Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I know what a lonely place the Government Dispatch Box can be when one is introducing a firm bit of immigration legislation. One notes immediately the surreal disconnection between the Overton window of the views in this House and the views in the country at large. I am afraid that the Minister’s evening is not going to get any better because I have to declare that I entirely support the Government’s position in relation to these rule changes.

The short point is that these are changes that are necessary to reduce the abuse of the immigration system. They are a sensible and proportionate use of the power to make changes in the Immigration Rules. I particularly support the measures in relation to the reduction of the period granted for asylum claims, to allow the review to occur after two and a half years and, furthermore, to allow a review prior to the grant of indefinite leave to remain. Under the present scheme, the situation in the United Kingdom is much more generous than that of our colleagues across the channel. This is a sensible rebalancing, and I congratulate the Home Office on bringing forward these measures.

Furthermore, in relation to the visa brake, which has been the topic of a good deal of conversation in the speeches that we have heard this evening, these are sensible measures in my submission. One can see from the statistics that the abuse of student visas in order to allow people to claim asylum had become completely apparent. Between 2021 and the year ending September 2025, the proportion of Afghan asylum claims to study visas was 95%, while applications by students from Myanmar soared sixteenfold over the same period. Claims in the year ending September 2025 by students from Cameroon and Sudan rose by more than 330% in 2021, posing an unsustainable threat to the UK’s asylum system. Faced with that, the Government had little choice, I submit, but to address the question that these people applying for student visas intended to come here to claim asylum. It was a backdoor route into the country, and the Government have rightly taken steps to stop it until that problem can be resolved.

The only regret that I have is that the opposition appears to come from the Government’s Back Benches in both this House and the other place, and it is reportedly present even in their senior ranks. So I say to the noble Lord the Minister: keep at it, you are doing well and do not be put off by the siren voices behind you.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

This is an important debate on an important issue. The case has been made by every speaker so far making detailed points on the policies and the problems that they create. I want to put on record my concern and my support for the comments that have been made by my noble friends and other Members of the House.

Although much of the debate has focused on specific problems and the specifics of the proposal, I think a view should be taken of the proposals as a whole. There are some necessary changes, and we know what they are, but taken as a whole we have to ask ourselves whether this the sort of country we want to be. To me, the answer is no. I just want to make that general point and put it on record.

The second issue—and I think this has come out clearly from the debate, particularly from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard—is that the whole process of us being here at 10.10 pm on a Tuesday night with unwhipped business means that this debate has not had the significance that it should have done. It is only those who have strong feelings about this issue who have come. The whole process, the fact that there was no debate in the Commons, and this archaic process we have landed ourselves with—I know it is only from 1971—is totally inappropriate to the task at hand. The review of immigration laws, which is a big political issue in this country, should not have been handled in this way.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I do not expect that my first point will gain overwhelming sympathy, but the challenge of following the detail of changes in Immigration Rules—it is not particular to this Statement of Changes—about what is in effect, whether there is a discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary and all of that is considerable. The impact on people directly affected, or who believe they are affected, or who are anxious about becoming affected in the future, is also considerable. There can be no doubt about the level of anxiety—our inboxes bear witness to that.

There is also—this is a point that may not gain sympathy—the impact on professionals, as well as on the organisations working in the immigration and refugee fields. It is not just support and assistance for which they are relied on. My guess is that the complexity, indeed the near impenetrability, of the rules current at any given time—to which one adds the decisions of tribunals and the higher courts—is a deterrent to lawyers entering into this area of work, and then of course there are the legal aid rates. All that makes it the more difficult for applicants to access support and representation.