Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord German

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will draw us back to the amendments before us. Amendment 35 requires the Secretary of State to collate and publish detailed data on overseas students whose visas are revoked due to criminal offences, and raises several important questions concerning data collection accuracy, resource allocation and the practical application of policy. The intent of the amendment is clear: to provide essential data to evaluate risks and ensure individuals who commit crimes are removed.

I almost have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for not getting answers to the questions he has asked time and again. What remains is that we have to look at the necessity of the subjects of those questions and their implementation. If the object of the amendment is to provide the data necessary to design efficient public policy, the first question must address the existing statutory landscape. The answers that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, got suggest that the Home Office did not collect the data relating specifically to student visas and criminality. What specific, new infrastructure or operational commitment would be necessary to collate this information reliably, particularly as the Minister implied that the Home Office already publishes a

“vast amount of data on immigration”—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 440.]

in regular publications that cover these themes?

Secondly, the amendment would require the publishing of figures on visa revocation, detention and deportation following a criminal offence. Given that 14,000 people who originally entered on a student visa claimed asylum in the latest year reported, and considering that subsequent detention or deportation is often tied to the outcome of complex asylum or human rights claims rather than solely the original criminal conviction or visa revocation, how will the published data accurately distinguish between detention related directly to government removal actions versus detention protracted by pending asylum appeals or other legal challenges? The Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay when conditions are breached. Would a statutory duty to publish retrospective data fully address the underlying problem, or would resources be better focused on the proactive enforcement and timely application of the existing Immigration Rules?

Thirdly, the amendment mandates that the published data

“must be broken down by nationality”.

That is intended to highlight countries associated with a high risk of abuse of the visa system, allowing the Home Office and universities to take risk into account when making decisions. What specific safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the publication of criminality data, broken down by nationality, does not lead to profiling or unfair discriminatory practices against students from those nations who are law-abiding citizens, especially given the clear parliamentary intention to use the data to identify countries of particular risk?

Amendment 35C, which is yet to be introduced by the Conservative Front Bench, proposes that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum or human rights claim inadmissible if the claimant entered on a student visa, applied for asylum more than two days later and there is “no evidence” of materially changed political circumstances endangering their life or liberty. This measure is flawed both practically and legally, and we must oppose it for three key reasons.

The proposed new clause establishes a near-automatic system of inadmissibility for a specific cohort of asylum seekers. The approach is inherently problematic because it fails to process cases based on individual merits and lived experiences. There is no substantive consideration of the asylum or human rights claim. Even if the primary motivation for the amendment is to counter visa abuse, refusing a person’s asylum claim without consideration of the merits and/or risks, placing the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention, specifically the prohibition on refoulement, is a matter of serious concern.

The amendment conflates asylum and human rights claims. Many human rights claims are founded not on a country’s general safety but on an individual’s personal connection to the UK, such as family ties. Automatically barring these claims simply because a person arrived on a student visa is an anomalous and unjustifiable imposition of a blanket ban.

The proposed new clause explicitly states that the inadmissible declaration is not a refusal of the claim and, as such, no right of appeal arises. Furthermore, it declares that the decision is

“final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court”.

Such provisions, which seek to exclude judicial review—we are going to have plenty of those today—of immigration decisions and to remove the right to appeal are repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR, which is of course part of our domestic law.

The intention behind the amendment may be to clamp down on those abusing the student visa route, especially concerning the 14,000 who claimed asylum after entering on a student visa in the last reported year. However, this absolute inadmissibility straitjacket would be functionally unworkable, echoing the failures of previous legislation. This amendment is ineffective, inhumane and legally unsound.

Amendment 71 seeks to fundamentally alter the established visa penalty mechanisms contained within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The stated intent of the amendment is clear: to force the Government to impose visa penalties immediately if a country fails to co-operate on removals or the verification of identity of its nationals. While we share the desire to see prompt and effective removal of those who have no right to be here, the amendment risks undermining that very objective by destroying the necessary operational discretion essential for effective diplomacy and returns policy. The mandatory penalty system removes the ability to use engagement, diplomacy and other means to successfully unblock co-operation with other countries. We simply cannot tie the hands of a Secretary of State with a rigid system that risks damaging international relations without guaranteeing an increase in removals.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord finally winds up, I have two points to make. One is in respect of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about Written Answers. We have all had many of them, and they have sometimes been useful and sometimes been awful. This is a problem of not just this Government; it goes back many years. The answer is just to keep going, but I sympathise with the noble Lord.

I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee of this House. We spend a lot of time talking about the shortage of researchers and students coming into our universities. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is a very good example of how to come in properly; he passed all the exams and made a career of it. But there are an awful lot of other people who do not get here because of the difficulties, cost and delay of these processes.

I do not think it really matters how they come. It is easy to criticise people because they come in a small boat or because they get a visa in some other way. We really need to look and see how we can attract the best possible students in the world to help our research and technology industries here. We have got the opportunities from many who would prefer to leave the United States at the moment. All over, if we do not get the students, we are not going to achieve our academic success. I do not think the amendments in this group are the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. He has, obviously from personal experience, a great fount of knowledge of the difficulties that people are facing, coming from different parts of the world to this country, or trying to. He has studied over the years the different ways of trying to get here. It is not just in small boats; they could equally well be seeking asylum in another way. Bringing together a family, which was done by a small number of people—100—last year, is something on which I think we must support him. Let us hope that he carries on with getting as many families reunited as he can, wherever they come from. I shall certainly support him if we end up in a Division Lobby.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it falls to me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for taking this so far. I have had the temerity—he knows I have said this to him privately—to say that he probably ranks in this Chamber as a national treasure. That is because—I know he will not like it—if you have had his experiences and you have devoted your life to ensuring that the chance that you have had in life is given to others, you cannot fail to support this amendment. It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it is fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. This amendment is so tightly written and so tightly executed that it is not going to take a large number of people: it is not going to take huge numbers from all over the world, it is a small number of children.

Those of us who have been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk know that children sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. What are you to do as a parent if you have a child whom you cannot get to come to you? That is the most terrible thing you could possibly imagine to impose on parents. So I have no doubt that the empathy of this House is not just for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the causes he has put forward and this very tight amendment. It deserves the support of all sides of this Parliament and I hope the noble Lord will put it to a vote so we can all vote for it.

British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Berkeley and Lord German

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, when I first heard about this transfer by way of what I still call the quango cull Bill, I welcomed it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the settlement seems pretty good. The Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I am a member, was taken along the towpath from Islington to a very nice cycle repair café on the canal called Lock 7. We were given a very interesting briefing about the changes taking place on the waterways. It was an excellent presentation and I came away thoroughly impressed. It is a great place to pedal along in the winter because there is a high-voltage cable under the towpath, so when everything else is snowy you can still go along without slipping into the canal.

The Minister said that the British Waterways Board had a prudent track record in property management, but that is not the view of the people who sent me e-mails—other noble Lords may have received similar messages—which I presume reflect the tenants’ view. The National Bargee Travellers Association, many of whose questions the Minister sought to answer, states:

“These families live on the waterways lawfully by virtue of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995”.

Will the same rights of occupancy exist even if those families have to move under the new trust? They are clearly worried, saying:

“The assurances given by British Waterways of greater public accountability exclude itinerant boat dwellers”.

That is quite worrying, because there is no way in which they can seek parliamentary discussion as they could when BWB was state-owned. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that nothing is going to change in that regard, even if there is less parliamentary scrutiny.

I heard also from a man who is one of apparently some 200 people who are in litigation with the British Waterways Board. I do not want to go into the detail of individual cases, but there are allegations of “criminally extracted licence fees” during the past 20 years on the Grand Union Canal and talk of costs reaching £500 million, which seems surprising. What will happen to cases that are pending or currently being heard in court when the transfer takes place? It is clear that people are worried about that. The Minister said that the Government would provide a Written Statement on the Canal and River Trust in two years. It might be useful to include in it a progress report on outstanding court cases from the old regime. I hope that these matters can be resolved without any more uncertainty. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the orders, which I believe are the result of long and very hard negotiation. If the preparedness of the new trust to handle the financial affairs of our waterways is an issue, satisfaction should be drawn from the number of noble colleagues and noble Lords opposite who have congratulated it on the amount of money that it has been able to extract from the Government. It is indicative of the robust way in which the new trust has engaged that it has brought to a conclusion financial matters that started some way back from the £800 million which the Minister mentioned. That protection over 15 years will enable the new trust to make plans, and the asset base along with that will provide it with a very useful way of driving forward change.

The issues I am slightly concerned about, and about which I seek some clarification from the Minister, concern the way in which the new governance structure will run and the ability of the new trust to ensure that it is inclusive and serves those who use our waterways. From the documents before us, it appears that the trust has decided not to go for a membership-base as an organisation, unlike the National Trust, which some people have suggested fulfils a similar task. Could my noble friend tell us what was the reasoning behind not going for a membership organisation, when this is clearly an opportunity to develop the uses of our waterways both for leisure and health purposes—not to mention the tourism benefits, which are obviously very important to us? The current structure of the organisation is that we have trustees, a national council and 12 waterways partnerships. I would like to congratulate those involved in the negotiations to secure an all-Wales waterways partnership in addition to that—and here I declare my interest as president of the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust, part of which is affected by this order, part of which is not because it remains in local authority and other ownership.

The third issue I would like to raise, apart from governance, is that of safeguarding for the users. Paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 talks about access to towpaths and refers to an explicit safeguard in the trust’s obligations. While it states that the transfer protects the status quo, a sentence or two further on it states:

“As the majority of towpaths are not currently public rights of way and access is permitted at British Waterways’ discretion, this is a significant new protection”.

There seems to be a contradiction here in that the status quo may prevail, but it is not clear whether it is the intention of this order to extend towpath access or simply to transfer the status quo and give the Canal and River Trust discretion over access? I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain this.

The other safeguarding issue relates to the by-laws, which I believe my noble friend referred to earlier. It is a requirement that they should be approved by the relevant Minister. Could my noble friend explain the publication procedure that the Canal and River Trust will undertake prior to these by-laws being submitted to the Minister and what the process will be for ensuring that this happens?

My final question, which again is a bit of a cheeky one but I am going to ask it anyway, refers to paragraph 8.13 of the same memorandum, which reports that the Government sought views on a name for the new charity. The most popular was the National Waterways Trust, “waterways” being the most popular word in the consultation. The trustees subsequently named the charity the Canal and River Trust. However, in Wales it will be known as Glandwr Cymru, meaning Waterways Wales, which seems an unusual choice when it is to be called the Canal and River Trust. I do not understand whether Canal and River Trust/Glandwr Cymru is the title of the new trust in its entirety, or whether waterways in Wales will come under a trust that is a subset of the Canal and River Trust known as Glandwr Cymru. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the translation, and indeed why the word “waterways” will be used in Wales but not in England.

I have one further point, which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded me of: the Environment Agency transfer of navigation rights, which, as the noble Lord says, is part two of the agenda here. The Canal and River Trust as it now stands does not manage large-scale infrastructure in our waterways or large-scale weirs. Is that a necessary part of the exercise in this interim phase on what that transfer should do and where the expertise should come from in order that the Canal and River Trust can then manage these larger structures, which, like Teddington lock, are very important to the security and safety of our land in this country?