Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Does this mean that the Government are considering its extension to further countries? I ask my noble friend the Minister for his response.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow noble Members of this House speaking with wisdom, compassion and conviction. I understand that, in the current polarised climate, the Government want an immigration policy that is not only capable of exercising control over migration into this country but is demonstrably seen to be doing so. In that endeavour, the recent summary of immigration statistics, published for the year ending 31 December 2025, indicates a marked reduction in inward migration in most categories, although that of illegal channel crossings—itself not the largest category by some margin—remains stubbornly immune to downward pressure.

I wish to offer some observations from these Benches that, while sympathetic to where Ministers find themselves, none the less owe a debt of gratitude to the regret Motions from the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for making it possible to have this debate—for which I express thanks.

First, my episcopal colleagues and I do not dispute the function of the Executive in exercising immigration control. However, we assert the contribution that migration has made to the United Kingdom. With a declining birth rate and rising economic inactivity, it is likely to play a continuing, vital part. Secondly, we deplore rhetoric that creates images of the “other” and imputes images of rampant criminality on migrants and asylum seekers. That is utterly reprehensible and disgraceful.

Thirdly, I understand the point made about visa pauses because of the switch from various nationalities from visa routes to asylum applications, but apart from the very modest numbers involved, given that the grant of asylum is given in most such cases, what is the point that the Government are trying to make? Is it that the criteria in the refugee convention are no longer adequate for the task, or is it that the Government think that Home Office staff are applying them incorrectly and with too great a liberality, so all possibility of getting anywhere near the United Kingdom must be denied to these people?

Fourthly, we have heard the concerns about the 30-month leave to remain and the anxiety that this imports into a category of people who dearly wish to put anxiety behind them, and the inhibition this puts on integration. I would rather hear about the expansion of in-person English classes.

Finally, the denial of family reunion to those given refugee status is a major concern. For most of us, family means the nurture, happiness and support which enables us to face the trials of life. This is true for refugees, and I find references to family reunion under other routes unsupported by any evidence and difficult to comprehend. I call on the Minister to announce the recommencement of family reunion in this category. I support the regret Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it pains me to intervene to say that I think Ministers have got these changes wrong. It pains me even more to say that this is an all too common feature of Home Office decisions at the moment. I want to focus, as my noble friend Lady Royall did, on the provisions in these changes for students, and I do so, of course, as chancellor of the University of Cambridge.

The total ban brought in on students from four countries, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, not only removes opportunities from students severely affected by war and regimes in those nations—and let us not forget the impact on Afghan women students particularly—but diminishes the experience and opportunity to learn for British students too. Overseas students bring life and cultural difference to our universities, and we are infinitely the richer for it. Welcoming international students also represents a rather crucial bit of British soft power, and we should not forget that advantage either.

Why on earth is the Home Office deciding to remove any possibility for students from those countries to come here to the UK, even Chevening scholars, simply because a small number of those who have been here in the recent past have asked to stay? While I am at it, can I ask, as I have done before, why students cannot be removed entirely from the immigration figures? Students, by definition, are not immigrating—they are here for a temporary, defined period. The statistics are there to record permanent immigration. It is high time for the Home Office to think seriously about that change, and not the changes in front of us this evening.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I acknowledge with deep respect that those arguing for the passage of this Bill are often speaking from personal experience of the pain and suffering of someone’s final illness. Yet, along with many other speakers, I have deep concerns about legislating to permit the practice of assisted dying. I caution the House against the remedy of choice in this area. My concern is that those who are most vulnerable in society will become more vulnerable should this Bill find its way on to the statute book.

Related to this, and as a Bishop, I wish to say something on the subject of life, which I believe we must consider in any Bill making provisions for its termination. In the Old Testament, the principal word for life is the Hebrew word “hayim”, a plural noun. This expression signifies both our physical life and our source in God, who is the source of all life. It is a relational term, and, like most societies until our own age, it reflects a view of life as a gift and one lived out with others. It is a sign of the deep richness of the journey of life, which, of course, encompasses mortality and the finality that takes us to our very last breath. We need to be immensely careful in supporting a departure from the practice and wisdom of centuries.

The consumer age in which we now live presents us with technology with built-in obsolescence on a narrowing timescale. It tells us that choice will make us free, but choice itself needs to be examined closely. Instead, humanity acknowledges finitude, which gives our lives meaning, for we are all mortal and each of our lives will in due course come to an end. But in this life, in the words of the general thanksgiving, we give thanks for our creation and preservation and all the blessings of this life. That is not to ignore the imperative of compassion and assistance for those who are suffering. The Christian conviction retains the belief that life is of intrinsic value at all stages. There is never a point at which it may be said that it is not worth it or that life is not worth living.

Assisted dying would dangerously introduce the concept of the limited worth of human life into our medical practice and our relationships. We would be signing up to an essentially consumerist understanding of life, with many potential perils. Life is to be cherished, and those of us with faith acknowledge life to be sacred. That is why it is imperative that we address the chronic underfunding of palliative care and resource our hospices to do the work they do with such care and dedication for those who need their services. This provision would enhance dignified dying and should be our first priority. I cannot in all conscience support the Bill.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, the diocese in which I serve covers one of the most diverse parts of the country. Indeed, arguably, south London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. This diversity is often represented in our churches, which have benefited, as has the rest of the country, from the great human fact of migration. It would be good to hear some recognition of this in government and Home Office statements.

It is worth stressing that the vast majority of migrants to this country come here properly under the Immigration Rules, and thus there is no proper sense in which their arrival and settlement can be described as uncontrolled. The Government of the day may, for good reasons of public policy, wish to alter the rules or introduce fresh primary legislation, but that does not mean that a system and process is not in place, that applications are not assessed and fees paid, and that the results do not match what Parliament has sanctioned.

Should this Bill pass, it will be, I think, the 13th piece of primary legislation on immigration since 1997. No one should doubt the interest of successive Governments in this subject. Indeed, I wish to congratulate His Majesty’s Government on recently publishing a White Paper on their further intentions in this area, something that had happened only once since 2002. The return of more regular engagement on major issues of policy is to be welcomed. The repeal of provisions in the safety of Rwanda Act is also welcome, although I note with concern what has been said in this debate about the weakening of the provisions of modern slavery legislation.

I wish to make a point about resources which I believe is relevant to the Bill and its impact. The Bill is concerned to a significant extent with enforcement, not least with the effectiveness and statutory footing of a new border security command. But the business of managing migration into the UK is a resource-intensive activity, and I fear that attempts to substitute more draconian sanctions in a concertina of legislation down the years is no substitute for the resources needed to train and staff border control, casework, intelligence and enforcement. The result is backlogs, asylum accommodation—which in some instances resembles a dystopian novel—and a detention estate which repeatedly fails inspection. No conceptual framework sketched out in Explanatory Notes will compensate for an absence of staff or mitigate hurried and arbitrary decisions where more nuanced consideration is required.

I appreciate that such comments are unwelcome in the closing days of a spending review, but please consider this. The pressure of those who wish to come to Europe is not mitigated by the abandoning of our commitment of 0.7% of GDP to aid. The allocation of billions of pounds of the aid budget to support asylum and refugee costs in this country is not matched by any other G7 country. In 2024, it was just over £2.8 billion. The Prime Minister, in recently announcing a further reduction in aid spending to 0.3% of GDP, stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is no longer to be the spender or saver of last resort. That, at least, is welcome, as is the announcement that it will no longer be expected to meet unpredicted rises in refugee costs during the year.

But these Benches have never welcomed diverting humanitarian and development aid to other purposes. On pragmatic grounds alone, to do so raises migratory pressures and increases the influence of those whose geopolitical objectives are contrary to our own. Might there be space in this Bill for something addressing safe and legal routes and the nexus of humanitarian crises, if the Government are minded to do so at this point?

The Bill references powers to detain. I end by drawing the Minister’s attention to the Refugee & Migrant Advice Service alternative to detention pilot, a community-based alternative to detention, sponsored jointly by the Home Office and UNHCR between 2020 and 2022. The cost was significantly less than that of detention, it was more congenial to participants and I understand that the absconding rate was low. Ministers at the time decided not to pursue it further. I ask the Minister whether the current Government might revisit the pilot and consider greater use of this approach. I look forward to his summing up.

Knife Crime: Stop and Search

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness says that it is not enough. I recall being Police Minister and the noble Baroness’s party cutting police resources after I left office. It may not be enough, but it is an extra £1 billion going into policing this year. We are trying to give flexibility. She is right about efficiencies and modernising which is why, again, we are ensuring that, as central government, we organise better purchasing and efficiencies and make better use of resources accordingly.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

Can the Minister outline whether more activity is possible on prevention and a public health approach to knife crime, as has been attempted in Glasgow? Examples include schools programmes and after-school youth provision—programmes that tackle the multivalent factors that can lead to violence.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. The Government committed in their manifesto to the creation of a young futures programme to provide safe space and support to people who are vulnerable to knife crime, and that includes a range of measures. When people are at accident and emergency, at youth clubs or in school and are seen to be vulnerable, they can be referred to the youth futures programme and youth futures hubs, which will support those individuals to turn away from knife crime and have the life skills to improve their condition.

Violent Disorder

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I express appreciation to the Minister and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary for the Government’s Statement. I extend heartfelt sympathy to the families of the victims of recent violent disorder. I support the Government’s strong and determined response, including the swift apprehension of perpetrators and bringing them to justice. I also applaud the strong and positive signal that this sends: protest cannot extend to violence and abuse. I am grateful that Members of the House have spoken so powerfully on the evil of anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and racist incidents, which the Minister rightly addressed as criminality. In addition to the measures announced, are His Majesty’s Government seeking to address, perhaps through an inquiry, some of the underlying economic and social issues that can render people vulnerable to exploitation and incitement, to their own cost and to the detriment of the wider community?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his response and the questions he has brought forward today. I am particularly pleased, as I mentioned, with the support that was given at the time of the incidents and the discussions we have had with colleagues around the response at a local level from members of the Church of England. I also welcome the condemnation he echoed of violent acts. He will know that the issues of community cohesion he mentioned are difficult issues to deal with, but ones that it is essential that this House and the Government grasp and take forward. I hope he will welcome that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to be leading on community cohesion. We will be looking at what we can do to bring groups together to look at how we bring together all the issues to which both Front Benches have referred.

While I cannot give assurances today on timescales or terms of reference, these will be issues that this House and the House of Commons return to regularly, because we have to tackle the underlying causes of individuals feeling alienated from society. There is no excuse for that behaviour—it is criminal behaviour and will be dealt with as criminal behaviour—but we still have to understand the reasons why people have fallen into that criminal behaviour, just as we would on any other aspect of criminal behaviour. I give the right reverend Prelate the assurance that that will be undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister and others in the coming months.