Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord German

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee. It has been quite improved and I therefore agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Cashman. I do not want to go over what they have said because they put the case clearly.

It must be welcome that this amendment would turn

“the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not”

in the end

“be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”.

That to me is the nub of it and, therefore, the Secretary of State, instead of simply having a duty, would actually have a power to do something about it. There is an ability, under the Human Rights Act sometimes, for people to know that this has been breached—but who should then put it right? It seems that this Bill gives the opportunity to turn a duty into a power.

The amendment would also do another thing. It would create

“a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe”.

To have a list over which you cannot have the power or duty to do that can really prolong a misnomer. When people may have come from some places that were safe yesterday, but tomorrow are no longer safe, it seems to me that the Secretary of State needs to be given the duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is so changeable.

When South Sudan became independent everybody was full of rejoicing. I was involved with a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda, because I was hearing cases as a judge up in the north. After the sheer carnage that went on in South Sudan, where people’s lives were ruined and destroyed for so many years, peace came and everybody rejoiced. Who would have believed that it would not be long before warring factions were tearing that country apart? The carnage in Darfur was quite unbelievable.

Then what happened? Sudan was being ruled by a real dictator, but then that Government were overthrown, and overnight law and order began to collapse. It was not very long before two warring factions were tearing that country apart. Yes, we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations, but, my friends, we almost do not have the wherewithal to deal with such brutality.

Therefore, a country that was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess. We created a list of safe countries under that Act, so the Secretary of State should have the duty to remove such a country when it is judged to no longer be a safe country. This amendment is in keeping with that. I am very grateful to the Government for saying how much they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law. There is nothing here that is not supported by the rule of law, so I support this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.

In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right

“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.

In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Sentamu and Lord German

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My experience is quite different. I have been a chancellor of two universities that have actually recruited students from all over the world—for education, not for any other purpose. They were also wonderful universities for students within our own country. Before the founding of the University of Cumbria, students used to leave Carlisle to go to different universities in our country and they never went back. The creation of the University of Cumbria benefited local businesses —we have talked about manufacturing in places such as Barrow—so it has been wonderful seeing our own local students rising up to the possibility of being very good engineers, manufacturers, nurses and doctors, or being trained in other ways. I stood at the podium giving out degrees to students from all over the place. At York St John, there were always four ceremonies, each with about 400 students at a time. That is what I know from what I experienced—it is therefore possible for me to say that.

I must declare a second interest: I came here on a student visa in 1974, which was renewed every 12 months until I was ordained in 1979. Later, when I became Bishop of Stepney, I was given indefinite leave to remain but I never applied for naturalisation in this country, which was a possibility, until 2001. I was a faithful student who came here on a student visa. It is no good anybody telling me that if some Ugandans come here—let us say there are four of them—and involved themselves in criminal acts, we can then use those four as a test case to say that people from that country should not get visas. From all that I know, most of the students from Uganda went back—my circumstances were part of something different. Please can we not express guilt by association, where we say, for example, that if some people from Nigeria do something, all of them must be the same, so we must always gather the figures and numbers?

This has always been a free country for me, and it has helped quite a lot of people who have been in great difficulty. I came here because of Amin’s trouble; I had to give up my law job. My staying here has to do with me continuing to study and then being invited to become a chaplain of a prison in Richmond, which I did for four years. Indefinite leave was quite a different thing. I always resisted naturalisation to become a British citizen; at the time I thought that I was natural and that there was no need to be naturalised. Still, occasionally, whenever I hold my British passport, I say, “To get this, I had to be naturalised”. That term is pretty offensive, because there is nothing unnatural about me that needed to be naturalised.

My dear friends, yes, there is now concern about people, who either are on student visas or came here on asylum, having committed offences, but these amendments make it seem that Britain’s history has nothing to teach us. For that reason, should the amendments be voted on, I will move in the direction of the Not-Content Lobby.

[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.