Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The time is up.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. I shall sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I, too, have visited Calais and I totally agree that no one would live there if they had a choice. Those people are clearly desperate, and one can perhaps understand why they are taking desperate routes. I am also speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Harper, so I cannot tell him what a wonderful speech he has just made, but I am sure it will be excellent.

I listened to the two opening speeches with something close to despair, because I get the sense that the Labour Government want to do something right, but I think they have missed opportunities here. Of course, the Opposition had 14 years to put this right and what we actually saw was 14 years of draconian rules and legislation that focused public attention on stopping the boats but at the same time allowed a huge abuse of the system with billionaires in private jets siphoning off taxpayers’ money during austerity and the Covid crisis. We had 14 years of a hostile environment and 14 years of draconian rules, and what did we actually get out of it? Rwanda was the most ridiculous threat, and I am delighted that that has now gone.

Certainly, in those 14 years, the criminal gangs got richer and the people who were letting out their hotels to refugees also got richer, but, of course, the number of people arriving by small boats has kept on climbing. Under contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, Clearsprings, Mears and Serco made a combined profit of £385 million since 2019. That has grown, because the Government deliberately allowed a backlog in asylum claims as part of their failed policy of deterrence. The “Bibby Stockholm” refugee barge was yet another failed deterrent, with the taxpayer picking up the bill for things such as the high-cost docking fees at Portland Port.

The last Government tried deterrents. They did not work and led to much higher bills for taxpayers but not to any real advantage. Refugees do not want to live on ships or in hotels. They want to become citizens and build new lives for themselves as previous waves of immigrants did. Whether descended from the Huguenots, German Jews, Ugandan Asians or other families that have fled persecution and war to make a good life here for hundreds of years, the vast majority want to contribute to society. They are grateful to be taken in and allowed to live without danger.

Most of today’s refugees want to earn a living and not rely on handouts, but our Government will not let them. Most want to contribute and benefit our economy, but our Government make them a problem instead of part of the solution. The problem is not the refugees; it is the Government’s failed attempts to deter them, which have not worked but have made things much worse and created bigger problems. I know that Labour wants to sort out the huge delays in processing asylum claims and to cut down on the use of hotels, but they are keeping most of the draconian rules that were passed by the previous, clueless Government.

Why are this Labour Government retaining provisions of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that when in opposition they condemned as immoral and destructive of human rights commitments? They even voted alongside the Greens and the Lib Dems to defeat the previous Government 19 times on those draconian rules that they regarded as unacceptable. Why have His Majesty’s Government failed to make any provision for safe routes to this country for people seeking asylum—including people with close family and other connections here? The Government expect us to pass a law that says, “If you arrive here via a small boat, or in the back of a lorry, you’re not regarded as a person of good character and are therefore ineligible to settle”. However, because no additional safe routes are set up, the only way that you can be a person of good character, according to Labour, is not to arrive here at all. These are not the actions of a Government who treat vulnerable people with fairness and decency, and, quite honestly, they are not a Government who deserve to be in power.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have given the House accurate figures which show the removals. I cannot give the noble Viscount the figure he asked for immediately in this discussion, but I will reflect upon that question for him, on the ratio of individuals and where they have come from. However, around 35% of asylum claims are rejected. We are trying to speed up the asylum claims system to ensure that we come to decisions earlier and can therefore remove people with no right to be here. I will certainly examine the noble Viscount’s question, and if he is not happy with the response I eventually give him, there are opportunities further downstream for us to debate that further.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have listened to so much claptrap from this side of the Chamber, I cannot bear it any more. Could we please stop the right-wing nonsense you are all spouting? Could we perhaps hear just how many people who arrive by small boat are actually given asylum because they have a justified claim?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Baroness the definitive figure on small boat arrival asylum claims, but roughly 61% to 65% of asylum claims are accepted, and roughly 35% are not. I can reflect on the exact figures, but those are the rough figures. From the Government’s perspective, we then have to speed up the asylum claims so we can make those assessments much more speedily. Part of the reason for the problem of having a large number of people in hotels is that those asylum applications were not speedily assessed. Therefore, people have been left in limbo in asylum hotels.

Those numbers have grown exponentially during the period 2015 to 2024. There was a dip just before the election, which I acknowledge, but further energy needs to be put into that to close the hotels—which we intend to do—and to speed up the asylum claim procedure to determine who has a right to asylum. There are separate issues, which have been raised by a number of noble Lords, such as ECHR obligations, refugee convention obligations, et cetera. But the Government simply believe that we need to speed up those asylum claims, and the measures in the Bill and externally from executive action and the immigration White Paper, along with future proposals, are designed to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his clause stand part notice.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

The amendment we are proposing does not create new entitlements; it simply ensures that resettlement is delivered in a way that protects children and upholds the values of compassion and decency that this House has long championed. It strengthens accountability, supports local authorities and fills a critical gap in our humanitarian response. At a time when safe routes are being closed and children are being placed at greater risk, it offers a practical and principled way forward. I urge noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 166, though there are several amendments here that I could have supported because I feel that they are common sense.

How can this Government be so heartless as to not accept that families have to be together? Surely that is basic humanity. Why are this Government so happy to shed so many voters simply by hanging on to the right-wing nonsense that says asylum seekers are to blame for all the problems that we face in Britain—the shortage of housing, the damage to the NHS and the lack of jobs? This is not the fault of asylum seekers; this is the fault of the previous Government’s policy of austerity that has so damaged our processes here. The right wing gets this opportunity to pass the blame on to other people. Will this Government please get a backbone and stand up for the rights of people?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is saying about immigration. It is in the press every day and it is a serious issue that the public care about. However, he spoke a great deal about adults and, on this, we are particularly talking about children.

I hugely admire the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the valiant work he has done over so many years. I support family reunion, and I particularly support his amendment. Some years ago, with the help of the NGO Safe Passage, Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP, and I went to Calais and met children. We did not meet any grown-ups who were trying to get to this country; we met entirely children. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that it was not 17 year-olds we were talking to; they were 10, 11 and 12 year-olds who were anxious to join their families in this country.

Until Brexit, this country—under Dublin III, I think it was—allowed children to join their parents. To the credit of the then Conservative Government, that was going to be continued. It was then stopped. It seems to me that, with one voice, this Government are talking in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill about the best interests of children and saying that the welfare of children is paramount. Does that stop at this border? Does it mean that if a child comes from Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan or Afghanistan—countries where the greatest conflicts are at the moment—that child does not merit their best interests being considered? I absolutely do not believe that that is the view of this Government. Whatever may be said about this Government, in the past they have shown a huge degree of compassion in all sorts of situations. Although I may not agree with much that the Government say, I have admired the party over many years for its approach. For this Government to say that they will no longer allow foreign children to come to this country to join their parents would, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, be shocking—I use his word.

It would probably be wise to support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rather than go too far in saying how many relatives could come and join children who are already here. I worry about children put into care in this country if they do not have their families—of course I do; but I worry a great deal more about children living under the trees in a cold Calais winter, wanting to join their families here. That is the group we should worry about. That is the group that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is primarily talking about.

I find it incredible that this Government will not recognise that some children whose families are already here cannot come and join them, as successive Governments have allowed for so many years. I find it truly sad, if that is what the Minister is going to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendments 184 and 185 in my name. I am grateful for the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. Both amendments are inspired by the Government’s commitment in last year’s election manifesto that we will once again be a defender of the international rule of law.

The late Lord Bingham of Cornhill’s eighth principle on the rule of law is that it

“requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.

The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle that safeguards against arbitrary power. What are we here for if not to protect the constitution?

Throughout debates on this Bill and other annual asylum Bills of recent years, noble Lords have raised concerns about compliance with international law, including the 1951 refugee convention. More than 20 years ago, in 1993, a Bill was passed through Parliament, with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as Home Secretary. It was implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and contains a section titled “Primacy of Convention”. This section, still in force, provides that:

“Nothing in the immigration rules … shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the”


refugee convention.

My Amendment 184 is in the spirit of this provision, but addresses the relationship between the convention and our domestic legal system more holistically. Drawing from the hallmark constitutional balance agreed by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998, it seeks to ensure harmony between primary legislation, subordinate legislation, the Immigration Rules, executive guidance and the refugee convention, so far as that is possible. It would give effect to Parliament’s intention to legislate in compliance with human rights. As with the Human Rights Act, courts would interpret laws only with the grain of the legislation and do no more than necessary to ensure compliance with human rights standards. This would help realise Parliament’s overarching intention and rectify drafting errors or address factual circumstances not foreseen by legislators.

Just as our courts have exercised judicial restraint in using Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, our independent judiciary could be trusted to exercise restraint in using this proposed new clause. Where primary legislation cannot be compatibly interpreted, then, as with Section 4 of the Human Rights Act, a declaration of incompatibility could be made which would not affect—I repeat not affect—the validity or continued operation of that law.

Those who rail against judicial human rights decisions with which they disagree should be reminded of this relationship between Sections 3 and 4 of the Human Rights Act. It explicitly protects parliamentary sovereignty and, in contrast with, say, the US Bill of Rights, prevents our Supreme Court reinterpreting, let alone striking down, explicitly incompatible primary legislation. For the sake of completeness, the injunction in Section 2 of the Act is to “take into account”, not be bound by, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Amendment 184 would, so far as is possible, ensure, for example, that our criminal penalties do not violate the immunity provided by the refugee convention, that our guidance on nationality does not treat refugees for evermore as not of good character if so to do would breach the refugee convention, and that refugees would not face being sent to places called safe where they will, in fact, face persecution.

Amendment 185 is specific to the question of immunity from criminal penalties. As your Lordships have heard time and again, Article 31.1 of the refugee convention protects refugees from

“penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence”

if they come directly from the country persecuting them,

“present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

The reason for this immunity is simple. People fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary are often compelled to arrive, enter and be present in a state irregularly. It is clear that Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is intended to cover this defence. Indeed, it is titled:

“Defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention”.


However, it is insufficient and does not reflect the full scope of that article. It provides only a narrow defence to an insufficient list of offences, including forgery and connected offences, possession of false identity documents, deception and falsification of documents.

Therefore, while there is a statutory defence for arriving with false documents, there is no statutory defence for arriving without requisite documents. Someone who uses a fake passport to get on a boat or plane directly from where they face persecution is provided with a narrow defence, but as we know, with our ever-tightening visa regime and with airlines afraid of penalties, refugees cannot board safe planes—if they could, they might not risk crossing Europe on foot or the channel in dinghies. If they had instead walked barefoot or been trafficked and arrived in Libya, Turkey or France, having lost or had stolen any papers they had along the way, they would have no statutory defence against prosecution for irregular arrival or entry in the UK, or indeed against the new facilitation offences in this Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 before it.

This is not a mere hypothetical. The best available data shows that 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted—a number of them young people, who are treated and prosecuted as adults, with insufficient initial age assessments. The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and/or torture, but had to share prison cells with adults before being released into the care of local authorities.

In its recent report on this Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated:

“Article 31 is partially incorporated into domestic law by way of section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. However, the Committee agrees with its predecessor that this provision is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.


Therefore, my amendment is one endeavour to ensure compliance. I appreciate that there are other such attempts, including from the chair of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his Amendment 203. I am sure that we all wish him a full and speedy recovery from his recent injuries.

In Amendment 203I and other amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has proposed a restrictive interpretation of Article 31.1 of the refugee convention. Our courts have interpreted the term “directly”—as in coming directly—broadly and purposively to ensure that refugees who have crossed through and had mere short-term transitory stops in other countries, such as while crossing deserts and seas, may still be exempt from penalties if they were en route to their place of intended sanctuary. The late and much lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in Adimi provided a clear test for interpreting whether someone has come directly, looking at the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reason for the delay and whether or not the refugee sought or found protection in that intermediate country. We must return to and uphold that common law position, as the late Lord Bingham of Cornhill did in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in Afshar.

As we repeatedly discuss, the entire system of international refugee protection would collapse if this were not the case—if every person were subject to penalties if they passed through or stopped in a safe country. The UK could say that all refugees are the responsibility of France. France would look to Italy, which would no doubt point to Tunisia. Tunisia would say “Libya”, and Libya would say “Sudan”. Thus, immediately, neighbouring countries would bear all the responsibility, of which they already bear a great share, or refugees would be pushed back into their countries of persecution. This was never the intention and could never logically have been the intention of a refugee convention. With this approach, like dominoes, our system of post-war legal protection and the international rule of law would fall. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I signed the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, not because I have any legal training but because I trust her judgment on this. I was hoping that some of our estimable Cross-Bench KCs and former judges would stand up and say, “This is rubbish; you can’t do this”. In their absence, I will say just a few words.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

28: Clause 38, page 32, line 20, leave out “11” and insert “12”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add section 12 (period for which persons may be detained) to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, these are meant to be helpful amendments and, if they are read with a favourable eye, they might be seen as such. To start, I remind your Lordships that freedom from executive detention is the most fundamental right of all. It is not only an international human right but a national one, reaching back 800 years to the Magna Carta. In the absence of any statutory time limit on the length of detention, other than for children and pregnant women, the right to liberty has been safeguarded in our common law.

Amendments to strip back Section 12 and uphold the common law during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill in July 2023 were supported from all corners of this House by a quite motley crew of very noble Lords. Amendment 28 and the consequential changes made by Amendment 30 seek to simply restore the common law to the position it was in before Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 was brought into force and sought to chip away at it. With so many other provisions of the Illegal Migration Act to be repealed by Clauses 38 and 39, Section 12 should be added to their number.

There are two reasons. First, the reasonableness of a period of immigration detention should not simply be in the hands of the Minister and down to her opinion; it should be entrusted to the responsibility of our courts in our world-renowned common-law system. This is not to say that courts will ignore the Home Secretary’s views. On the contrary, in 2007 our Court of Appeal specifically acknowledged that it will no doubt take account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper.

Secondly, by returning to the common-law position, we would also uphold the right to liberty under international human rights law. In 2016 the European Court of Human Rights agreed that it is this consideration by domestic courts of the reasonableness of each individual period of detention that ensures the absence of a general fixed time limit in the UK system, because it does not, in principle, give rise to increased risk of arbitrariness.

Repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At paragraph 103 of its report on this Bill, it clearly stated:

“We agree with our predecessor Committee and recommend the repeal of section 12 to restore certainty and ensure compliance with Article 5”.


Turning to Amendment 32 in my name, I take forward the task of continuing to recommend that the Government leave out the retrospective element of the detention power in Clause 41—that is, the power to detain people when considering whether to make a deportation order on the basis of their presence. This amendment is modest when compared with the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was to leave Clause 41 out of the Bill altogether. This amendment is simply about removing retrospectivity in subsection 17, which treats the new detention power as always having had effect.

The Government’s position appears to be that Clause 41 is necessary to clarify matters but that it is not retrospective. Both cannot be true. It is either necessary because it is retrospective and protects the Government from false imprisonment challenges, or it is unnecessary because it is already the position in law. The Government’s own impact assessment, when read carefully, shows that it has been unlawful since 20 October 2014 to detain people in the way that they have. Changing the law now and treating it as if it had always had effect will provide neither legal certainty nor foreseeability to people detained in these past 11 years. It only insulates the Government from challenge and inhibits people from having a domestic remedy and compensation for their unlawful detention.

This precedent of making the unlawful deprivation of liberty lawful places us on a very slippery slope. I ask the Government to reconsider their position on both these amendments, to repeal a section of the law that prior Governments passed in the Illegal Migration Act to erode our common law, and to leave out retrospectivity from their new detention order—all to uphold the right to liberty and to be free from executive detention, that most fundamental right of all. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked when and how we can review this matter. We will keep all matters under review. There are further potential issues around immigration and asylum trailed with the immigration White Paper. We have got to keep these matters under review at all times. I would argue to both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the extension of the Secretary of State’s powers is still subject to all the legal oversight that she would wish it to have and is ultimately still subject to parliamentary scrutiny on how those powers are exercised. I will answer to this House if there are any abuses of that power that Members wish to draw to the attention of either House—to the Home Secretary or to me, as the Minister accountable in this House. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I deeply regret that I did not come to him with these amendments before to discuss them a little bit more. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, even the noble Lord, Lord Harper, who started to raise deep, dark political waters that I definitely do not agree with him about. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

75: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to have due regard to family unity(1) A relevant authority must, in the exercise of relevant functions, have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in the discharge of its duty under that subsection, have due regard to—(a) the public interest in children being properly brought up,(b) the right of children to be cared for by their parents unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare,(c) the right of children to have direct contact, in person, with members of their families, unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare, and(d) the principle that maintaining contact with family members by electronic means of communication is not an adequate substitute for direct contact in person.(3) This section is subject to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children); and nothing in this section requires or authorises a relevant authority to do anything which is contrary to the welfare of any child (whether that child is in the United Kingdom or not).(4) Nothing in this section—(a) requires or authorises the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to refuse to grant a person leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom where they would, apart from this section, have granted such leave, or(b) requires or authorises the First-tier or Upper Tribunal to find that a ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not made out when it would not, apart from this section, have so found.(5) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18, and “children” shall be construed accordingly;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the First-tier Tribunal, and(c) the Upper Tribunal;“relevant functions” means—(a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration or asylum;(b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer in relation to immigration or asylum;(c) any function of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal in connection with the determination of any ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.

Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.

This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.

This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.

The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.

The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.

The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.

Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I hear so often in this Chamber that the amendments the Opposition have brought are completely unnecessary, it is already in law, and we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about it as it will all be fine. The fact is, it is not. This issue, in particular, will continue to make an awful lot of money for lawyers, who will fight what the Government are doing. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.