no right to be here, we have to use the powers that we have at our disposal. I accept that it is not ideal, but I am afraid there are limited choices for Ministers if they want to enforce a robust immigration system. Detaining and removing people where necessary ensures you command the confidence of the public that you have a robust system. If that confidence disappears, the public will not support anybody coming here, whether legally or not. As I have said in debates on earlier clauses, that would be a tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who spoke. As I said, we will come back to the issue of detention later, and it is helpful to have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord German, in particular will take them on board when he comes to move his amendment later.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that no one is talking about people just roaming around, free to go where they like. I made the point that, in the pilots, there was no evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives. They are not just a holiday camp or something.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am sorry, but what I meant was the community frameworks about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is what I was talking about: the pilots showed that there was a very effective way, alternative to detention, that still kept people where they were supposed to be. The noble Baroness might like to read the UNHCR report about the pilots.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support. He probably explained what Section 12 is about rather more clearly than I did, so I thank him for that. My noble friend the Minister dealt with Amendments 112 and 113, so I will not refer to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked what would happen next if this amendment were successful and we removed Section 12. It would be the status quo ante—not some kind of strange situation that we have never seen before. I will not go on much longer, because I am conscious of time moving on.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I apologise for doubling up by asking a Written Question and then saying it, but when I wrote the Written Question this amendment had not been tabled. The Written Question was an alternative, and I am sorry that he has had to put up with it twice.

I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to read what my noble friend said. It is helpful to have it spelled out exactly why the Government are not repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. I suspect I still do not agree with him, but it is helpful to have those reasons. I absolutely understand, and I will not push him to deal with the points I made about indefinite detention, alternative detention and so forth, because that debate will be had at a later date; it is just that I probably will not be able to be there for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 102A withdrawn.

Migrants: Hotel Accommodation

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are getting on quite well, actually. If noble Lords will bear with me, the supported accommodation as of 31 March 2025 is 15% lower than at the end of 2024 and 42% lower than at the end of September 2023. We are moving people through supported accommodation, and we are trying to get the backlog down. We have used money saved from the wasteful Rwanda scheme to put into people examining asylum claims and processing them quickly. I note again the noble Lord’s helpful suggestion that we look at how people can work. That is a pull factor, and we should have an honest debate on that issue, but again, we keep all options on the table.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, report after report has documented what one described as the “cruel, unsafe and degrading” treatment experienced by many asylum seekers living in hotels, especially LGBTQ people, women and children. What steps are the Home Office taking to strengthen safeguarding procedures so long as hotels—usually of low quality—continue to be used to house asylum seekers?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Safeguarding is extremely important, and it is the Government’s ambition to remove all asylum seekers from hotels as soon as is practical. We have reduced the number of hotels: in fact, we have fewer hotels now, in the week of the general election anniversary, than we had last year when the Conservative Party left office. It is our ambition to further reduce that. When the Conservatives were in office, hotel costs peaked at £9 million per day. This time last year they were £8.5 million per day, and this year they are £6 million per day. That is still too high, but it is on the right, downward trajectory, and we will continue to safeguard in doing that.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare the support I receive from RAMP and start by warmly welcoming the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act and partial repeal of the Illegal Migration Act.

However, I share the disappointment expressed by many organisations—I am grateful for their briefings—that the Bill does not go further in repealing the whole of the latter and parts of the Nationality and Borders Act. The Law Society, for instance, describes the latter as

“a detrimental piece of legislation”

that will become

“the default directive in many places”.

Could my noble friend the Minister explain why the Bill leaves in place a number of provisions in both those Acts that we roundly condemned at the time?

In particular, why are we retaining Section 12 of the IMA? To quote the UN High Commissioner for Refugees it

“leaves in place a risk of arbitrary detention of asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons”.

Why are we retaining Section 59 which, in denying claims from countries deemed safe, ignores—again to quote the UNHCR—

“the requirement for an individualised assessment of an asylum claim”

thereby giving

“rise to a risk of refoulement”?

The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium warns that

“children and young people are particularly at risk”

because Section 59 denies them

“proper consideration of their vulnerabilities”.

The RMCC, with support from the British Association of Social Workers, is also critical of the retention of the age assessment provisions of the NBA and calls for their repeal. The RMCC points out that neither the National Age Assessment Board nor the development of so-called scientific age assessment methods—which, as already noted, have been widely criticised—has tackled the key problem of children being wrongly treated as adults on arrival.

I was therefore alarmed to read in the parallel immigration White Paper of plans to explore

“scientific and technological methods to ensure adults are not wrongly identified as children”.

It is worthy of Alice in “Through the Looking-Glass”. I am nevertheless grateful to my noble friend for the constructive meeting we had with members of the RMCC recently to discuss age assessment. He will not be surprised to hear that I plan to table amendments on this issue.

Some of those children wrongly identified as adults could be prosecuted under the new criminal offences contained in the Bill and end up spending months in adult prisons. Concerns have been raised more widely by a number of organisations, including the Law Society and the UNHCR, about these provisions, which in their breadth and vagueness, risk criminalising both vulnerable adults and children who are risking their lives in search of safety. This exposes the gaping hole in the Bill which, as already noted, is the absence of any provision to expand safe routes. The safe routes coalition, while recognising the need to tackle the exploitation of unsafe routes by smuggling gangs, which is the Bill’s main focus, argues that it is missing a golden opportunity to address why people are taking these dangerous journeys.

I cannot understand why the Government appear to be so deaf to the widespread calls to improve safe routes for children and others, including from the APPG for refugees, of which I am a member. Instead, the immigration White Paper includes plans that will weaken the family reunion route. The White Paper also includes proposals to double the length of time most people will need to wait before they can apply for settlement. This is not the place to argue against this damaging proposal, but it would be remiss of me not to mention it, given the large number of emails I am receiving from those already on the five-year route to remain.

In the absence of any clarification about whether the new rule will apply to those already here, the emails express acute distress, a sense of betrayal and a loss of trust in the UK’s integrity and consistency. As already asked for, can my noble friend at the very least clarify whether those people will indeed now have to work here for 10 years before being able to apply for settlement, having come here in good faith on the assumption of five years?

The welcome repeal in the Bill of Sections 31 to 35 of the IMA, which rendered refugees who enter the country by irregular means ineligible for British citizenship, has now been undermined by the administrative sleight of hand that achieves the same outcome through changes to the Nationality: Good Character Requirement guidance. Having welcomed the repeal as

“a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”,

the UNHCR expresses concern that the new guidance

“may result in breaches of Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention”,

which, it argues, is central to the convention’s “object and purpose”. It recommends that the guidance be revisited

“to ensure that it is applied in a manner consistent with the UK’s international obligations”.

The Law Society echoed the Article 31 point and noted that

“this is a significant change in policy which has been made with no consultation and therefore no scrutiny”.

In conclusion, although I repeat my welcome for the repeal of many of the damaging provisions made by the previous Government, I wish I could welcome this Bill unequivocally. As the daughter of a refugee immigrant, I welcome the fact that I live on an island not of strangers but of diverse groups who have enriched our lives. We have a responsibility to them, and to those who seek to come to our country in future, to ensure that we build a fair and inclusive immigration and asylum/refugee system.

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.