Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Harper Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness for their interventions. What I was saying is that the country has always been sympathetic and fair and accommodated people fleeing here when their lives or liberties have been in danger. However, mass global movement now poses a threat to stability in western democracies, not just Britain’s but that of other western European countries, particularly Italy, Germany and France—the founder countries of the European Union. If we are to continue to give a sympathetic hearing to those who have a real claim, we must avoid extending the potential numbers so that in addition to children under 18 and a spouse, a whole extended family plus anyone judged to matter to the person’s psychological or other well-being can come in.

We do not have a right to defy the clear wishes of the people of this country, who pay the bills for housing and for the Home Office, asylum and Border Force officials. My noble friend has referred to some of these costs, but the policing, the courts—which are clogged—the appeals system, the housing and subsistence of large family groups all cost money. Many individuals or families, when they leave Home Office accommodation, must be supported from the benefit system.

In the first quarter of 2025, more than 4,000 refugee households in England were recorded as homeless, meaning that either a single person or a family unit had applied for support after leaving Home Office accommodation—figures similar to the previous quarter. With the sort of expanding family as proposed in Amendment 166, what would the housing, accommodation and benefit bill then be?

I conclude by proposing that, even if the Government are tempted by Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, my noble friend’s Amendments 167 to 171 should be accepted in order that the Government can help bring the numbers down and stop them escalating.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to agree and disagree with a variety of noble Lords. I am sad to say that I often do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but on one particular thing he said, I strongly do, which is that since this Bill was introduced into Parliament, the Government’s policy on this area has evolved—with is probably the politest way of putting it—and it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House, if not today then certainly before we have the two and a half days of Report, if the Minister could set out clearly what the Government’s current position is and what we are amending or changing. That is a very sensible point, and it is difficult to have this debate with an ever-changing legal undercurrent, particularly since many of these laws are not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation, which is therefore more capable of changing. I always think it is useful, where there is agreement, to put that on the record.

It is also worth saying that, in this group, two different things are being talked about. I have more sympathy with the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on unaccompanied children currently outside the United Kingdom looking to come to the United Kingdom to be reunited with family members. That is a completely different proposition from that in Amendments 165 and 166, which is about taking children already in the United Kingdom and widening the scope of those who can come here to join them.

This is an area of policy, as the Minister knows very well, which is incredibly litigious, and it therefore matters what words we agree, the scope and breadth of them and the clarity of them. I therefore wanted to draw your Lordships’ attention to a number of concerns that I have about the specific words in the amendments.

In Amendment 165, on the reference no recourse to public funds, it is worth pointing out to the House, because it is repeated on a number of occasions, that that does not include the National Health Service, which does not count as a public fund.

One of the areas that this amendment seeks to expand, according to the explanatory statement, is bringing in grandparents to accompany family members and a whole bunch of dependants. That is important because, generally, the consumption of health resources is not equal across somebody’s life. People consume more resources as they get older. When I was Immigration Minister, I saw a number of cases in which somebody was trying to bring an elderly relative to the United Kingdom, being willing to support them in the normal sense of that word, to accommodate them and put them up. What they would not accept is that we, the taxpayer, would be liable for their health costs, which in some cases are very significant indeed.

People do not mind paying for very significant health costs for elderly people who have spent their life in the United Kingdom and have made a lifetime’s contribution, but bringing someone elderly to the United Kingdom and the NHS and the taxpayer potentially having to pay for their health costs, when they have made no contribution over their lifetime, has to be borne into account. There is no recognition of that in this amendment. I did not want the Committee to miss the fact that although it says

“no recourse to public funds”,

which is of course an accurate characterisation, it is worth reminding people that

“no recourse to public funds”

does not exclude provision of healthcare, which does not count as a public fund in the legal definition, and the NHS generally does not deny health treatment to somebody because they cannot pay for it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does my noble friend consider that the fee of £700 that we now charge those on student visas for access to the NHS is too low, given that the average spending of the NHS per patient is around £3,000?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

On that point, briefly, it is good that we have the surcharge. It was brought in under one of the pieces of legislation I was responsible for in a former life. We can argue about the amount. For younger people in their late teens and early 20s, it is probably a reasonable amount of money. We looked at the costs at the time, and that cohort of people do not bear a huge weight on the health service—but they have some cost, and it is right that they meet some of it.

The second definitional point I want to touch on is in Amendment 166, about the use of the language “unmarried partner”, where I strongly agree with my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor. In my experience, that would be a massive red flag to anybody who wishes to come to the United Kingdom and make a definition. There is no way of proving or disproving somebody’s connection with such loose language. Spouse and civil partner are very clear. They can be evidenced, and documents can be produced to do that. As soon as you say “unmarried partner”, almost anybody can be said to fit into that category and there will be almost no chance of the Home Office making refusals on that basis—it will just be a large chasm.

I also support my noble friend Lord Jackson in Amendment 171, adding into the list

“the importance of maintaining a secure border”.

There is a very long list in Amendment 166, but they are all—in one way—things that the Secretary of State should consider, which would mean that the Secretary of State would have to let in more people. If the Secretary of State is making a judgment, it is very helpful to have a balanced list to weigh up.

I hesitate to say this in your Lordships’ Committee—there are so many lawyers here—but the problem with having the catch-all at the end, saying “any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate”, is that, certainly when we were drafting things, as soon as there is a list and things are not in it, weight is put on the fact that they are not in the list. If there is a very long list all in one direction, it is very helpful to put in that the Secretary of State also has duties to protect the border, because that enables the Secretary of State to put proper weight on that consideration in a way that is capable of withstanding legal challenge.

I will pick up another issue on language: the reference to adoptive parents and adoptive siblings in Amendment 166, which clarifies that it also includes “de facto adoption”. I have no objection to people bringing in adoptive members of their family, where that has gone through some legal process, but if it is de facto and there has been no legal process, it again becomes very difficult for decisions made by the Secretary of State to be upheld in the courts. If we do not have some kind of process, this becomes an open door.

Finally, reasonable-sounding language has been snuck into Amendment 165 with the reference to “any dependants”. If a child is in the UK, we define someone who can come and join them. That sounds very reasonable, but that person can then bring any number of dependants with them. Although it says that there would be no recourse to public funds, which we might discuss in relation to housing costs, there are a number of things that I think most people would consider were public funds, such as the NHS and universal credit, but that are not counted as public funds in that definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Brinton, for very sad personal reasons, I shall speak to the amendments in her name, which I have also signed, and do my best to replicate what I think was her intention when she tabled them.

First, I need to say that the Government have already slipped a pass, in a way, by announcing on 30 September that they are intent on having the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers—the Government’s press release was announced on that date. I also notice that this agreement will not take place, and the fair pay agreement will not come into force, until 2028, so there is a small gap of what happens between now and 2028, when the new regime comes into place.

In the meantime, we have what we have been calling a fair wage for care workers. We have classified it as a carers’ minimum wage, which I think suits the style in which the Government are attempting to deal with this matter. The challenge of managing migration, particularly within the health and social care sector, requires solutions that address both workforce needs and the ethics of recruitment. Obviously, we must address the reliance on migration by focusing on domestic reform. I think all that is in accord with the Government’s intention, and of course the core area for intervention is the issue of pay and conditions for domestic carers, which directly influences our reliance on overseas recruitment in this sector. The minimum wage would significantly impact migration levels in social care by tackling the underlying drivers of domestic workforce shortages.

The policy case is clear. Vacancies in the social care workforce are driven largely by poor pay, terms and conditions. I do not think that the Government disagree with that, because their announcement was made to deal with it. That leads to low domestic recruitment and retention rates. Poor pay, and often sub-minimum wages in the worst workplaces, have allowed reputable employers which look after their staff to be undercut. There are significant concerns over abuse and exploitation of individual workers. The Government have already committed to tackling these issues, through their fair pay agreement, to empower worker and employer representatives to negotiate improvements in terms of employment. A specific carers’ minimum wage would be a decisive step in this direction. This policy links directly to the Government’s stated intention to end overseas recruitment for social care visas and to address the long-term reliance on overseas workers by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as social care. Improving pay and conditions would make these roles more attractive to UK residents, reducing the pressure on the Government to rely on international recruitment.

The recent expansion of the health and care visa route triggered a sharp increase in migration for below degree level jobs, rising from 37,000 in 2022 to 108,000 in 2023. Following concerns about exploitation and subsequent scrutiny, the number of health and care worker visas granted for main applicants and dependants fell significantly in 2024. Implementing a statutory minimum wage would cement the move away from reliance on low-skilled migration by addressing the root cause of domestic vacancies. This amendment simply asks the Government to

“within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration”.

That would mean that we would be able to see what the situation was and to understand the direction of travel that the Government laid out in their announcement of 30 September.

It is important that we measure the success of using domestic labour market improvements to regulate immigration in this key sector. It is important to find a balance between one and the other. With an ageing population, as part of this strategy on social care there is obviously going to be an increase in the numbers of people required to undertake duties of care, particularly in the home. Social care will naturally be an increasing requirement on our workforce, so improving the pay and conditions of UK-recruited care workers and the corresponding level of vacancies that would then need to be filled through migration, and understanding the gap in numbers between those who will come into the marketplace as employees from the domestic market against those who are currently in the migration market who are undertaking these roles, would be the purpose of this report.

It is a straightforward request for a report that will help us to understand the direction of travel, and I think it would be in accordance with what the Government are proposing anyway for 2028. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, Amendments 175 and 176, and I will speak briefly to both.

On the first, in my spirit today of agreeing with people where I can agree with them, I do not think there is a massive disagreement between us on the link between wage levels and migration; I just think that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord German, has just moved has got it rather the wrong way round. If we are talking about the labour market generally—I will come on to carers and the social care workforce in a minute—I think we actually start by limiting migration, which then forces employers to think about how they are going to attract the relevant staff and to stop thinking about bringing them into the country as their first resort. There should be some challenge in the system that says to employers, “There are circumstances in which you can import labour from overseas, but you have to jump through some hoops and demonstrate some shortage and some reason why those people cannot be recruited domestically”. I think that that is the right way of approaching it.

I just say in passing that when we were in government and I was Immigration Minister and we used to say that, those on the Opposition Benches, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, used to come up with all sorts of reasons why we should just let lots of people in. That was when we were a little bit more robust in controlling migration, when my noble friend Lady May and I were in the Home Office, where we robustly controlled such things. There is a challenge in the social care sector, of course, because a significant amount of the costs that would be borne by an increase in wages are of course not borne by the private sector, in effect, because there is a lot of public money used to pay for this.

The thing I have not heard from the Government when they talk about increasing wages in the sector—which may well be the right thing to do—is who is actually going to pay for it because that will drive up the cost of delivering social care, and not just for older people. The noble Lord was right to mention older people, but of course more than half of the public money that is spent on social care is spent on those of working age, so one has to think about both aspects. I do not disagree with him about the link between wages and migration, but where I do not think this amendment is very helpful is that it starts by assuming that you import people as the default and then you have to change the labour market to deal with migration. Actually, we control who comes to the country and we should set some tough rules about who you can bring in. That then drives the market to have to change the wages that it pays people, or the skills that it trains them in, to be able to deal with them.

That flows nicely on to the second amendment in this group—I am not quite sure why the noble Lord did not touch on it. Amendment 176 is about exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. I chose to speak after he had spoken as I was hoping he would explain the point of that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, without any prior liaison with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I must admit, I strongly support her amendment. I do not have experience of translation or interpretation in the asylum system, but 15 years ago I was the lead Member of the European Parliament on a directive on translation and interpretation in the justice system, and I was very proud to have led on that. As an MEP, one depended a great deal on professional translation and interpretation services for the wheels of legislative work to run as smoothly as possible. In that sense, one was in a natural environment for understanding the importance of linguistic support.

I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on both arms of her argument for properly professionally qualified interpreters and translators. It is not good enough to use Google Translate or have someone who claims to know a bit of the language when you are dealing with the need for precision and clear understanding; it is imperative to have people who are qualified professionals who can bring that necessary rigour into the procedures and proceedings. That is for two broad reasons: first, in the interests of justice and fairness to the individual concerned, so that they know what is happening to them in what may be an extremely confusing and distressing experience; and, secondly, as the noble Baroness said, it would be good for the Home Office, because if you do not have efficient and accurate translation and interpretation, there are risks of something being misunderstood, possibly leading to disagreements, further proceedings and litigation, so you are not going to save any money from that original penny-pinching. This would be an investment not only in justice and fairness but in efficiency and good administration. I hope that the Minister will give a positive response to this.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to retained EU law. I have not managed to follow whether the 2010 directive on translation and interpretation in the justice system is still part of our law; the noble Baroness is nodding, so I am hopeful that it is. Regarding retained EU law, in the last 10 years one has mercifully forgotten some of the late-night proceedings on various Bills and horrible Brexit stuff. I hope it is part of our law, because the noble Baroness is quite right that relying on common law and the ECHR will not cut the mustard. There is an article in the ECHR about the right to a fair trial, but it is too broad and general, as I remember from working on the EU directive, which built on that foundation to spell out exactly what could be expected in respect of translation and interpretation in the justice system, which is what we need to do.

I reiterate my strong support for this amendment. I hope the Home Office and everybody else can see it not as some kind of wishy-washy desire to be nice to people but as an essential tool for the Home Office to make sure that its procedures are effective and cost-effective.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, on this amendment I had not decided whether I wanted to say anything about it until I listened to the debate. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, will recognise that I see some positive things in it and some areas where the Minister can perhaps work on helping to shape things. First, though, I am probably as surprised as the Minister that there was so much concern for the Home Office—that is probably a new thing and something that will not happen very frequently.

Listening to the argument, I was struck by two things. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about the need for those going through the system to understand what is going on and for things to be properly translated and interpreted for them. On that, we are in agreement.

However, there are a couple of areas where I would like to hear from the Minister. The first is about the extent to which the Home Office already delivers that level of support to those going through the system and where the gaps are. In other words, what will the cost be of delivering the amendment as set out here or something like it? Is there a big gap that we are trying to cover here?

Secondly, the amendment is a bit prescriptive about how the services should be delivered. I accept that the noble Baroness threw out the reference to Google Translate, which was picked up, and I am not suggesting that that is the way of delivering this. However, I do not think it is sensible for the way public services are delivered to be set out in primary legislation. Artificial intelligence is moving very quickly and, while we may not think it should be a complete substitute, I think it seems perfectly sensible that both Home Office staff and people representing those going through the immigration system may well use artificial intelligence tools to help them be more productive and more cost-effective. I would not want the legislation to be so prescriptive that it ruled that out. We cannot just put to one side the cost of delivering these services. Once we have listened to the Minister’s response, the Home Office may wish to think about whether there is a gap to be covered and whether there is a way of drafting an amendment that recognises the importance of properly qualified staff—which is exactly what the noble Baroness is driving at—while allowing for the use of technology and for those services to be delivered in a different way in the future. We should not try to shut off those benefits.

My final point is about one danger that the noble Baroness did not touch on. As the amendment is framed as giving rights to people, what would happen if these services were not delivered? As a former Immigration Minister, I am afraid this looks to me like another example where, if something was not delivered to the standard required, there would be an opportunity to legally challenge a Home Office decision. It may be that the Home Office should not fail on things like making sure someone understands their deportation decision, but I do not think it is sensible to allow someone to successfully legally challenge the Home Office on, for example, the failure to properly explain the accommodation that was being provided. It would just open up a whole other range of areas that very litigious people could use to drive a coach and horses through our Immigration Rules. If the Home Office is going to bring something back to reflect the perfectly sensible concerns that the noble Baroness set out, which I share, it needs to have something in it that recognises what happens if it is not possible in all cases to deliver those services, what would then be the ability of someone to challenge those decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and, to an extent, the noble Lords, Lord Harper and Lord German, for raising this matter of both practical importance and human dignity: the provision of translation and interpretation services within the Home Office.

The Government’s immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society. We believe, as I am sure not only the noble Baroness but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom.

However, obviously, there are circumstances where the needs of both protection and expediency trump this proposal. As we have already heard from noble Lords, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, there are individuals for whom translation and interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to begin the long journey of recovery and justice—for example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked to the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the high standards of delivery of these services. It is not merely a matter of administrative efficiency but of moral and legal obligation.

Paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules already makes it clear that the Home Secretary must provide, at public expense, an interpreter wherever necessary to allow an applicant to submit their case. This includes the substantive asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person’s life.

Noble Lords may be aware that, in the other place, an MP elected on the Reform ticket asked a number of His Majesty’s Government’s departments not to provide such translation services. I, for one, believe that the Government regret that approach. Both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and our society, and we will not undermine these principles. As I said, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services, not simply so that asylum seekers can access the system adequately but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, so that the system makes the right call the first time round.

Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by Immigration Enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention on Human Rights both affirm that a defendant must understand the charges against them and be able to mount a proper defence. This is not optional extra, and we do not treat it as such. As I said, the current Immigration Rules make clear the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services within the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help’s asylum services, which are available 24 hours a day, offer free, independent advice, guidance and information, including full interpretation services.

We have had some discussion about funding, and noble Lords will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this Government in public service delivery. We must therefore ensure that language services are cost effective, and the Home Office is committed to assessing language service needs and spend to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility and a compassionate, practical approach to translation. We understand well the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about penny-pinching undermining the integrity of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, asked about the cost gap in the sense, I suppose, of a counterfactual situation. I am not sure that any assessment has been made of that additional cost gap, but I will go back and ask officials whether that has been the case.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

Having listened to the Minister, I am not sure that there would be much of a gap. However, this is what I was driving at: based on what rights would be put in place by this amendment, compared to what is already delivered, what will the gap be? Listening carefully to the Minister, he seems to me to be saying that, certainly in the Immigration Enforcement pieces of that list, the services are already delivered, so it may just be an argument about the quality of that service, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was pushing at. It may be useful for your Lordships’ House to understand whether there are areas here that are not specifically about Immigration Enforcement and where there may be a gap.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Indeed, that was what I was getting at. I am not entirely sure how easy or practical it is to make an assessment of the upgrade to professional services and what the additional cost would be. However, as I said, I will go back and talk to officials to see whether an assessment has been made.

In a similar vein, I am afraid to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that I do not have to hand any sufficiently watertight briefing on the EU retained law aspect of her question. However, I will go back and talk to officials and write to her with a fuller explanation, rather than risking some barrack-room lawyership on my feet this evening.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for raising her amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of high-quality services provided by the Home Office, as well as the importance of high-quality translation services for people who are rightly seeking asylum and need that support to access our system adequately. The points raised today reflect our values as a nation and our commitment to upholding the rights and dignity of every individual. Given the points I have outlined, and the fact that our Immigration Rules already make clear the obligation of the Home Office to provide translation and interpretation services where necessary, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.