Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

There is no more important task for any Government than to keep their citizens safe, and this Bill will form an important part of the Government’s ability to do just that. I remind noble Lords that the Bill is very narrow in its scope and intent: it contains just one substantive clause, which is focused solely on closing a specific loophole in the existing deprivation of citizenship process.

Noble Lords may recall its substantive provision, in Clause 1, which addresses a recent Supreme Court ruling: N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The effect of this ruling is that, if an appeal against a deprivation decision is successful, or if a deprivation of citizenship order is withdrawn, that initial order will have had no effect and the person will be considered as having continued to be British. This means that people who have been deprived of British citizenship will automatically regain that status before any further avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

The effect of this judgment creates two risks. The first is that someone who poses a significant threat to public safety could return to the UK before all onward appeals are determined. I am sure that is a situation that noble Lords would not wish to see. Secondly, it could allow a person who has been deprived of citizenship, on the ground that it is conducive to the public good, to undermine further deprivation action by renouncing their other nationality before all onward appeals are determined. This is because reinstatement of a deprivation order would then render them stateless. This Bill simply intends to maintain the status quo by closing these loopholes, which may arise in a very small number of deprivation appeals.

It is important to say at the outset that the scope of this Bill does not touch on any wider areas of the deprivation process. It is important to say that because this Bill does not amend the existing deprivation power, it does not extend its potential application to additional individuals, and it does not in any way widen the reasons for which a person could be deprived of their citizenship. It also does not change any existing right of appeal, and it does not place any new restrictions on individuals who are subject to a deprivation order.

It is self-evident that deprivation of citizenship is a significant power, and I know that many noble Lords have strong feelings on its use. However, Parliament has enacted the power and entrusted the Home Secretary with using it, including to protect the UK from those who mean us harm. The existence of this power is not, however, the matter before us today. Rather, in this Bill, it is the specific provision that relates only to the potential period between a successful appeal and a final determination on the case.

To explain why it is so important that this power remains effective, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve, I shall set out briefly the circumstances in which the power is used and therefore the types of threat that the Bill will help protect society from. Deprivation is an important part of the suite of tools available to the Government to maintain public safety and preserve national security. The use of deprivation where it is conducive to the public good is a decision to be taken personally by the Home Secretary. It is used against some of the most dangerous individuals who pose a threat to the United Kingdom, including terrorists, extremists and serious and organised criminals. Someone who has been deprived of their citizenship and is in the UK no longer has any immigration status. Steps may be taken to remove them from the UK; they may be held in immigration detention in the interim; if they are overseas when a deprivation decision is made, they would not be permitted to enter the UK. In these circumstances, this is clearly an effective way to disrupt the threat posed by dangerous individuals.

I know that noble Lords will be interested in the volumes of this power: it is a power used sparingly. From 2008 to 2023, the entire period of the last Government’s use of the power, 12 people a year on average were deprived of their citizenship when it was determined to be for the public good.

There will undoubtedly be interest in this debate in the safeguards within the system. As I have set out, the existing safeguards will not be affected by the Bill. Deprivation decisions are carefully considered and made in accordance with international law, following advice from officials and lawyers. Each deprivation case is assessed individually. Along with many other things we have been discussing this week, this regime complies with the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and always comes with a right of appeal.

On the specific provision in the Bill before the House today, I reassure noble Lords that there is indeed grit in the system to ensure that the Bill, once enacted, is not used for any spurious purpose. Rules of court set defined timescales within which any application by the Home Secretary to appeal must be made. In addition, the decision to grant permission for such an appeal lies solely with the courts and is contingent on the presence of a properly arguable point of law. This means that the Government cannot rely on the provisions of the Bill to maintain deprivation of a person’s citizenship following a successful appeal without proper legal grounds or justification.

Finally, noble Lords will be aware that the deprivation power can also be used where someone has obtained citizenship for which they were never entitled on a fraudulent basis—for example, by providing false documents. Indeed, the majority of the deprivation orders fall under this category, as from 2018 to 2022, there was an average of 151 cases in that category per year. However, I want to be clear up front that the Bill will not apply in such cases. This is because where citizenship has been obtained fraudulently, a deprivation order is made only once all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. Such cases will therefore not be impacted by the narrow scope of the Bill.

As I hope I have stated and illustrated to noble Lords, the Bill is extremely narrow—in fact, in my nearly 30 years in both Houses of Parliament, it is probably the smallest Bill I have had the pleasure to introduce—but it seeks to ensure, in its smallness, that the deprivation power remains effective by retaining the status quo.

It is important, in finishing, to place on record a tribute by the Home Office team and me to our world-class law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They work tirelessly to keep us safe, and we owe them tremendous gratitude for that. This Bill is another tool in our toolbox to ensure that we can preserve our national security. I hope that noble Lords will examine it in detail. It is a small Bill; I hope they will support it, and I look forward to discussing it with Members of this House today, in Committee and on Report at a later date. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have raised points in this Second Reading. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their support from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I also welcome the broad support from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile. I recognise that other noble Lords have made legitimate points, and I will try to respond to them.

I remind the House that the debate is about the very small amendment to the legislation. It is not about the principle or application of deprivation, or the numbers of people who have had their citizenship deprived. It is a response to the Supreme Court judgment and what that means in relation to individuals who could potentially return to or retain their status in the United Kingdom when the Government have, through the Home Secretary, determined, for whatever reason, that that individual needs to have their citizenship deprived. That is a very serious step for a Home Secretary to take. When the Supreme Court states, as it did in the recent case, that an individual can retain their citizenship during the appeal process, that means that the individual, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, just mentioned, will be free to remain a British citizen, with all the rights and privileges that brings, while the appeal is ongoing, unless this legislation is put in place.

The noble Lord, Lord German, in his introductory remarks, made a number of points about that. Essentially, I ask him whether he is willing to take the risk. That is the nub of the argument that we are putting to the House today—that the purpose of deprivation of citizenship being maintained during the course of the appeal procedure is so that the United Kingdom Government, the Home Secretary, accountable to the House of Commons, and me in this House, accountable for the Home Office, can take a decision and uphold it during the period of appeal. If the appeal is successful downstream then all bets are off and the individual’s citizenship is restored. For whatever reason it was originally removed, the Home Secretary’s decision has been overturned and the status quo for the individual remains. However, in the event of the individual remaining at the serious risk level that meant the Home Secretary brought forward the citizenship issue in the first place, that opens the United Kingdom to a risk until such time as the appeal is heard. This Bill deals solely with that issue. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said on this matter, but I put it to them and to the noble Lord, Lord German that the issue is about the management of risk by the UK Government in a limited circumstance, which I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for raising.

This has been a fair debate about what we call the “Kit Malthouse amendments”, as a number of noble Lords have raised in their contributions. It is not appropriate to confer this discretion on the courts, because it is the Secretary of State who is accountable to this House and to Parliament, through the House of Commons, for matters of national security. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, mentioned, deprivation of citizenship and national security are matters for the Home Secretary. The Supreme Court itself emphasised that in its discussion and judgment. The Bill will align the approach to asylum and human rights appeals and extend it to appeals to the Supreme Court.

Decisions to deprive are taken in accordance with our international obligations and with consideration as to whether to give deprivation will expose the person to a real risk of mistreatment, which would constitute a breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Home Secretary is the person responsible for that decision. I hear what noble Lords have said but that is the reason why my noble friend in the Commons, Minister Jarvis, rejected the Kit Malthouse approach, and the reason why I do so today.

Valid points have been raised. The noble Lords, Lord Jay, Lord German, Lord Anderson and Lord Verdirame, mentioned citizenship and the impact on the child. I pay great tribute to the private discussions —which are now public discussions because we have talked about them—that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, because they raised an important issue. We have looked at that and reflected on it, and I hope I can give a satisfactory response to all noble Lords who have raised this question with me. It is simply this: the Bill does not alter the existing situation in relation to children born to deprived individuals, which is already established in law.

Where a child holds British citizenship, the deprivation of the parent’s citizenship has no effect on the child’s nationality status. Again, those points were mentioned across the House today. In cases where a child is born after the parent was deprived of British citizenship—another issue that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has mentioned privately and in the Chamber today—their entitlement to British citizenship will depend on a number of factors, including the status of the other parent. The consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in N3(ZA) is that if the child would have been British had their parent not been deprived then a successful appeal against deprivation by their parent means the child is automatically a British citizen. There are no changes in any of the principles that we have here, and I hope that reassures noble Lords on these points. Again, I am happy to reflect on that in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made valid points on the question of the appeals procedure and the fast-track process that takes place. In answer to what I think was his pointed question to me, the Government are committed to supporting the expediting of these cases on a case-by-case basis, where appropriate, as quickly as possible. It is in no one’s interests to have long drawn-out appeals. What is the practical implication of that in relation to the courts determining the length of the appeal procedure where disagreements arise, now that courts have the power to order case management reviews to resolve issues? The current rules of court already permit the court to make directions to expedite cases if there are reasons for that to be done. The judiciary themselves are probably, dare I say it, better placed than the Home Secretary to determine and assess in each case how they can expedite those cases or not. All the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is concerned about are things that would potentially mean that a judge could determine, with “defence counsel”, that this needs to be done quickly. That is reasonable, and we want to see it over and done with as quickly as possible. We can look at the practical implications for the Government, but I hope I can reassure him on the principle.

Questions were asked about whether a person could be deported from the UK while they are appealing against the deprivation decision. In theory, it is possible for a person to be deprived of citizenship and deported before the deprivation appeal is resolved, but in practice that is going to be difficult because there will be the opportunity for people to make a human rights claim in response to the stage 1 deportation letter, and that means they would have an in-country right of appeal against the refusal of that claim if certified and a right of redress against the certification decision. It is a matter for the courts how those appeals are managed.

A number of other points were raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about the role of the terrorism reviewer having oversight of these matters. The current situation is that the oversight for this aspect of public policy lies with the inspector of borders. They can determine their own inspection regime, if they wish to look at that. The terrorism reviewer does not currently have that role and responsibility—that is an argument the noble Lord might want to put down for debate. Should the inspector of borders wish to have an investigation on the performance of any matter to do with this—including the rights of the child, the length of the appeal procedure or the Home Secretary’s powers—they could do that, should they so wish, independently of government. So there is a sort of oversight there, but maybe not to the standard or type that the noble Lord wishes.

Ultimately, for this House—and, again, I am grateful for the support of His Majesty’s Opposition, in particular on this—it boils down to whether we are willing to take the risk. If the Home Secretary has taken advice from officials at a senior level and signed that order and taken the decision to deprive an individual of their citizenship, they have done that because there is a threat to the United Kingdom, in one form or another. If this Bill is not enacted, that threat will potentially materialise in another form as the individual will be able to restore their rights as a citizen when they appeal the original decision. This is the purpose of this Bill.

I recognise the range of points made by noble Lords from across the House on a range of issues, from the principle of deprivation in the first place to the numbers and so on, but that is the focus of the Bill and I put the question: are noble Lords willing to take that risk? I suggest that the Government are not and I am grateful to those Members who will support that position in this House today.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I have a question for the Minister about the possibility that perhaps in the future the deprivation of citizenship would be used as a prelude to deportation, even in circumstances where the first-instance tribunal had decided that the deprivation of citizenship was unlawful. It would be very helpful if the noble Lord could write to me about that.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thought I had answered that, but if I have not answered that to the extent that I thought, I will reflect on what we have said in Hansard and will ensure that, before the next stage of this Bill, which I think is scheduled for a week today, a piece of paper in electronic or physical form lands on the noble Lord’s desk. With that, I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Refugee Family Reunion Scheme

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the temporary suspension of new applications to a refugee family reunion scheme, what is the timeline for introducing a new route.

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

This suspension is temporary while the Government undertake a review and reform of the current family reunion rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system. We anticipate that any changes will come into effect from spring 2026.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for his response, but I will press him further. Recent research from Oxfam and the Refugee Council has found clear evidence of people turning to cross-channel smugglers to reach family members because they could not access a safe and legal family reunion pathway. Therefore, what dedicated family reunion pathways are being considered by the Government that will offer safe, legal and accessible alternatives to asylum seekers, and which will thereby disrupt smuggling operations?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. Anybody in the system as of 4 September will still have the same approach to asylum and family reunion claims that applied prior to the announcement by my right honourable friend. This is a pause while we review the system. Anybody can apply through any other safe and legal route, and that will be considered appropriately. In the last 12 months, there was a 368% increase in family reunion grants compared with 2022. That is not sustainable, and we need to examine the reasons for that. That is why the pause has been put in place.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, safe and legal routes have always included working with the United Nations on its various programmes. I had the honour of organising the Bosnian one in the 1990s. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that the Government are still actively in touch with the United Nations to make sure that that safe and legal route is exploited where appropriate to give sanctuary to those that need it?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I can say yes. The Government are always in discussion with the United Nations and will continue to be so.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the suspension of the refugee scheme until next spring presents a particular problem for unaccompanied children whose refugee parents in the United Kingdom will be making an application for them to come to the United Kingdom. What special consideration have the Minister and the Government given to those children in that regard, in this period between now and next spring?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government uphold the principle of family unity and want to ensure that we maintain that. We have to examine the reason for the significant drive in family reunion applications over the last two to three years. It is a significant increase, and therefore the pause has been applied so that we can assess the situation, look at those areas and make some recommendations for, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, spring of next year. Family reunion and safeguarding children will remain key factors. Individuals can still apply through existing safe and legal routes, but the automatic assumption, which we have now closed on a pause basis, is not going to continue until we have reviewed it.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, if I had a very suspicious mind, I would be inclined to ask the Minister whether this is an excuse for stopping family reunion altogether. I do not have such a suspicious mind all the time; I just wonder whether he can give us an assurance that this is not just a way of blocking the whole process. He will know that last night, we debated the whole thing of child and family reunion, and it will be coming up again on Report.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend, who I very much respect on these issues, that, as he knows, between January 2015 and June 2025, 83,179 family reunion visas were granted. In 2024, nearly 20,000 individuals arrived under this route. There has been and will continue to be a massive increase in the numbers arriving. It is responsible of the Government to examine this issue, to look at the reasons why this is happening and to potentially take some steps to regularise that situation. That does not mean that we have stopped the scheme; it simply means that we have to look at why there has been a 368% increase over the previous two years in the numbers arriving.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, if refugees living in the UK can demonstrate that they are in stable employment and contributing to society, and that their families would not be dependent on public funds, will their families be allowed to join them in this country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As my noble friend will guess from the questions I have had to date, we paused the family reunion scheme on 4 September pending a review, and we expect to bring forward proposals by April of next year. I am not in a position to give my noble friend a foretaste of what those proposals will be, because the purpose of us pausing the scheme is to examine the reasons why the increase has happened; to look at the pressures that have brought, potentially, 18% of reunion visas from Syria, 17% from Iran and 12% from Afghanistan; to look at what the drivers of that are and at how we can provide an appropriate level of family reunion—but in a context whereby we put some more strictures on what family reunion means.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The Government have rightly suspended the refugee family reunion route while they draft new rules for the scheme. The Prime Minister has said that this was because he wanted to end the

“golden ticket to settling in the UK”.

Surely, the Minister must accept that the Government’s inability to implement any meaningful policies to stop illegal migration and their failure to deter the recent small boat crossings is indeed a golden ticket?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord and I have had much discussion on this issue in the last weeks and months. He knows that we have an honest disagreement about how we control some of those issues. He is conflating family reunion and asylum claims with individuals who are potentially coming here through irregular migration by small boats, funded by criminal gangs. He knows we are putting a border command in place to tackle those gangs. He knows we are putting in place measures to criminalise that activity. He knows we are putting in measures to try to stop that, including a scheme with France and scrapping the failed Rwanda scheme. There is an honest disagreement between us, but I hope he will recognise that the Government are acting responsibly in looking at the drivers of family reunion to see if we can make an honest assessment, rather than letting the figures rise uncontrollably, as happened under the last year of the previous Government.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The definition of a family is very clear in the regulations. What kind of relative would the Government deem inappropriate, based on the evidence they have before them in the review that is taking place?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We have had a lot of discussion over the last couple of days on the immigration Bill about the question of what forms a relative. Amendments have been proposed to the Bill that would allow grandparents, siblings, cousins and others to come to the United Kingdom as part of the family reunion policy. The Government have resisted those. Part of this review is to look at those very issues: who is coming, why they are coming, what their family relationship is, and why the growth has taken place. It is perfectly responsible for any Government to look at that and to say, “We’ve had an enormous increase in the last three to four years in the numbers who are coming under this route; is that appropriate?” That is what the Government are doing.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, is not the answer to why there is a surge at the moment a simple one? They see UK migration policy tightening and tightening, perhaps as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested, and that the only way they can reconcile themselves with their families is by getting in as soon as possible. Is not that the reason for the surge?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I do not wish to pre-empt the review that is taking place. We are looking at what the reasons are. The growth has occurred over the last three to four years. That might well be to do with the situation of instability in places such as Syria and Afghanistan, but use of that route has increased. It is important for any responsible Government to look at what the reasons are, the numbers involved and what the steps are to manage and assess that, and to review the criteria. That is what this Government are doing. We have paused that scheme, and nobody before that pause is affected. The applications in the system will still be considered, but post 4 September to the end of our review, there is a pause. In the meantime, as I have said to other noble Lords, individuals can apply through normal family routes to undertake a transfer to the UK should they wish and, if they meet the criteria, they will be accepted.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Given the suspension, sine die, of the refugee family reunion scheme, what advice would the Minister give to the bona fide refugee here, granted asylum status, who discovers that their son or daughter is stuck in a camp in Libya, Syria or Turkey? Their child would like to join them; they would like to have their child here. What advice would the Minister give?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The advice I would give is that there are a number of routes that individuals can apply to in order to exercise their right to join their family. Those routes are available and can be exercised, but the family reunion automatic route we have now has been paused—not, in answer to my noble friend Lord Dubs, ended—pending review, to look at the very issues that have caused the need for the review in the first place.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

The purpose of these amendments is straightforward. They are about responsibility: making sure that our migration system works for the long term, that it has the capacity to help those who truly need it and that it does not collapse under its own weight. Unless we are clear that indefinite leave to remain is a right earned through contribution and self-sufficiency, not an entitlement, we will create a system that fails everyone. These amendments strike the right balance: firm but fair, compassionate but responsible. They reaffirm that Britain remains open to those who will contribute and share in our national life, while ensuring that our generosity is not abused.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for proposing the amendment and for the support that she had from the noble Lord, Lord German, in relation to the contribution that he has made. I shall deal initially with Amendment 186, which was tabled by my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. My noble friend has made a very strong plea to the Government, but I remind her that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one, which is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship.

As my noble friend knows, the British Nationality Act 1981 provides for the Home Secretary to determine the good character policy. Changes to the policy are at the discretion of the Home Secretary, and the amendment proposed by my noble friend and other Members in Committee seeks to limit that discretion.

I hope my noble friend recognises that the good character policy is compliant with our international obligations, including those under the refugee convention. Guidance on the good character policy is clear that decision-makers have the ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. This includes disregarding immigration breaches if it is accepted, and I think my noble friend accepted this, that they were outside the applicant’s control—for example, if the person was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking or if they had entered illegally when they were a child. I argue that an explicit exemption in legislation is not necessary, as the existing policy guidance already provides flexibility.

My noble friend asked why we brought this in. The good character requirement is set out in the British Nationality Act 1981. Each citizenship application will always be considered on its individual merits, and the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship on an exceptional basis where there are exceptional, compelling or mitigating circumstances, or where it is necessary for us to comply with our international obligations. Small boat crossings and other dangerous journeys to the UK put lives at risk and undermine our border security. The change to the good character policy is part of the Government’s strategy to strengthen the asylum and immigration system, ensuring that those rules are respected and enforced. There is a legal basis for that, and discretion for the Secretary of State accordingly.

Amendment 191 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies, who is not currently in his place, but I will continue to address his amendment. It places specific conditions on those applying for permission to enter, stay or settle in the UK, and removes the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant leave outside the Immigration Rules. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed.

The immigration system controls access to benefits already. The policy of no recourse to public funds is a long-standing principle adopted by successive Governments. Most migrants will become eligible to access public funds only at the point when they gain settlement. The expectation under our current policy is that temporary migrants coming to the UK should be able to maintain and accommodate themselves without recourse to public funds. This approach reflects the need to maintain the confidence of the general public that immigration brings benefits to our country rather than costs to the public purse.

There is an ability to apply for the condition of no recourse to public funds to be lifted. This relates to the safeguards that exist to protect the most vulnerable in certain circumstances. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for visas and settlement. We set out our plans to restore control over immigration in the White Paper.

I turn briefly to Amendment 196, which was also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel. It proposes to restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and to partners of British citizens, and to set the qualifying period for settlement at 10 years. Although settlement in the UK is a privilege, not an automatic entitlement, the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in this amendment.

The expectation is that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement. There is currently a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for such settlement. Most of these are five years, with shorter periods for exceptional work routes and longer 10-year qualifying periods where, for example, we require people to demonstrate close ties with the UK over a longer time. There are also exceptions in place for the most vulnerable, which this amendment does not recognise. The provisions for settlement are set out in the Immigration Rules, so again I tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for settlement.

What we are looking to do with the Bill is strengthen our borders, go after smuggling gangs—which have caused much damage to migrants’ lives already—and secure our borders from systematic abuse. However, noble Lords will have seen that the Government have set out proposals for earned settlement within the immigration White Paper. As part of this, we will set a baseline qualifying period of 10 years for settlement in the UK, with the possibility of settlement being gained earlier based on contribution or skills. That will be subject to consultation later this year—I hope that will assist my noble friend Lady Lister—if people wish to express particular views, not just in this House but elsewhere. That consultation will be produced later this year.

Amendment 197, which the noble Lords have also tabled, would automatically revoke settlement in a wide range of circumstances, including where a person’s income falls below £38,700. I suggest to the noble Lord—I hope he takes this in the spirit in which I put it—that the amendment is unworkable and would lead to injustice. Let us give an example of a situation where a person relies on the benefits system for a very short period but has paid tax and national insurance contributions for decades. The amendment, if passed and in legislation, would mean that that person would have their settlement revoked. I do not think it can be fair that a short period of unemployment might well lead to the revocation of settlement.

I should note that most migrants become eligible to access public funds only at the point at which they gain settlement—namely, indefinite leave to remain. A migrant’s access is subject to the same eligibility criteria as any other claimant, including the need to be habitually resident, meaning that they will have made the UK their home in addition to having a legal right to claim benefits. Furthermore, provisions also exist to invalidate any leave granted to a foreign criminal who has been made the subject of a deportation order. Where a deportation order is not made, settlement can be revoked for acts of criminality, such as deception or fraud in obtaining a settlement, as well as other significant non-conducive reasons. Settlement, of course, can also be revoked where a foreign national is liable to be deported but cannot be because of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR or the refugee convention.

So, in summary, the Government are fully committed to making our communities safer by deporting those who break our laws, but, for the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask that my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, do not press these amendments now. Obviously, we can, if they wish, return to them on Report.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble Lord referred to the extension to 10 years of the period of waiting on indefinite leave to remain while seeking citizenship. That does not, I hope, apply retrospectively to people arriving now—people who came in on the understanding that the waiting period would be five years. I hope the Minister can confirm that, for them, the waiting period will still be five years.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The proposals will be set out shortly, subject to consultation. I hope the noble Lord can await that formal consultation on those proposals.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for a moment’s personal reflection on this topic. A few years ago I was debating, at the Cambridge Union, the future of human rights in this country and I dared to suggest that we might have to look again at the ECHR. The Labour Peer on the opposite side of the debate told the students that this sort of argument was last heard in 1930s Germany. I tried not to take offence, but I suppose it should be a matter of some modest satisfaction that what was once characterised as a neo-Nazi approach is now to be, or might be, Labour Party policy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, as ever, for the opportunity to have this discussion. I have to say straight away to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray of Blidworth, that we are not really going to find common cause this evening on this issue. I suspect that we will have to reflect on this on Report and that we will have a Division in the House. I suspect that we will be on opposite sides in that Division, because this Government are committed to ensuring that we comply with our international law and protect our human rights.

We are committed to the European Convention on Human Rights, which underpins international agreements that we have with partners, including the Good Friday agreement and the France returns agreement. We recognise the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary, going to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, in determining its applications. That does not mean that, at the end of the day, we cannot examine some issues, on which I hope I will satisfy the noble Lord in a moment, in dealing with these matters before us.

I say straightaway to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, that we will not agree on this. That is where we are. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the Human Rights Act to create what I would call meaningful reforms of our current system and processes. The Government have set out plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. We will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test, to take back control—to use the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—over who comes to and stays in the United Kingdom.

I hope to assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. We will set out how and when someone can make a claim. We are also reviewing the application of Article 3—

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I know that the Minister is in some difficulty because he has not been given clear riding instructions, but this is a fundamental point for the British public. They need to know the general direction of travel. The Minister has been good enough to be clear that there is no way the ECHR will be deviated from and that there will be no amendment to the Human Rights Act, so how will the legislation be framed so that it changes the courts’ approach, given the Minister’s correct acknowledgement of the importance of the independence of the judiciary?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, this may or may not satisfy the noble Lord—I apologise if it does not do so—but work is under way to review the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases. We will bring forward legislation on how Article 8 of the European convention is implemented in immigration cases to give courts the further clarity that they need so that our Immigration Rules are respected. As we have always said on migration, we will secure our borders and, if we need to go further, we will. In a sense, I am trying to give the noble Lord clarity by saying that we will reform Article 8 approaches and review the application of Article 3, but that will be in legislation brought before both Houses, which will then be considered and accepted, amended or rejected by both Houses.

The point is that this is where the water—I am not sure whether we should call it blue or red water—between the Government on this side of the Chamber and His Majesty’s Official Opposition exists. I do not see a situation whereby withdrawal from the ECHR or human rights legislation is tenable or desirable or will assist in the processes that noble Lords opposite seek. The agreements that we have with France, the Good Friday agreement and other agreements are dependent on that co-operation on international regulation, supplied and backed up by that legislation.

That may or may not assist the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I say to him that the direction of travel is clear: further examination and potential legislation to assess that down stream versus the commitment to maintain our human rights as we have them under the current legislative framework, which noble Lords are trying to disapply with their amendments.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

I would be grateful for one final intervention; I hope that the Minister will forgive me, as I appreciate that it is late. The Labour Party had 14 years in opposition to disagree with the policies of the coalition and the Conservative Party, yet now, more than a year later, there is nothing in the border security Bill before us—and there has been nothing in any manifesto—about rewriting Articles 8 or 3. Why has it taken so long?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are identifying challenges that the Government have responsibilities to identify and work on. The challenges that we are identifying exist for some of the reasons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Issues to do with applications of Articles 3 and 8 are causing some challenges.

That does not mean we have to withdraw from human rights or ECHR legislation. We can either work with further UK amendments, to support changes to that legislation while retaining the spirit of the law that we apply, or—I was going to go on to say this before taking the intervention—actively engage with our European partners and the Council of Europe to consider what international reforms could restore the right balance between individual rights and wider public interest in controlling migration. As the noble Lord will know, this is a shared challenge. The basic rights set out in the ECHR and Human Rights Act are still valid today, but this does not mean that it is a static, permanent document that cannot be looked at in certain areas. As I have said, work is under way on reviewing the application of Articles 3 and 8 in immigration cases.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In this new piece of legislation on Articles 3 and 8, will the Home Office be able to certify in its new Bill that the new provision will be compatible with the convention rights, or will it certify that they are not?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I suggest that the noble Lord tests me on these matters when we have, as I have said, undertaken the work, reviewed potential legislation, brought forward proposals and put them before both this House and the House of Commons. Either I or a Minister in the House of Commons will have signed the Bill at that stage, in terms of those issues, but we are a number of steps away from that.

At the moment, we have assessed—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned—that Articles 3 and 8 have some challenges, but the principle is not to do what the Opposition seek, which is to withdraw from this in its entirety and, in doing so, withdraw from a range of international obligations that we share with many countries and which underpin the work of this United Kingdom in so many areas. That is not my natural approach to this challenge. With due respect to noble Lords, let us have that debate and, if need be, let us have that vote at some point. We will be on different sides of that argument.

To the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I say this: bear with us. We will bring forward the points that I have tried to make in tonight’s debate on Articles 3 and 8. They will be examined when the Government have had an opportunity both to examine them in detail—now that we are in government, as opposed to being outside the tent in opposition—and to bring forward proposals that will help in a way that builds consensus with our partners on what ECHR reform could look like. At the recent European Political Community Summit, 17 nations, including the UK, agreed to work together to ensure that the ECHR and other international frameworks are implemented in a way that safeguards against abuse so that Governments can tackle modern challenges.

The UK is committed to complying with international law. If we accepted the amendments from those opposite, we would not be, in my view, complying with international law. That includes implementing judgments of the European court and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases; when the court has reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, which I currently welcome, we will abide by those also.

In summary, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can be patient. To the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Murray, I say this: I am sorry that we are not going to agree, but I hope that I have explained the reasons why.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, as expected, that created a good discussion on the amendments in this group; I am thankful to the noble Lords who took part in it. I am disappointed that, after all the legitimate deportations that have been blocked, the Government are still resisting these sensible proposals—if not, perhaps, a little confused by the Government’s variety of views as to where they are going with this.

I shall not detain the Committee for much longer, but I must stress that the Human Rights Act is not supporting or upholding the rights and freedoms that it was meant to enshrine. The Human Rights Act has become a shield behind which criminals, terrorists and abusers hide. We are clear that this is not at all right.

Let us not forget that varying degrees of this policy are supported by many of those on the Government’s own Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has publicly called for the Government to suspend parts of the ECHR to allow for more illegal migrants and foreign criminals to be deported. Another former Labour Home Secretary, Jack Straw, has proposed decoupling human rights laws from the ECHR to permit more deportations. I note that the Government have committed to reforming how Article 8 is interpreted under UK law and we have heard that commitment again from the Minister. But the simple fact is that this is not sufficient. If we reinterpret Article 8, crafty defence lawyers will find a workaround for the new interpretation or will start using other provisions of the Human Rights Act to block deportation. We say that only a wholesale repeal will resolve the issue of vexatious legal challenges and allow us to regain control of our asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak broadly in favour of Amendment 203L, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. At its core, this amendment seeks to prevent the abuse of the student visa route by using it as a back door to asylum. This recognises an important principle. Those who enter the United Kingdom in one set of circumstances should not then be permitted to rewrite those circumstances once they have got here.

A student visa is granted on trust. It is granted to those who come here to study, not to those who claim asylum. When someone applies for such a visa, they do so on the clear understanding that they are entering this country for educational purposes. If, once here, they make an asylum claim that was not mentioned at the point of entry and, indeed, do so days, weeks or months later, they are by definition acting under false pretences unless there is a good reason for it—and I will come to that in a moment. The asylum system exists to protect those who are genuinely fleeing persecution, not to reward those who seek to manipulate our visa system for other ends. Where individuals apply dishonestly, where they misrepresent their reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, we cannot simply turn a blind eye and reward that deception with the right to remain.

On this side, we on the Front Bench have a qualification: we cannot be blind to the fact that circumstances in someone’s home country may change after arrival. A student in the United Kingdom on a student visa may find that, in their absence, their home country becomes unsafe for them personally to return. They may therefore become eligible for asylum during the time they are in the United Kingdom on a student visa.

The amendment as drafted prevents any asylum claim being made if someone has entered on a student visa. That is a strong prohibition. If this were clarified in some way, with a carve-out for those who can establish that the situation has genuinely changed in their home country while they are here, we would commend consideration of an amendment to address that situation. So I ask my noble friend Lady Lawlor to consider whether the amendment should be redrafted.

For their part, the Government must stop the abuse of student visas under the current system. They should equally ensure that, in the appropriate but, I hope, reasonably exceptional circumstances where there has been a genuine change, such people are protected.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for Amendment 203L. I am also grateful for the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because it is very possible that someone arrives as a student and finds that the situation in their home country has changed since their arrival. I remember that, when I was at university, which is an awfully long time ago now, there were students who arrived when there was one regime in Iran and left when there was another regime. The flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred is very important, and this is one of the particular holes—dare I say it?—in the proposal brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. However, I have to say that there are several more holes in the argument that she put forward. If I point those out to her as part of this debate, I hope she will accept them in good faith.

The amendment seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers, so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa that was lodged more than two days after they arrived in the UK must be declared inadmissible. We had a large debate on inadmissibility on day 4 of the Committee, and we considered five amendments then. This is a very late amendment to this discussion, so we have had limited time to consider it. However, it is not an approach the Government consider appropriate.

The likely consequence of the amendment, as well as that pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without any obvious way in which to return individuals who make those claims. It would leave affected individuals in a state of limbo, with no certainty as to whether they qualify for refugee status or whether they should be returned to their home country. On the basis of that contention, it could prove both costly and ineffective.

Furthermore, in affording a more favourable position to those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, the amendment also risks benefiting those students who are more likely to have deliberately used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system.

The Government cannot support the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it does not achieve the objective that the noble Baroness proposed, and it is certainly open to the wide hole which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out to the Committee today. So I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on what the noble Lord said and, in general terms, to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in the debate and particularly to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for spotting this. I had thought about it in respect of other amendments, but I did not include it in this one, and that is indeed a gap—I agree with the Minister. Certainly, if I am to bring it back on Report, I will take account of that.

But my overall position remains that, with provision for the problems pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I really cannot see that we can tackle the problem of visa switching by those who enter in, or not in, good faith. There are indeed reports of students who came here and fraudulently deceived the university authorities, saying they would take a course when they subsequently admitted that they had no intention of doing so. This is a problem, and we have no way of dealing with it. Unless we crack down quite strictly on people claiming asylum when they have no reason to other than a desire to stay in this country, and when they have made this clear subsequently—it is clear from the evidence—then we will not tackle this problem. It is very grave for our universities, student communities and taxpayers. So I will consider this. Perhaps I can work something out with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I hope to bring this back again on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I was intrigued to know what points the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was going to raise. After listening to him, it occurs to me to ask the Minister whether HM Coastguard is a partner authority under Clause 3 of the Bill:

“a public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security (whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere)”.

Of course, partner authorities have a duty to co-operate with the Border Force commander—so I am asking about context.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Berkeley for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on record in Committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are, sadly, dying or being put at risk at sea. I can give him the assurance that, if he wants to pass me Captain Schanck’s report at some point, I shall make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail and, if there are issues to which I can respond post that, I shall certainly do so.

The purpose of this Bill is several-fold, but there are two particular examples in the Bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table before the Committee. The first is the role of the Border Security Commander, which I shall come on to in a moment—and will, I hope, answer the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised as well. But I draw his attention to Clause 18, which we considered earlier, which provides a specific new offence of endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom.

Amendment 208 would introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law relating to the safety of vessels in relation to small-boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, I do not think that it is responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel; our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also—and I hope that it is helpful to my noble friend to say this—existing maritime law in force. We should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vessels and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.

Turning to Amendment 208, the strengthening of the border command is important, and this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The new border command established by the Bill is responsible for co-ordinating border forces, maritime command and His Majesty’s Coastguard for the purposes of border security. The Border Security Command established by the Bill provides strategic cross-system leadership across current and future threats, not just for Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people-smuggling gangs. That is, I think, the spirit of what the amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do.

In addition, my noble friend will be aware that the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, is designed to co-ordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The JMSC is the UK’s centre of excellence for maritime security. I have myself had meetings at its headquarters in the past 12 months. It provides 24/7 monitoring and reporting of global waters, it plans the response to maritime events, and it looks at UK global maritime threats and sanctions-related understanding. To achieve this, the JMSC engages with a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and will also discuss with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening in the channel. So I understand why my noble friend has brought this amendment forward, but I argue that the new body would be essentially a duplication and is not required. The Border Security Command will be drawing together expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats, building on the expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies.

I say again to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that in relation to Clause 3, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, so there is that link and the assumption is that there will be close co-operation.

I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this amendment forward. I will certainly make sure that the Home Office Minister responsible for this policy area gets sight of the report referred to, but I hope that, with those assurances, my noble friend is able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive responses, which I shall read with great interest. On first reflection, it all sounds like a positive way forward, although I will have to investigate whether the right equipment is being procured and used, because people cannot rescue large numbers of people floating in the sea if they do not have the right equipment. But on that basis, I am very grateful to him and to other colleagues who have responded, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group brings us to a very topical and significant point of contention. Amendments 165, 166 and 177 all seek in their own way to expand refugee family reunion provisions, in some cases dramatically.

I begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those who support these amendments. We all recognise the tragic circumstances that force families apart due to conflict and persecution. But we must equally recognise that compassion, if not tempered by realism and control, risks undermining both the integrity of our immigration system and the public’s confidence in its fairness. Each of these amendments, though well intentioned, risks undermining the very principles that underpin a sustainable, fair and secure asylum system.

Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have made the argument that those granted refugee status in this country should be able to apply to bring their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner, their children, grandchildren, sister, brother, nephew or nieces to the UK; and, for a child, they should be able to sponsor their parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles. This is a fundamental shift in the architecture of our immigration policy. It creates wide-ranging entitlements without the necessary safeguards, verification mechanisms or limits. It also risks creating perverse incentives, in particular the possibility that families might send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys in the hope of opening a pathway for broader reunification. Such unintended consequences which risk perverse incentives are not compassionate: they are, to put it mildly, reckless.

Amendment 166 would require the Secretary of State to rewrite the immigration rules within six months to provide an expansive new framework for refugee family reunion—one that far exceeds the scope of existing policy, international norms and operational capacity. Subsection (5) of its proposed new clause includes, as of right, not only spouses and dependent children but siblings up to age 25, unmarried partners and, potentially, a wide range of others where there is dependency or concern for well-being. In that regard, my noble friend Lord Jackson is right to raise the issue of unmarried partners via his Amendment 169. Crucially, it would also open the door to almost unlimited discretion under its subsection (5)(e). This would empower the Secretary of State to admit other persons based on subjective criteria, including emotional or psychological dependency, with no practical limiting principle.

This is not a measured enhancement of our current rules. It is an open-ended expansion that risks transforming refugee protection into a de facto right to extended family migration, far removed from the original purpose of asylum law. It would not only increase pressure on our asylum system, already under significant strain, but risk distorting the principle of individual refuge into a system of family-by-family resettlement through the back door.

The current refugee family reunion framework already allows for spouses and children under 18 to join those granted protection, recognising both humanitarian concern and practical enforceability. What is proposed here goes far beyond that: it would create a prescriptive and permanent legal duty to change immigration rules, backed by statutory timetables, without proper democratic scrutiny or flexibility to adapt to changing geopolitical conditions.

This raises several concerns, the first about security and verification. How will we reliably establish family links, particularly when documentation is scarce or unreliable? The broader we cast the net of eligibility, the more vulnerable our system becomes to fraud, abuse and trafficking. A second concern is about the operational consequences. The Home Office is already processing record numbers of applications, with finite resources. Imposing a statutory obligation to widen the criteria, potentially by tens of thousands of additional claimants, would undermine our capacity to deal swiftly and justly with the most urgent cases. This amendment, with its wide eligibility, statutory rigidity and lack of safeguards, risks sending precisely that signal.

I must ask: what is the end point? If we legislate to allow adult siblings, adult children up to 25, unmarried partners and those in psychological dependency, where does it end? We risk normalising a model where refuge is no longer about the individual at risk but an entitlement for entire extended families, however genuine their desire to reunite. That is not what the refugee convention envisages and it is not something we can responsibly support.

Amendment 177 proposes a statutory family reunion right for asylum-seeking children overseas to join relatives already granted protection in the UK. The amendment would remove virtually every safeguard, with no maintenance or accommodation requirements, no fees and no health surcharge. It would also oblige the Secretary of State to facilitate travel arrangements and co-ordinate with foreign authorities, regardless of the complexities or security conditions on the ground. In effect, this would create a state-sponsored international reunification scheme for extended relatives, with no meaningful eligibility checks or financial thresholds.

The idea may be noble in sentiment, but it is completely divorced from operational reality. We already offer safe and legal routes for those in greatest need. The resettlement schemes for Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians, not to mention the Hong Kong BNO route, demonstrate that, when this country chooses to act, we do so with generosity and resolve. But that generosity must be targeted, managed and sustainable.

At the heart of all three amendments is a belief that compassion must override control, but compassion without control is not kindness but chaos. The British people expect an asylum system that is firm but fair, not one that is open-ended, unverified and vulnerable to abuse. We must not confuse individual acts of empathy with a systematic rewriting of our immigration obligations. Nor should we allow our policies to be shaped by emotional pressure alone. A functioning asylum system must serve those in greatest need first and foremost, but it must do so within the bounds of national sovereignty, operational capacity and public trust. I fully respect those who have tabled these amendments, but I urge the Committee to reflect seriously on the risks they pose. We cannot allow emotion to drive policy at the expense of security, sustainability and the long-term integrity of our borders.

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

I am genuinely grateful to noble Lords who have tabled these amendments. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones, the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Kerr, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Lister for their proposed amendments. They have generated a debate and discussion that we need to have. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for his recognition of the difficult job we face in the Home Office. This week alone, it is immigration today, deprivation of citizenship tomorrow and crime and policing on Thursday, and there may be a repeat Statement on the Manchester incident as well. It is a full agenda for the Home Office to deal with.

I start by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am not right-wing; I am not pandering to right-wing tendencies. I am trying to ensure, with my colleagues in the Home Office, that we manage some important issues in an effective way, for the response that is required by the public but also for the management of this system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German, raise two slightly different, yet interlinked, points. I have just a few observations. There is often much talk about the necessity of immigration because people are unwilling to do certain jobs, and therefore, to prevent understaffing, we must fill vacancies with workers from abroad. This is evident in the social care sector, which undoubtedly does suffer from a workforce shortage and low wages. Although not guaranteed, there is the possibility that, if wages in the care sector were higher, we might see more British people willing to enter carers’ roles and thus end the reliance on importing labour for the sector.

There is the obvious caveat, of course. This amendment asks for a report to assess the effect of introducing a sector-specific minimum wage for carers on net migration, and we must be careful about setting wages via statutory intervention in a highly selective manner. If we begin carving out bespoke wage floors sector by sector, we risk distorting the labour market and undermining the effectiveness of our broader immigration and wage policy framework. Nevertheless, Amendment 175 raises an interesting point and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I am far more sceptical about Amendment 176, which seeks to exempt NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. The NHS currently relies on talented professionals from around the world. They are a credit to our country and an integral part of our public services. However, I would suggest that there is a fallacy inherent in this debate. For far too long, our solution to the problem of labour shortages in the health and care sector has been to simply import workers from abroad. That is the easy solution. I have no issue with admitting that, in the past, my party has been all too complicit in this as well. But just because this has been the prevailing policy for some time does not mean it is right.

The immigration skills charge exists for a reason: to ensure that businesses and public services invest in domestic training and workforce development. Staffing shortfalls in the NHS have been filled by migration, but what that demonstrates is a fundamental weakness in our healthcare training and education system. As it stands, we are clearly not doing enough to hire British doctors, nurses and care workers, and that is why we are having to rely on immigration to fill those gaps. This is precisely the inverted logic that has been applied to healthcare hiring and immigration for far too long.

To exempt NHS employees outright risks setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the incentive for long-term workforce planning in our health system. Applying exceptions to the charge will therefore not solve the problem we have; it may very well exacerbate it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for speaking to the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. They have raised two specific issues, as the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord Davies of Gower, have mentioned. First, the Government recognise the vital contribution which international care workers have made to both the NHS and adult social care. However, the immigration White Paper, published in May, sets out the Government’s general position that we should be trying to encourage greater use and greater support for opportunities within the United Kingdom for those levels of skills, training and engagement for those who are economically inactive in the resident UK labour market. The purpose of the Government’s White Paper—and, indeed, the announcements on 30 September on the fair pay agreement for the adult care sector—is to ensure that professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work they do. It is a manifesto commitment that we will commit to extensively engage with the care sector on the design and implementation of a fair pay agreement, with the process and objective of, along with the immigration White Paper, increasing the use of UK-based residents in the social care sector.

I am grateful for the introductory comments from the noble Lord, Lord German, because in those comments he clarified for me what he meant about the minimum wage. Obviously, there is no specific minimum wage for carers as a whole, although there is a national minimum wage, which I was proud to stay up over several days to vote for back in 1998 in another place. It is a very important piece of legislation. However, people looking to recruit international care workers and senior care workers must now pay at least £25,000 per year based on a 37.5 hour week. This equates to £12.82 per hour. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government changed the immigration rules in July to remove the right to recruit care workers internationally. Therefore, the amendment as drafted is unclear as to what minimum wage would be reported on, although I did get the sense that it is the living wage that the noble Lord, Lord German, was speaking about.

However, I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report in Parliament, given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis which will show the impact of changes on inward migration and, in due course, once we have had an opportunity to consult further, the impact of the fair pay agreement on adult social care as a whole.

More broadly, in light of changes to the immigration system, the Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review salary thresholds across the skilled worker route, to ensure that international recruitment is never a cheap alternative to fair pay and must reflect the new changes to our immigration system. I think this is a very positive development by the Government to ensure that foreign workers are not undercutting wages for people based in the United Kingdom—something I had experience of in my former constituency when I was a Member of Parliament. So I say with due respect, as ever, to the noble Lord, Lord German, that the amendment is not necessary and misses the target on this point.

On Amendment 176, I hope the Committee will bear with me when I say that I agreed with almost every word of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Harper—it is a novel experience, but one I welcome—as he made the arguments that I would have made and will make on this amendment. Removing the immigration skills charge would send the wrong message. It would remove an important tool in encouraging employers to look first at the domestic labour market and what more can be done to train and improve the skills of those in the UK, rather than simply looking outside it to import individuals who may accordingly be employed on a lower rate of pay. Following the arguments we made in the immigration White Paper, we want to ensure that we both reduce reliance on overseas-trained workers to support our public services and upskill and support the development of local talent to fulfil those roles.

Also—I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on this point—by seeking to exempt the NHS, this amendment would allow the NHS to benefit from cheaper recruitment for non-clinical roles, such as health service and public health managers or people working in IT occupations. The amendment would not cater for health and care professionals who are not employed by the NHS. For example, it would not cover nurses working in private hospitals or health professionals who may work in private organisations that support the wider health sector.

So, for once in this Committee, I agree with two noble Lords from the Official Opposition Benches. Hopefully, I can rely on their support to ensure that the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord German, if he chooses to bring them back on Report later this month or early in November, are defeated. I hope that, with the explanation I have given him, the noble Lord will not press these amendments and will reflect on them with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I hope to see back in her place shortly, so that we do not need to discuss this issue again on Report in a couple of weeks’ time.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of asylum claims based on religious conversion.

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

The Government do not publish statistics on asylum claims based on religious conversion. All claims, including those based on religious conversion, are carefully assessed individually in accordance with our international obligations and in line with our published guidance. Claims based on religious conversion do not guarantee a grant of refugee status.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I am sure that many other noble Lords will be surprised to hear that the Home Office does not publish such statistics. Given the salience of asylum claims and the number of illegal migrants coming to our shores, it would very much help the community and the country if we could see the number of conversions, for Christianity and any other religion, that are grounds for someone being granted asylum. Will the Minister please look again at his department and publish that data for us to scrutinise?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset, can I say how much these Liberal Democrat Benches will miss our dearly respected and valued colleague, Lord Ming Campbell of Pittenweem? He served the country well. My question to the Minister is this: last year, the previous Government established a faith working group to look at the issues at the basis of this Question. Does that working group still exist and, if so, can the Minister tell me what it has achieved?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On behalf of the Government Benches, I echo the noble Lord’s comments about his noble friend. He was a good servant to his party, to his constituency and to the country. The recommendations made by that working group have been put into government consideration. I am not involved in that working group and there may not be a working group in existence now. I will check whether other ministerial colleagues are involved and let the noble Lord know in due course.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister outline what kind of training the officials have? A number of years ago, a cross-party group of parliamentarians was involved in helping the Home Office officials with changing the training from a general type of test of your knowledge of a religious text, which you may not even have seen, to that which required an analysis of the lived experience. Is that training still happening now with Home Office officials?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There is full training, not just for those in existing positions. We are now including an extra 1,000 or so individuals to support speeding up the asylum claim decisions, and they are receiving full training. As the noble Baroness will know, there is published guidance around which the criteria for assessment are made, and that guidance is subject to tests from individuals and others.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, while we are on the issue of asylum claims, can the Minister update us on the Government’s latest steps in relation to dealing with asylum claims more quickly and more effectively than has previously been the case?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He gives me the opportunity to repeat the fact that the Government have recruited an extra 1,000 individuals to work on speeding up asylum claims, because the key issue is making sure that we determine very speedily whether individuals have a right to stay in the United Kingdom. If they do, they can; if they do not, they should be removed after subsequent appeals have been unsuccessful.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may be aware that in March last year, the Home Affairs Select Committee heard oral evidence from a former Anglican reverend that his church had been used as a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism. He raised concerns that asylum seekers were deliberately converting to Christianity in order to claim that they would be persecuted if they were sent back to their home country. Given the unease within the Church of England about those comments, what discussions has the Home Office had with the Church of England regarding such conversions for asylum purposes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Home Office continues to have discussions with Church leaders on a range of matters, including asylum. I say to the noble Lord—I hope this is helpful—that if he is asking, “Does the Home Office accept every conversion claim?”, we do not. All claims are assessed on an individual basis. Someone simply saying that they are converting to Christianity does not mean that they will have their asylum claim accepted. That asylum claim will be tested against both their performance and whether they attend church, along with advice given by Church leaders and others, but it does not guarantee an acceptance of an asylum claim.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield, which seeks to support refugees and asylum seekers. Is the Minister aware that the evidence provided by the former Anglican cleric just referenced was refuted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in extensive oral evidence on the subject at a Home Affairs Select Committee meeting in the other place last year?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As it happens, my right honourable friend Dame Diana Johnson chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee then. She then became a Home Office Minister and is fully aware of the ongoing discussions. We will continue to discuss with any Church leader the basis for individuals claiming conversion as part of the process of asylum, but I reiterate to the House that claiming conversion or Christianity does not mean that the individual is accepted. That is subject to a rigorous test by officials in the Home Office.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of the substance of this Question, would my noble friend the Minister like to restate the Government’s commitment to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and, indeed, to the refugee convention itself?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very happy to give my noble friend that assurance. As I said, the Government want to meet their international obligations and will do so under refugee conventions and according to their responsibilities under human rights legislation. But I hope she will accept that we also need to test people’s claims individually when they make them against the criteria for remaining in the United Kingdom. If an individual claims Christian conversion, at whatever stage of their application, clearly that needs to be examined and tested and, ultimately, a decision will be made individually on that basis.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the efficiency of the asylum system and of the immigration system as a whole depends not just on speedy decision-making but on speedy removal of those people who have no right to remain? Will the Minister please update the House on what steps the Government are taking to persuade other countries to take back their nationals who have no right to remain here?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is integral to the success of the immigration and asylum system that those who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom are removed speedily. Since July 2024, this Government have improved the performance on those removals. We need to engage with our partner nations to ensure that countries are willing to receive individuals, but the basic principle of the asylum system is that we are open to meeting our international obligations. If someone seeks asylum and it is approved, they will be accepted. If it is not approved, they have no right to live in the United Kingdom and that speedy removal should take place, as the noble Lord said.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

How many appeals have overturned the original decision? How many claims that were originally denied have been reversed on appeal?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I do not have the figures directly in front of me and I would not wish to give him a spurious figure. I will reflect on his question and give him an answer within short order by that old-fashioned method of pen, or email.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm whether any individuals granted asylum on the basis of religious conversion have subsequently been flagged by the UK security services for posing a risk to national security?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me, but I cannot comment from the Dispatch Box on national security issues in relation to individuals per se. If individuals commit offences, they will be deported as a result of any conviction on those offences, even if they have been granted asylum. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that I cannot give detail on any particular aspect, but she can rest assured that the Government will take seriously any individual who commits, or conspires to commit, any crime.

Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 and 9 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 17 September.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 and the Terrorism Act 2000 (Port Examination Codes of Practice) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before the House on 9 July. It brings forward revised codes of practice for the exercise of powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. I contend to the Committee that the powers are vital tools in our national security framework. They allow a counterterrorism police officer to stop, question, search and detain a person at a port, or in the “border area” of Northern Ireland, to determine whether the person is or has been involved in terrorism or hostile activity.

These changes follow a widespread public consultation held earlier this year, which ran from 17 March to 27 April 2025. The consultation invited a wide range of views from stakeholders including legal experts, civil liberties organisations, operational partners and, indeed, members of the public, who also contributed. It focused on proposed updates to the codes of practice to ensure that they remain clear, proportionate and fit for purpose. The Government’s response was published on 23 June this year and I will take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who engaged with the consultation.

The feedback from the consultation helped us shape the final versions of the codes, which now provide greater clarity on how these powers are to be exercised, thereby strengthening safeguards for individuals subject to examination. I thank, in particular, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, who, in expressing support for the proposed changes in discussions with the Home Office, was also a very strong advocate of this instrument. We are grateful to him for taking the time. I will briefly summarise the key changes the instrument makes.

Firstly, a minor element of how examining officers can use the powers in the border area of Northern Ireland will be clarified. The updated guidance makes it clear that officers can ask someone why they are in the border area, to help decide whether that person falls within the scope of the powers, before any formal examination begins. That is an important safeguard for an individual.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise again on behalf of the Official Opposition to speak to these regulations and again offer broad support to the Government for them.

The powers allowing individuals to be stopped, questioned, searched and detained without suspicion are among the most intrusive the state can exercise. As a result, they must be governed by clarity, oversight and restraint. Several changes in the revised codes are sensible: clarification around notification, consular access and the distinguishing of counterterrorism from public order policing are all welcome. But clarity must not be mistaken for accountability.

We particularly welcome the firm statement that Schedule 7 should not be used for public order policing: a point developed by the Minister just now. However, the distinction between protest and terrorism remains finely drawn and places significant judgment in the hands of front-line officers, so can the Minister confirm how updated guidance is being communicated to those officers? Can we have an assurance that previous instances of disproportionate use will not recur?

On the consultation itself, I will raise one concern: only one formal written response was received. While engagement with front-line officers is useful, it is not a substitute for wider consultation with civil society, legal experts and those most affected. Does the Minister agree that more could and should have been done to seek broader perspectives during the consultation?

I will ask about Northern Ireland. The revision clarifies the use of preparatory powers near the border, yet this sits awkwardly with the Independent Reviewer’s recommendation that Schedule 7 powers be abolished in that context. Will the Minister outline the Government’s current view on the necessity and proportionality of Schedule 7 in Northern Ireland and whether any future appeal remains under consideration?

Finally, the IOPC proposed several changes to improve transparency and clarity, some of which have not been accepted. Can the Minister explain why not? Will the Government take forward the IOPC’s recommendation to monitor and analyse the use of these powers to help identify any patterns of disproportionate impact?

In conclusion, these revisions are largely clarificatory, but the powers themselves remain expansive and their use must be continuously scrutinised. We support improvements that enhance transparency but urge the Government to remain vigilant, to engage widely and to ensure that the powers are exercised proportionately.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for the broad support he has given to the instrument. He asked a number of legitimate questions that I will try my best to answer.

The guidance that we are issuing and the instrument that amends this guidance is essentially the bible of guidance for those who have to exercise those powers. The purpose of the order is to codify and give strength to the powers that individuals who are exercising those powers have to refer to. As well as something for officers and others to have as their code of practice and guidance, it is also essentially a bible for those who wish to say, “I haven’t been treated well by the officers because they have contravened areas of this code of practice”. Further guidance on the guidance would I think confuse matters. This is the guidance. I appreciate that question but, essentially, I hope that we can judge those who exercise those powers against the guidance and those who feel aggrieved by any exercise of that power can also refer to the guidance.

The noble Lord mentioned the consultation. It was a full consultation. It ran from 17 March to 27 April. We invited views from stakeholders, legal experts, civil liberty organisations and operational partners, and members of the public responded. There was a consultation. Maybe not everybody who wanted to be consulted has responded, but it is a tried and tested method and it was a reasonable consultation. As ever, there are opportunities to submit any further views to Ministers, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and other organisations that are dealing with the code of practice. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that the consultation teased out a number of views and, as I said in my introductory comments, some changes were made as a result of that consultation.

Again, I am very aware of the sensitivities regarding the border area in Northern Ireland and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising them. The Government recognise those sensitivities. The code provides greater clarity on the preparatory powers available to officers and explicitly addresses concerns that were put down by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in his 2022 report. The reviewer is supportive of the changes. They ensure that the powers will be used only for national security purposes.

On Northern Ireland engagement and consultation, we had considerable discussions internally in government with the Northern Ireland Office and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and both were content with the changes. In relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as these are non-devolved matters, there was an opportunity for it to contribute to the consultation and again, as far as I am concerned, the powers appear to have broad support in Northern Ireland—but obviously I am especially sensitive to the challenges on the border.

I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord on the three points that he mentioned and, with those brief comments, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 7 July. The then Home Secretary and the current Home Secretary have exercised powers under Section 82(2A) of the Data Protection Act 2018 to specify in this instrument the qualifying competent authorities that will be able to apply for a designation notice under Section 82(2A) of the DPA. During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, the House debated the parent provisions for this instrument; I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. Section 89 of the Data (Use and Access) Act will insert Sections 82A to 82E into the Data Protection Act 2018. I will briefly summarise those provisions so that noble Lords are reminded of the context.

Under the Data Protection Act, authorities processing for law enforcement purposes and intelligence services are subject to two separate legislative data-processing regimes for processing personal data. This precludes a joint controllership between both entities and makes working together much more difficult, especially in the context of public safety and national security.

Let me give noble Lords an example. An intelligence service and a police force working together on a joint investigation could not work from a single shared dataset setting out individuals of interest and related intelligence. Instead, each must have their own copy of the data, sharing data back and forth between one another and across data protection regimes in order to allow each other to update their intelligence. Self-evidently, this decreases efficiency and reduces joint-working capabilities. I suggest to noble Lords that there is a clear public interest in enabling closer joint working between law enforcement bodies and the intelligence services in matters of national security. I remind noble Lords that these issues were highlighted in the reports on the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena terrorist attacks.

Once the provisions are in force, qualifying competent authorities will, together with at least one intelligence service, be able to apply for a designation notice from the Secretary of State under Section 82A of the Data Protection Act where it is required for the purposes of safeguarding national security. This designation notice will allow the intelligence services and qualifying competent authority in question to form a joint controllership for that processing activity. It does not mean that open sharing of all data between the organisations can take place. When applying for a notice, the organisations must set out the processing for which they are applying, and a designation notice will apply to that processing only. Prior to granting a notice, the Secretary of State must consult the ICO.

I turn to the instrument itself. The Data (Use and Access) Act inserted Section 82(2A) into the Data Protection Act 2018, allowing the Secretary of State to specify by regulations which competent authorities are able to apply for a designation notice alongside an intelligence service. Competent authorities are defined in Section 30(1) of the DPA 2018 as

“a person specified or described in Schedule 7”

to the DPA 2018 or any other person who

“has statutory functions for any of the law enforcement purposes”

and is, therefore, capable of processing data under the law enforcement regime.

Paragraph 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum lists the 23 qualifying competent authorities under the Data Protection Act 2018. The list includes, as noble Lords can see, police forces—including territorial police forces, military police and other policing organisations, such as counterterrorism police—and authorities with operational roles, such as the Prison and Probation Service. As noble Lords might be expected to understand, the regulations include competent authorities involved in areas where national security is a consideration. All 23 authorities are listed by name in paragraph 5.2.

These regulations have been drafted in consultation with the partners operating in the area of national security. I hope that noble Lords will understand that, given the sensitivities involved, the Government cannot go into detail publicly on the rationale behind individual authorities included on the list. However, the authorities that have been included are those where there is reasonable potential for a joint controllership to be formed for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

Finally, the Home Office consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the proposed qualified competent authorities and the ICO confirmed that it was content. There is no fixed review period for the list and competent authorities may be added to or removed from the regulations as the Secretary of State sees fit, but the legislation requires amending regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, which I hope provides noble Lords with the appropriate safeguards.

I hope that noble Lords will understand the importance of this instrument and that the explanation will enable them to support this detailed legislation, which will strengthen the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence services to work closely to protect the UK and its citizens from the diverse threats that we face. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument is a welcome step in increasing the efficacy of our data sharing and protecting our national security interests. Until the enactment of this instrument, authorities processing information under the Data Protection Act 2018 have been subject to two separate legislative data-processing regimes for law enforcement and intelligence services respectively, as the Minister outlined. The previous Government recognised the unduly burdensome process of data processing between two bodies with no means of centralising multiple datasets for analysis and operation, which is why the previous Government put forward the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. It is a welcome step that the current Government are now taking the same initiative.

There is an evident public interest in correcting the inertia. Data sharing between authorities has proved inefficient and bureaucratic at the expense of national security. In particular, reports into the Fishmongers’ Hall and Manchester Arena terror attacks highlighted the shortcomings in the current arrangements. As has been stated here and in the other place, we must heed the lessons learned from those tragedies and act on them.

As the Minister summarised, the instrument lays out the list of those entities or persons considered qualifying competent authorities that, once this measure is in place, will be able to apply for a designation notice from the Secretary of State alongside an intelligence service for the purpose of safeguarding national security, thereby allowing both parties to form a joint operational controllership.

I am aware that the Government cannot divulge further information about their decisions as to which bodies are included in the list of qualifying competent authorities, but I am none the less aware of the challenges that come with data sharing across different entities and the variance of protection and sophistication that they may use. It is always worth being sceptical when it is announced that intelligence services will begin to share their data or at least permit others joint operational control. While I am sure that none of the competent authorities’ data systems is subpar and that the Secretary of State will thoroughly have vetted this, it is still worth asking the Minister for reassurance that the qualifying competent authorities are prepared to enter into joint controllership.

This also extends past security to efficiency. Can the Minister assure us that forthcoming partnerships between civil and intelligence bodies will not become some kind of bureaucratic battleground for control? The established legislation and these regulations exist to increase effectiveness and promote our national security interests. If there is insufficient integration following designation, they will be meaningless. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us on this side that these hurdles have been foreseen. With those few questions, I advocate the support of these Benches for the instrument.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his broad support for this instrument. As he mentioned, the competent authorities, which we have now specified as qualifying competent authorities, have been selected following consultation with partners operating in the area of national security. They include competent authorities involved in areas where national security is a consideration. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we cannot go publicly into the details of the rationale, and I do not wish to publicly comment on the differing preparedness of the bodies, but I can assure him that authorities have been included where there is a reasonable potential for joint controllership to be formed. There will be activity to make sure that that synergy occurs. It is done for a purpose.

The 23 authorities are clearly listed in the regulations before us today. They are all very competent authorities. They include chief constables and commissioners of police, the British Transport Police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Royal Navy Police and the Royal Air Force Police. They are very assured in dealing with security issues and having secure data control. The bodies include HM Revenue & Customs, the National Crime Agency, the Parole Board, the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland and the Probation Board for Northern Ireland. They are all public bodies that have great experience in managing, controlling and, where appropriate, sharing data.

The noble Lord is right to test that question, but I believe that the competent authorities can be trusted with the information that is there to be shared. Again, I confirm to him that these recommendations follow serious terrorist incidents that have taken place. The risk of not having that sharing capacity is much greater than the issues he mentioned. I am grateful for his support and for the work of the previous Government. Unless there are further comments, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Undocumented Migrants

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Massey of Hampstead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the specific factors driving the increase in the number of undocumented migrants leaving France to enter the United Kingdom.

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

The Government are committed to tackling illegal migration and the criminal networks that are behind it. There is no single universal push or pull factor independently driving irregular migration to the UK. In many cases, migrants are directed or coerced by organised criminal networks. That is why the Government’s focus is on tackling criminal gangs and securing ground-breaking co-operation with international partners while keeping all issues under review.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

The Home Secretary recently issued a statement with positive plans to deal with the crisis in relation to small boats. But, as we witnessed yesterday, even the deportation of a very small number of people back to France proved impossible. The focus of successive Governments on the criminal gangs and attempts to reach agreement with France has not impacted on numbers at all thus far. We are perceived quite widely as a soft touch, and our compassion is being exploited. So what further plans do the Government have to address the specific issues that make the UK so attractive relative to France? Does the noble Lord share my concern that the problem could get worse as European countries tighten their own immigration rules?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the UK Government are not a soft touch. He will know that, through the immigration Bill, we are putting in place a Border Force command. We have employed 200 staff since last year to up our efforts on that. We have put an extra £150 million into Border Force funding. We have signed the agreement with France, and I can tell the noble Lord that returns are imminent and that that agreement is in place, delivering detention of individuals for return to France. Irrespective of that, we are also tackling some of the illegal migration and putting extra efforts into focusing on that undercover activity that allows people to work. I can give the noble Lord, outside the Chamber, a great deal of statistics on that result. We are not a soft touch; we are taking action and intend to reduce that flow over time.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, surely if we really want to reduce undocumented migrant movement pull factors, we should stop the emphasis on the resolution of conflict through costly military interventions that provoke worldwide population movements and plunder our development aid budgets. Is not the answer, in part, to more greatly resource third-world development, with measures to de-escalate conflict and—the holy grail—to re-examine the world’s commitment to the principle of prohibited intervention in failing states, as defined by the ICJ?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will share part of my noble friend’s analysis, in that factors of war, poverty and starvation are driving migration from many parts of the world into western Europe. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and other European countries and international partners, are looking at what those driving factors are. Part of the overall strategy needs to be how we deal with poverty, hunger, starvation and the impact of war. There are times when the UK and other partners need to help and support interventions, but I take the first part of my noble friend’s question extremely seriously, and that is something our international partners are very focused on.

[Lord German (LD)]

The Government’s French scheme has the benefit of giving us a safe route for people to come to this country. However, as the noble Lord has explained, it will not work unless it is ramped up. So would I be wrong in my expectation that the ramping up of the scheme will take place some time before the end of next year? In the meantime, what is happening to those who are now legally going to come to the United Kingdom? How are they being assessed, by whom, and where?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As noble Lords will know, we have negotiated the French pilot for the first time with the French to ensure that we have detention in the UK and return to France. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, we intend to have returns under that scheme imminently. That is a pilot scheme; it will be assessed, and the intention, if both parties think it is valuable, is to increase its capacity over time to meet our obligations. In the meantime, there are a number of legal routes that people can apply to. There are asylum claims that individuals can make. We have put in additional support to speed up those asylum claims to determine who can stay and who can go. It is the responsibility of any responsible Government to try to deal with this with constructive solutions, of which I know the noble Lord is supportive. I look forward to his support in evaluating the success of the French pilot.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that we would be in a far better position to deal with issues like border security, access to services and knowing who is in the country illegally and who is not if the last Labour Government’s identity card scheme had not been scrapped by the Tories and the Liberals?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding me that, when I was last a Minister in the Home Office, we had an identity card scheme in place that was scrapped by the then-incoming Coalition Government of 2010-2015. It is an expensive business to re-jig ID cards, but all options are always being examined by this Government. I am genuinely sorry that the Coalition Government took the decision at the time to scrap that deal.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, leading on from the question from my noble friend Lord Massey, this week we were due to see the start of the Government’s much-vaunted one-in, one-out returns deal with France. However, due to the ongoing human rights claims and last-minute legal challenges, no one has yet returned to France, on the flights that left yesterday or today. Does the Minister not think that now is the time to endorse Conservative proposals to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration and asylum matters to prevent this very issue occurring in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That was another good effort from the noble Lord to try to get me to say “yes” to an answer to which he knows I am going to say “no”. Amendments can be made to the ECHR, and the Government intend to make those amendments to ensure that we will make changes, particularly in relation to Article 8, and provide better interpretation for judges. On the French scheme, removals are imminent. It is a scheme his Government did not negotiate, and one that, hopefully, this Government and our French colleagues are going to make work to ensure that we have a proper deterrent and return people—unlike the wasteful Rwanda scheme, which achieved absolutely nothing and which the noble Lord supported.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, Home Office analysis of the factors that influence where people claim asylum highlights that the presence of family exerts a particularly strong effect on decisions on the ultimate country of destination. Given this finding, what assessment have the Government made of how the pause in family reunion applications might impact the level of channel crossings?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. I will certainly drop her a note after Question Time to give her detail on how we are examining the family reunion policy and the impact on children. I am afraid that in a 25-second answer I cannot sum up the detail that I would like to, but I will certainly write to her on that point.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, has Minister had any recent discussions with the Irish Government about the fact that there are so many migrants—some illegal, some not so illegal—coming across the border into Northern Ireland and then on into the rest of the United Kingdom? The Irish Government are now stopping people going the other way. Are His Majesty’s Government taking this as something that needs to be looked into very quickly?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. The UK Government continually discuss with the Irish Government the impact of a range of matters on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, including access to the rest of the United Kingdom via Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is extremely important, and we are focusing on that. I will certainly report back to the noble Baroness on that issue.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, does one of the principal answers to this question lie in the statistics the Minister was kind enough to give me last week: of the 160,000 small-boat arrivals since 2018, only 4% have been returned? In other words, if you come here illegally in a small boat, you stand a 96% chance of not being returned.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I did give those statistics to the noble Viscount, but I can also give him some more today if it helps. For example, between 1 January and 1 September this year, nearly 17,000 crossing attempts were stopped by joint action between the French and the British. Those do not show up in the statistics I gave the noble Viscount earlier. I can also tell him that in the past 12 months and in the period just before, 245 years of custodial sentence have been given to people traffickers who have been caught and captured. This is a very extreme challenge—let us not get away from it. We have to accept asylum seekers, we have to speed up the claims of those asylum seekers, and we have to determine who has a right to be here and who has to leave; but we have to stop at source the pernicious trade that is forcing people through illegal migration routes.

Nepal: Protests

Lord Hanson of Flint Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as Deputy Colonel Commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.

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

The UK and Nepal share a deep historic relationship. The Government are appalled at the violence that transpired in Kathmandu and elsewhere in Nepal, following protests that were triggered by the Government of Nepal banning a number of social media platforms, as well as by public frustrations about the levels of corruption and nepotism. In public statements in September, including with partners, we have condemned violence and called for accountability and a peaceful way forward. The UK supports fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights, including the right to protest and peaceful assembly. We are closely monitoring events in Nepal, along with our international partners.

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Your Lordships’ House will be as saddened as I am to see the chaos that has descended over Nepal over the last week. What started as a peaceful protest by Gen Z-ers against the banning of social media and corruption has resulted in more than 20 people being killed, Nepal’s Parliament being burned to the ground, a Government in chaos and a country under military curfew. We have a long and proud history and friendship with Nepal, based on over 200 years’ service of Gurkha soldiers to the Crown, but now is the time that Nepal needs our support. In recent years, bilateral aid to Nepal has fallen. I simply ask the Minister: is now not the time to review that level, not only in quantity but also ensuring that, as we move forward, bilateral aid will focus on good governance and democracy building to ensure that the young people of Nepal get the future they deserve?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and for his service and close association with the Gurkha regiment. The UK remains Nepal’s largest bilateral aid donor, with funding currently invested in areas such as green growth, education and gender equality; we spend some £46.5 million each year on that. There is no indication at all that that figure will change downwards as a result of the incidents happening currently. He mentioned good governance, which is really important. Of the £46.5 million, approximately £5 million is spent on security and justice elements, and £1.6 million on rights, inclusion and voice, and gender recognition. I will take from his comments that need to keep good governance. We condemn the violence and will continue to work to ensure stability in what is a really important partner for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, what support are His Majesty’s Government—or, for that matter, any Government—providing to civil society organisations and human rights defenders in Nepal as they alone work to promote accountability for the violence that caused 19 deaths, and to protect fundamental freedoms?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is an important point. As I have mentioned to the noble Lord previously, the UK is a long-standing partner, and the British embassy in Kathmandu currently forecasts that the entire spend of £46.5 million bilateral overseas aid for this year will be spent. There is a range of programmes within that, on business, resilience, infrastructure, rights inclusions, security and justice. Obviously, in the light of the instability that has occurred, the purpose and objective of the overseas development department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office there is to ensure that we help regain that stability, but to look at the causes and how we can provide resilience to ensure that we tackle some of the issues that have led to that instability.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, reference has rightly been made to the long and constructive relationship between Britain and Nepal, which includes a period at the beginning of the last century when suspension bridges were exported from Aberdeen to link remote villages across their deep valleys. May I make a specific proposal to the Minister? The Westminster Foundation—I declare an interest as one of its mentors, although not in Nepal—is working there, but it could extend its programme to include public and political engagement for Parliament. Will the Government consider doing that? This is vital work, which it is very well equipped to do. Its representatives are on the ground now, and it would really be helpful if they could be part of the process of ending this conflict.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not know of the link between Aberdeen and Nepal, but one of the great things about this job is that I learn something every day. The Westminster Foundation provides great support on a parliament-to-parliament basis to help with resilience, to look at good governance issues and to ensure that we can improve the scrutiny of and approach to government. I will draw his suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who I hope will be able to respond.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the lifting of the social media ban in the wake of these protests and the resignation of Nepal’s Prime Minister have rightly resulted in celebratory scenes in Nepal, but, of course, the issue of underlying corruption is more intractable. Can the noble Lord give us more detail on what steps the Government are taking to monitor and help eliminate corruption in Nepal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question; it is important. Nepal is responsible for its own affairs; therefore, the Government have to support good affairs being developed but not take over those issues. The £46.5 million we are currently spending and the programmes we are looking at will be utilised this year, but it is a fluid situation, and the Government need to examine the underlying causes and the potential to provide help and support to overcome those. As part of the review of future years’ expenditure and future programmes post 2025-26, I am sure the Government will reflect on the concerns the noble Lord has mentioned.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

Can the Minister ensure that remittances from Gurkhas here in the UK, which are vital to some families back in Nepal, are still getting into Nepal? Secondly, we are a large donor to Nepal, and we have a long and established relationship, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought our influence was as profound as that of its neighbour India. With that in mind, what discussions are the Government having with the Government in Delhi about the current situation there?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Lord that the relationship between people who are receiving salaries or pensions from the United Kingdom as Gurkhas previously will still be maintained. In fact, I can also assure the noble Lord that recruitment for Gurkha regiments is still ongoing, despite the current unrest in Nepal. We are having discussions with international partners, and India is obviously a significant international partner. The important point from all the contributions of noble Lords is that an assessment needs to be made of what help is required to support stability and good governance, using this year’s £46.5 million overseas programme to support the objectives of stability, good governance, business and growth for what is a long-standing international partner.