Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I also have Amendments 69 and 79B in this group, which includes Amendments 29A and 31A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. Amendment 29 would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, a section which, like others, is not in force.

Section 29, if enforced, would broaden the public order disqualification to mandate—because “may” becomes “must”—that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are disqualified from protection, identification and support; are denied a recovery period and limited leave to remain in the UK; and may be removed from the UK, unless there are compelling circumstances which mean that the provisions should not apply. I say “broaden” because it includes the deportation of people who have committed low-level offences, which takes us into the territory of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which I think is now quite generally regarded as being inadequate—if not in its own terms, though there is some consensus around that, in that the offenses which are excluded are too few and it does not exclude some that are not so serious.

The clause provides a defence for modern slavery victims who are compelled to commit a crime, but it is also inadequate in the awareness of the clause, and therefore whether it should be brought into consideration in a prosecution. The Illegal Migration Act provision was criticised by a previous independent asylum seekers commissioner, who said that limiting the public order exemption would

“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.

I emphasise those words because the focus of this legislation is, as I understand it, intended to be on the perpetrators and organised crime groups.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights raised the same point and the Government responded, saying that this section would, if commenced, bring all foreign national offenders into scope for mandatory consideration of disqualification from modern slavery protections. I again emphasise those two words because it is not mandatory only if there are “compelling circumstances”, which is a difficult phrase—difficult ever to prove.

Amendments 69 and 79B would both restrict information sharing between public authorities when vulnerable, abused or exploited people are involved. They have particular need of protection and the concern extends not only to people who are exploited and who would like to be able to report the exploitation; it applies also to other people—their colleagues—who would like to report on their behalf but are concerned about exposing themselves. I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, although I do not resile from it.

We had some banter then about a photograph of the Ministers celebrating the passage of the 2015 Act, if that was the right occasion. We have had some discussion about the series of photographs. I was sent a photograph as well, which included both the noble Lord and me supporting the position of overseas domestic workers. I think the Minister thinks that was an even earlier occasion. However, the passage of time has not changed the issue, even though we may look—certainly I do—rather different from how I did in that photograph. The Minister reminded us that the Bill is about tackling organised immigration crime. He used the term “turbocharge”, and I have already talked about the commitment we should have to victims. I have searched for a sort of equivalent terminology and all I have come up with is “not steamrollering them”.

The Minister referred to the NRM—the national referral mechanism—providing

“a structured, compassionate route for potential victims of modern slavery to receive help without fear of intimidation and immediate immigration consequences”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1486.]

The problem is that they do fear, and they are deterred from reporting, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of someone else. He said also:

“In the immigration White Paper, we have made specific reference to Kalayaan”—


that is, the organisation which supports overseas domestic workers—

“and domestic workers, and I will reflect on those points as we go through”.—[Official Report, 10/7/25; col. 1484.]

I did word searches on the White Paper and I found one reference to domestic workers, though it was in another context, and I will return to all that in Amendment 44, probably on the next day of Committee—although, of course, if there has been any reconsideration to date, I would be happy to hear it. I could not find “Kalayaan”. I am not trying to make a cheap point, but, if it is there, perhaps I could be directed to it following the debate.

The most important point is that the Government recognise that there is a genuine concern around here and intend to reconsider the overseas domestic worker visa route. So any further information or news that the Minister can give the House today would be welcome.

The two other amendments in this group would retain Sections 22, 23, and 25 to 29 of the Illegal Migration Act; in other words, they would bring in Section 29, to which I have spoken, and other provisions relating to modern slavery, except one which applies to Scotland. They raise the question about how the noble Baroness considers we should treat victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, including those who claim to be victims, and what should be the future of the NRM. I beg leave to move Amendment 29.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, to follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said, my Amendments 29A and 31A would in fact reintroduce and commence the modern slavery clauses and provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023. The net effect of them would mean that individuals who have entered illegally would not be able to use modern slavery provisions as a route to frustrate removal, but it is important that we continue to support genuine victims at the same time. The reason I have tabled these amendments is that, while they were necessary back in 2023 when this Act was passed, the need for them has become even more pressing now.

I declare an interest as a former Home Office Minister who led on the modern slavery support system and has seen the challenges of operationalising this system and protecting victims of this awful crime, which is what we all want to do.

The world has changed. Since the Modern Slavery Act was passed, patterns of migration have shifted dramatically. The system that we built, for very good reasons, over a decade ago is now being stretched, and in some cases exploited in ways Parliament never intended. In particular, I can find no reference in the original debates that we intended to create a welfare and support system for victims of crime from all over the world, rather than for our own citizens who have been trafficked and abused. Yet that is exactly what is happening now.

In 2024, for the first time, 44% of referrals to the NRM reported exploitation overseas, overtaking those claiming exploitation within the UK, at 43%. This concern is shared across Parliament. I quote the Home Secretary who said, in response to the egregious situation that we saw connected to the one-in, one-out asylum-seeking individual who claimed that he was a victim of trafficking in France, that some asylum seekers were making “vexatious, last-minute claims” of being victims of modern slavery to block removal. The Home Secretary and the Government can simply use the measures already on the statute book. That is the fastest way to tackle this, if they can perhaps get over the “not invented here” objection.

When we have these debates, those who do the important work of supporting victims will claim and state, rightly, that it is impossible to provide definitive evidence that the system is being abused. I agree with that, which is why I have tabled amendments later on to address that point. But, whether we like it or not, there is a significant interaction between illegal arrivals and referrals into the NRM. Just this quarter, we have seen the highest number of referrals since the start of the NRM in 2009. The people who are being referred now are non-UK nationals: the largest groups being referred are Albanians, followed by Vietnamese. For context, in 2014, the entire system handled fewer than 2,500 referrals, yet last year it handled nearly 2,500 referrals just from Albania. This surge has placed immense strain on the system and on public confidence, and of course also on taxpayers and on the public purse, because the Government have committed to spending £379 million over five years on the modern slavery support system.

In the Lords debates on these clauses of the Illegal Migration Act that my amendment seeks to retain, my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, speaking for the then Government, said:

“It is a central tenet of the Bill that a person who satisfies the conditions in Clause 2 will not have their asylum, human rights or modern slavery claims considered in the United Kingdom. It is a sad but incontrovertible fact that our modern slavery protections are susceptible to abuse by illegal migrants seeking to frustrate their removal from the United Kingdom. Whereas in 2019 just 6% of people arriving in the UK on a small boat and detained for return involved a modern slavery referral, the figure in 2021 was 73%”.”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1784.]


Britain can be both compassionate and firm, but it cannot be naive. I follow my noble friend Lord Harper in asking this House to be honest that people will seek to lie about their experiences, especially when the incentives are so strong and the evidence threshold necessarily very low. These amendments would protect those exploited while removing incentives for illegal entry.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

The third objection the Minister mentioned was that the two-day deadline would still leave it open for people to come on student visas under false pretences and claim asylum. I left the two-day deadline in for those genuinely fleeing persecution who fly to this country and have no option but the student visa route, but if the Minister prefers, I would not object to removing it and substituting a blanket ban. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his objections, and I have responded, I hope, to his objections and covered the substantive one. I therefore hope that Amendment 35C will be accepted.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 71A is an amendment to Amendment 71 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It should be seen in the context of my comments about modern slavery in the debate on Monday. This modern slavery system now supports more foreign citizens than it does British citizens—something that the public, I am sure, are not aware of and would rightly be concerned about if they did. Modern slavery victim support is a multi-million pound cost to the public purse, as well as having an untold cost in human misery. In fact, between 2016 and 2023, the Home Office spent over £40 million through the modern slavery fund to combat modern slavery overseas and reduce the threat of human trafficking to the UK, including from Albania and Vietnam. British taxpayers are funding these projects, but they evidently have not worked, so it is time for a different policy.

The top nationalities referred to the NRM now relate to Albania, Vietnam, Eritrea, Sudan, India, Iran, Romania, Nigeria and Ethiopia. But those who have been a victim of crime in this country commonly feel that their support by the British state is inadequate, and I am sure the general public would agree that our own citizens should come first, before we distribute generous welfare to people from those countries that I have just mentioned. Therefore, my amendment adds an additional visa penalty to those that are set out in my noble friends’ amendment and would ensure that those countries which do not do enough to tackle upstream causes of modern slavery, and therefore export their victims to our shores, feel the pain of not having done enough by having their visa access restricted. It is simple: if we are providing the carrot of visa access, we should ensure that we have a good, strong stick.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s Amendment 35 and to pose a few questions to the Minister. I will not repeat what my noble friend said; he set out the case very compellingly.

I note from a Written Answer that the Minister said:

“The information requested is not available from published statistics”.


I am sure that is true; the Minister will have given a truthful answer. However, what information does the department collect that it does not publish?

When I was Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014, we were very clear about the importance of overseas students. We wanted them to come here, but we also wanted to make sure there was no abuse. The department at that point collected a lot of information about the risks involved in students coming here from a variety of countries, including, for example, the risk that they would overstay their student visa. We used that risk information to focus our checks when those students were applying for visas. I presume that work still exists. Has the department done any work on collecting information on the behaviour of overseas students in the United Kingdom—for example, criminality or other offences—that it does not put in existing published statistics? If it does collect that information, can it make it available? If that information is used by the department in decision-making and assessing risk, it is presumably good enough—even if it is not perfect and does not meet the criteria for published statistics—to be shared with Members of your Lordships’ House.

Those are detailed questions. If the Minister is not able to, or does not, answer them today, I am sure that either myself or my noble friend Lord Jackson, in his typically assiduous way, will table some Written Questions to follow them up. With that, I strongly support his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to address Amendment 79A, in my name, on the disapplication of the Human Rights Act for immigration legislation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for this amendment and for the support expressed for the principle by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has identified, there is presently an uncomfortable vacuum at the heart of the Home Office’s policy. We know that the “smash the gangs” mantra, which is at the heart of this somewhat performative Bill, has failed. Again, I do not wish to bore the House with the statistics; we all know them. The reality is that while taking the step identified by my noble friend on the Front Bench of abolishing the tribunals is certainly one course, and one which I would endorse, I would not expect the Government Front Bench to accept it.

In the interim, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, reasonably identifies, there is an alternative, and it is that set out in Amendment 79A. This would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration cases. As we know, the vast bulk of immigration cases are derived from or directly apply human rights provisions in their construction, and in so doing prevent the effective use of border control, so it is open to the Government to accept this amendment.

I simply add this. The Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the new Home Secretary asking for an explanation as to what the Government propose to do in relation to Article 8. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, dated 23 October, the Home Secretary said:

“My officials are currently reviewing the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in immigration cases. As set out in the Immigration White Paper (24 May 2025) we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 in the immigration system to ensure that the right balance is struck between individual and public interest in controlling migration. My officials are continuing to develop these proposals, and the Government will publish more detail in due course”.


In the following paragraph, she provided a mantra, saying that,

“the Government is fully committed to complying with international law and the protection of human rights. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or disapply the HRA to create meaningful reform”.

I am afraid that that is just inconsistent and plainly wrong. If the Government want an effective border control policy, they will have to take a measure such as that identified in this proposal or, I am afraid, the current state of chaos will continue.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled in my name in this group, but, before doing so, I will say that I strongly support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. My amendments are to Amendments 47 and 68, and would ensure that modern slavery claims and appeals cannot be singled out in some way and still be used as a loophole for the merry-go-round of asylum claims that we see. The Home Secretary herself highlighted the vexatious last-minute modern slavery claim that was put in, in the case of the one-in, one-out asylum seeker. We have heard other examples as well.

Last year, noble Lords might wish to know, we saw that 65% of referrals to the NRM were found to have no reasonable grounds. This was compared with only 16% four years ago. So there is evidence that this is increasingly being used for last-minute, spurious claims, and I would like to make sure that these amendments are as bulletproof as possible. We should seek to restore public confidence in the modern slavery system, to make sure that it is doing what it was designed to do and what this Parliament designed it to do: that is, to be a lifeline for victims of horrific abuse. It was not designed, as it has increasingly become, as a route for Albanian men arriving on small boats.

The British citizens who are referred into the system are overwhelmingly children. I am sure that most people would agree that that is the right thing for the state to be doing. Foreign citizens referred in tell a different story: these are mostly adult men from Vietnam, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan. Supporting them is not the right priority for the taxpayers of this country. My amendment therefore ensures that only genuine victims can make use of our generous support and that these vexatious claims can definitely be thrown out.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment in my name, but only in passing, because I cannot better the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. They made a very strong case. I also associate myself with Amendment 68. But I really want to talk to Amendment 46, the first in this group.

We all have a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the faith and trust that our citizens have in that system. At the present time, I fear that people are losing faith in it. They are losing faith in the capacity of the judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it is perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those people driven to seek asylum in this country by poverty, famine, war and despotic dictatorships. However, a system that is intrinsically designed to be gamed—for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—is no longer a situation that we can tolerate. That is why we need to take what would appear to be immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis.

I do not often quote Labour Members of Parliament, but Mike Tapp, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal—I think he is the Minister’s colleague—has been criticised for quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there is effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this Government set their face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. Yet they go scrambling around parts of eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely correct; it is incumbent upon this Government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. With all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave to the Chamber on Monday was exactly the same speech, verbatim, that he gave on 8 September on undertakings to bring forward legislation and to the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right that we are now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things, because the system is broken.

If the system breaks, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme and who will scapegoat honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. It is incumbent on us to come up with solutions. Look at some of the egregious cases we have seen in recent years from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. “Egyptian migrant is ‘danger to the community’—but can stay in Britain”. “Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage”. “Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was ‘one-off’”. “Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair”. “Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts”. “Migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone”.

We may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. That is why Amendment 46 is so important. If the Government are truly of the view that nothing is off the table, they have to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they are reviewing, they are looking at the European Convention on Human Rights and they will bring forward legislation. They have had 16 months; they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. On that basis, I strongly support the excellent amendment from my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including Amendment 46 from the Front Bench.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

65A: In subsection (1), after “protection claim” insert “, modern slavery claim”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments in this group and will briefly speak to mine, which would strengthen the amendments laid by my noble friends on the Front Bench. They have the objective of restoring public confidence in our asylum system. Amendment 65A would ensure that no modern slavery claim could be made by those who arrive under the conditions set out in Amendment 65 and that we eliminate loopholes where we know or suspect that a strong risk exists of bogus asylum claims. Amendment 77A would make it clear that the proposed third-country removal centre would also process any modern slavery claims for those who could not be returned to their home country, for whatever reason.

As a package, in addition to my amendments that I discussed earlier in these debates—I will not repeat myself—this would ensure that the public have confidence that we are supporting genuine victims of modern slavery, not those who seek to use our generous provisions to prey on vulnerable people or those who, for their own evil reasons, decide to exploit our asylum laws to get a fast track into the country under the guise of being modern slaves and then go on to lodge bogus asylum claims. The public are rapidly losing trust in the state to protect our borders and we need to take determined, radical action. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Davies. I will focus in particular on proposed new subsection (2)(b) in his Amendment 65, which would make it clear that, if someone does not come directly to the UK from a country in which they were threatened, they are not covered by the refugee convention. I strongly support that and we have debated it earlier on this Bill.

It may or may not surprise your Lordships to know that it is also the view of the Government. In a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, following our debate in Committee on Monday 13 October, in response to suggestions she made in her amendments, he said that the refugee convention

“is quite clear about the need for migrants to ‘come directly’ to benefit from the protections it affords them. In reality, not a single small boat that has reached the UK has set out from a dangerous country where migrants could not be reasonably expected to claim asylum. France, Belgium and the Netherlands are all signatory to the Convention and are entirely safe countries with functioning asylum systems of which migrants are able to avail themselves”.

I could not agree more with the Minister in that interpretation of the refugee convention, which is effectively what my noble friend has set out in his amendment. Given that the Government’s view is that Article 31 of the refugee convention should be interpreted narrowly in that sense, I hope the Minister will support my noble friend’s amendments and, even if he feels that something in their drafting is not absolutely spot on, he will none the less come forward at Third Reading with an amendment that would correct the drafting and put into statute the sentiments set out in that letter, with which I entirely agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.

I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.

Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.

On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.

The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.

We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65A (to Amendment 65) withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

79C: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual report: grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report setting out how many individuals, identified as victims of modern slavery through the National Referral Mechanism, received a grant of asylum or refugee status and—(a) arrived illegally;(b) arrived legally but are no longer in the United Kingdom on a legal basis, including those who have—(i) overstayed their visa, or(ii) violated other terms of their immigration status; and(c) have been detained for removal.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and every 12 months thereafter.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments are tabled after I tried and failed to obtain information that I believe is in the public interest from the Government, from Written Questions and research, including detailed briefings from the Library. Amendment 79C, on modern slavery, would require the Government to publish an annual report of grants of asylum or refugee status on modern slavery grounds. We currently do not know precisely if, or to what extent, the national referral mechanism and modern slavery support system is being abused as a loophole for illegal migration. When people suggest that it is, we are told that we do not have any evidence for this. Why do we not have this evidence? The Government do not publish any.

I laid out the statistics that underline my concerns in earlier debates, so I will not repeat them. It is not in the interests of charities or those working with victims to agree that the system could be being abused. However, it should be the duty of the Government to demonstrate that public money is being well spent and that we know who is a genuine victim and who is not. I would hope that any Minister serving in the Home Office would welcome this amendment, so that they can hold operational departments to account for their performance. If it is the case that nobody is abusing the system, everybody would be very pleased and satisfied. However, the current approach of the Government does seem, I am afraid, to be just to hope that we will give up asking those difficult questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that Matthew Firth is not a bishop of the Church of England?

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, it is my understanding that he is an Anglican bishop, but I will let him speak for himself on this matter. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I resist Amendment 79D. This amendment and Amendment 79E in the next group are both motivated by reports that asylum seekers are choosing to convert to Christianity upon arrival in the UK in order to support their claim for asylum on the grounds of religious persecution. Amendment 79E is of deep concern. I will address this in the next group.

Regarding Amendment 79D, I have no objection in principle to this data being collected, apart from the fact that both it and Amendment 79E are motivated by a desire to make an issue of something that is not an issue.

This is not the first time that this House has examined the question of faith-based asylum claims. Under the previous Government, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence on this very topic to the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, as noble Lords have heard. Noble Lords will recall that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield referenced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford’s contributions in a recent supplementary question when addressing claims of the use of Anglican churches as

“a conveyor belt for an industry of asylum baptism”.—[Official Report, 13/10/25; col. 4.]

Noble Lords will be aware that not only did the Committee find no evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through forced conversions but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary regarding this claim. From our previous discussions with the Home Office on this issue, we do not believe that the data spoken of in Amendment 79D can easily be extracted. It seems to me that there are many more problems to be solved in our asylum system before addressing this data point.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope she has listened to the very important comments of the right reverend Prelate, who not only holds a senior position now in the Church but is going to hold an even more senior position, on which I congratulate her in very short order. I hope that, on the back of those comments, the noble Baroness is able to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments and for his consideration of the points I have raised. I thank my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel for his comments supporting my amendment and the right reverend Prelate, who has also spoken, although she has obviously opposed what I have suggested.

I agree that these are sensitive issues and, having served in the Home Office previously, I understand how difficult, practically, some of this data is to collect. Nevertheless, we should not shy away from demanding transparency on a matter of such importance, so that the public have confidence in this system. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

79E: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Interpretation of the Refugee Convention in cases of religious conversion(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.(2) In section 30 (Refugee Convention: general), at end insert—“(7) Any person, court or tribunal making a determination as to whether a person is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention under sections 31 to 38 must not grant refugee status as a result of religious persecution where the person converted to the religion concerned after arriving in the United Kingdom.”.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment in my name follows on from the previous group of amendments and seeks to go much further. I have no doubt that the Government will not accept this amendment and that many others in this House will reject it out of hand. The Government have already indicated in answers to the Questions I have tabled to the Home Office that they do not agree with this amendment.

We have seen reports of bathtub conversions in asylum hotels and of multiple asylum seekers in accommodation, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, seeking to convert to Christianity. Concerns have been raised about establishing whether or not these conversions are genuine. I recognise, as a Christian myself, that it is extremely difficult to look into a human heart and say what a person really believes. I also wish to protect our reputation as a country of religious freedom and as a refuge for those fleeing persecution around the world. At the same time, it is a leap of faith beyond any practical considerations to say that every single person in the reports is a genuine convert to Christianity.

We cannot shy away from this area of debate. I will seek to return to this subject during my future work in this House. I care deeply about the institutions of our country and our national culture, which is a Christian culture, and about our established Church, the Church of England. As a Conservative, I believe that we must fight to protect and defend these institutions from forces and individuals who could seek to destabilise and undermine their authority.

When I see our Christian faith being used as a fast track for subverting our British open-heartedness and tolerance, I feel it is simply wrong, and I know this view is shared by the general public. I am afraid I can find no evidence of anyone converting to Islam in order to avoid deportation or to lodge an asylum claim. Perhaps the Home Office Minister, in his response, can correct me if it is the case. It seems to me that it is always Christianity that is used in this way. While as Christians we are called to follow the teachings of Jesus, as policymakers we must be pragmatic and work with our knowledge of human nature, which is not perfect. There is evil in people’s hearts. With humility, we must recognise this and pray for forgiveness, but we must also open our eyes and be honest that incentives are strongly aligned for illegal migrants to lie and cheat, using Christian conversion and possibly other religious conversions too. That is why I have tabled the amendment. I believe that the first duty of our Government is to protect our borders. That means not being a soft touch for abusers and being able to show that our system is robust and discriminates between genuine and fake conversions. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, as noble Lords may imagine, I have deep concerns about Amendment 79E. The World Watch List 2025, produced by Open Doors, found that more than 380 million Christians worldwide were subject to high levels of persecution and discrimination for their faith last year, and just under 4,500 were killed for faith-related reasons. Data on the persecution of Christians makes it clear that people are willing to, and indeed do, die for their Christian faith today. We should tread extremely carefully when legislating on such profound matters.

What is more, conversion to the Christian faith is, for most, not like flicking a switch. It is a process that may take years. It is for many Christians not possible to point to a day or hour when they committed their lives to Jesus Christ. John Wesley called it “being strangely warmed”. A public declaration of faith is an important moment in that process, but if that declaration may cost you your life or the lives of those you love, you may think very carefully about when and where you make it. What better evidence in many ways of fear of religious persecution in a country of origin than that a person might wait until they are in the UK to publicly declare their faith? Amendment 79E does not recognise this context. It is also deeply problematic in its denial of the freedom of religion of people living in this country. I need hardly remind noble Lords of the horrors that promoted the creation of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As I said on the previous group in relation to Amendment 79D, under the previous Government, the Home Affairs Select Committee looked at the question of fake religious conversions to support asylum claims. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford gave evidence to the committee. Not only did the Home Office fail to produce evidence of any abuse of the asylum system through fake conversions, but there was no subsequent publication, report or summary of the committee’s findings, which speaks for itself.

I imagine that there are some asylum seekers who might well believe that converting to Christianity will help their asylum claim. One can hardly be surprised about that, when some politicians keep implying that that is the case. Clergy are not naive. We train them to discern as best they can, through teaching, discussion, reflection, observation and prayer, whether a person, whoever they are, is ready for a public confession of faith through baptism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, said, no one can see into the heart of another person: that remains between God and that person alone. It is not the job of clergy to assess asylum claims. The Home Office has stated that evidence from clergy or church members in an asylum case does not determine the outcome of a claim.

In January, the Church of England published a guidance document for clergy, Supporting Asylum Seekers; I understand that the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church have also published similar materials. I am proud that the church into which I am called to serve welcomes, indeed embraces, any and all who express a genuine, considered and informed decision to follow Jesus Christ. Churches ought not to feel anxious about supporting and baptising asylum seekers if, to their best knowledge, the clergy are confident there is sincere desire for conversion and a commitment to Jesus Christ and discipleship.

We live in a world in which people regularly die for their Christian faith, and where many hide their Christian faith for fear of persecution. Thus it remains just as important now as it ever has been to offer protection, sanctuary and peace to all those who exercise their right to freedom of belief on our shores. Amendment 79E presents a concerning threat to this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful, again, to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for her amendment. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made a compelling case in arguing against the amendment. I thank her for her support, as I too will not be supporting the amendment.

I took the words “blanket refusal” from what the noble Lord, Lord German, said, which is a really important point on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment would mean that there was a blanket refusal for anybody who claimed status on the grounds of religious persecution, even if that person converted to a new religion after they arrived in the UK. It would mean there would potentially be people who would arrive in the UK, or who are here, and did not fear persecution when they left their country, but who may well have found religious faith on arrival in the United Kingdom, through a range of routes, and therefore would not be able to claim persecution before returning to their country. That does not seem fair to me. The 1951 refugee convention applies a definition regardless of where the fear of persecution arises. It includes situations where fear develops after arrival in the host country, in which case the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, would apply.

I took strongly what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the independence of decision-makers who will consider claims involving religious conversion. They will fully explore the motivation of that conversion and what it means in a person’s life. They will explore whether the conversion took place in the UK. It is reasonable, even taking on board the right reverend Prelate’s comments, to ask for some evidence of that conversion. As the right reverend Prelate said, ministers in the Church of England are not going to take every conversion on the face of it; they have a strong process to go through to ensure that someone is welcomed into the faith.

In cases of religious conversion, conversion alone does not guarantee refugee status. Ultimately, an individual could convert and say that that is the reason they should stay, but the decision-maker will look at whether the risk of return to the person’s country of origin has an implication for the credibility of the religious conversion, based on the evidence before them. Conversions may be rejected as not genuine or accepted as genuine but, even where a conversion is accepted, there has to be some form of detailed examination of an individual’s circumstances and the situation in the person’s country of origin.

In determining whether an individual has a well-founded fear of persecution, the assessment cannot be disregarded on the basis of actions taken after arrival in the UK, even where there is suspicion or evidence that such actions were taken in bad faith to generate or strengthen an asylum claim. Frankly, every claim must be judged on its merits according with the rule of law and our international obligations. Decision-makers scrutinise the timing of conversion and consistency with prior beliefs and behaviour. A finding of a person acting in bad faith can be relevant to the person’s credibility and whether they will face risk on return to their country of origin.

I cannot accept this amendment. If it were adopted it would reduce the volume of grants and potential bad faith claims, but it would also breach our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention, which was put in place after a conflict that caused a significant number of refugees.

Sufficient guidance is in place for Home Office decision-makers to make a judgment on the basis of each claim. The noble Baroness’s amendment would cause difficulty and result in individuals who have genuinely converted being returned to their country of origin, maybe to face further persecution—which, as the right reverend Prelate said, is not a matter of being chided or ostracised but could result in their deaths because of their religious faith. I therefore cannot accept the amendment and I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw it.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for listening to my comments and responding in such detail. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that we should tread very carefully with this issue. I thank her for her detailed observations and welcome what she said about the work that she does with the clergy in relation to baptism of asylum seekers and conversion to the Christian faith.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord German, that I understand that there are vast numbers of denominations in the Christian Church. My comments should be interpreted as meaning the Christian faith and its various denominations, of which I am not an expert but many others are. We are talking about Christian baptism, which can include the Church of England and many other denominations, including churches in Wales, where the noble Lord lives.

As my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel set out, this is a question of fairness. The fact that there is no evidence of abuse does not reassure those of us in this House who are concerned about this issue. The Minister mentioned that it is possible that bad-faith claims exist within the system. I say to him that we cannot find evidence of something if the Government are not going to look for it; I note they rejected my earlier amendments.

As I said at the beginning, I will return to this topic in further contributions to this House. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would agree to meet me and his officials to discuss this further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79E withdrawn.