UK Asylum and Refugee Policy

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for introducing this important debate, and for doing so so effectively. It is essential that we discuss this issue in the way it has been framed, because the debate about asylum and refugee policy has become very toxic. We have lost sight of the principles which should guide this policy.

Challenges facing asylum and refugee policy are quite different from those facing voluntary migration policy. Of course, every country has the right to control voluntary migration and develop policies to meet its needs, but we have to remember that involuntary migration is different. Asylum seekers and refugees do not move out of choice; they are forced to flee persecution and other intolerable conditions. Unfortunately, debates about asylum and voluntary migration have been conflated—sometimes, I fear, deliberately. This has confused the issue and has led to a very negative and ill-informed public debate. Of course public opinion matters, but those in authority have the responsibility to explain. Inappropriate terminology has crept into this discourse and has influenced policy. For example, the term “illegal refugees” is used by many, even by those in authority, and as we know, under international law this is a misnomer.

The 1951 refugee convention is the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime. We are party to this convention and we have a duty to comply with its provisions, but the UNHCR said that our current asylum and refugee policy undermines established international refugee protection law and practices. It said that arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the refugee convention. For a country that prides itself on promoting the rule of law here and abroad and that wants to influence international standards, this is a damning statement.

The Nationality and Borders Act will create differential status for asylum seekers based on their mode of travel to the UK. It will divide people into “genuine refugees” and “failed asylum seekers” through the creation of a two-tier system. Furthermore, under this Act, asylum seekers now face the threat of criminal charges and a four-year prison sentence for entering “illegally”. This policy is not only contrary to the spirit and letter of the refugee convention; it is estimated that these misguided measures will cost £2.7 billion.

In trying to justify the provisions of this Act, some have said that the 1951 convention is a Cold War relic with outdated definitions and is not suitable for the challenges we face today. In my view, the principles contained in the convention provide a humane and compassionate framework that should remain the cornerstone of our asylum policy, as was so eloquently stated earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. It is deeply regrettable that our policy is now based on two guiding principles: deterrence and creating a hostile environment, the consequences of which have been dire. What we need is a refugee protection system that provides safe and legal routes and treats refugees with compassion and humanity. This will be a better deterrence against smugglers than costly and ineffective surveillance at sea.

While there are specific schemes for people from countries such as Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan, for many others no such routes exist. At present, asylum seekers must be present in the UK before applying for asylum. If no safe route is available, irregular entry is the only option, which the smugglers exploit. Unfortunately, in recent years the Government have severely reduced the number of people coming through global resettlement schemes and have relied on an inconsistent, piecemeal approach and creating a hostile environment. Instead of expanding refugee resettlement programmes and dealing with an asylum backlog that has left more than 100,000 people waiting for over six months, billions of pounds have been wasted on deterrence measures that do not work. Meanwhile, as we have heard, thousands of people are left in limbo, banned from working and living in dreadful, isolated accommodation. A more humane approach would be to open up targeted and limited legal asylum routes, along with a new humanitarian visa for asylum seekers.

The challenges of forced migration are unlikely to abate and are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. It is estimated that by 2050, 200 million people globally each year will require humanitarian assistance due to climate change. This underlines the importance of international co-operation to develop responses which are compassionate, humane and preserve human dignity. Working with the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to find ways of dealing with this should be a priority. Having left the EU, Britain is no longer a party to Dublin III. Apart from with France, to date, no equivalent arrangement has been made either bilaterally or between the EU and the UK. In 2023, the Global Refugee Forum will be held in Geneva. These are opportunities to strengthen international co-operation in order to develop viable international responses that tackle the plight of refugees and asylum seekers.

The current situation is untenable and a blot on our image as a country which has a proud history of welcoming refugees. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

X-Rays: Child Refugees

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Prashar]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ethical considerations of the use of X-rays to determine the age of child refugees seeking asylum in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

The Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser convened an independent age estimation science advisory committee to provide the department with independent advice on the ethics and implementation of different scientific approaches to age assessment. No official decisions have been made on the use of scientific methods, and the use of X-rays specifically would need to be independently justified and approved under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but can he say when the report will be completed and published?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The report is still under evaluation. I am afraid there is no estimate at the moment for the production of the report.

50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on securing this debate. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because what I am going to say will echo some of the points that he made; I was particularly pleased that he mentioned my friend Gerry Wade because, as the noble Lord knows, he did a great deal of work on the ground as a Young Conservative to ensure that the motion was defeated at the Tory party conference.

As we have heard, in August 1972 the Ugandan President, Idi Amin, announced that he was going to ask Britain to take responsibility for all Asians in Uganda who held British passports. He described the Ugandan Asians as economic bloodsuckers, claimed they were sabotaging the country’s economy and gave them only 90 days to leave. It is estimated that, prior to their expulsion, Ugandan Asians were responsible for 90% of Uganda’s tax revenue, so they were very important to Uganda’s economy. The decision to expel Ugandan Asians was intended to give greater economic control to the indigenous population of the country; instead, it contributed to Uganda’s economic decline during the 1970s. It is good to see that bilateral relations are now reversing that trend.

In 1972, approximately 29,000 Ugandan Asians held British passports but those did not give them automatic entry to Britain. Whitehall at that time—I was around it and working with the Race Relations Board—was concerned about a potential shuttlecock situation arising, whereby Ugandan Asians with British passports could be refused entry to Britain yet could not return to their country of origin. A further 20,000 or so Ugandan Asians who had become Ugandan citizens after independence suddenly found themselves stateless. If these British passport-holders were denied entry here, that would have been internationally embarrassing for the United Kingdom.

Politically, as we have heard, the issue of immigration was then controversial, as it is today, and only four years earlier Enoch Powell had made his infamous “Rivers of blood” speech. Also in 1968, we passed the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which changed the situation as it affected Kenyan Asians. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, many in the Conservative Government were ambivalent regarding the Ugandan Asian refugees coming to the UK but, thankfully, Ted Heath and those around him honoured the British Government’s commitment to the Ugandan Asians. It is a credit to the Cabinet then and those who worked with him to have ensured that those commitments were honoured.

The setting up of the Uganda Resettlement Board was a very good thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, it was the first time that a proper settlement board was set up, but I have to tell the House another interesting anecdote about it. As the conciliation officer with the Race Relations Board, I was working with the then chief conciliation officer, John Lyttle. Inevitably we were having some discussions and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, there was advertising in the Ugandan papers saying, “Do not come to areas where there are already very many immigrants”. There were those who wanted to label them as white and black areas. Although we tried to dissuade them from doing so, at least we persuaded them that they should be described as green and red areas, as opposed to black and white. You can see the kind of thinking that was around at the time. However, as we heard, the Ugandan Resettlement Board was successful and some excellent work was done in settling people, so its work has to be commended.

As we know, after enduring trauma and hardship the Ugandan Asian community has been highly successful. I want to mention Leicester, because I know that its inner city was in a very bad state. It was a rundown place and the injection of the Ugandan Asians revived that city, so that today it is very vibrant. While it is a credit to this country that people have settled well, and that the foresight of some of the enlightened members of the Tory Government allowed this to happen, it is also a credit to the Ugandan Asian community for the contribution it has made. I reinforce the point that while anniversaries are important in recognising what has been achieved, some lessons need to be learned. We need to look at how we treat refugees and stateless people today.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for at least attempting to speak; it is always good to have some moral support from the Conservative Back Benches. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing this; as an honorary member of the terriers, I am very happy to be here. Most of my fellow terror of terriers, that being the collective noun for terriers, are otherwise engaged, and there seems to be quite enough terror around without inflicting any more of it on the governing party.

My own experience with a regret Motion—I think it was the only one I have done—had to do with the adoption fund. I tabled it, there was a debate and I said at the end that I did not intend to take it to a vote and would abstain if there was a vote, because I thought it was a non-party political issue. The two opposition parties decided, in their wisdom, to take it to a vote, and we won, slightly to my embarrassment. I will try not to repeat that: it is the law of unintended consequences.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, covered most of the key points. We genuinely welcome the waiver for children in care, but I ask the Minister to reflect on why we keep returning to this subject again and again. It is partly from a sense of gentle but persistent moral outrage. The barriers that are being put in the way of children who have an absolute and total right to UK nationality seem completely disproportionate and, frankly, morally wrong. To have a fee that is so far above the costs makes one ask oneself: where is the moral compass behind this approach to the way children are treated? When one looks at the highly detailed and, in my view, invasive process that families have to go through in order to demonstrate that their children are, first, eligible, and secondly, that they would have enormous difficulty in paying the fee, I think it is genuinely intrusive and really quite objectionable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned the details that caseworkers have to go into:

“Caseworkers should normally expect to see information and evidence relating to the applicant’s and parent’s income—”


remember, the applicant is a child—

“their accommodation, the type and adequacy of accommodation, the amount of the rent/mortgage, or of their contribution towards this, and outgoings in terms of spending on things like food and utility bills. This information should be supported by independent evidence, such as their pay slips, bank statements, tenancy agreements and utility bills.”

If any of us had to go through such a process, I wonder how easily we would have access to all that information. I suspect that it would be with a high degree of difficulty.

Having looked at the guidance for caseworkers, I very much hope—and I would like to be reassured, given the complexity of the caseworker guidance—that there is an initiative for specialist training to be given to the caseworkers who will be carrying this out, to ensure that they are completely confident in their ability, and that the Home Office is completely confident in their ability, to conduct these assessments to the professional level required. If not, one will be inviting a process whereby there will be a greater number of appeals against some of the decisions than there needs to be, with all the costs involved and the discomfort for the people involved. That is something that I hope will be the case. Indeed, if the child and the family are refused and the application is denied, they will then have the pleasure of paying an additional £372 for an internal review, which seems to be adding insult to injury.

One thing that the Home Office has undoubtedly been accruing over the last few years is really quite significant legal costs, as it is, again and again, going either to the High Court or to the Supreme Court to answer challenges that are being made about some of these policies and the decisions that are being taken. I would be very grateful, if the Home Office is able to do the sums, to know how much, year on year over the last five years, the Home Office has had to expend on legal fees in specific pursuit of these types of cases. I have a horrible feeling that a not insignificant proportion of the so-called profit—the difference between the cost of the application and the actual fee being charged—is expended on legal fees. That does not seem a very good way of justifying the high level of fees.

In looking at the impact assessment—and I would recommend reading it if any of your Lordships are having trouble sleeping—there is something rather peculiar in it. It mentions, as the Government have often mentioned, that one of the rationales for the very high level of fee, apart from it providing extra income for the system, is that it reflects,

“the benefits that accrue to an individual as a result of a successful application”.

That is in paragraph 16 of the impact assessment. But if you then fast forward to paragraph 79, there is a list of 14 bullet points which are the purported benefits that accrue to an individual or a child if they are successful in getting UK citizenship. That is fine, but you then go to paragraph 80, and what it says about the 14 benefits is,

“These benefits are largely intangible and not able to be monetised, and the Home Office do not have data on the proportions of applicants who would receive different benefits”.


On the one hand, they are saying that one of the justifications for the high level of fee are the benefits that accrue to an individual who is successful in applying. On the other hand, they are saying those benefits are intangible and unable to be monetised. So, please discuss and provide answers on the back of an envelope because I do not follow that. It does worry me, and I would like to have an explanation, if not this evening, then certainly in writing.

I think that since so much of what we are discussing and will continue to discuss—I hope not for the next few years—is to do with the judgment that is being made by the Home Office on what the children’s best interests are, and that comes up repeatedly when the Home Office’s rationale is tested in the High Court or the Supreme Court. It would seem eminently sensible to publish how the Home Office assesses the children’s best interests, partly in the interests of the Home Office so nobody worries or wonders anymore if it has something to hide, but also to help those organisations which are there to try to help those individuals, who have a right to citizenship, to go through the application process with much greater clarity about how the Home Office actually measures and assesses one’s best interests. That seems self-evident, so as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, we would appreciate a proper, reasoned explanation for why the Government have currently no plans to publish this. Perhaps they would be prepared to meet us to discuss this, or at least to say that they have this under review and, at some point in the future, may take a decision to publish.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for moving this Motion of Regret, and for her introduction. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his contribution also. I support all the points they have made, so I will not elaborate on them further. But I want to underline and reinforce the points they made because we are talking about children who have a statutory right to citizenship, and to put so many obstacles in their way seems to me to be totally disproportionate and, as we said, cannot be morally justified.

Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I think it would be very helpful if the Home Office published the assessment of what are the children’s best interests, because it would be helpful to know what they are. It would be helpful also if it can provide confirmation, and a more detailed explanation, of the steps being taken to ensure the citizenship rights of all looked-after children are being secured by their local authority.

Of course, we need to review the application form and guidance to decision-makers on the fee waiver to ensure that the waiver is accessible, because we have heard how complicated it really is. I think the Government need to end the charging of citizenship registration fees at above the administrative cost and the subsidising of the immigration system from statutory citizenship rights. As I said, I do not understand why this should be subsidised through this particular source. They also need to remove the review fee for looked-after children and children for whom a waiver of the registration fee has been granted. These are a few things which it would be helpful if we could actually argue.

I have not been part of the terrier group so far, but when I saw the regret Motion and had a conversation with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I was moved to stay on and add my support to this regret Motion. I very much hope that we will get some confirmation and some concessions from the Home Office.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for bringing this regret Motion and for so comprehensively setting out the grounds for it.

Time after time in this House and in Grand Committee, other noble Lords and I have questioned the policy that border and immigration systems have to be self-funding. The argument that those using the system should pay for it could just as easily be made for other systems such as the education system or the National Health Service. To say that only those who apply for a passport or visa or for UK nationality use or benefit from border and immigration services is clearly false. Everyone in the UK benefits from border control and control over who receives temporary or permanent leave to remain in the UK, and from the granting of UK citizenship. For example, in terms of counterterrorism, it has been shown that those people who acquire British citizenship are far more likely to show loyalty to the country than those who do not.

The premise is also false in that citizens from EU, EEA and 10 other countries benefit from visa-free entry to the UK and use Border Force services to enter the UK—none of whom at this time pays a penny towards the cost of border control or immigration services. Not only are those who apply for a UK passport, a visa to enter the UK or UK citizenship subsidising border and immigration services that benefit all UK citizens; they are also subsidising hundreds of thousands of foreign visitors who enter the UK every year without the need for a visa.

When asked why the Home Office is unique in being required to make border and immigration services self-funding, the only answer is, “Because this is government policy.” Can the Minister tell the House why it is government policy, and why, for example, the NHS is not required to be self-funding? The safety and security of the people is supposed to be the Government’s primary responsibility, yet a major part of ensuring that—ensuring that foreign criminals and others not conducive to the public good do not enter the UK, for example—has to be self-funding. Why?

On the other aspect of the regret Motion, whether it is in the best interests of children to charge them for securing their right to UK citizenship, let alone £596 over the cost of processing an application, the answer is clearly no. Let us imagine the case of a young person who has come to the UK as a young child, whose parent or parents are legally in the UK, who perhaps finds the transition to life in the UK difficult and does not receive the love and support any child should reasonably expect from his parent or parents, and who goes off the rails, makes mistakes as a teenager and ends up with a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Is this young person likely to know about and understand the consequences of not claiming the UK nationality he is entitled to before he is deported by the Home Office as a foreign national criminal? Is this person likely to live with a family who can afford over £1,000 to claim the right to UK nationality they are entitled to?

It is not just that. To qualify for the discretionary waiver on the grounds of affordability, as the noble Baroness has said, a long and complex process of means-testing must be gone through, in which even the guidance to Home Office caseworkers is complicated. Every penny of income and expenditure must be accounted for; money spent on “luxuries” or non-essential items such as a holiday would disqualify the family from the fee waiver. What do the Government mean by “luxuries”? Anything more than 43p per person per week spent on laundry and toilet paper, anything more than 69p per person spent on toiletries, and anything more than £3.01 spent on clothing and footwear is considered non-essential. How many of us could say how much we spent on toilet paper a week over the last six months?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She is very sorry that she is unable to be here today, not least because she feels so strongly about this issue. I hope that the three of us who are supporting signatories will act as effective understudies.

The general case has already been made very persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The main difference, as he explained, between his amendment and this one is that our amendment proposes the right to work after six months, which is the usual time period proposed and is probably more realistic. It also ensures that that right allows an asylum seeker to take up employment on grounds no less favourable than those of a person with recognised refugee status. This means they would not be confined to the highly restrictive shortage occupation list, as they now are when they are finally allowed to work.

It has already been said that there is great support for asylum seekers’ right to work, including from business and the general public. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is open-minded on the subject. Home Office Ministers repeatedly claim to be committed to refugee integration, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As the Migration Advisory Committee made clear, the right to work after a reasonable period—and I think six months is one—in a job not limited to the shortage occupation list, represents one of the key foundation stones of integration. The committee also challenged the pull-factor argument put forward by Ministers, an issue that we debated at some length on Tuesday, and noted that the recent

“parliamentary statement regarding analysis of the employment ban … contained no evidence on the ‘pull-factor’.

It suggested that,

“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made.”

In the interests of good policy-making, then, will the Minister now undertake to publish that evidence, because all the evidence that I have seen, including academic studies, does not support the pull-factor argument?

As well as its implications for integration, the denial of the right to work can take a toll on mental health and feelings of self-worth. I recently attended a Zoom meeting at which members of MIN Voices, part of the Maryhill Integration Network, talked about what it meant for them. One talked about his life being frozen; another about being made to feel helpless and useless. The Government should recognise such sentiment, given the weight that they attach to paid work, especially in their social security policy.

I would like to finish by reading a statement from MIN Voices that makes the case much more powerfully than I am able to. It says:

“Remember, we are Human Beings first, and we have dignity. Asylum Seekers who came here had to leave everything behind. Security for asylum seekers is not only shelter and health but also work, the ability to contribute to their own life and other people’s. Who will give back the five years of my life I lost in the asylum claims process? Who will give me back my skills and my health? Not being able to work makes us feel less human. We are living in constant worry, feeling worthless, frustrated, in pain and fearful. Not knowing the future. Not being able to plan for the future. If we can work, it will help with integration and allow us to live in a dignified and a healthy life. If we can work, we will feel less stressed, have a sense of control over our life, have better mental and physical health, and feel at home … Being able to work is important for self-respect and dignity. If we can work, we belong to something and do not live in complete limbo. If we are not allowed to work, if we cannot even study, then what are we allowed to do? When we can work, we could pay tax, look after our families and children. Many of the problems will disappear. See us as human beings not a number.”


That is very relevant to the last debate we had, when we were constantly talking about numbers and forgetting we are talking about fellow human beings.

“See us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills.”


So I hope that, like the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister will be open-minded to the growing calls for this very basic right: the right to work.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, and myself. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her usual manner introduced it fully and spoke movingly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

As we heard, asylum seekers wait months or even years for a decision on asylum claims, and sometimes decades. This condemns them to poverty, uncertainty and fear. It leaves them in a limbo, experiencing poverty and destitution. If they are allowed to work, this would improve family life, give them better prospects for their lives in the UK, and they would be able to rebuild their lives in the UK and eventually integrate better. It also, of course, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, makes economic sense. As we have already heard, the Migration Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on migration policy, in December 2021 recommended that the Government should look again at this policy. It also recommended giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months and not restricting them to the jobs on the shortage occupation list. Perhaps the Minister can explain why they are not paying heed to the advice of their own advisory committee?

The committee also states that the argument that this right would be a pull factor, as we have heard already, is not supported by evidence. The benefits of allowing asylum seekers to work outweigh the unfounded fears expressed by the Government. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment, which has very wide support.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow both my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett—who is hard working to the point perhaps of being a Stakhanovite—and also the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I have added my name to Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I support the thrust of both of these amendments. I think this is a total no-brainer—forgive me, I really do. I have always thought this. I have been working around this area all my adult life and I have never understood the logic of Governments of both persuasions, over the years, prohibiting this category of humanity from working, at the same time as trying to get other categories to “jolly well get on and work”, not be dependent on the state and not be dependent on benefits: “Don’t be scroungers—just get out and work”. It seems so illogical to have this strange bifurcation.

School Trips: Passport and Visa Requirements

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think it says a lot about the pandemic. Very few people have actually travelled.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, the Government’s argument that the continuation of this scheme would be a security risk and would discriminate against non-EU students has been taken on board by those administering these trips and by other interested parties, such as the British Guild of Tourist Guides and the Institute of Tourist Guiding. They have put forward some constructive suggestions to find a way through. Is the Minister willing to meet them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we have found a way through. It is called a passport.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, as we have already heard, several provisions in this Bill are a real cause for concern. The actual effects of the Bill in its current form would be to punish refugees, reduce safe and regular routes to the UK and limit refugee family reunion rights. I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Blunkett, and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about Clause 9.

This Bill will create a differential status for asylum seekers based on their mode of travel to the UK, leading either to their claim for asylum being dismissed or to them being given temporary asylum status with significant restrictions on family life and financial support. Asylum seekers will face the threat of criminal charges and a four-year prison sentence for entering illegally, thus criminalising asylum seekers.

Those who make irregular journeys to seek refuge do so because conditions in their countries of origin are desperate and necessitate leave for asylum. The UNHCR has clearly stated that these provisions will not only be discriminatory but are inconsistent with the refugee convention and have no basis in international law. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly. There is nothing in the refugee convention that defines a refugee or their entitlement under it according to the route of travel, choice of country of asylum or the timing of their claim. Orderly exit from dangerous and volatile situations is never easy. We only have to recall the shocking scenes we all witnessed in Afghanistan. Delays in opening up safe routes and settlement schemes exposed the arguments about safe third countries.

The Government have been keen to emphasise their desire to increase safe and regular routes, but this Bill does not introduce any new legal routes of this kind, nor does it increase the numbers already coming here. It also attempts to close off asylum status for those who have travelled from a safe third state to the UK. This again is contrary to international law, which allows asylum seekers to seek protection in specific countries where they have legitimate reasons.

The Government’s attempts to criminalise asylum seekers for irregular entry to the UK is beyond comprehension. The consequences of this have been powerfully articulated this afternoon by organisations working closely with asylum seekers. The Bill is not worthy of the UK and the values we purport to project to the world. If we want to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people from ruthless smugglers, we need to give priority to the provision of safe and legal routes and not become ruthless towards asylum seekers.

The Bill also proposes that refugees arriving in this way should be housed in accommodation centres. Plans for accommodation centres have been criticised by the Refugee Council, the British Red Cross and others. Conditions in current centres are harrowing and have been graphically documented. The extension of this dehumanising proposal, particularly offshore centres, would lead to human rights abuses where oversight would not be possible. Offshore processing of asylum claims is not only inhumane, it also undermines the refugee convention by shifting our obligations offshore.

Anti-slavery provisions are also deficient. They do not tackle the concerns which have been raised by victims of trafficking being seen through the immigration lens rather than as victims of trafficking. As I said earlier, aspects of this Bill are inhumane. Analysis of facts and figures show that claims from asylum seekers are small compared to other countries. Why they come here is evident if we look at the countries from which they are coming. The changes we need to make need to keep this perspective in mind, and we need to ensure that the system treats asylum seekers with humanity and not as numbers to be processed or criminalised in the process.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, said, we have a tendency to conflate asylum seekers with migrants. This confuses the issue and leads to misleading debates. This issue also requires international co-operation. If we care about our international obligations and our image as a decent country, I urge the Government to listen to the concerns expressed and to respond with understanding to the amendments which will be introduced in Committee.

Domestic Abuse: Older People

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

A significant amount of funding has been put in place, but the noble Baroness is right to point to research. We have had significant engagement with all parts of the support sector. As I said at the beginning, we are most grateful to Hourglass for the support that it provides.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, given that the abuse faced by older people is different, are the Government satisfied that they are providing targeted support, guidance and resources to local authorities to ensure that there is greater awareness, and do they have plans to actually monitor and assess the impact of the Domestic Abuse Act on the elderly?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness will know that all legislation that is put through and agreed in Parliament is monitored, reviewed and checked to see whether it is fit for purpose and whether gaps emerge in the fullness of time. She is absolutely right about monitoring the effects of the legislation, particularly on older people. These may be the same as or different from those experienced by younger people, as she said—but, certainly, it is a relatively recent phenomenon that this has come out.

Passport and Visa Measures

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have much respect for my noble friend, but one could flip that the other way and say of the long-standing issue of children outside the EU: have we made them feel unwelcome for years? I do not think we have.

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I raised this issue during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020. The Government then argued that this will be a security risk, which I think is rather far-fetched. I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Balfe, that this is going to dent our reputation and does not in any way promote global Britain. I argue that this is very short-sighted; I think that it will damage our economy and education institutions, and lead to an end of short-term school trips. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that the fact it affects the rest of the world is not important—it is the question of our relationship with Europe. It is important that we do not in any way dent our soft power.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, that issue of the UK annoying the EU could also be read both ways. But it is not a question of not welcoming people—it is putting everybody on an equal footing going forward from 1 July.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Baroness Prashar Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I cannot substantiate the point that the noble Baroness makes; that is possibly my ignorance rather than anything else. First and foremost, however, we must assist people to get the compensation that they deserve for the wrongs that they have suffered over the past 70 years under successive Governments.

[Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as a result of the complaints about the way the scheme is being administered, the Home Office is reported to have launched an internal inquiry about racism and so on. Can the Minister please tell the House: what is the remit of this inquiry, when will it be completed and will the results be made public?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I shall provide the noble Baroness with more details, in terms of whether it will be made public and other details, because I am afraid that I have scant information on that at the moment.