Refugees: Community Sponsorship

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has so eloquently laid out the position of those groups in which she has some direct interest.

I must declare my interest as being supported by the RAMP organisation, and I must thank the right reverend Prelate for being ahead of the curve again in being able to bring forward debate on an issue that is very potent in the current scene. I must also declare my interest—with a small “i”, not a capital “I”—as the general rapporteur on European migration and asylum policy for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I will be reporting on this debate as it is an important part of the structure we face across the whole of our continent.

For generations, Britain’s proudest chapters have been written not when we turned our backs on the world but when we stepped forward to offer sanctuary to those fleeing terror, persecution and war. We saw that spirit when our towns and villages welcomed displaced families from Ukraine, as we heard so eloquently, and in the response to the fall of Afghanistan. I remember the crisis of the Ugandan Asians many decades ago, when we sought and brought to this country those who were being displaced so horribly. We have seen it across the hundreds of quiet, compassionate community sponsorship groups that have opened their homes and hearts across our country.

The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the best of British values is found in our local communities. That is why we welcome the principle behind the Government’s new community sponsorship scheme. Establishing new safe and legal routes is a necessary step in the right direction. Allowing communities, faith groups, universities and local organisations to step forward to directly sponsor named individuals, to support students and to welcome displaced workers is a proven and powerful concept. When local communities have direct ownership, integration flourishes. Refugees do not arrive as numbers on a Home Office spreadsheet; they arrive into an existing network of neighbours, mentors and friends who help them find work, master our language and truly belong.

We on these Benches reject outright the cynical, ungenerous claims from those on the political right. Those who demand that no safe routes be created until every boat has stopped miss the fundamental reality. People take to dangerous dinghies precisely because safe and legal routes do not exist. We do not smash the vile business model of criminal smuggling gangs by building higher walls; we smash it by opening controlled, orderly doors that render the smugglers obsolete.

Although we support this scheme in principle, we must be brutally honest about its practical realities. Compassion without ambition is mere sentiment. As it stands, this policy suffers from glaring shortcomings that risk setting it up to fail. First and foremost is the question of scale, which was mentioned earlier. The Government talk of this scheme breaking the cycle of irregular channel crossings, but look at the figures to which the Home Office has now quietly admitted. Total arrivals across the reopened UK resettlement scheme—that includes all three new sponsorship routes—will start in the hundreds before slowly growing into the low thousands. Reports suggest an ambition of just over 10,000 altogether by the end of this decade. Schemes need to be known about and understood, and people need to be provided with sufficient information for the schemes to make a difference and for the people to make a choice.

To present a scheme that admits a few hundred people as a serious deterrent to the tens of thousands not just crossing the channel but entering by other means is, frankly, a tokenistic drop in the ocean. The Refugee Council and civil society have made it clear that, if we are serious about safe routes, we must aim for real ambition by restoring settlement to at least the pre-pandemic level of 5,000 people a year, not trickling out places in the low hundreds.

Secondly, the Government are engaged in passing the buck to local communities from local authorities. Ministers say that they want to relieve local authorities and end the reliance on expensive asylum hotels. We agree with closing the hotels, but the Government’s answer is to offload core statutory responsibilities on to volunteers, charities and churches. Under the scheme, sponsors are required to secure independent accommodation for at least two years and to raise substantial private capital.

In the middle of the worst housing crisis in modern memory, how on earth does the Home Secretary expect local charities to outbid the market to find two-year tenancies without statutory backing? Under the Homes for Ukraine scheme, the state provided monthly thank-you payments to assist host households, yet under this new scheme Ministers have completely failed to guarantee whether similar financial support will exist. If the state treats volunteer good will as an unpaid substitute for proper governance, burnout will follow and the intake will grind to a halt.

Thirdly, I am afraid that we cannot ignore the punitive rollback of refugee rights baked into this agenda. For years, community sponsorship granted refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain, giving them the certainty needed to rebuild their lives and contribute. Now, the Government have reduced that to a precarious five-year route to permanent settlement, while slashing domestic asylum protections into 30-month temporary visas and threatening 20-year delays on settlement.

Fourthly, there is a serious danger that, by shifting the bulk of resettlement to named, study and employer routes, we risk abandoning the most vulnerable. Resettlement must never become a corporate recruitment fair or an elite academic exercise. We cannot ignore the disabled, the elderly or those who lack language skills and overseas connections—those whom the UNHCR identifies as facing immediate peril.

We want this sponsorship scheme to work. We want British communities empowered to open their arms. But a genuine safe route cannot be treated as an afterthought or a cheap PR shield to justify harsher enforcement. If the Government genuinely want to offer sanctuary, they must meet the four tests and the four queries that we set out earlier. As our immigration moves towards net zero with those coming in and those leaving, we need to be absolutely certain that we are giving people the compassionate best we can. We as a country are at our best when we are open, generous and fair. Let us not build a scheme of token numbers and shifting burdens; let us build a system that is controlled, compassionate and truly fit for purpose.