Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harper, on an entertaining maiden speech—although, like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I stand fully ready to vote to abolish myself.

I was as disturbed as many others were by the Prime Minister’s warning that without strong migration rules,

“we risk becoming an island of strangers”.

Of course we need a well-managed asylum and immigration system. But not only is that kind of inflammatory language alarming and unhelpful; neither recent political statements nor any measures in the Bill do anything to promote the integration that would seek to make newcomers well-settled residents and contributing citizens. I much appreciated the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.

Indeed, much alarm has been created by the heralding of tougher requirements for obtaining both settlement and citizenship, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described. I will never understand why, having allowed people to legally reside, any Government think it useful to make it harder for them to convert that into permanent settlement and then citizenship, which anchors their belonging here.

I would love to say more about other parts of the Bill, but I want to concentrate on European aspects, and my noble friends are well covering other topics.

The common understanding which resulted from the UK-EU summit two weeks ago pledged to reinforce co-operation on law enforcement, including through Europol, on analysis of threats, and on exchange of information and operational action.

Although we cannot yet go back to the golden era of British pre-eminence in Europol, when one of our nationals held the directorship of that agency for a decade, we can encourage maximum exploitation of these opportunities, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about seeking access to SIS II. My Benches will table some amendments on Europol, such as equipping the National Crime Agency and police forces to participate in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, establishing joint taskforces, and requiring the border commander to meet the director of Europol.

I want mainly to talk about Clause 42, on EU citizens, and I welcome the intention to clear up some of the muddle of the past caused by the way in which the EU settlement scheme was devised and implemented. But I fear that further confusion may lie ahead—even another Windrush—due to the Government’s reluctance to jettison the whole of the baggage of the past.

The problem comes because Clause 42 holds back from declaring that everyone given EU settled status actually comes within the citizens’ rights provisions of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement and the EEA and Swiss equivalents, such as the ability to rely on the direct effect of those rights. It says only that all those granted the right to stay under the UK’s EU settlement scheme will be treated as if they had such rights.

The UK’s EU settlement scheme was in one sense generous, in that it swept up EU citizens simply because they had been living in the UK for the requisite time. But in doing so, successive UK Governments acted on a presumption—although this is contested—that some did not have rights under the withdrawal agreements because they had not been, in the jargon, “exercising their treaty rights”, which broadly involved being a worker rather than a non-employed person.

No actual test was applied, even though the withdrawal agreement allowed that, so EU citizens were never told their legal status. As the Independent Monitoring Authority, the watchdog for the rights of EU citizens in the UK, described it in initially welcoming Clause 42:

“There are people who have status under the EUSS who may not be entitled to rights under the Agreements. This is a complex area”—


you are telling me—

“but there is a lack of clarity as to who has rights under the Agreements and who does not … The concern is that there could be potential instances where it would matter whether a citizen with EUSS status does have rights under the Agreements or not. In these situations, citizens who are within the true cohort”—

I think your Lordships gather what that means—

“might need to re-prove they were residing in the UK in accordance with EU free movement rules at the end of 2020. As time goes by it may become more and more difficult for citizens to find the relevant evidence, such as payslips, to prove they met the free movement rules at the end of 2020. We do not know what implications this could have in the future for these citizens or future generations of citizens.”

Are your Lordships getting echoes of another scenario?

I imagine that the IMA thought that Clause 42 would wash away the relevance of this distinction and the possible need to go back and establish rights from years ago, but the absence of legal clarity identified by the IMA remains. Despite good intentions, past gremlins could pop up in future and catch people out precisely because the legal position has been left as unclear as it was in 2020.

That is no doubt why the Independent Monitoring Authority now seems to have had a bit of a rethink, commenting 10 days’ ago in regard to the Immigration White Paper that

“the vast majority of the proposals that the government is consulting on should not affect the majority of citizens with EU Settlement Scheme (EUSS) status who have rights under the Agreements.”

Quite a few caveats there.

I have to finish, but as Sir Humphrey might have put it, it is not only unwise but brave, Minister, to risk recreating the Windrush miscarriage of justice. I suggest that the Government should take the wiser course, even if it goes against every instinct of the Home Office, and junk past practices and start with a clean sheet. Hence, my Benches will be tabling amendments, which I hope might be signed by others, to try to get the Government to do just that.

Immigration System

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will make changes to the Immigration Rules relating to the social care sector during the course of this year, but we are also putting in place a transitional period. There is a need to ensure that we try to meet any shortfall in social care requirements from within the existing UK workforce—that is the objective of government policy. I am happy to discuss with my colleagues and the social care sector how we improve recruitment and other issues, and we will do that through other government departments. The key thing is that we cannot rely completely on overseas labour to fill the UK social care sector.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement and the White Paper both refer to illegal and irregular migration, which is better than what we have heard recently—lumping them both into illegal. Can the Minister confirm that it is legal to enter a country to seek asylum—although, obviously, if it is refused then the person must leave? Can he also clarify the Government’s understanding of the difference between illegal and irregular migration?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness again presses me on that issue, which is absolutely her right. We are trying to ensure that people who have an asylum claim or seek refugee status can have that claim assessed within the United Kingdom or with our partners in the European Union. We are having great discussions as well with the French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans about irregular and illegal migration.

There is a real difference. If somebody claims asylum, that needs to be considered and processed—and, if processed, that needs to be given, if approved. If it is not approved, that person needs to be removed. That is a reasonable and fair thing for Governments to do. Irregular migration, as the noble Baroness will know, is also an issue that the Government will examine, because a whole range of people are seeking refugee status or other things—and there are people trying to enter illegally across the channel. We are having to try to address all those issues.

The Government are putting more rigour into that formal border control at the channel to stop small boats, and we are putting those measures in the Bill that will be before the House very shortly. We are also trying to speed up asylum claims so that they are processed much more quickly to remove people from hotels. At the same time, we are trying to make sure that we continue to meet our international obligations. No one has said that that is easy, but I hope that the White Paper gives some new direction and routes to how we can do it more effectively.

Citizenship Applications

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are not going to withdraw from the convention. The Government support the convention and believe that the proposals referred to in this Private Notice Question are compliant with it. Nothing in the proposals today stops any individual applying for British citizenship, however they have arrived in the United Kingdom. But the presumption is that those who have arrived illegally will find their application turned down, unless they can provide a range of circumstances which are exceptional, compelling and mitigating, and where the Secretary of State may therefore choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis. I believe, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that that is compliant with our international obligations and, at the same time, examines what is an illegal route to the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is not this Labour proposal almost worse than the shocking Tory legislation that we spent three years opposing, in that people are going to be lulled into a false sense of security? The Tories tried to stop people getting refugee status; Labour is going to allow them to get refugee status and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, start to contribute to and integrate into British society, and then, down the line, they will be told, “Oh no, we don’t want you as a citizen”. How can such a fundamental change be made through Home Office guidance rather than through primary legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The guidance is there and the ability of the Government to change that guidance is there. We have made a Statement to the House of Commons in relation to that guidance being changed.

There are many individuals who reside in the United Kingdom who live, work and enjoy the benefits of living in the United Kingdom and who are not British citizens. The right of citizenship is a different issue. As I said to my noble friend Lord Boateng, individuals can apply for citizenship, but the presumption is that they will be refused if they have entered illegally, unless there are compelling, mitigating circumstances. That is our position. That it is not worse than the Rwanda scheme—we are repealing the Rwanda scheme. We are changing the immigration scheme through the immigration Bill, which will come before this House in due course. The noble Baroness will know that there are major steps in that Bill to end the pernicious trade of people trafficking, to stop the wasteful Rwanda scheme, and to ensure that we place immigration and migration on a proper footing. Further, there will be an immigration White Paper later this year, which will cover a range of issues, including the needs of society and the need for immigration for the British economy and growth.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Elections Act 2022 preserved voting rights for individuals from the European Union who had settled status in the United Kingdom. They can vote and stand in elections in every way, with the exception of general elections, where they cannot vote or stand. This is a Cabinet Office responsibility, but I will ensure that the points made by my noble friend are brought to the attention of the Cabinet Office Minister. There is clarity on the Electoral Commission website to that effect, which gives the information that is required.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the EU settlement scheme has generally been a success, but there are some problems with it, including those attracting legal action by the European Commission that raise the prospect of another Windrush. Will the new Government undertake an overall review of the scheme, including the impact assessment that has never been done of the denial of physical proof of residence rights and the imposition of digital-only status? That is to be extended throughout the visa system, but we have never had an impact assessment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have been aware of both the court cases and the challenges that have taken place—that happened under the previous Government. We believe that we are now legally meeting the obligations of High Court judgments and of the status scheme that was implemented following the withdrawal agreement. However, obviously we keep that under review. We are also aware of the challenges mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on digitisation and we are working through to, I hope, meet our obligations to those citizens who have a right now to live, work and indeed in some cases vote in this United Kingdom.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have played a relay with Private Members’ Bills on this important subject of refugee family reunion. She has explained the history, going back seven years and now five Bills. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield noted, the sustained interest in this cause should tell the Government something. My noble friend’s expertise and commitment to this cause, and many others in the field of asylum and immigration, have inspired me and continue to do so.

The Bill would address some of the key gaps in eligibility and remove some of the existing barriers to family reunion. Notably, it would enable child refugees to sponsor their close family members—parents and siblings—as well as cautiously expand the range of family members that adult refugees are allowed to sponsor to include siblings, parents and adult dependent children. The core proposition is that families belong together and that we should do what we can to mend the effects of war and persecution that tear them apart. It is simply inhumane to keep families apart.

This Government are, thankfully, committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. What about its Article 8, on the right to family life? What about the Convention on the Rights of the Child? My noble friend Lady Walmsley asked why the Government are not prioritising the best interests of the child.

Family ties are a key reason why people risk their lives on dangerous journeys to reach the UK, so safe and legal family reunion routes provide a vital alternative to life-threatening channel crossings, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—still my friend—stressed. Restricting family reunion drives vulnerable women and children into the hands of ruthless people smugglers and traffickers, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so forcefully reminded us. Family reunion accelerates refugees’ integration in the UK. Permitting a refugee to be with their family will greatly improve their chance of leading a stable and productive life, without threats to their well-being and mental health. Imagine trying to move forward with your life and work while worrying about the safety of family back home.

Family relationships can be key to the psychological recovery of a child refugee. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to the grief of the Kindertransport children. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us, family unity may save the public purse; it costs £30,000 a year to look after a child in a residential home or foster care who might be supported by parents and other relatives if they were allowed to come to the UK—memo to Rachel Reeves.

In 2022, the previous Government demonstrated an admirable awareness of how refugees need their families by introducing the Ukraine family scheme, as has already been referred to, which allowed Ukrainians to sponsor a wide range of extended family members. This Bill suggests definitions of family that are not nearly as broad as the Ukraine scheme.

The previous Government defended the ban on child refugees sponsoring their parents or close family members to join them—in which we are an outlier in Europe, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, stressed—by claiming that it would act as a pull factor, encouraging more children to make dangerous journeys to the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and my noble friend Lord Oates cited, in 2016 the EU Committee of this House categorically concluded that there was no evidence provided by EU member states operating the family reunification directive, which permits children to sponsor family members but which the UK declined to opt into, that children had been exploited by being sent ahead for other family members to join them. Its report on child migrants said:

“We received no evidence of families sending children as ‘anchors’ following the implementation of the Family Reunification Directive by other Member States”.


The Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place reached a similar conclusion under the chairmanship of the right honourable Yvette Cooper, now Home Secretary. In any case, the deterrence argument assumes it to be morally as well as legally sound to block the right to family reunification in order to send signals to prospective immigrants to give it up. This is surely not going to be the new Government’s position.

It is important to note that, while the Bill would make a big change for the families able to be safely reunited, the increase in the number of refugee family reunion visas issued would be relatively small. My noble friend answered the noble Lord, Lord Murray, who made an intervention without a speech. The Refugee Council and Safe Passage have estimated that allowing children to sponsor close relatives could result in between 240 and 750 family members being granted visas each year.

Just over two years ago, during Second Reading on a similar Bill that I introduced, there was an important contribution from the then shadow Chief Whip—I will name him—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, now the actual Chief Whip. He said:

“I support the Bill and hope that we will get a positive response from the Minister … This issue is not going to go away until the Government deal with the question of how we can have proper safe and legal routes and deal with the criminal gangs. This Bill is one attempt to deal with those problems”.—[Official Report, 8/7/2022; col. 1242.]


I rest my case. This remains the case in October 2024. If the new Government are serious about strengthening safe routes, supporting women and children, endorsing family life and tackling the smuggling and trafficking gangs, they will back this Bill. I sincerely hope that the Minister can give us a positive response today to this modest and doable Bill, as my noble friend says.

King’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I applaud the speech made by the noble Baroness and I look forward to seeing her Private Member’s Bill. I too warmly welcome the new Ministers.

I was as delighted to hear the Attorney-General yesterday promise that the new Government would respect and uphold the rule of law as I was to hear the new Prime Minister do the same in regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. The display last week at the European Political Community summit of the London treaty—the London treaty, note—which set up the Council of Europe, which hosts the convention and the European Court of Human Rights, sent a massive and very welcome signal of intent.

I also applaud the fact that not only have the Government scrapped the Rwanda scheme, but yesterday they made regulations to amend the ill-named Illegal Migration Act such as to ensure the processing of asylum seekers.

I very much welcome the proposed Hillsborough law to impose a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, although can the Minister explain how it will be enforced?

The London Victims’ Commissioner has reported on the inadequacy of action against stalkers—most of whom, although not all, are men—and the National Police Chiefs’ Council has called out an “epidemic” of violence against women and girls, as we have heard often today.

Sky News reports that misogyny, harassment and sexual abuse are even rife in the ambulance service, which is so utterly depressing as it should be all about keeping people safe. A young woman told the “Today” programme this morning that if an objection is made to boys quoting the extreme misogynist Andrew Tate, they are told, “Boys will be boys”, and, “You can’t take a joke”.

What are the Government’s plans to tackle this distinctly unfunny epidemic of violence, not only through the criminal justice system but socially and through an education system aimed at changing the behaviour of some men and boys with a warped perception of masculinity? Can the Government also look at the violence, threats and intimidation from supposedly trans rights activists—often very frightening men in black balaclavas—who have physically attacked women and threatened to rape and kill the TERFs? Has the police response been adequate? I do not need to refer the conversion therapy Bill, as I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.

Women in the criminal justice system are described by the Ministry of Justice as among the most vulnerable in society, with complex needs that include trauma, domestic abuse, mental health and substance misuse problems. The fact that this trauma has been increased in some cases by male-bodied prisoners being placed with them shames those in charge of such decisions. I agree with my noble friend Lord McNally in calling on the Government to revisit, and hopefully accept, the recommendation of the 2007 Corston report on trying to avoid custodial sentences for women.

To continue on the subject of women, will this Government amend the Equality Act to clarify that “sex” means “biological sex” in order to resolve some of the problematic interactions between the Equality Act and the Gender Recognition Act?

I will cite in detail the Howard League’s recent valuable paper on options for a lasting solution to the prisons crisis on Friday, when we debate the report on community sentences by our Justice and Home Affairs Committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Wearing my European enthusiast hat I hope that the Minister’s plans will include looking at practice on community-based and diversionary schemes in the Netherlands and in Scandinavian countries. I also hope that the Government will try to get back into at least some of the EU justice and home affairs instruments and bodies, such as SIS II, which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned.

I share the outrage at the IPP scandal, and I would like to hear more detail on the Government’s plans to expedite the safe release of post-tariff IPP prisoners. Will the Government set up a royal commission on the criminal justice system, as suggested by the Bar Council? Will they invest in a sustainable and resilient justice system recognised as a vital public service that truly serves the public? There is as yet no promise of more money.

My last remark is on the need to dig all those agencies supervised by the Ministry of Justice out of the 19th century and get them into the 21st century. Among them are His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which includes the Probate Service, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Passport Office, which includes the General Register Office. Many of us only encounter some of those agencies on the death of a loved one, and we can have a very unhappy experience of bereavement bureaucracy, as I did, at a time when we need less stress, not more.