Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

If I were to set our annual borders Bill debates to music, I would pick Stravinsky. It has become a rite of spring, with clashing discords from the Conservative Front Bench and ritual incantations that there can be a sacrifice of international law because we are a dualist system.

We had the Nationality and Borders Bill three years ago and the Illegal Migration Bill two years ago. Then there was the ultimate absurdity of the Rwanda Bill, where we were invited to close our eyes and, by magical thinking and Westminster decree, make Rwanda safe and make ineligible all those whom we sent to Rwanda ever to seek asylum here. The House liked none of those Bills, amended them all and was overruled every time. So it is a great pleasure to welcome the 2025 Bill, because I can find nothing in it which is in clear breach of international law—and this is the first in recent memory. Moreover, I particularly welcome Clause 37, which wipes away the stain on the statute book that was the Rwanda Act.

That is the good news—and it is very good—but the Bill is not all good news. Getting rid of the 2024 Act but only parts of the 2023 Act means that we are still left with some bits of the 2023 Act that some of us opposed, including its removal of modern slavery protections for trafficking victims coerced into criminality. We are also left with the default provisions of the 2022 Act, which many believe were, in some respects, contrary to what we like to think of as a national tradition of fairness; some of them are inhumane and others are illogical.

It is not humane that we should still be so reluctant to see families reunited, yet the May White Paper threatens to make reunions harder by imposing new language and financial tests. It is not right that Clause 31 of this Bill would deny legal redress to those unlawfully detained or that the broad powers that Clause 43 gives the Secretary of State on tagging and curfews are not tempered by legal safeguards of any kind. It is neither humane nor logical—as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out—that those waiting in the asylum queue should still be denied the right to find a job. Changing that would be a win-win: it would be good for them, the economy and the public purse; it would be bad only for the criminals preying on them in the black economy.

I will make two further general points. Changing the rules of the game mid-match is usually not right. I find the retroactivity in Clause 31 particularly worrying. My inbox and Friday’s Financial Times remind me that a much larger community is worried about the potential retrospective application of the proposed change tucked away in paragraphs 264 and 266 of the White Paper.

People here on work visas, which they obtained under the points-based system, have had the right to apply after five years for indefinite leave to remain, but the White Paper suggests that in future this will be 10 years. Is that just for new arrivals, or does it mean that those already here will have to stay in limbo for another five years? The uncertainty about whether their uncertainty is to be extended is worrying many, as my inbox shows.

Retrospection would be unfair—it usually is. If retrospection is not the intention, it would be very good if the Minister could reassure the many who are worried. The FT tells us that 1.5 million people are worried about the Government’s intention. I very much hope he can reassure them and will do so.

Finally, back on asylum, it bears repeating that the best way of stopping the boats and putting the criminals out of business is to provide safe and legal routes to sanctuary. But for many with a justifiable, “well-founded fear of persecution”, in the words of the convention, in practice we provide no such route. Take Sudan, the world’s biggest current humanitarian catastrophe, worse even than Gaza. Sudan used to be our responsibility and should be on our conscience. There is a large Sudanese diaspora in this country, but for those now fleeing the civil war, carnage and starvation there, there is realistically no official or safe way they can apply to join Sudanese people here. Virtually 100% of those who do get here, coming by unofficial routes and seeking asylum, are granted asylum, such is the obvious horror they have left behind. It is our fault that they have to come as they do, with many dying en route. It does not need a Bill to put that right, but it really should be put right soon.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

These amendments would not solve everything, but they would be something. I give the example of a husband who was accepted as a refugee from Afghanistan but found that the only way he could help his wife achieve a visa was for him to go to Iran, so that he could take his wife to a visa centre. Another example is that of a two year-old child living with his grandmother who was displaced from Sudan to Chad. With the nearest visa centre being in Cameroon, he and his grandmother could not get there. Happily, he was helped by the UNHCR, which took his passport backwards and forwards, taking over 11 months to do it. It is very sad to think that that is a positive position. The amendments would give some practical meaning to the right to family reunion. I beg to move.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for the very reasons she gives. Clause 34 is very welcome and I am very glad that the Government have put it in, but it is very narrow. There is a considerable overlap between family reunion cases and evacuees, and this is about evacuees. I would like to bring the two together, as the noble Baroness said. The top five countries from which family reunion cases come are Syria, Sudan, Iran, Eritrea and Afghanistan, so we are in exactly the same territory of facilitating evacuation. It does not work very well at the moment, for the reasons that the noble Baroness spelled out.

The double journeys point is really worrying. To collect the visa, you have to go to a visa centre. In the top five countries I have listed, there are no visa centres, for obvious reasons—in most of them, there is no embassy—so you have to cross a frontier. When we are talking family reunions, more than 50% of those involved are children. Are we asking them to cross a frontier and go somewhere that could be a very long way away to get their visa? No, we are not; it is worse than that. We are asking them to go twice: once to give their biometric details and, secondly, to collect the visa—they cannot get it the first time. Could they not have the biometric details taken when they pick up the visa, when the family reunion case has been established and they are going to be let in? They would then need to make only one journey. It seems to me that this simple improvement to the process would save a lot of heartache and probably a lot of lives, in cases where it has been decided by the system that family reunion is appropriate and should be facilitated.

I support the two amendments ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I hope that the Government will go a little further and think hard about changing the procedure for the collection of the visa so that the biometric details could be given at the time the visa is picked up and thus the double journeys could be avoided.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support. I, too, am supported by RAMP, and that is in the register—that is done for Committee now. I warmly welcome Clause 34 as well, but the amendment being proposed is a very modest one, which would not be difficult for the Government to accept. The case has already been well made and I will not reiterate it, but I will give an example from the British Red Cross, which I think has made a very persuasive case to Members of the Committee. It gives the current example of Iran:

“The visa centre in Tehran has been temporarily closed since 15 July 2025. This visa centre was the base for many Afghans and Iranians to submit their family reunion applications. Now families are unable to access the centre and will need to take a dangerous journey to a neighbouring country just to submit their biometrics and have their application processed … This amendment would allow biometrics to be taken at different locations within Iran where people could travel to safely rather than crossing borders”.


Safety must be one of the criteria that we use in thinking about displaced people. It is a very modest amendment and I hope that my noble friend will be able to look kindly on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In response to both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I will repeat what I said in my preamble today: the Home Office is continuing to assess whether broader policy changes are needed to balance that humanitarian concern. The noble Lord made a very strong point about a child aged two and the length of time for a reunion—that will fall within our assessment of the broader humanitarian concern. We need to balance that with security requirements; however, in the case he put to us, a two-year old child would self-evidently not pose that type of threat.

This is important. I say to the noble Lords who tabled the amendments that the purpose of the clause is to provide the assurances that we have. I accept that noble Lords are testing that; however, while we will examine the points that have been made, I believe that there are alternative ways to achieve that objective. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, not to press her amendments. I also hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

We are all on the same side here, and I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s remarks. I appreciate that he stated that he will reflect on what we have said from all sides of the House.

It is true that there are alternative ways and that the UNHCR and the IOM can help. However, if you are in Afghanistan, there is no way that those organisations can help you until you have reached Pakistan. Getting across the Khyber these days is not easy, particularly if you are a child—and children make up more than 50% of the family reunion cases. While I appreciate the spirit of the Minister’s answer, I do not believe that it is a complete answer. I therefore press him to go on thinking about the points that have been made today.

I will cheat very slightly by saying that there is also a very direct way in which one could make on-site, in-country visa centres available—to reopen embassies. I am talking about Syria. I do not know why we do not have an embassy in Damascus now for all sorts of political reasons. Given its significance to the whole of the Arab world, we should have an embassy in Damascus. If we had an embassy, we would of course have a visa centre there. I hope that a wish to avoid paying for a visa centre in Syria is not causing the Foreign Office not to reopen the embassy in Damascus.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome Clause 37 very warmly. For some of us it is the best bit of the Bill. I am really pleased, for once, to be able to unequivocally support my Front Bench and my noble friend the Minister.

My noble friend the Minister did not have the pleasure of sitting through the debates about the Rwanda Bill in this House; I do not really want to put him through it all again, because it is like a nightmare in my mind and it is quite difficult to recall everything that was said at the time. But I remind the Committee that, on a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House rejected key bits of the Bill, and it went through only because of the majority in the Commons. We had ping-pong, ping-pong, ping-pong, and eventually we had to give in. To now try to resurrect it through this clause stand part device seems a bit perverse.

I will just remind noble Lords why we were so opposed to the Rwanda Bill. First of all—I have to see whether I can read my notes here—there was the failure to meet the concerns of the Supreme Court. Saying Rwanda is safe then and for always does not make it safe. I can remember noble and learned Lords and others on the Cross Benches—one of whom may well want to speak today—saying, “We’re being asked to say that night is day and put that into legal form”. It was ridiculous. So, for the lawyers among us, it was really quite distressing that we were having to put our name to that.

The United Nations High Commission on Refugees had concerns, at the heart of which was the belief that the Act was not compatible with international refugee law—the refugee convention. There was the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, highlighted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—the current chair is no longer in his place, but I am sure he would agree with what the previous committee said. That committee emphasised the universality of human rights, which this piece of legislation rode a cart and of horses through.

There were particular concerns around the treatment of LGBTI+ people, who would potentially not be treated well, as well as concerns about children, which was one of the main issues that I took up during the passage of the Bill. On the treatment of age-disputed children, there were fears that they would be removed to Rwanda because they had wrongly been assessed as adults, and then there was a difficult provision, if they could prove that they were children, for them to be sent back to the UK, in effect as parcels. Many of us thought that was dehumanising of children and went against children’s rights.

I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be terribly pleased to hear that we will be debating age assessment later in Committee. But it is worth pointing out at this point that just yesterday, the i newspaper published the latest analysis by the Helen Bamber Foundation of FoI data. That found that in 2024, at least 678 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were initially classed as adults but then found to be children by local authorities, and that was over half of those who were so referred. Had the Rwanda Act been in operation now, how many of those children might have been sent to Rwanda and got stuck there? That is the question that I would put. In addition, there was never a proper child rights impact assessment or anything like that.

Finally, the noble Lord talked about a deterrent. I seem to remember that, in all the paperwork we were given—it was probably an impact assessment or something—that there was a very clear reference to academic work which suggested that there was no evidence of a deterrent effect in this kind of legislation. The noble Lord also talked about us being a soft touch for illegal migrants. Please can we remember that most of those who come across on the boats, putting their lives at risk, are seeking asylum? They have an international right to do so. Please do not let us write them off as “illegal migrants”.

That is all I wanted to say. I warmly welcome that the Government have taken this step, because it is a very positive step in the name of human rights and international refugee law.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was a little unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who made an admirable speech: gallantry in a hopeless cause is always extremely impressive. I thought Owain Glyndŵr was speaking to us. I was reminded of the gallant knight in “Monty Python”, who has all his limbs struck off, but bravely says, “No, no, it’s only a flesh wound”, and fights on. It was tremendous.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also slightly abbreviated the history of the Rwanda Act in this House. It began with the Rwanda treaty, which this House recommended, on the advice of its International Agreements Committee, could not and should not be ratified until the various supervisory and legal constructs needed—and set out in the treaty itself—existed. Because they did not exist; they were to be set up. Various judges were to be appointed, courts were to be formed and supervisory monitoring procedures were to be put in place—none of that existed. This House recommended that the treaty should not be ratified.

The Bill itself had three fundamental problems for this House. First, as the noble Baroness said, there was the fundamental “Alice in Wonderland” absurdity that we can, by so voting, change facts: we can make Rwanda safe by declaring Rwanda safe. The noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, spoke powerfully on that subject.

Secondly, there was the problem of our international commitments. It was impossible—in the view of this House, which voted several times on it—to reconcile the Bill and the treaty with our international commitments. We were telling people, “You may never have your claim for asylum heard in this country. You may claim asylum in Rwanda. You may claim from the Rwanda Government the right to become a citizen of Rwanda. But you may never claim the right to become a citizen of the United Kingdom. We are going to send you to Rwanda, we are never going to let you come here and we are never going to hear your case”. To make that fit with the refugee convention is impossible—that is what this House determined. Keeping the Rwanda Act on the statute book would be absurd. If we mean what we say about a rules-based, legal global order, we really need to pay attention when what we are doing ourselves is clearly in breach of a central plank of the rules-based order.

That is completely different from what this Government are, as I understand it, seeking to do with offshoring the exercise. Although I do not like that—it is a very bad idea that people’s claims should be considered abroad, because it will be harder to ensure that they get appropriate legal advice and age assessment, if their asylum case heard in a foreign country—it is completely different from what we were going to do with Rwanda. With the Rwanda Act, we were not just offshoring but offloading; we were putting on the Rwanda Government the responsibility of considering the future of these people. We were saying, “It’s absolutely nothing to do with us and we refuse to touch it”. That simply will not do.

We have to applaud the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I note that his Scottish colleague was cunning enough to disappear before we came to the question of whether Clause 37 should stand part. I am a Scotsman and know that there are some battles that it is best not to fight. It is very gallant of the noble Lord to be here to make his case, but it would be absurd if he were to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam (Con)]

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I am a veteran of those dreadful, seemingly endless debates and I too recall them with some horror, including the ping-pong. But let us put this in perspective. That policy was chosen because it replicated the only purely successful means of stopping illegal immigrants coming on boats to a country—the Australian example. Instead of Rwanda, it used Nauru, near the Solomon Islands, and established over 10 years or so a successful arrangement whereby people coming on boats across the Timor Sea to Darwin and so forth were immediately detained and sent within 24 hours to Nauru to be treated. Not only did that immediately stop the boats but it has led to a cross-party arrangement in Australia that is, frankly, to die for here. The Liberal Party brought in those arrangements, the Labor Party then eventually won a general election and abolished them—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

If I may correct the noble Lord, the Australian arrangement was offshoring, not offloading.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

That is not true; it was offloading as well, because the decisions were taken by the Government in Nauru at the behest of the Australian Government, although they obviously had a back-up situation and did not entirely hand it over. However, if the noble Lord will look at it, he will see that it was very similar to the arrangements with Rwanda. As he will recall, we had not only arrangements with the Rwandan Government but a back-up arrangement—a monitoring committee—which he acknowledged during those debates was composed of the most distinguished international lawyers and so forth, who would check whether anything was going wrong.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

Exactly. It is such a pity. We made the point on ID cards just recently that one of the worst aspects of our system of government is new Governments coming in and instantly reversing policies carried through by the preceding Government. ID cards were an example where my noble friend Lord Jackson admitted that we might have been wrong. In some cases, we were right, by the way—we should have cancelled HS2. My noble friend Lord Harper might not necessarily agree with me there. None the less, sometimes new Governments can get it right as well as get it wrong, but the constant changing of policies of this kind between Governments is a real issue. Australia got it right: the Liberal Government brought it in; the Labor Government then rejected it and realised they were wrong. The Liberal Government brought it back, the Labor Government accepted it, and they now have a bipartisan approach which, in effect, means there is very little illegal immigration into Australia. It is the only extant example of this problem being dealt with.

Not only that, but the success of the bipartisan approach in Australia enabled them to go on to deal with legal immigration very transparently. There is a debate every year with a proposal from the Government on how many legal immigrants should be accepted into the country, broken down by different categories— students, families, workers in various categories, asylum seekers and so forth. That is then is debated in parliament and a view is taken. That is a model of what we are all trying to achieve here. If we could get to that position here with a bipartisan approach and an open debate every year in Parliament, that would be wonderful. This may seem like “Monty Python” land in some ways in its fantasy, but it is a reality in Australia.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I see the point that the noble Lord is making, but it is important that he recognise that what the Australian Government did, and did again, was to arrange for Australian asylum hearings to take place offshore. What we were arranging was for people to be told that they could never have a United Kingdom asylum hearing; we were going to forcibly send them to Rwanda where, if they wished, they could have a Rwandan asylum hearing. That is completely different.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

With respect, it is not completely different. The fact is that the Australians arranged a successful deterrent, which is what all Governments are trying to achieve. What the last Conservative Government were trying to achieve was obviously not entirely the same as the Nauru/Australian example, but it was broadly the same, and, as the noble Lord must agree, with many checks and balances to ensure that people were properly treated.

That is what the present Government are throwing away. All that effort, finance, agreement, and legislation—three Bills, I think—are being chucked aside for, in effect, nothing, because this Bill gives no deterrent factor. It is completely absent. We all agree that the gangs should be smashed, and that work can carry on side by side with any other work on a deterrent, but there is no work on a deterrent going on of the kind that the previous Government had. We need a deterrent.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, inspires me to join in. His reading of the refugee convention is one with which the House is familiar—we have heard it down the years—but it is not one that the world as yet accepts. It is not accepted by the UNHCR, which is the custodian of the convention. It would be rather Trumpian to propose to change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation. If we wish to see a change, there are procedures set out in the convention for proposing that change and going about it. That is standard practice. It would be a little odd for us to establish the “Murray interpretation”, as set out in the 2021 article, proving the error of the ways of so many Governments around the world, without ourselves trying to sell the “Murray argument”, if we believe in it.

I do not myself believe in it, for the following reason. Let us think about Afghanistan. If you are an Afghan, the Taliban are after you, there is a price on your head, you manage to get over the Khyber and you get to Landi Kotal, you get to Peshawar, and you then get in a plane and come here—or get here by any means—under the “Murray Amendment 203J”, we would be required to send you back immediately to Afghanistan, because, on the reading of the convention by the noble Lord, Lord Murray, you have come indirectly. You touched ground in Pakistan, therefore you cannot have asylum in the United Kingdom. If that became the general interpretation of the convention, it would completely erode the whole purpose of the convention. The purpose of the convention was to ensure that neighbouring states do not have to carry all the burden. Most refugees want to stay in neighbouring states because they hope to go home, but the convention was not intended to say that all refugees must stay in neighbouring states. There was an element of burden sharing in the thinking, and there still is.

If we were to put this amendment into the Bill and require the Government to follow what might be, and I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a very plausible interpretation of the convention—I do not know, I am not a lawyer—we would be seen by all our convention partners as acting in breach of the convention, because they do not agree with it yet. The right course would be to seek a conference at which we propose that the convention should in future be read in a different way from the way it has been read in the past—should be read in the “Murray way”. I have to oppose this amendment very strongly.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I had answers from the Government last year saying that they were not talking to allies and friends. Surely that must be the first sensible thing to do.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, but that does not lead me to have any sympathy at all for Amendment 203J.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord says that it would be “Trumpian” to take the course that is being suggested. Supposing that in the Supreme Court, the majority and the minority had been the other way round—and it may be that the majority was taking the correct view—there would be a decision of the Supreme Court which would be at odds with his interpretation and general understanding of the refugee convention. Why is that Trumpian? When we have a dualist system in this country, where we are capable of legislating for our own interests, why is it Trumpian to say that we cannot do that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to amendments which seek to reinsert certain provisions of the Illegal Migration Act that the Government are repealing with this Bill. The intention of these Benches is that the Government justify the repeal of each section of that Act.

Amendment 105 would reintroduce the duty on the Secretary of State to remove anyone from the UK who meets all of the following four conditions: they affected an unlawful, deceptive entry, including without a visa; they entered on or after this Bill becomes law; they did not come directly from a country where they were genuinely fleeing persecution; and they lack lawful immigration status. There are protections under this proposed new clause which recognise the specific needs of those who are unaccompanied children, victims of trafficking or those protected by European court measures. The clause sets out the clear duty of the Secretary of State to remove those who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be candid about why this amendment matters. Control over our borders is not just a political imperative; it is also a moral and democratic one. We all know that our asylum system is under intolerable strain. The public expect us to take action against those who break the rules, jump the queue and undermine the integrity of legal migration pathways. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to create an unambiguous legal duty to remove those who arrive illegally after this Bill comes into force, so that the message is clear that if you enter the UK unlawfully, you will not be allowed to stay.

This summer, as we have already heard, we have seen the strength of feeling that many in communities throughout the UK have towards the illegal migration crisis that this Government are presiding over. The problem is getting worse, and without serious action now it is going to get much worse. Dismantling the legal toolbox on this point seems to us on these Benches to be a poor decision.

Further, Amendment 109 seeks to reintroduce the process element of the Illegal Migration Act for removals. This proposed new clause would make it clear that removals must be made

“as soon as is reasonably practicable”

to a person’s country of nationality, a country where they obtained a passport or identity document, a country they departed from to reach the UK, or a country that is willing to accept them. These provisions would apply only when the said country is deemed to be safe.

I suggest that the amendment would do something essential: it would reintroduce the clear legal framework for the removal of individuals who have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. It seeks to set a reasonable and practicable duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that removal takes place as soon as possible after arrival. In doing so, it sends out an unambiguous message that our Immigration Rules are not optional, and that entry into the UK without lawful status will carry consequences. We cannot have a situation where people are languishing here indefinitely at taxpayers’ expense.

At the same time, this proposed new clause is far from draconian. It is structured with carefully calibrated safeguards. It distinguishes between those from designated safe countries and those who may not be. It places clear limitations on the countries to which individuals can be removed. Where a protection or human rights claim is made, the amendment would ensure that no one is removed to a country unless it is formally listed and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual falls within a lawful category for removal. In short, the system would balance our obligations with the public expectation that illegal migration will be addressed seriously and systematically, and would provide clarity. It would avoid legal ambiguity, giving operational certainty to the Home Office, and would send a signal to the people-smugglers and traffickers alike that the UK will not be a soft target.

If this Government believe in deterrence, border security and preserving the capacity to protect the most vulnerable, this amendment embodies that balance. It would not slam the door shut but would set lawful parameters. It seeks to make it clear that the UK will not reward those who undermine our rules and ignore safe routes of migration. I beg to move.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I wonder if I could put to the noble Lord the question that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put, which he did not answer in the previous debate? The amendment would impose a requirement to deport, but to where? Where are they to go?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I find it rather odd to read these two amendments. I am not party political. I sat through a large amount of legislation by the last Government: the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and the Rwanda Act. There was a great deal of legislation but there were remarkably few people actually deported. There appeared to be, within the last year of the last Government, even fewer people being deported. There seemed to be—if I might put it like this—almost a degree of lethargy. So listening to the way in which the noble Lord has put forward these two amendments makes me feel, to some extent, astonished. What they are asking of this Government, as far as I can see, is what in legislation they achieved but in deportation they did not achieve. They are expecting this Government to do what the last Government did not do. Sitting as I do on the sidelines, listening to what parliamentarians say and to what the Opposition say to the Government, I find it difficult to see why the Government should have to respond to this. It really seems quite extraordinary.

Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 109, there are four ways in which somebody could be returned. One is to

“a country of which P is a national”.

I understand—and they understand, and have said so quite properly—that they would not send the person back to a genuinely unsafe country. So an Afghan would not go back to Afghanistan, I assume, and probably a Syrian might not, even now, go back to Syria. That is where we start.

Then we have

“a country or territory in which P has obtained a passport or other document”.

Is that country automatically going to receive this particular person?

Number three, at paragraph (c), is

“a country or territory in which P embarked for the United Kingdom”.

Again, is that country—mainly France, or Belgium or Holland, I would expect, which are the nearest countries—going to be expected to take back every person who comes over? At the moment, the Government are negotiating a pilot scheme for a few to be taken back. I would have thought that the French would simply say certainly not.

The fourth one is

“a country or territory to which there is reason to believe P will be admitted”.

That is a sensible proposal, but where is that country? At the moment, from what we have heard, there are not likely to be many countries which would want to take the majority of people who have come to this country illegally. As I said earlier, I find these two amendments astonishing.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

At the moment, as we have heard, the cases go on and on. My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment, proposing the NAAB, and my noble friend Lord Gower’s, proposing scientific methods, both aim to deal with a difficult problem. We have to decide on as near a factual way as possible, for the very reasons that have been stated—the danger we pose by putting people who are over 18 into a category with younger people in all the circumstances that the local authority oversees, and the cost to the taxpayer of protracted proceedings and judicial review. It is unsatisfactory and undermines confidence in our judicial system, the courts and, indeed, the way we organise our democracy. There will never be a perfect solution, but we must work towards whichever amendment is judged to be better for securing the best available evidence on age.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness’s point about proceedings lasting for ever, but one must not take that point too far. It takes one into authoritarian territory where we really should not be going.

All the points I wanted to make were made much better by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I vividly remember our 2023 debates. Indeed, we are in a time warp with this whole debate. We have been here several times and there are no new points to be made. I remember the ethical, moral and practical arguments about scientific methods being debated.

Although I am sure we did, I cannot remember whether we discussed the equity of the point made in Amendment 115, which says that if the young person refuses to subject himself to a scientific test, because he is scared or whatever, the law will say that he is an adult and a liar. In equity, that seems to me to be a strange thing to put into a statute book. The process of going to law takes a long time, but it is our tradition. To cut it all short by saying, “If you don’t agree to be tested in this particular way then you’re an adult and a liar” seems quite extreme. I cannot remember if the point was debated before. I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is going to tell me that he answered it in lapidary terms in 2023.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is of course right to remember those happy exchanges. I draw his attention to the fact that, obviously, there are many examples in the law of presumptions being made if people do not do things: for example, the breath test, as the noble Viscount sitting next to me has just observed. If you say “no comment” in a police interview, inferences will be drawn. It is the same presumption system. There is nothing unusual in terms of the drafting.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, self-evidently I am not my noble friend Lady Ludford, but her name is on this amendment on behalf of these Benches. The noble Lord described immigration law as labyrinthine. It certainly is. There are easier subjects in which to practise. As a society, we are very lucky that a lot of lawyers are prepared to sacrifice themselves—I do not say this lightly—to ensure that people are advised about the labyrinthine rules.

I am a member of the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. At the moment, we are doing some work on the rule of law. I think we have raised with every witness the issue of access to justice. The committee is paying a lot of attention to that.

I want to pick up the reference to the 30 minutes of advice that is available. It is not 30 minutes; it is less than that, as I discovered when I visited Yarl’s Wood a few years ago. It was explained that you have to take out of those 30 minutes the time needed to bring the detainee to the room where the lawyer is holding a surgery, for want of a better word. Can it really be advice? The first job of a lawyer in this situation is to listen. In pretty much every case, if you were to do it properly, I think it must take longer than 30 minutes to have a detainee explain what has happened and what his or her history is, and not just in one period, taken consecutively. For a number of people—those who have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery have been mentioned—it takes a long time to be able to tell that story. So there is listening, and then there is advice—or, rather, an explanation and then advice, let alone action. We know that action does not happen. These Benches very much support the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bach. Had I been awake, I would have added my name to it, but I was sleeping in the Recess. He describes a situation which I do not think it is exaggerating to call critical. The numbers and percentages that he cites are shocking. The case for his amendment can be made on the grounds of fairness, access to justice and, as he said, the requirement for the Executive to carry out the laws that this place has passed. I agree with all that, and I do not think anybody in this House would disagree.

I will emphasise a point that the noble Lord made en passant and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made at greater length: we should not just act on this amendment on the grounds of fairness, equity and access to justice, but it makes sense in terms of economy. The costs of the delays in the system, which must in many cases result from inadequate preparation of a case, the wrong grounds being advanced and cases being deferred and having to be heard again, must be considerable. I have no numbers to offer, but I know that, in asylum cases, 50% of initial applicants have no legal representation and, in asylum appeals, 60% have no legal representation. That must prolong the process.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I congratulate the Government on the efforts they are making to reduce the queues for the initial application stage and for appeals, getting rid of these backlogs which grew terrifyingly under the previous Administration while the emphasis was on the Rwanda scheme and people were taken off these cases. The Government’s efforts to get the backlogs down are admirable, but they would be assisted by putting into practice what this amendment calls for, so I support it on the grounds not just of equity, which is perhaps in itself sufficient, but economy.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment have got a deep understanding of a very complex system—the legal aid system—which I certainly do not, so I will leave the fundamentals of the amendment and how the legal aid system works to those who have a great deal of professional knowledge about the system.

However, I noted the observation from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, when he moved his amendment, that a modest investment would be required now in order to deliver the plans that he has outlined. Can he give some indication of what that modest investment would be? While accepting that it sounds like a simple question, I suspect that the answer is probably complex in terms of the netting off of savings elsewhere through a more efficient process and so forth. Can he also say what proportion of the existing legal aid budget that would represent in order to get the system to the level that he feels would be satisfactory, and where the additional capacity would come from and how long it would take to come through the system?

If the noble Lord could answer those points—or perhaps the Minister could in his winding-up speech—it would be very helpful, certainly to give some context to the non-professionally qualified Members of the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I do not have before me, although I perhaps should, the figures to which he refers, but Ministers can certainly examine, and look at how we improve, that. It is in the interests of the Government—never mind of the individuals who are seeking asylum—to ensure that we have speedy, correct asylum decisions that get to the heart of the person’s asylum claim as a matter of urgency, rather than going through tortuous numbers of appeals and other legal matters. We must get to a position whereby the Government can determine whether someone has a legitimate asylum claim and, if so, can act upon it or, if not, can take action to deny that asylum claim and put in place the consequential action to be taken.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

So the Goschen/Empey number is neither here nor there. It is not a watertight compartment. The country can decide how much money to put into legal aid. There is also an offsetting benefit, which the Minister has been explaining, from speeding up the process, making sure that good decisions are taken and courts’ time is not wasted. So the Goschen question, to be honest, is irrelevant to this issue. My argument for economy is based on taking the two things together: the speed of the system, the cost of delays, unnecessary detentions and backlogs of asylum cases versus the undoubted additional cost of legal aid.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I put it to the Committee that I sense that my noble friend Lord Bach’s amendment is now being interpreted as being potentially much wider than certainly I took it to be on initial examination of that amendment.

Recess has meant that we have not had as much discussion about that as we may have wanted to have. The main point here is that, under current MoJ/Home Office determinations, 30 minutes is available, and subsequent legal support is available subject to tests of eligibility, et cetera. I think that goes parallel to the wish of the Government to put in additional advisers to speed up applications, to make sure that there is better-quality initial decision-making, but I am always grateful to be advised by the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has left out of his critique the requirement that the happy couple, as he described them, must both be at least 23 years old. When minimum income rules increased the amount of income that had to be shown in 2012, I heard a call-in debate about this on the radio. British citizens were affected; as he has said, it is not just about the foreigner. One person who called in said of the person who had been speaking, “Well, why can’t you just go and work in her country?” He said, very calmly, that it is not easy to find a job in mortgage broking in Nigeria.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her interesting statistics. As a former chairman of a university court, I find high student numbers a cause for delight. I am not quite sure why we should see it as bad news; the university sector as a whole finds large numbers of students wanting to apply from abroad rather good news, and so do I.

I would like to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about Amendment 198, on which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has expressed some doubts. I am struck by the plight of the British Romeo, who happens to go to Verona and meet Juliet. Not only does he have to tell her that they have to wait until they are both 23—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—but they have to wait until he is earning £37,750 a year and until they have already been married for two years. Even then, they cannot be sure, because they have to get a place in the quota. The quota for Italy will be 7% of an unknown number, to be determined at some future annual date by the Secretary of State. So, they would be well advised to get up very early on 1 January, two years after they got married, and register their application to come to this country. On what basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies, does one pick 7%, and on what basis is the Secretary of State to pick the annual number?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I want to touch on three matters—two to do with these amendments and one of a more topical nature. We have at previous stages of this Bill talked about the ability of the Government to remove people from the country. Amendment 199 touches on illegal removals. The Minister has been very keen to champion the deal the Government have done with France. Given that the French Government have, just a few moments ago, been voted down by the National Assembly and therefore collapsed, I wonder if the Minister, as he has been in post—I am sure the Home Office will have given it a great deal of thought—could comment on what impact, if any, that will have on the deal that the Government have done, whether in substance or the speed with which they will be able to implement it. That would be both of interest to the Committee and relevant to this legislation.

I strongly support Amendments 141 and 141A, from my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor, because they are about making sure that we better understand the system. While I welcome students who come here to go on good courses, who are here to study, it is useful for us to know if those students are breaching criminal law. I will not rehearse the arguments that my noble friend Lord Jackson made so eloquently, but there is a very good reason why having this data is helpful: one of the things that the Home Office pays a great deal of attention to, when it is making judgments about granting student visas in the first place, is looking at countries where there is a high risk of abuse. It puts a great deal of weight and expectation on universities to ensure that students are genuinely here, that they are competent to study courses and that they are going to study those courses when they get here. If the data highlights countries that are a particular risk, it would enable the Home Office and universities to take that into account when they are making decisions; it would tighten our immigration system and it would make sure that people are genuinely coming here to study—which is, of course, the reason they have been given the visas. So I strongly support both those amendments.

I also support Amendment 199. There is an argument for it—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was not enormously persuaded, but I will just give him one argument for where it might be helpful. One of the things that the Home Office finds difficult at the moment is when it wants to deport people to countries that will not have their nationals back. This is internal government politics, but I suspect that the Home Office is very keen to implement those visa requirements. I do not know—and I would not expect the Minister to confirm this at the Dispatch Box—but I suspect that other bits of government, such as the Department for Business and Trade and perhaps the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, are not very keen on implementing those visa sanctions. They would come up with all sorts of compelling reasons—for them—for why the Government should not do so. The countries know this, and they also make those arguments about why we would not want to implement those visa sanctions—damage to our trade and all sorts of other reasons.

This provision may be helpful when Ministers are having those conversations because, by making it mandatory, if the country will not up its game and if is not willing to take back citizens who are not entitled to stay in the United Kingdom, the Government can explain to those countries that their hands and discretion have been fettered by Parliament. Therefore, the only possible sensible course for that country is to improve its compliance and, frankly, do what it is required to do by its international obligations, which is to take back the citizens who are not welcome here. So I think there is a very sensible argument. It may be that the drafting of this amendment can be improved, and the noble Lord is well qualified to help with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, in an earlier debate on the Bill, my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel reminded me that it is the purpose of the Opposition to oppose. That is why I find it impossible to understand why the Opposition are not opposing this clause. I thought that Conservatives were wholly against Governments being given powers without very clear parliamentary restrictions.

I understand the argument that, if people are allowed into this country with conditions and they break them, all kinds of things, perfectly rightly, can be carried out; I am not disagreeing with that. But I would have thought that it would not take much, looking around the world at the moment, to see how dangerous it is to have a law which can be used by Governments of any kind to do almost anything that they want to. We can look at the United States and see a President who appears to be trying to do things which the law does not allow him to do. Think what would happen if the law did allow him to make the kinds of decisions this clause suggests. I also say to my noble friends that, if this clause applied without any restrictions to citizens of this country, the very first people to object to that would be the Opposition.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be serious in accepting that the argument is not about immigration; it is about what powers the Government should be given, unfettered by parliamentary decision-making and the courts. It seems to me that the powers given to Governments under this clause are unacceptable. I am sure that they would not be misused by the Minister or any of his colleagues, but that is not to say that we do not have in this country politicians whom I would not trust with these powers—some of them, indeed, have been in power, and I would not have trusted them with these powers.

Having been a Minister for some 16 years, I always found it valuable that my decision-making should be kept within particular parameters laid down by Parliament. One was constantly being asked by civil servants and people outside to do this, that or the other, and one was able to say, “That is not within my power”. I do not think this is a suitable clause for a British Parliament to pass. We should rely on the law we have already or, if there is any gap in it, reduce that gap in a clause which is very specifically restricted so that we do not tempt any future politicians to behave improperly.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I agree with everything that the noble Lord said, although I slightly dissent from his description of his discussions with his civil servants. I used to be a civil servant and I thought that the main job of civil servants was to stop Ministers doing things they should not do or did not have the powers to do. Otherwise, however, I entirely agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a powerful case. To me, this is a very strange clause. We have to listen to what our Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights said. I followed what the Minister said in the Commons, which was that the power conferred on Ministers would be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism—I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—or serious crime, or when a person poses a threat to national security or public safety and, presumably, cannot be deported. If the clause said all that, limiting and ring-fencing the powers of the Minister, I could understand the rationale for it and might even support it. However, with no ring-fencing, it is—as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said—a sledgehammer. The absence of any judicial oversight provision is wrong. It is dangerous to give Ministers the power to add such other conditions as they think fit. This is just too broad and, if it is to be there at all, it needs to be limited. If the Government’s intentions are as Angela Eagle said in the other place, let that be spelled out in the Bill.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful as ever for the discussion around Clause 43 and for the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I will start by setting out the Government’s view on the purpose of Clause 43. There will be an opportunity, as has been discussed, to follow the course of action suggested by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Kirkhope, to delete the clause. There is also the possibility on Report to look at strengthening the clause by some amendments that could be brought forward on judicial oversight. However, I want to put on record where the Government believe they are at the moment.

Noble Lords will know Clause 43 will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from migrants who pose a threat but currently cannot be removed or deported because of our obligations under domestic or international law. It will also make absolutely clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained—for example, they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings—they may be placed on immigration bail. Those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews, which are imposed in accordance with our ECHR obligations.

A person who does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention, but who cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, may fall to be granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation currently prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subject to while on immigration bail. The Government believe that this is perverse. I hope that I can give the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Deben, the assurance that the decisions to impose these conditions will only be taken on a case-by-case basis in order to appropriately address the specific risks that a person is assessed to pose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 151 and 152 and endorse and support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, will know that there have been a number of reports in local and national media about people without settled status who are seeking determination of their asylum-seeker status who have been alleged to be working as delivery drivers for food-delivery companies. Clearly, it is a potential loophole, and it is responsible for us to respond to that sensibly by an amendment that seeks to close that loophole.

On the other two amendments, the noble Lord, Lord German, will be aware that we debated this issue in Grand Committee a year or so ago, when we had quite a good debate. I always think it is a good rule of thumb that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge speaks good sense. I do not always agree with everything he says, but I was determined to agree with something he said in his remarks. We laboured in the Whips’ Office in the other place many moons ago, and he took a pastoral interest in my short-lived career in the Whips’ Office. I agree with him more than I disagree in that this is a point of principle about whether you should give asylum seekers the right to work. I think the challenge is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord German, says, there is a pull factor. People come to the UK, which is a unique economy, because it is in the right time zone, we speak English and we have a dynamic, service-based economy. They travel over many countries mainly, in my view, as economic migrants—clearly, there are a number of genuine asylum seekers—and it is not possible comprehensively to disprove the idea that they are coming for work.

The problem with the proposal is that the most disadvantaged group of people in this country is poor white British boys. A situation where you encourage an economic model that brings in more people to drive down wages, keep conditions not much better than was hitherto the case, cut back on training and keep this addiction to cheap foreign labour is not a model for a successful, happy and contented country. That does not, in any sense, second-guess the merits of individual people who want to come to the country to make a better life.

That brings me on to the point that the challenge we have here, and the thing that the Government can take away from this debate, is that there is much more to be done along the lines that my noble friend Lord Randall outlined in terms of civic education around British values—an educative or didactic process for these new asylum seekers to understand what Britain is about and how they can contribute as decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without working. If you cross the Rubicon and say that, if you arrive and claim asylum, you can automatically work and enter the employment market, that is a step too far. However, the Government have a duty and a responsibility, for the sake of the taxpayer and for the welfare of those people and their families, to give them the opportunity to volunteer, train and assimilate but not to work. That is the challenge for the Minister.

In many respects, I support my noble friend Lord Randall—and even, maybe, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord German, and others—but on a point of principle I cannot support this amendment. I hope that the Minister will set his face against it, but the Government, as the previous Government did, could do a lot more in terms of the training and development of people who aspire to be British citizens.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I would like to find that there is something on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I think his point about assisting assimilation is very strong, but it is not an alternative to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German.

The Minister knows full well that I have been boring him for years about the right to work, and he used to show some personal sympathy for the point. I am with the noble Lord, Lord German, in not believing very strongly in the pull factor. I think people come here basically to escape persecution, famine and war. I think pull factors are, to the extent they exist, much less important. I think, secondly, that the best way to deal with pull factors to the extent that they do exist is with identity cards. I am a strong believer in identity cards. We made a great mistake when we dropped the idea; we should get back to it.

I support Amendments 151 and 155A. Amendment 155A is a very modest proposal; I hope that the Minister will feel that he can consider it. I think there is much to be said for the Treasury approach to this issue. That is an unusual statement to make but, in the Treasury, the right to work would have a double benefit: it would increase the tax take, and it would reduce public expenditure. These are both quite desirable benefits; if you are in the Treasury in current circumstances, they are highly desirable. The main argument for the right to work is human dignity and assisting the assimilation process. The Exchequer arguments are subordinate arguments, but they are real. We ought to reduce the cost of the queue. Of course, the best thing—as the Government are trying to do—would be to reduce the length of the queue but, if we can reduce the cost of the queue and increase the tax take, these must be things that are worth doing.

I have long felt that this is something that we ought to be able to do something about. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate at least an open mind on the softest of these amendments, Amendment 155A—the one that simply calls for a report.

[Lord Rees of Easton (Lab)]

My Lords, that may be my cue to speak to my Amendment 155A. I start by pointing to my declarations in the register of interests on two matters: first, the support that I received from the Refugee, Asylum Migration and Policy Project; and, secondly, my role as a paid chair of the Mayors Migration Council, which is a voice that I want to bring into the Room today. The Mayors Migration Council is a worldwide network of mayors. I was a founding member. It includes the mayors from Freetown, Amman, Zürich, Montreal, Rio and now, once again, Chicago. These are mayors who have been incredibly frustrated with the way that national Governments and networks of national Governments have approached migration while they as mayors have tried to create the conditions within which densely packed people within their boundaries live, and the conditions in which they can build the powerful economies that the nations depend on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, we think that this is a very careful amendment. The way that the debate around asylum seekers and immigration has been happening in the UK generally is what I would describe as somewhat falling into “fight or flight”; it is quite panicked. One of the things that I have longed for, both as a resident of the UK and now as a Member of the House of Lords, is that we can make some space to take a deep breath and engage with the evidence—and not get caught up in the frenzy and fear that has been stoked around this question.

If the amendment is passed, we would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government’s working rights policies for people in the asylum system and for both Houses of Parliament to have the opportunity to debate a Motion on the report. That deliberately avoids jumping in two-footed and saying we should just lift the ban on asylum seekers working straight away, because I am sensitive to the potential of people accidentally or deliberately misunderstanding that and making more hay with it. But if we had this in place, with our Secretary of State coming back, it would give us the space to engage with the evidence and to take a breath, reflect on it, and begin to influence policy in response to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, this was a very wide-ranging debate on an important group of amendments. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and this discussion. I also join the words of sympathy for both the injuries of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the Covid-related illness of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We wish them both well and look forward to seeing them back to hold the Government to account, as they do so well. I will go through each of the amendments in turn and try to give some reasonable commentary on each in the time I have.

Amendment 150 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is intended to probe the impact on business and employees of this clause. I hope I can reassure her that the previous Home Secretary has already engaged with businesses and representative bodies on the proposed legislation. I give a commitment that the new Home Secretary will continue to do so following this week’s reshuffle. In addition, the Secretary of State intends to conduct a formal consultation with employees and businesses, which will underpin updated guidance that we intend to bring forward, so that they are aware of their obligations prior to the implementation of the legislation. I hope that assists the noble Baroness on Amendment 150.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for her Amendment 154A. It seeks to make it an offence to employ someone to deliver goods, meals or services using a vehicle if that person does not hold a full driving licence. In the UK, individuals can drive a variety of vehicles without a full driving licence, including some of the vehicles that she refers to in her amendment. There is already strong legislation in place to make sure that the DVLA, the responsible body, carries out checks to ensure applicants are not disqualified from holding a licence due to their immigration status. That is already a very strong issue for the DVLA as a whole. The Government have robust licensing and driving compliance measures in place to ensure that there is relevant driving licence regulation in force.

In this very Bill, the Government are extending the scope of employers and businesses required to carry out checks on their workers to prevent illegal working. Separately, through existing enforcement measures the Government are giving a very hard push, particularly following some examples of the type of abuse that the noble Baroness mentioned, on compliance with legislation to ensure that people are not being employed illegally, that people who have come here illegally are not being employed and that that is not undercutting legitimate businesses in their work. I think her amendment has those areas of work in mind, but we are covering that with this Bill and what is being done elsewhere.

Amendments 151 and 152, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee, seek to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three. I acknowledge the intent behind these amendments. I know where the noble Baroness and others are coming from. However, I do not think these amendments are the right mechanism to achieve the aims they are seeking. We want to ensure that those who may have been subject to human trafficking and modern slavery in particular are examined under that legislation. Therefore, I do not feel that this is the right way forward.

I will take the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, to supply that information if he wishes to send it through to me—care of the Home Office, Marsham Street, London. We will certainly look at the information he has brought forward.

On Amendment 151, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and supporting those with genuine protection. It allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if their claims have been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. Those granted permission are limited to roles on the immigration salary list only. Employers are expected to uphold fair and non-discriminatory recruitment practices for all individuals with the right to work.

Reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor—we have had a debate about that; I know some noble Lords will disagree with the use of that phrase—and would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. Furthermore, it would undermine the established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. Again, I take on board what noble Lords have said about why people are seeking to come to the UK, but the factors before us are a real concern for the Government.

On Amendment 152, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, as has been mentioned, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract, which provides safe accommodation and financial assistance to prevent destitution. Where applicable, those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision are considered for a grant of temporary permission to stay, which includes the right to work.

There are several reasons why the Government cannot support Amendment 152, one being that expanding access to employment at an earlier stage could incentivise misuse of the national referral mechanism, which may inadvertently encourage irregular migration or exploitation by traffickers who falsely promise access to work in the UK. The current framework maintains a clear distinction and upholds the integrity of the immigration system.

My noble friend Lord Rees made a very powerful case, and I was pleased to meet him, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and colleagues to engage on this matter. I value the representations that have been made and welcome continued collaboration. There is an argument that his amendment may carry unintended consequences, particularly for wider delivery and our modernisation of the asylum system. The Government’s position has been consistently clear and introducing an additional process subject to regular scrutiny could risk diverting focus from our broader strategic objectives.

However, my noble friend made a very important case for the Government to consider, and I want to reflect on it with colleagues. There are other ways in which my noble friend can get a regular report on the impact of the concerns he has, and there are ways to put pressure on the Government, such as the very good initiative by mayors to examine this issue, whether that be through parliamentary debate, Questions, Written Statements or Commons and Lords Select Committees. I will look again at what he said today because I think there is scope to ensure that we examine some of those areas, and I thank him for his amendment.

On Amendment 153 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Lister—although she is not in her place today—supported by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the Government are very concerned by the links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. I hope all noble Lords are reassured that in the immigration White Paper, published in May, we said we intend to reconsider how this route operates. I know I regularly ask for patience on these matters, but the immigration White Paper looks at it and recognises the genuine concerns that have been raised.

Allowing overseas domestic workers to change employer without restriction is already a feature of the existing system, as they have been able to do so since 2016. The ability to change makes it very clear that overseas domestic worker status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on their current employer and gives them an opportunity to escape abuse. We do not currently require them to inform the Home Office so that they are able to move more quickly and easily. During my time as the shadow Immigration Minister in 2012, when discussions were taking place on the Bill back then, I met Kalayaan and I was impressed by the cases it made. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws that that will be looked at as part of the immigration White Paper response.

My noble friend Lord Watson, supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, tabled Amendments 154 and 203D, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which concern migrant fishers and the question of seaman and transit to the UK to join a ship leaving UK waters. The Government’s long-standing position is that foreign nationals need permission to work in UK waters; this ensures consistency between those coming to work on the UK landmass and those transitioning through it. Contract seamen who enter the UK seeking to leave or join a ship are expected to leave the UK within seven days of arrival and are not given the right to work. Seafarers wishing to come and work in the UK should apply for a work visa that gives them the right to work in the UK. It would, therefore, in our view, be inappropriate to give work rights to those on temporary visas intending to allow transit only.

There are no plans to create a bespoke visa route for fishers as the immigration White Paper has very clearly set out our strategy for reducing reliance on international recruitment. However—and I hope this helps my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—we have established the new Labour Market Evidence Group to gather and share evidence about the state of the workforce, trading levels and participation by the domestic labour market, including at devolved government and regional levels. I expect it to make recommendations shortly about sectors or occupations in which workforce strategies are needed or the workforce labour market is currently failing. I hope that my noble friend can look at what is going to happen and the gathering of information on this issue so that we can examine it further.

In response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on migrant domestic workers, all individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. It is within this framework that the fishers mentioned can seek assistance.

I cantered through those points because of the discussion we had. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, and I will reflect on what has been said—I will certainly give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Will the Minister reflect a little more on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rees? He said that the noble Lord made a powerful case—I think we all thought that. His principal argument against accepting the amendment seemed to be that the reports called for by the amendment could constitute an undesirable diversion of resources. He also argued that the debates in both Houses that the amendment would mandate could be secured by different means.

I suspect that the commendable longevity of the Minister has a price: he has been got at by Sir Humphrey. I used to be a Sir Humphrey and I was very good at this. The undesirable diversion of resources is a very good argument; better still is “unripe time” or “dangerous precedent”. If all else fails, there is “with the ambit of the vote”. They are all excellent arguments, but what is the harm in having debates on this issue every year in the Commons and the Lords? There is no downside to it; it is a good thing. It would give us the space, as the noble Lord, Lord Rees, proposes, for a serious debate on this on the basis of the evidence. The Minister is being a little negative. He should go back and see Sir Humphrey and say, “There was a lot in this amendment. We ought to think seriously about it”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his experience. As he knows, having been there himself, the Government reflect on, take and determine positions across the board with ministerial engagement. Having started my 15th year as somebody in government, over that 28-year period, I am very aware that, when Ministers want to do something, they can.