Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, I will speak in support of three amendments in this group, one to which I have put my name and two to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has put hers; as we have heard, she regrets that she cannot be in her place today. I refer to Amendment 177 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, Amendment 178 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 203K in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

It is not just the Christian Church that regards the family as more than a merely biological unit; it is the fundamental God-given building block of community life and the source of belonging and stability for children. The former Home Secretary recognised this when she wrote in 2020:

“When children lose their home, their parents and their country through war or persecution, reuniting with surviving family members elsewhere can be their only hope of rebuilding their lives. But they need safe and legal routes to do so”.


The truth is that families belong together; these amendments speak to that truth. We must not keep families apart. No parent can be expected to build a meaningful new life, contribute to society and establish roots in a new country, knowing that their child is stranded elsewhere. No separated children should be prevented from reuniting with their parents.

We are told that the Bill partly seeks to stop the vile work of smugglers and traffickers. Yet 93% of those travelling safely via family reunion were women and children, who may now be at the mercy of smugglers taking criminal advantage. As a lawyer at Safe Passage puts it,

“the lack of accessible alternatives means we are not able to compete on equal terms with smugglers who make promises to children to cross the Channel within a few days and actually deliver on those promises”.

I urge the Minister to ensure that, when the Bill is mature, it will provide dedicated arrangements to support refugee children who have been separated from their parents.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments led by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which have been signed by others. We have debated refugee family reunion at numerous points over the past five years or so. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, recalls that at one point I picked up the relay from my noble friend Lady Hamwee and took a Private Member’s Bill through this House successfully. Unfortunately, it did not get through the other place successfully, but I have been somewhat involved in this issue and feel strongly about it.

Just to pick up the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, he talked about family being the basis of belonging and stability. That is important, not only for personal feelings of security and being able to thrive within the family but as a practical issue about integration, which has been much talked about in recent months. On the one hand, people shout, “Why aren’t immigrants properly integrated?”, yet we want to pull the rug from under refugees by saying, “You have no right to have family reunited with you, which would help you to settle and get on in our society”.

There is obviously room for discussion about the scope of the amendments that I support, and colleagues to the right have pulled various holes in in them. One can discuss some of them, but I must admit that I am somewhat shocked by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson—he and I are not always completely eye-to-eye in other fora. Here, he makes some reasonable suggestions in some of his amendments, but this one I find bad. He wants to delete proposed new subsection (5)(e) in my noble friend’s Amendment 166. He wants to delete having regard to issues such as

“the importance of maintaining family unity … the best interests of a child”

and

“any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person granted refugee status”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate said, the principle of family unity is important, but I think that the social aspects are also very important. There seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency in the policies of successive Governments. Like others, I find pretty shocking what has happened in the last six weeks. First, the Home Secretary paused family reunion, and then, perhaps tellingly—there may have been an interesting internal debate with the Home Secretary—No. 10 said, “Actually, we are going to make that permanent; it is not just a pause. We are going to eliminate family reunion as we know it”.

Some remarks from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches went to wider issues about immigration and asylum. I always find it a bit rich that such complaints are made. There are valid issues about the control of migration and security of borders—no one denies that—but we must not forget the big explosion in legal migration that took place after Brexit, which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, supported. We then had far greater volumes than ever happened under EU free movement, besides eliminating the two-way street which allowed Brits to migrate within the EU. I think a bit of non-joined-up thinking goes on there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, talked about how we do not have a right to deny public opinion. Of course, public opinion—which is perhaps in a rather inflamed state at the moment—is important. I read in a briefing from the safe routes coalition that recent polling undertaken by the organisation British Future found that 67% of the public support a controlled official route for refugee children whose only remaining family are in the UK to travel here safely. Two-thirds of the public polled support family reunion for children who are stranded abroad, which is a large element of these amendments. That is public opinion, and we must be specific about what the public are reacting to.

The aim of some is apparently to curb the numbers coming in, but it depends what numbers we are talking about. In the case of family reunion and child refugees, we are talking not just about compassion, humanity and human rights, or even the principle of family unity, but about the best interests of the child and of the people who will settle in this country. We and they hope that they will make a big contribution to the success of this country, but we cannot expect them to do that if they are lonely, anxious and deprived of the support of their family. We must always remember that we are talking about social practicalities here, as well as the high principles of human rights.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I sat through this wonderful Bill as it went through its Second Reading and through all its Committee meetings. I speak today because I have been moved by Amendment 177 from the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kerr, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Why am I saying these few words? The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, really put the finger on the issue: it is not just about children but about family reunion for asylum-seeking children outside the United Kingdom. He has narrowed it in such a way that it would be quite wrong in our statute to use it as an assurance, instead of a statement of public policy. If the statute uses it as an assurance, we will end up like that wonderful or awful Bill that went through Parliament and ended up as the Dangerous Dogs Act. Do your Lordships remember it? It was intended to give assurance, but it was very bad legislation and it was amended very quickly. We do not want that kind of assurance—of rising public opinion, which some see as a court of public opinion. It is important that a legislature is concerned about statements of public policy and that the law expresses that reality.

When I was Bishop of Stepney, there was a lady called Lasoya. She came here from west Africa as a student. She studied, got her degree and did very well. They gave her a job and she worked here for a number of years. She then became pregnant and had a son. The authorities then caught up with her overstaying and discovered that her son had already been registered as a British citizen. The adjudicator said that what should happen was that the son, who was already a British citizen, should stay, but that the mother should be sent back to west Africa.

That was an ugly statement. Hackney was up in arms and so was Islington. As Bishop of Stepney, I wrote to the Prime Minister, who at the time was John Major. I said, “At the moment, I have leave to remain. I am willing to exchange my leave to remain and give it to Lasoya so that she can stay with her son”. Do you know what happened? The Prime Minister was very quick to say that the adjudicator’s decision was ridiculous. He could understand what had happened and that she should not have overstayed, but the Government had not caught up with her, so the fault was on their side, so she stayed and there was great rejoicing in both Islington and Hackney.

Children outside the United Kingdom who are seeking asylum want to be reunited with their families who are here. Common sense tells us that, whatever the law may do in the future, this should guarantee that, because that is the only way if you have given somebody asylum and their children are not united with them. The ages are very clear in the amendment: limit it to those who are not 18 yet and then see what happens.

I am moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has been a great campaigner for children and is known for working on this. The same is true of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who, in her work as a judge, has dealt with a lot of family cases and speaks from wonderful experience and knowledge. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said to the Minister that, if it is not to be decided today, this matter cannot be rushed or kicked into the long grass—by Report the Minister may have gathered ideas about how to respond to this marvellous amendment, which I support.

--- Later in debate ---

A brief final point is that my amendment is needed in the interests of the Home Office, as well as of immigrants and asylum seekers. The exclusive use of qualified professional interpreters and translators will help to achieve absolute clarity as to the claimant’s case, thereby avoiding any potential later dispute or allegation that the Home Office has misunderstood the claim so it must be reconsidered. For all these reasons, I beg to move.

[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.