Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

136: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to section 117C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002For section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 substitute—“(5) Exception 2 applies where C has a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and—(a) the effect of C’s deportation on the partner would be unduly harsh, or(b) it would not be reasonable to expect the child to leave the UK and it would not be reasonable to expect the child to remain in the UK without C.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met. These include that they have a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child (that is, a British child or a child who has resided in the UK for more than 7 years) or a qualifying partner (that is, a British citizen, or someone settled in the UK within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971).

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Noble Lords will note, being terribly observant, that I am not my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Around about now, I hope, she is emerging from theatre, having had an operation on her foot. She will not be in the House for a few weeks, so I am afraid that I am picking up amendments from my noble friend. I apologise for not having taken part at Second Reading, but the timing of the operation was uncertain, so this is where we have got to.

I am moving Amendment 136 and will speak to Amendment 187, both in the name of my noble friend. They propose two new clauses which would address the rights of children. Most of us will understand—and I hope and believe that most of us accept—that we in the UK regard the rights of children as enormously important and that, when making decisions, we have always to keep in mind the best interests of the child. These will often be British children or children resident in Britain.

To set out a couple of points of context for this, I note that, as many will be aware, Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is about the best interests of the child being at the centre of decisions. Article 5 talks about the importance of parental guidance for children and children’s rights, and Article 9 says that separation from parents should be avoided wherever possible.

Let us think about what it means for the child if a parent is deported. I refer to some testimony from an organisation called Bail for Immigration Detainees which talks about what it is like when a child sees their parent facing deportation. Obviously, it is devastating when families are torn apart and children face never seeing their parent in the flesh again. If a parent is deported to, say, Jamaica or India, it will be extremely expensive, perhaps impossibly so, for the child ever to be in their arms again. There are also the practical considerations. Families have arrangements. They take children to school, with employment fitting around it—one parent takes the children to school while the other is working. All those arrangements fall apart very suddenly, and the child is the one who suffers.

That is the context of these amendments, which the two proposed new clauses seek to ensure that the Bill addresses. Amendment 136 would amend the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to address the rights of the child. As the explanatory statement sets out, it

“seeks to ensure that an Article 8 ECHR human rights claim by a foreign criminal sentenced to less than 4 years’ imprisonment can succeed if certain conditions are met”.

This is about a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child. It is about the reality of children’s lives, not just this year or next year but for the whole of their childhood.

Amendment 187 would insert into the Bill a new clause providing a

“Duty to have due regard to family unity”.


Again, this would put the rights of the child front and centre in the exercise of all immigration and asylum functions. It would apply to the Secretary of State, to immigration officers exercising immigration and asylum functions and to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal in deciding human rights appeals.

We hear a lot about the problems and difficulties in our society. If we are to be a caring society that prepares our young generations for the future, I put it to the Committee that these two amendments would be a step in the direction of making sure that—as we so often claim to do—we put the rights of children first for the future, for all of us. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on the two amendments together. Section 117C, on the deportation of foreign criminals, which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend, provides at subsection (1) that this deportation is in the public interest. I suggest that the well-being of children is a matter of public interest. There is a lot of noise about the deportation of foreign criminals at the moment, and the noble Baroness has rightly focused on the position of children. As the noble Baroness has identified, the family unit, about which politicians talk an awful lot, is generally in a child’s best interest. I am not sure about there being public interest in children being properly brought up. I do not disagree with the concept, but I am not sure how you define it.

In Amendment 187, there is a reference to maintaining contact by electronic means. I have been aware over the years that, although the means have developed, “Skype families”, as they used to be called, were desperately distressing for everyone concerned. I heard one example many years ago of a child who thought that daddy had no legs, because they had never seen the father below chest level. So, although it is not Skype these days, the principle remains.

I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a quick recovery and I thank her for bringing this to the attention of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment would undermine our ability to deport serious violent and persistent foreign national offenders, and I therefore cannot support it. Replacing the unduly harsh threshold with a new, lower reasonableness test would open the doors to litigation to determine the parameters of what could be considered reasonable. It fails to adequately reflect public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals. There is an easy way to avoid that conflict in the first place: do not commit the crime. Self-evidently, if you do not commit the crime, then you will not be facing that. I cannot accept the amendment because it lowers the threshold. For that reason, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 136. I cannot accept it under any circumstances, and I hope she can accept the explanation on Amendment 187, which I think is unnecessary for the reasons I outlined.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their kind wishes to my noble friend. I will certainly be passing all those on as soon as possible. I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this debate—including the Minister. However, I will point that in his closing comments he repeated several times, “Do not commit the crime”. But the child we are talking about here has not committed any crime. It is the future of the child’s whole life and family life that we are talking about—focusing not on the criminal but on the child.

I thank particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for raising a very important point about the well-being of children. We are focusing not just on those children but on the public interest. The future of our children is the future of all of us. The noble Baroness made a very useful point by noticing how often the unity of the family is brought up in public debates but then seems to be excluded from certain parts of the conversation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made a really important point in the context of our current national debate for those who would see us withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. It is actually a very flexible instrument, which reflects why these amendments have been tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why these amendments were needed and said that it is all there in Article 8 judgments. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that we can set the guardrails; we can say what Article 8 means and that is what these amendments seek to do.

None the less, we have had a useful debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned Skype families. That is an issue I have been working on for a very long while. I think we might have to get a new term—maybe Teams families or Zoom families. It is important to think about the reality. Let us think of a child of seven or eight who knows they are never going to be held in the arms of a parent again. How does the other parent, if there is another parent there, explain that to the child?

I am sure my noble friend will be looking very closely at this debate and taking on board all the comments so, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 136 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation and chairman of the Task Force Trust, which I will come on to later. I extend my best wishes to those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord German, who are not able to be here because of illness, and wish them well.

I support the amendments on the right to work, particularly for domestic workers and those in the NRM. I have been an advocate of this for some time. Call me psychic, but I do not think the Government will accede to this for the very reason the noble Lord, Lord German, gave: the pull factor—although that has never been proved—or whatever.

In my capacity as chairman of the Task Force Trust, we have had a very interesting set of projects through Action Asylum—I would be very happy to show the Minister an evaluation report we got from the University of Nottingham—that get asylum seekers and refugees to do voluntary work, particularly in the environment field: things such as beach cleans, tree planting and a lot of other similar things. This is so important because it has been shown that, in local communities that are not always the most keen on what they perceive asylum seekers to be, they see them as real people, they see them as families and they see them doing things. It has been great for cohesion, but also a great thing for the asylum seekers themselves, to make them feel valued and part of the community, and it has helped their mental health. I think it is something that should be looked at more. As I said, I would be very happy to pass on a copy of this evaluation report from the University of Nottingham that shows the value of it.

There are other projects I have been aware of. For example, the Marylebone Cricket Club has a foundation which has been getting asylum seekers to play cricket. The Saracens Foundation has also involved refugees and so on into sports. I cannot help feeling that this is the way forward—at a time when we know full well that there are frictions out there in our communities—to make sure that they realise we are talking about actual people.

It is a lateish hour and there are plenty more speakers. I just say to my noble friend Lady Lawlor, on her amendment, I think the question of driving licences for these people is a valid one, but it is slightly discriminatory to say it is just for overseas people. There are plenty of other people around. It may be that she thought it was a cunning way to get the issue raised, but I do not think this is really part of this. With that, I will sit down, but I am very happy to meet the Minister, or pass him this report, because I think it is a very valuable idea in terms of community cohesion.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to offer Green group support for all the amendments in this group, except for Amendment 154A, and to express the greatest sympathy with those who are not able to be with us when we would like them to be. It is also terribly disappointing given that this is such an important group of amendments for addressing essential issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society, as a result of our immigration law.

I will address two related amendments: Amendment 151 from the noble Lord, Lord German, and others, and Amendment 155A, both of which address points on what is known for short as the “lift the ban” campaign. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on this. Indeed, last week, I spoke with the Minister in Oral Questions about suggestions from the Refugee Council to allow people who are most likely to be given asylum status the right to work. This is a broader step.

Giving people the right to work as they seek asylum would, of course, empty the asylum hotels. That is one way of doing it, but the arguments for it extend beyond that. I note that the Global Compact on Refugees—a UN agreement that we do not hear much about these days, but undoubtedly should—says that refugees should be included in communities from the very beginning, meaning as soon as they arrive. What better way is there to include people in communities than to allow them to work? The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was just saying that voluntary work is great, but to enable people to support themselves, support their families and contribute to societies is surely better.

I will just draw on a little history. I am coming up to six years in your Lordships’ House, which makes me not quite a newbie any more by House of Lords standards, so I can go back to the Nationality and Borders Bill of 2022. I just point out that what we are presenting here is something that the House more or less supported, voted for and sent back to the other place. Amendment 30 of the Nationality and Borders Bill on Report was to change the Immigration Act 1971 to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. It was proposed and the vote was called by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Meacher. Ten Conservatives and 32 Labour Members voted for that amendment, so we are not really going out on a limb here with these suggestions to allow people to work after three months or at least to review the possibility of six months.

A Times leading article from 16 December 2021 also called for—I emphasise that this was the Times—asylum seekers to be given the right to work after six months. I may not say this terribly often, but I entirely agree with the Times where it says:

“Enforced idleness is a waste of initiative and wealth”.


It notes that, at the time, the Migration Advisory Committee opposed the ban on asylum seekers working and the leading article suggested that they should be able to work in shortage occupations. This Times notes that, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said:

“Britain’s policy is more restrictive than that of EU member states”.


As the noble Lord also said, it

“would have no impact on the aggregated numbers of people granted asylum”.

I finish by quoting the Times’ conclusion:

“it would help the economy, reward enterprise and better integrate migrants into British society. A policy that is humane and beneficial for all concerned ought to be grasped”.

When we think about the way in which our immigration debate is going at the moment, it is worth thinking about how far we have moved in the wrong direction. Let us head back in a humane, just and sensible direction.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, has set out an overwhelming case for Amendment 154, on the fishing industry. It is worth going back to some research from the University of Nottingham Rights Lab from 2021. I do not think there is any evidence that the situation has improved since then. Some 35% of fishers reported experiencing regular physical violence, including racial abuse and sexual violence. Their average pay was £3.51 an hour—one-third of the minimum wage; 19% were working in conditions comparable to forced labour; and 60% reported shifts of a minimum of 16 hours. When we think of the conditions to which the noble Lord referred, one in three were working more than 20-hour shifts, and 100% from outside the EEA were on the visas we are talking about.