Asylum and Immigration: Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether a child’s rights impact assessment was conducted on the proposals affecting children in (1) Restoring Order and Control (CP1418), published on 17 November 2025, and (2) A Fairer Pathway to Settlement (CP1448), published on 20 November 2025.

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

Policy development is ongoing for reforms across the across the asylum and immigration system. Child impact assessments will be conducted throughout the policy development process to consider the impact of the reforms on children, in accordance with Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, that is encouraging, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expects child rights impact assessments to be integral to policy-making from the outset. Deep concern about the likely impact of these proposals on children’s well-being and security and on child poverty have been expressed by, for instance, the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium, Barnardo’s and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Can my noble friend therefore give us an assurance that a child rights impact assessment will be not just conducted but published without further delay and that the principle he recently enunciated so well in this House will guide final decision-making: namely, that it is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend the assurance that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies to ensure that we look at the safeguarding, welfare and best interests of the child. My noble friend will know that the proposals about which she has raised questions are subject to consultation up to 12 February. She will also know that I have suggested to her that we meet to discuss those issues outside the Chamber. I look forward to both her response to the consultation and her representations at any meeting we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think that even the Opposition would agree that another party is welcome to Suella Braverman, in the current context. I have never shared the analysis or the objectives of the previous Government, or the previous Home Secretaries, on how we deal with illegal migration and the serious issues of managing our borders. We have just put through an immigration and asylum Act, which has set up a border command. We have agreed deals with France that are making some difference; we have agreed deals with Germany; and we are looking upstream with Iraq and other countries. We are working internationally. That is all in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government, who basically let this thing happen without any intervention, and those who now stand up and say they have the solutions are the ones who caused the problems.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take my noble friend back to the question of child poverty? I very much appreciate his answers. Migrant children are disproportionately at the risk of child poverty. I am a great supporter of the Government’s child poverty strategy, but that will not help those children, largely because it is not easing the no recourse to public funds rule. There is a widespread consensus that these proposals, including some that I do not think will be consulted on, will make it worse. Could the noble Lord take that question of no recourse to public funds back to the Home Office, so it can take another look?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to my noble friend that there is a consultation. I will meet with my noble friend to discuss that, with Peers from the Government side who have made representations to me. We will listen to those representations. Ultimately, though, the Government have to act on these issues and when the consultation closes we will assess those responses accordingly.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, basic discretion, without stronger guidance and safeguards around how it should be applied, may lead to children being sanctioned. It will needlessly segregate refugees and British citizens, in the end damaging community cohesion. Stating how discretion should be exercised does not nullify the discretionary element of the guidance. Therefore, I implore the Government to commit to look again at the guidance for what I argue are minimal safeguards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to express my strong support for everything that the right reverend Prelate said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in Committee, but I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated that

“it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers”.

One way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the right reverend Prelate’s request that the guidance spell out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry if that were to contravene our international obligations, particularly under the refugee convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry.

Leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity, despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside their control. Indeed, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds, based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRCBC also contests what my noble friend said in Committee about the guidance providing flexibility; in its experience, the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the right reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations under international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised on sentencing policy, children are not mini-adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when, subsequently, they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.

I wish we could strike out completely this unjust and, as the right reverend Prelate called it, immoral rule, which will, as we have heard, impede refugee integration. The amendment would, at the very least, erect some guardrails around the rule’s implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Her arguments need to be listened to.

Archbishop Robert Runcie defined a saint as a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We all have a dark side to ourselves. If we talk about good character, it may appear in a person’s life only when they have moved away from all the bad stuff that was hanging around them. We carry within ourselves both a sainthood and some not so good characteristics—that is why Archbishop Robert Runcie’s definition of a saint was right.

When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to study theology and my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months that I was going in and out to see doctors. Eventually, they said that I must have lost a lot of blood through internal bleeding, from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers. I was very angry—extremely angry—that I should be subjected to such terrible things. Of course, that was all bottled up, but I was very angry. Had someone said to me at the time, “We want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen”, I would still have been extremely angry in those interviews.

It was not until one night, when I remembered my mother saying, “John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you”. Friends, noble Lords, noble Baronesses, this whole question of good character can be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly when they come as children. We all have the grace and ability to grow out of some of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a very rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we go through the gate of death.

I find it strange that this country—that I have grown to love, that always shows give and take, that always has this magnanimity of meeting people halfway—would, I am beginning to understand, now use good character as a ground for someone being accepted as a citizen. How do you know that at the time you receive them? They could go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad. Legislation based on good character as a way of allowing someone to be a citizen has probably not understood that we are on a scale of learning, of growing, of finding ourselves in the future. Even when we die, there will still be lots of stuff that we have not dealt with.

May I plead that when the guidance comes, particularly on dealing with people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than the harshness which I sometimes hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgmental, more unloving, more uncaring. The legislature should be the guardian against such attitudes and behaviour. I support the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

37: After Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
“Prescribed period for newly recognised refugees(1) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704), for “28” substitute “56”.(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act, but the Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Asylum Support Regulations to increase the period following a positive asylum decision during which a newly recognised refugee is eligible for financial and accommodation support from the Home Office from 28 to 56 days. It allows the Secretary of State to set a different period, as long as it is more than 56 days.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names and to the Refugee Council. I also declare, and am grateful for, help received from RAMP as an associate.

The proposed new clause would ensure that newly recognised refugees have at least 56 days to move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support—commonly called the move-on period. I have tabled the amendment because, having introduced a pilot in December last year to extend the move-on period from 28 to 56 days to great acclaim, the Government, with minimal warning, reverted to 28 days in September for most childless adults of working age. Yet the pilot, together with the independent evaluation of it, had only recently been extended from its original end date in June. The Home Affairs Select Committee spoke for many when it recently said that it found the decision “extremely disappointing”.

I and other noble Lords made the case for the extension to 56 days in the debates on my Private Member’s Bill on the subject, because 28 days is simply not long enough to sort out the practicalities involved in the move from asylum support. The result is all too often homelessness and destitution, with devastating psychological effects. What should be a time of joy turns into a nightmare. Young people in particular, according to Young Roots,

“are thrown into crisis in which they may be unsafe and at risk of harm”,

just when they hope

“to get on with rebuilding their lives”.

We are talking not just about those officially considered vulnerable groups who will continue with the 56-day period, because all those affected are potentially vulnerable, as the Boaz Trust has shown.

In Committee on the PMB, I presented evidence from a range of NGOs on how well the pilot was working. In the words of NACCOM, the UK-wide No Accommodation Network, the extension to 56 days had

“proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”.

Similarly, London Councils called it a “vital support” and pointed to a number of positive effects. In a recent letter to the Minister, it states that

“extensive evidence shared by partners … shows that this was a successful policy initiative in reducing risks of rough sleeping and leading to better and more joined up responses across the system”.

British Red Cross reports similar findings from a range of local authorities. This is not surprising, given that an earlier LGA survey found that the extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen by its members as the single most effective change that could be made to the move-on period.

It is also not surprising, therefore, that the response to the reversion to 28 days for most refugees has been overwhelmingly negative. London Councils warns that it

“will put the progress that we have made so far at risk”,

and that it is particularly concerning as we approach the winter period. In a letter to the relevant Secretaries of State on behalf of more than 60 organisations, Homeless Link and NACCOM made it clear that they believed the change to be harmful, fearing that it would

“increase homelessness and rough sleeping, cause individual harm, put pressure on local statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and undermine the government’s commitment to ending homelessness through a cross-departmental strategy”.

The letter continued:

“The emerging evidence we have, including testimony from our respective member organisations and from a survey NACCOM conducted of its members, indicates that the 56-day pilot has helped reduce rates of homelessness and enabled more people to successfully move on from Home Office accommodation and begin to integrate and participate in their communities”.


Surely, this is exactly what the Government want to happen. Young Roots, which very kindly sent me evidence about the impact of the change, reports that:

“56 days works. It was very clear during the 56-day pilot that the longer move-on period was beneficial for everyone”.


Its front-line staff report that it helped with claiming universal credit, opening a bank account and finding accommodation. Importantly, its safeguarding data showed a 50% reduction in safeguarding incidents during the six months of the pilot. Previously, the most common reason for a safeguarding incident raised was homelessness.

Young refugees themselves are clear that they cannot manage the transition in 28 days. One said:

“28 days are not enough to apply for universal credit and open a bank account, so we need at least 56 days”.


Caseworkers have commented how the young people have been calmer, as

“there isn’t such a sense of desperation”,

and that a longer move-on period has helped them to

“begin planning their futures with greater stability and dignity”.

The longer move-on period may not be a silver bullet, but it has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect. I appreciate the pressure to reduce the use of asylum hotels, but it should not be vulnerable refugees who have to pay the price.

When questioned on “Panorama” about why the unexpected change, Minister Norris answered that

“artificially inflating the period that someone stays in a hotel is not doing them a favour”,

and that it is in a refugee’s interest for the period to be as short as possible. Is it in their interest to be turfed out on to the streets and made destitute? I think not. There is nothing artificial about increasing the period to that already operative in homelessness legislation. If anything, it was the original 28 days that was artificial, or “arbitrary”, to use the word used by the Home Secretary, who said something very similar earlier in answer to an Oral Question. This is worrying, as it suggests that the new team in the Home Office is simply out of touch with the evidence, yet surely this Government believe in evidence-based policy-making.

Young Roots tells us that,

“since the pilot was suddenly ended, we are already seeing the devastating impact on young refugees”,

with a

“50 per cent increase in the number of young people experiencing street homelessness”.

Referrals to supported accommodation are being rejected because they do not yet have the necessary universal credit documentation. The organisation is really worried about the health and well-being of young refugees as winter approaches. Similarly, Islington Council reports that

“far more people have been referred to our local Crisis homeless shelter”

and more are sleeping rough. It argues that,

“this is a clear indication that the shortening of the move-on period has shunted costs from central on to local government and the voluntary sector”,

as well as, as I have already said, on to refugees themselves.

In response to a topical Oral Question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, my noble friend the Minister repeatedly talked about “tweaking” rather than ending the pilot, but I hope he will accept that what he calls tweaking is causing real harm. My noble friend also responded more than once that “the vast majority” of newly recognised refugees are not affected, but given that we are constantly being told that most are single young men, and that in a Written Answer the Home Office was not able to provide data on the proportion of newly recognised refugees who are exempt, I cannot see how he can say that.

In conclusion, in a helpful letter to me, my noble friend the Minister said that the outcomes of the evaluation of the pilot

“will be used to inform longer term policy proposals”.

With winter approaching, I make a plea on behalf of organisations on the ground and the refugees they work with, as well as local authorities, to revert to 56 days immediately. At the very least, will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the evaluation reflects the positive evidence I have received of the pilot’s impact, the Government will, in the name of evidence-based policy-making, make the pilot permanent for all newly recognised refugees? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend Lady Lister can give us the breathing space to try to deal with this issue. She may be unhappy, and I accept that, but I hope she can give us breathing space. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German, is helpful, but we are trying to deal with this, and I would not wish to start a rush to Nightingale centres when we can continue our good work to reduce that backlog. For both those reasons, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken.

The formal position of the Opposition was on the grounds of disincentivising. How many of those who are willing to risk their lives coming over the channel even know about such a thing as a move-on period, and how many are aware how many days they get? I am sorry but it is just a ridiculous argument, and I do not accept it. Anyway, it does not really matter.

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr, for their support. I note that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a question that was not answered about what consultation there was with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days. I am pretty sure that the answer was none, so perhaps I can answer that on behalf of my noble friend. They were taken by surprise; they were given very little warning. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly emphasised the question of integration and how we are undermining the integration of newly recognised refugees.

I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s response. In some ways, I would just like to quote back to him. He said, “The pilot needs to run its course”. Yes, exactly—that is our case. The pilot should have run its course before reverting to 28 days for some of those who are part of the pilot. I understand the pressures that are being placed on the Government in terms of accommodation, but there is a pilot and an evaluation, and in the name of evidence-based policy-making that should have been allowed to, as he said, run its course. I will also quote back at him the concept of breathing space. To be honest, I am a bit more concerned about the breathing space we give to newly recognised refugees to be able to get their lives in order—which needs 56 days at least, not 28—than about the breathing space the Government have. But the Government have their breathing space.

I did not expect the Government to accept this amendment. I tabled it only because of the reversion. If the pilot was running its course, I would have been very happy to wait and see what the outcome was. My Private Member’s Bill is currently suspended, waiting for that.

I asked for, and realise I probably will not get, an assurance about the independent evaluation, which is a very good one, as my noble friend said, including voices of lived experience and so forth. I have a lot of faith in the evaluation but find it difficult to believe it is not going to show what all the various organisations have said to me: that the 56-day period, as I said, is not a silver bullet and does not solve all the problems but eases a lot of the problems faced by refugees, local authorities and voluntary organisations. I hope that underlying what my noble friend said is an acceptance that, if the evaluation shows that, the Government will accept 56 days in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments on the right of asylum seekers to work, and in particular Amendment 45, which makes the eminently reasonable proposal for there to be opportunities to review the evidence, if necessary year on year, on the impact of the current policy and the case for an alternative approach. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, there is enormously wide support for this proposal from employers, trade unions and local authorities, which have to deal with the consequences of the current policy.

Asylum seekers, who wait many months and sometimes years for their application to be determined, want the dignity of work and the opportunity to provide for their families and to visibly make their contribution to their communities—and, yes, to use their skills in the health service and in so many other areas too—rather than being stigmatised as a drain on public resources. It would be good for them and for their integration in the community—and it would be good for the Exchequer too, given the tax revenues they would contribute in place of the benefits they would otherwise be reliant on. It would also be bad for the informal, exploitative part of the labour market to which they might otherwise feel the need to turn.

My noble friend the Minister may, I suspect, make reference to the argument about a pull factor, but there is deeply contested evidence on whether the opportunity to work is really a key motivating factor for those making the desperate decision to cross illegally into our country. Let us have a real opportunity to look at that evidence—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can indicate a recognition of the value that that might be able to contribute in determining our future policy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.

I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.

Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

I rise with great diffidence—and apologise to noble Lords—because I have not spoken on this Bill, and I did not speak at Second Reading. This issue seems to me to be relatively simple. We in the Conservative Party had a rather odd ambition during the previous Government to stop the boats. It was an odd ambition because we had no method of doing it. However, this is something—and I pay such tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—that would help reduce the number of children coming across on those boats. It is something we really ought to do. Let us do it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to express briefly my support for my noble friend Lord Dubs. He talked about this being a question of morality. He talked about the importance of hope. At a time when among the wider public there is distrust of politics, to do something that is right would chime with them. They would look to this House to do the right thing. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about the children she saw in Calais. This is a safeguarding issue. We are constantly being told about the importance of safeguarding children in the context of other amendments, so surely we can support this amendment in the best interests of children following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, for the first time, I will be voting against my Government and in support of my noble friend.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I too, like my noble colleague, have not intervened on this Bill until now, but I feel compelled to, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If anybody has a right to speak on this issue, he has. If we have a duty to listen to anyone on this issue, our duty is to listen to him. A Labour Party activist, a trade unionist in my village, used to have a saying that anything that is morally right cannot be politically wrong. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is morally right, and we should support it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to take part on this Bill at an earlier stage. The second amendment in this group, Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, addresses the issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers who may or may not be under 18, and we continue to support these amendments. My Amendment 27 deals with a more specific part of the age-assessment process. It seeks to introduce an immediate mandatory referral for a Merton-compliant, social work-led age assessment before any criminal proceedings can be taken against the individual. I thank the Home Office for issuing its paper on abbreviated age assessments earlier in the year, which clarifies its position on this sensitive issue of issuing criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker who says they are under 18, but who officials believe to be over 18. From these Benches, while it is a helpful clarification, it does not change the core position that this amendment wishes to remedy.

At the heart of the government note is an abbreviated and expedited process now led by National Age Assessment Board—NAAB—social workers. We still argue that this process needs to be carried out by local authorities and not by NAAB, because NAAB is answerable to the Home Office and, of course, to its Ministers. Any age-assessment process must be independent of the Government and their staff, who have often already decided that the individual is probably over 18. I therefore have some questions for the Minister.

The considerably shorter abbreviated age-assessment process has turned the premise of how old an individual is into trying to determine that somebody could be under 18, as opposed to establishing their actual age under the Merton-compliant system; whereas the full assessment uses age ranges in much more depth. In January 2022, the Kent intake unit tried an abbreviated process with an investigation half way between a full age assessment and a brief inquiry, which was found to be unlawful in the courts. Can the Minister say how the abbreviated system will be different from the previous Kent intake unit case? Can the Minister also confirm that, if someone is in a hotel saying that they are a child, then they are potentially a child in need in that area, and therefore the local authority needs to respond, given that the case law makes it abundantly clear that it has to take a view that is independent from the Home Office? It would be a miscarriage of justice if the Home Office tells local authorities, who think they are children, that they are not children. That must remain the role of local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will still play this key independent role?

This amendment is laid because concerns continue that the National Age Assessment Board uses a hostile approach to the age-assessment process. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has investigated the experiences of children who have been assessed by the NAAB and found that it:

“Operates according to the Home Office’s political agenda, which is felt by the children being assessed … Carries out assessments that do not follow established age assessment guidance, and therefore make it difficult for children to engage meaningfully in the process … Causes distress, retraumatisation, mental health crisis, and ongoing trust issues for children”.


One young person said to the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit:

“From the first time, you feel that they are against you. This is their intention, to end with the report that you are an adult”.


This is not a safe human rights approach to making a decision about whether a young person and child could be deemed to be over 18, then treating them as such, without the safeguarding protections afforded to under-18s in our court system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 57, in my name and those of other noble Lords, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium for all its help and to my noble friend Lady Longfield, who cannot be in her place but who has written to my noble friend the Minister in support of the amendment, drawing on her experience as a former Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for finding the time the other week to discuss some of this with some of us. I should make clear my support for Amendment 27 and everything that has been said so far.

This amendment is focused on the age of assessment of children at the border. It would create safeguards for asylum-seeking children whose age is in dispute and would set limits on the use of scientific or technological age-estimation methods, which I believe the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, will cover. It would also provide for an annual report to Parliament.

To recap the case very briefly, as we have heard, the Home Office continues to assess incorrectly as adults a significant number of asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK based on a quick visual assessment of their appearance and demeanour. This has serious consequences—some have already been outlined—which include significant safeguarding risks when children are placed in accommodation with adults without appropriate safeguards, including the oversight of child protection professionals.

Concern has been expressed about this by the Children’s Commissioner, Ofsted, the British Association of Social Workers and, just last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which called it a “serious safeguarding issue”. Yet the Home Office appears to be more concerned about the potential risk of an adult masquerading as a child being housed with children even though child protection professionals will be present in those circumstances.

The Select Committee made it clear that it did not share the Home Office director-general of customer services’ confidence in the current system. In his recent inspection report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration highlighted that over a decade of concerns around the Home Office’s “perfunctory” visual age assessments remain unaddressed, and that questions about policy and practice “remain unanswered”. He noted that

“inspectors were surprised at the lack of curiosity from individual officers and corporately about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and at the view that there was no learning to take from the later assessments”

made by local authority social workers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations and that they are working to improve the data, which have been woefully poor hitherto.

I simply draw attention now to what the chief inspector described as his “overall message”, namely that the Home Office

“should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders”,

among which he included NGOs,

“as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes”.

Thus, his first recommendation was that the Home Office should:

“Produce a stakeholder map and engagement plan that takes full account of the practical and presentational value of involving external stakeholders”,


including non-governmental organisations,

“in the development and delivery of relevant policies and best practice, including but not limited to input into and implementation of each of”

each of his other recommendations.

How does my noble friend plan to respond in practice to this recommendation? Will he agree to the establishment of a task and finish group that includes NGOs, notably members of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, to work with officials on taking forward the chief inspector’s recommendations? I understand that such collaboration has existed in the past but was ended about 10 years ago, so it would not be setting a precedent. I know it would be warmly welcomed by stakeholders, especially if provision were made to hear from those with direct experience of age disputes. The proposal was also supported by my noble friend Lady Longfield in her letter to the Minister.

I have made it clear to my noble friend the Minister that I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote. However, I will be very disappointed if he is not able to agree to this very modest proposal, which does no more than embody the spirit of what the chief inspector has recommended.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for very long on this, I hope. I also hope that the Minister does not feel that this is becoming a pattern—I am largely on the same side as him on this issue—and that I can bring a little bit of balance to the debate. Both noble Baronesses have mentioned the chief inspector. I looked carefully at his very balanced report. There are points on both sides. It is worth putting some of them on the record that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not.

The chief inspector made the point that accurately assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult. It has always been very difficult. It was difficult when I was the Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014. The same debates that take place now took place then. It remains difficult. One of the reasons it is difficult is because there is an incentive in the system because, rightly, we treat children differently from and more generously than we treat adults. If you are not careful, adults game the system and say that they are children when they are not. That is a problem: first, because you are putting adults in an environment with children, which does present a child protection risk; and, secondly, it enables adults who have entered the country illegally and inappropriately to try to avoid the consequences of their actions. That brings the system into disrepute, which is not good for anyone.

The inspector makes the point that the Home Office gets some of its initial age decisions wrong and that it would be helpful if both sides accepted that. That is a point for the Minister to recognise: it is difficult and the Home Office does not always get it right. Importantly, he also said that the debate would be better if the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age and that not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment—which both noble Baronesses have criticised—risks incentivising more to do so. There is a balance to strike here.

I am pleased that these two amendments will not be pressed to a vote because I would not be able to support them. Amendment 27 seeks to put a bright-line rule in place which will strengthen the incentive for anybody to claim that they are a child because it would mean that they went automatically into the process and were treated as a child until it had been shown that they were not a child. That would make the Home Office’s job, on behalf of us all, to have a functioning immigration system even more difficult.

My concern about Amendment 57, given today’s fourth Oral Question and the pace of technology, is that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause does not specify how we should use technological methods of age estimation, including facial age estimation, saying that they must not

“be used as the sole or primary basis for determining age, or … override the presumption”

that someone is a child.

My problem is that the pace of that technology is such that I do not think we should be ruling out its use as the determining fact in statute. My understanding—I am sure there are AI experts in the House who can correct me if I am wrong—is that this technology can get somebody’s age within a few years of the true age. I accept that that is quite important when a person is on the boundary between being a child or an adult, but the point is that that is pretty accurate and who knows where that technology will have gone in a few years? If we had a very accurate method, perhaps with other things, of determining somebody’s age, I would not want there to be something in primary legislation which ruled that out, given all the complexities around that.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to the debate, who have all made extremely valid points probing the Government’s position. But, ultimately, age assessment is a difficult issue. We have safeguarding challenges in getting that wrong and, therefore, we think that the proposals as currently outlined are satisfactory and that both Amendments 57 and 27 would water down the legislation and create certain further difficulties on these issues. But I say to all Members who have spoken in the debate that the Government keep this matter under review; we will look at facial recognition and will report back, and we will have further statistics on these issues in due course—and the Government’s intention is to try to ensure that the information we get is as accurate as possible to ensure that we place individuals in the appropriate category for safeguarding and other issues.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked a specific question about how the Government propose to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendation about involving stakeholders. At the meeting that the Minister has forgotten I was at, I asked about a task and finish group that would involve particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the issues. I said I would be very disappointed if my noble friend refused that, but I am even more disappointed that he has not even addressed it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I did address that. I said at the very beginning of my statement that the Government have accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I have met my noble friend, I think, three times in various meetings in the last couple of weeks; in that meeting I gave her an assurance, and I give her that assurance again, which I hope will satisfy her.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am really sorry to push this, but I was asking how that recommendation is going to be implemented. If the Minister is giving me an assurance that NGOs will be included in the discussions as to how all the recommendations of the chief inspectors should be implemented, I am very happy—but I am not sure that is exactly what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me say it again and see whether I can help my noble friend: the Government have accepted all eight recommendations. That is clear. We have accepted all the recommendations from the borders inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders—voluntary agencies are key stakeholders, and I met them again last week to discuss this very matter—to progress the recommendations. How that pans out will be for my honourable friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, to take forward, but I give this House the assurance that that is the level of engagement that we are trying to have. On that basis, I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend and that she will not press her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw hers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. What I have to say is almost redundant, but I will still emphasise a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, admirably highlighted why the current system needs fixing and the rationale for it. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has given some practical advice on how we could speed up the process. If the amendment were accepted, it would improve the efficacy of the system and access to justice and, in the long run, as we have heard, save money.

It is worth emphasising that this amendment does not seek to extend the scope of the current provision of legal aid; it merely seeks to improve its effectiveness and access. As we have heard, in the light of the UK-France deal, the shortcomings of the scheme are even more evident, because those detained under this deal are facing greater risk of not having legal representation before they are removed. Experience shows that in substantial cases there have been delays of more than seven days in accessing DDAS, thus depriving people of opportunities to receive legal aid. We are very grateful to charities working in this area for providing examples; they have shown the inadequacies of the current system and drawn attention to the delays and the inability of individuals to get timely and proper assistance.

The failures of the scheme are not new; they were evident well before the UK-France deal and were highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2022, during his inspection of the Brook House immigration removal centre. The benefits of this amendment are self-evident, and I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment and some very critical advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on how to improve the process and organisation of the scheme.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment. In July I visited Harmondsworth IRC as a member of the APPG on detention. One lesson I learned from that was about the poor quality of legal advice and access to it. I heard from talking to some of the men who were detained and NGOs working there that the failure to provide decent legal advice for the detainees is a systemic issue that needs addressing urgently.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this was Pro Bono Week. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that he has fulfilled his job for this House. I am sure that the Minister will be very grateful for the advice that he has given pro bono and I hope that, if he asks for more, the noble Lord will be willing to give it.

I have learned two things from what has been said so far in this debate. First, we have a crisis of legal aid. No one who has spoken has said that it is all fine and dandy. Secondly, what is available is not working well.

On the first of those, a survey by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 42% of people held in IRCs had a lawyer in their immigration case in 2025. That is a steep decline, down from 75% in 2012—some years ago. For those detained in prison, 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under the scheme. The second concern raised is of course about what is provided; that is the 30 minutes, often considered to be of doubtful quality and insufficient. As professionals have argued, immigration law is highly complex: those of us who are working on the Bill will understand that this is a very highly complex area of work. It is unrealistic to believe that a detained person, who may be traumatised, speak little English or have just arrived, can navigate this complex labyrinth of law on their own and without professional assistance.

The amendment is necessary not merely on humanitarian grounds but to protect the integrity of the rule of law itself—first, access to justice, and secondly, practical effectiveness. I do not want to repeat the points about cost, which are obviously going to come up in the response, but it would save taxpayers’ money: invest to save early. That is quite clear from everything that has been said so far. We must be clear also that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 6 of the European convention, so this amendment offers a practical and necessary solution to a systemic failure. It mirrors existing successful arrangements, such as the immigration police station advice scheme, which is used when detained persons are found to have no criminal element in their case. It would simply ensure that an immigration lawyer is allocated to an individual upon entering detention, providing a necessary check against unlawful incarceration and ensuring fair process.

I end with a quote that was given by one of the organisations working in this field:

“Ensuring prompt legal counsel for detained persons is not merely a gesture of goodwill; it is the necessary foundation for a fair judicial process. A system that incarcerates first and allows access to justice later is like starting a race 48 hours behind the starting gun—the individual is severely disadvantaged before they even begin to fight for their rights”.

Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on child poverty of the application of the no recourse to public funds policy to migrant families with children and the implications of this for the forthcoming child poverty strategy.

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

The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the Child Poverty Taskforce will publish its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. The Home Office has agreed that children whose families have no recourse to public funds will be included in the scope of the Government’s child poverty strategy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s response is most welcome. Because of this rule, hundreds of thousands of children, including some British children, are at a disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty, to the detriment of their mental health and development. The former Work and Pensions Committee, under Sir Stephen Timms, stated that the deprivation they suffer

“should not be allowed to dominate any childhood”.

Does my noble friend therefore accept that an inclusive and effective child poverty strategy must embrace concrete measures to help this group, including through child benefit and childcare support and by limiting the number of children subject to the no-recourse rule?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I gave her a very strong answer in my first Answer, which I hope met the objectives that she has set. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Poverty scars the lives and life chances of all our children, whatever background they are from. Currently, the no recourse to public funds referral that children can access allows access to free school meals, funding for school support and development, early years entitlement, support for children with special educational needs and local authority grants. It is quite right that, in all those circumstances, that drive is there to ensure that we tackle the challenge of poverty in the United Kingdom today as a whole. My noble friend will know that the review is due shortly. When that review is published, there will be further information on how to approach this issue.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage & Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I have read the debate and listened to the speeches in support of the amendment—of course. As a member of the noble order of terriers who have battled on behalf of children’s citizenship over the years, I have a moral duty to express my moral support for this amendment.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment shows that there are ways in which the rights of children could be protected. The debate so far has shown that we believe it to be extraordinarily important that the rights of children in these circumstances should be protected. I am therefore very glad that the amendment has been tabled, even though the chances of it being accepted are small.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 177. I have very little to add to his introduction of the amendment, but it is important that the Minister makes it clear to the Committee what the present position on refugee family reunion is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we saw the announcement on 1 September that the refugee family reunion process had been paused temporarily. As I understand it, applications submitted before 1 September are being handled—perhaps the Minister will confirm that—but no more applications are being looked at until a review has taken place.

On 1 September the Home Secretary was very clear that this was a temporary pause, but on 2 October, No. 10 announced:

“In her forthcoming asylum policy reform, the Home Secretary will introduce a fundamental change to the rights provided to those granted asylum in the UK, looking to end automatic family reunion rights”.


That seems to indicate not a temporary pause but something a bit permanent and, to my mind, on the face of it, shocking.

I do not know exactly what is meant by “automatic” in the No. 10 statement, but I guess, charitably, one could assume it simply means “free”—that one should no longer have the right to apply to bring in the lost child without an application fee, attaching a cheque for jolly nearly £2,000 under present rules. For RFR cases there is no cost attached: there is no health surcharge or application fee. You could construe—this is the good interpretation—that the “automatic” in the No. 10 statement actually meant “free”. But people are going to have to pay to bring in the lost child, which is the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has so eloquently argued for.

I do not want to say that I hope that is the explanation and the correct interpretation. But the alternative seems to me to be worse: that we are going to end people’s ability to bring in the lost child. What kind of country do we think we are? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is saying in his amendment. The lost relative who turns up in the transit camp in Libya or Turkey is not entitled to come to this country, and the bona fide refugee here—the member of the family who got here, whose case for asylum was established and who was granted protection status—is not allowed to bring in the child, wife or cousin who got lost on route. That is a shocking idea. Surely that cannot be what the No. 10 announcement on 2 October meant. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I would be with him in saying that, if it is not accepted now, it should be debated on Report.

But I do not know on what playing field this match is taking place. What happened on 2 October? All these amendments were drafted before the summer: before the Home Secretary paused the policy at the beginning of September and No. 10 apparently killed the policy—or at least announced its massive modification, depending on what “automatic” means—on 2 October. We need to know before Report what the present position and policy are. I of course support Amendments 165, 166 and 178.

I might surprise the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, by saying that I think Amendment 168 is a rather good idea. I expect that the Minister will say that it is not necessary because thorough and satisfactory checks are carried out in any case. But, if I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

However, before we go much further in Committee, we need to hear from the Minister what the real situation as of today is. Have the Government decided to abolish the RFR route?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203K in my name, which is supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who is sorry she cannot be in her place. I thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for its assistance. The amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Government to publish and implement guidance on the resettlement of children and families of children. It would ensure that such guidance is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and reflects our domestic and international legal obligations to protect children affected by forced displacement. It would complement other amendments, in particular from my noble friend Lord Dubs and from the Lib Dem Benches, which I support.

Children are disproportionately affected by conflict and persecution: they face heightened risks of exploitation, trafficking, abuse and long-term psychological harm. They are fleeing crises in countries such as Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and Eritrea. Most have no access to safe or regular routes for protection. While the UK resettlement scheme prioritises children and adolescents at risk, there is no statutory guidance to ensure that their specific needs are met consistently across the country. Implementation varies widely, and local authorities are left without a clear framework to deliver trauma-informed care, education access and safeguarding support.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

186: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) The good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law relating to immigration and asylum.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets the good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance on the good character requirement published at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section "the good character requirement" refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 186 on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much regrets that she cannot be in her place as she feels strongly about this issue.

The amendment concerns a change in official guidance for immigration staff assessing good character in nationality applications. Refugees claiming citizenship after 10 February who entered the UK “illegally” will now normally be refused regardless of when they entered the country. The policy change, in effect, reintroduces sections of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill repeals. That repeal was described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as

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

Without this amendment, this Bill is one step forward only for guidance to take us one step backwards.

Following a Private Notice Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, there was considerable criticism of the new guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, commented that

“this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force”.—[Official Report, 12/2/25; col. 1256.]

There was no such scrutiny, but this amendment provides such an opportunity now. It would do three simple things. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting consideration of a child’s irregular entry to the country. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity further to uphold the rule of law. I will consider each in turn.

First, in a letter to ILPA, to which I am grateful for its assistance with the amendment, the then Minister Dame Angela Eagle said that

“the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship … where necessary to comply with our international obligations”.

I will return to the discretion question later. Here I simply note that the amendment seeks to turn “may” into “must”. In the PNQ debate, my noble friend Lord Boateng warned that the policy contravenes Article 34 of the refugee convention, which calls on states to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees as far as possible. The UNHCR makes the same point, citing a similar provision in the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. It also expresses concern that the policy may result in breaches of Article 31 of the refugee convention, discussed in the previous group, which clearly states that countries

“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”.

According to the UNHCR, Article 31 is central to the object and purpose of the refugee convention because it ensures that refugees can gain access to international protection and the rights associated with it without being penalised for breaches of immigration and other laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is an important point. I was going to say we have been asking this question for many months and are still waiting for an answer to it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his very strong support for the amendment and particularly for his really helpful research in the Council of Europe. It is still not clear to me why we are out of step and are the only ones doing this.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. There was one particular thing I asked—which I will not ask him to pursue now because it is late, but perhaps he could write to me—on the guidance, which does not make clear the position of children. Perhaps he could look at Hansard and write to me and to the right reverend Prelate about that.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Of course, the Government know all this already. I hope that means they can commit today that the review will lead to action. That is all I am asking on behalf of the 600,000 fathers and second parents welcoming a new baby each year. If they cannot commit to reaching six weeks at 90% of pay by the end of this Parliament, to support families and businesses, I intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for building on the amendments that she and I tabled in Committee. I will speak to Amendment 100, to which I have added my name, but will not repeat the case I made in Committee. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary now that the Government have published their review of parental leave and pay, and that we should not pre-empt that review. I understand that and preface my remarks by saying how much I welcome that review, which I think will meet the warning of the Women and Equalities Committee that it must not lead

“only to tinkering around the edges”.

We are promised a comprehensive review, and comprehensive and fundamental it needs to be if it is to live up to the Prime Minister’s claim that it represents a landmark moment.

This amendment serves a purpose in holding the Government’s feet to the fire by putting their own timeline into legislation. Really, six weeks of paid leave for fathers at the same rate as statutory maternity pay is the minimum we should expect. A recent policy briefing from the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath concluded that this change would represent an

“important first step in delivering change”

and would be crucial to improving fathers’ take-up of the leave. It suggested that

“based on evidence from other countries the labour market benefits are judged to be most likely to materialise in case of sequential rather than simultaneous take-up of some of the leave by fathers”—

in other words, allowing the mother to return to work if she so wishes while giving the father the chance to take sole responsibility for the care of their child while she is at work. The amendment leaves open whether the additional four weeks would be part of paternity or parental leave. Personally I prefer the latter as it is more likely to encourage sequential take-up by separating out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave.

One of the very encouraging aspects of our debate in Committee was the dads’ army from around the House supporting a better deal for fathers. While the prospectus for the government review is very positive, I thought it could have gone further to include greater gender equality as one of its objectives, reflecting the clear messages from your Lordships’ House that a better deal for fathers would help fathers to be fathers and improve mothers’ labour market position. I was pleased to read that the Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, told the Times:

“I would like it to be culturally very much accepted, that as a new dad you would be wanting to spend some proper time at home. I think that would be really positive for society as well”.


His reference to culture was important. Indeed, in the debate on the Statement, Minister Mather talked about the cultural shift that we need to see. It is important that the review looks at how the Government and others can encourage such a cultural shift. One of the lessons from the Nordic experience is that for changes in parental leave to have their full effect, there needs to be cultural change in the workplace, among employers in particular.

I welcome the fact that the call for evidence states that the Government would like to test whether the objectives set for the review are the right ones. This suggests an admirable open-mindedness, and I hope therefore that the Government will be open to adding the objective of greater gender equality to the benefit of both women and men.

There is a practical question about the review. We have heard that it will take 18 months followed by the publication of a set of findings and a road map, including the next steps of taking forward any potential reforms to implementation. It is not clear to me whether there will be further consultation on the proposals at this stage. Can my noble friend please clarify that? If there is to be a further round of consultation, when do the Government envisage any reforms finally being implemented? I hope it will be possible for the Government to make a practical commitment so that it will not be necessary for the noble Baroness to call a vote.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hampton, who added his name to this amendment but is unable to be here, I will speak in support of Amendment 100. I will be brief as the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister, have already set out the case for the amendment so comprehensively and so powerfully. I am more than likely to get parental and paternal confused at some point in my speech, but I will try to avoid that. Sadly, I am well beyond the age when increased paternal leave might be relevant to me, and even grandpaternal leave would be unlikely to help.

The amendment addresses an important issue, not least when the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. Many men currently lack either the option or the financial resources to take an adequate period of leave to learn parenting skills, support their partners and bond with their new children. There is no point at all in making leave available if many families cannot afford to take it.

The Government’s review into parental leave and their desire to improve the system are welcome but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has said, the review must lead to action. We have heard evidence of the financial benefits for businesses, as well as the economy as a whole, and I will not repeat those, but in addition there are significant social benefits, including better mental health outcomes, better relationships between family members and more engaged and loyal workers. All those benefits would come at a relatively modest net cost.

The amendment starts from the Government’s own aims and sets out the action needed to achieve them through regulations to deliver a new paternal leave regime in terms of the length and rate of pay for statutory paternal leave, in line with the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Select Committee and within a clear timescale consistent with stated government goals. As we have heard, that does not pre-empt the findings of the very welcome review.

The amendment seems to represent a win for the Government, for the economy, for society and, above all, for individual families—mothers as much as fathers, and their children. I very much hope to hear a positive response from the Minister.

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.