Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateWednesday 5th November 2025
(11 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-III Third marshalled list for Report - (4 Nov 2025)
13:04 - Division on Amendment 35 - Ayes: 161 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 35 agreed.
13:27 - Division on Amendment 35A - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 35A disagreed.
13:38 - Division on Amendment 35B - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 200 - Amendment 35B disagreed.
15:55 - Division on Amendment 42 - Ayes: 66 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 42 disagreed.
16:06 - Division on Amendment 44 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 44 disagreed.
17:01 - Division on Amendment 46 - Ayes: 85 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 46 disagreed.
17:54 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 55 disagreed.
18:24 - Division on Amendment 56 - Ayes: 64 / Noes: 116 - Amendment 56 disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am sure the noble Lords opposite will also recall that we discussed these amendments in Committee at midnight. This debate is rather better attended and has rather more contributors than that one—but we were not turned into pumpkins anyway. Let me see how I go. I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, the long list of his previous attempts, so let me have a try.
Starting with Amendment 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at the outset I should say, as many noble Lords have acknowledged—including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley—a vital economic and academic contribution is made by international students to this country. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, nodding too. I take very seriously the challenge from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that we should not taint everyone with guilt by association. That is absolutely central to the argument we want to make.
As your Lordships know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain, they are liable to removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and where appropriate we will pursue their deportation. I think I said in Committee that I know from my previous life, as the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, what an important priority that is.
On the specifics of the amendment about publishing data, as was set out in Committee, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detentions. I hope your Lordships do not think this frivolous, but if rather more attention were paid to the data that the Home Office publishes already, we might have a better-informed debate about some of these issues than we do.
I want to respond both to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the follow-up from the noble Lord, Lord Harper. We do publish stats on the number of asylum claims from people who initially came to the UK on a visa, by the type of visa on which they entered, in our quarterly immigration system statistics. In relation to the question from the noble Lord, Lord German, we also publish asylum data on routes and nationalities separately. Before the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, takes his decision about whether to divide the House, it is important that we are at least clear about what is currently published. I hope it is some reassurance to the noble Lord that this Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and the public in learning more about the number and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, and about what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted and completed their sentences. We discussed it only the other day.
The Home Office is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of foreign national offenders and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside other Home Office statistics. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it is very difficult to have an informed public debate. The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I think I have gone a little further than I did in Committee, and I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Lord Harper (Con)
Can I just press the Minister on my specific question, which was not just about the published data but about the information that the department collects to make decisions about the risks from people applying for student visas? Does it collect any information at all about the propensity of people from different nationalities to commit crimes and use that in its risk-based approach when making decisions about student visas?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harper, for reminding me about that specific point. As a former Immigration Minister, he is much more familiar with the data than I am, or at least what it was when he was there. I take very seriously the general point about data for risk assessment, and I understand what the noble Lord is driving at. I cannot give him that information today, but I will be very happy to write to him. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, might raise a wry smile at yet another letter from a Home Office Minister, but on the specific question about risk assessment and data that is collected for it—which is different from the specifics of some of the data that I have already discussed—I will be very happy to write to the noble Lord.
Amendment 35C from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa lodged more than two days after they arrive in the UK must be declared inadmissible, unless there is evidence that political circumstances have changed in the person’s home country such as to endanger their life or liberty. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness has recognised some of the questions that were raised, not just on our side but from her own Front Bench, in the way that the amendment is now presented to the House, and that there has been a change there. But I am afraid that the other objections I raised in Committee, which the noble Baroness set out, still remain. Let me try to explain a bit better.
The likely consequence of the amendment—I think the noble Lord, Lord German, referred to this—would still be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without an obvious way in which to return those individuals who make them without potentially contravening the key principle of non-refoulement in the refugee convention. The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to that. This would still, I am afraid, leave any affected individuals in a state of limbo with no certainty, and—this is the point that makes for the difficulty—we would have no certainty as to whether they qualified for refugee status. It is not just a question of where they would be returned to and whether that would be safe; it is about whether they would be able to claim refugee status at all. The Government’s view is that sorting that out would potentially prove extremely cost ineffective, so I am afraid the view of the Government is that it just would not work in practice.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
May I press the Minister? If there are strong and perfectly amicable links between this country and the home country of a student who has blatantly failed to meet conditions and it is a perfectly amicable country, what does the noble Lord say to those in the country who would rightfully say, “Let that person go home; he has breached the good-faith arrangements under which a student visa was granted by breaking the conditions, and if there is a case for asylum, let him or her put it in the usual way and not jump the queue for asylum over those who are making their claims through the normal processes”?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I understand the point she is making. There is a sense in which other people coming through the immigration system might see this as unfair. But one of our worries is that the amendment that the noble Baroness proposes might, in fact, create a more favourable position for students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK and therefore create an incentive that would be the opposite, I think, of what she intends. The amendment might also risk benefiting students who are more likely to have used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system. For the reasons that I have given, I am afraid the Government cannot support this amendment, but I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, agrees that the reasons I have given are salient ones.
I turn to Amendment 71 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the attached Amendment 71A from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on the use of visa penalty powers where countries are deemed to be unco-operative on the return of their nationals or citizens, or, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on the targeted use of powers with countries from which individuals making claims of modern slavery and trafficking typically originate. I stress that if we were to accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, it would amount to a significant departure from the original purpose of this section in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to secure improved returns co-operation. As I think all noble Lords know, improving returns co-operation is a very high priority for the Government. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, noted in a previous day on Report that the previous Government’s performance was “sub-optimal”.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.
Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.
First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.
Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.
Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.
The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.
These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.
Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.
For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.
As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.
Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.
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 and the ECHR. 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 cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Katz, for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I do not accept the criticisms that they made. I suggest that these amendments are responsible, pragmatic and necessary and would restore faith in the principle that sovereignty means that we decide who may enter, who may stay and who must be removed. The backlog of claims, the scale of illegal entries and the long delays in removals all speak to a system that lacks credibility, and these amendments would move us towards a stronger, fairer, more sustainable regime. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, as indicated in Committee, we have little issue with Clause 42. If the Government believe that it is also in line with the withdrawal agreement, we do not have concerns about it standing part of the Bill.
I listened to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. While I understand her concerns, we are satisfied that Clause 42 does not undermine the protections for European Union, European Economic Area and Swiss nationals and their family members who have leave to enter or remain in the UK granted under the EU settlement scheme. The government amendments in this group simply alter the commencement of Clause 42 so that it comes into effect on Royal Assent. Given that we have little issue with this clause, we are satisfied that its commencement on Royal Assent is not inappropriate.
I will only ask one question of the Minister. Can he explain whether he expects Clause 42 to increase administrative burdens on the Home Office and, if so, what steps have been taken to increase administrative capacity?
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her amendment. I assure her that there is nothing nerdy about putting amendments down in this field. As a fellow nerd on many other topics, I welcome her contribution to the debate.
The amendments, as the noble Baroness has said, are on the important issue of the discussion on the safeguards for loss of status under the EU settlement scheme. I welcome the fact that the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and I have had some meetings. I think we have got a position whereby Clause 42 is welcome. I am pleased that they welcome the addition of Clause 42, because it provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement, and it is the source of their rights in the UK. I hope, therefore, that they welcome Amendments 81 and 83. These will mean that Clause 42 comes into force on the day of Royal Assent, rather than two months later as was originally planned, so that those rights are guaranteed from when the Bill receives Royal Assent. I will move those amendments in due course.
The nub of the question goes to the nub of the nerdery of the noble Baroness, which we discussed when she introduced her amendments. The EUSS is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. As we know, there are two cohorts of EU citizens with EUSS status: the “true” cohort, who are in scope of the agreement because they were economically active in the UK at the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, and the “extra” cohort, who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law. Clause 42 ensures that both cohorts will be treated equally in UK law by providing that all EU citizens and family members with EUSS status will be treated as being withdrawal agreement beneficiaries. This is a significant measure that gives legal effect to what has been the UK’s approach since the start of the EUSS.
Amendment 36 would remove subsection (2)(c). Its effect would be to confer withdrawal agreement rights in the UK on those who do not qualify for them because they do not qualify for EUSS status. Worse, it would mean that pre-settled status granted in error could not be curtailed or allowed to expire, because the withdrawal agreement does not permit rights to be lost on that basis.
The amendment would give such people unwarranted preferential treatment over those whose EUSS application was correctly refused. It would also undermine the integrity of the EUSS system by giving them the same rights in the UK as those of a pre-settled status holder who complied with requirements for that status. Those are outcomes that we cannot accept. A person whose EUSS status has been granted in error will not be in the “true” or “extra” cohort and should not benefit from Clause 42.
None the less, none of this detracts from the proper safeguards against the loss of EUSS status. The noble Baroness is right to emphasise the importance of that issue, as are the stakeholders who have been engaging with the Home Office on this point. Nothing in Clause 42 affects the withdrawal agreement-compliant appeal rights in UK law for the refusal or removal of EUSS status. There is nothing disproportionate about allowing a pre-settled status granted in error to expire after its five-year term, given that the person had no entitlement to that limited leave in the first place.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord talked about Home Office errors. I would argue that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and will have failed to do so. As with erroneous grants of limited leave in other immigration routes, our approach allows people to stay in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of that leave.
Importantly, it is also open for the person to reapply for EUSS status, and, if refused, they will have the right of appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned this. I said this to him in Committee, and I think that I have also written to him and spoken to him about it in our meetings outside the Chamber. It also applies to any family member whose application is refused because their sponsor’s EUSS status was granted in error.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for returning to this matter. I hope I have set down that those settled rights will exist under Clause 42. In the event of errors, there are rights of appeal, as well as an existing allowance to continue work in that particular period.
Lord Oates (LD)
Can we have clarity on this? My understanding is that there is no right of appeal against the Home Office decision that an error was made. Instead, there is the right to make another application, and then appeal if that is refused. As I set out, that is a very different thing.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The argument I put is that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly. If there was an error from the Home Office, there is a period in which they can make that argument. But if we get to a position whereby staying in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of leave happens, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that people reapply for EUSS status can happen and can be considered. That is a reasonable proposal. We may disagree, but I think it is a reasonable way forward and it gives fairness to the system as a whole.
The noble Baroness’s compromise suggests a number of things, and my argument is that it is not necessary. Procedural safeguards are not dealt with in Clause 42; they are contained in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations. They implement the position in Article 21 and they stand irrespective of this clause. The compromise that she offered is effectively available under the rights in the citizens’ rights appeal regulations.
I may not have satisfied the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, asked whether there are any administrative costs and burdens from this. I do not have an assessment in front of me, but I will take that question away and examine it. I realise that we will have passed this clause by the time he gets the letter, but I hope he can hold us to account on that issue. I will give him further detail at a later stage. I hope that the House can agree to our Amendments 81 and 83 in due course and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I was remiss not to welcome Amendments 81 and 83. I thank the Minister for those, but I am afraid I am disappointed with what he said. To be clear, my noble friend Lord Oates’s intervention was surely right: I think the Minister made a slip of the tongue and suggested that there was an appeal right if status was left to expire. If the Home Office took a decision to cancel, revoke or curtail the status then there would be a right of appeal under Article 21 of the withdrawal agreement. Our objection is about the Home Office workaround—I called it that earlier, but I could think of a much ruder term. What the Home Office is doing is, frankly, sneaky. It is saying, “We’re not going to give you any right to appeal or apply a proportionality assessment. We’re just going to let it fade out, and if you don’t like that scenario you can make a whole new application and go through all the hassle and, no doubt, expense and trouble of that. Then, if we turn you down, you can go through an appeal right”.
We are talking about letting the status just expire, and the Minister is saying that the individual concerned should have known that the Home Office had perhaps granted it in error. How are they supposed to know that? That knowledge is within the bowels of the Home Office. The individual does not necessarily know that. The Home Office is holding all the power in this situation. It may not even say, “We think we granted this in error”; it just lets it expire and leaves the person stranded. That does not seem a very honourable thing to do. I am not saying that about the Minister, because I like him very much, but I do not think it is a very reputable thing for the Home Office to do. It is a great pity that the withdrawal agreement did not cover this situation. It covers fraud, but it does not cover where the status is allegedly granted in error.
Let us not forget that we are talking about people here: we are talking about EU citizens who ought to have a clear right of appeal and to make a case under an appeal procedure, rather than just having it slide away from them because the Home Office may think—and it may only think—that it granted it in error or that the applicant made an error. They are left hanging there and it will never be established whether it is true because the Home Office says, “Oh, you can just make another application”.
I am afraid I still think that is an unsatisfactory situation, and it is a pity that the impasse continues. I had hoped that there might be some flexibility to provide some creative wording so that the Home Office could maintain its position on the withdrawal agreement that Article 21 did not apply and that it would find some workaround in favour of EU citizens who might be subject to this black hole treatment. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot provide that offer, but he does not, so there we are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I will say a word in support of Amendment 37, which would allow 56 days before someone who has been given asylum is thrown out. The six-month experiment of the Government trying to move to 56 days from 28 seemed to be very successful. I was therefore puzzled that its extension in July was rescinded in August. I do not know why we are heading back to 28 days, and I am sure we should have 56 days.
Why? It takes some time for the documentation to be made available to the person who has been granted asylum. It then takes some time for that person to obtain accommodation, for which he will need a bank account. He may need to go on universal credit, and universal credit applications take longer than 28 days to come through. He is in a Catch-22 situation. He cannot rent accommodation, because he has not got a bank account and has not got access to universal credit, so he is homeless. Safeguarding incidents, the main cause of which is homelessness, declined by 50% during the six-month period in which 56 days were allowed.
As I understand it, the Government’s position now is that they are not going back all the way to 28 days for everybody. They are allowing families, the disabled, the pregnant and the over-65s to stay a bit longer while they look for somewhere to live. But actually, most of the asylum seekers are young men, who will be put on to a 28-day regime, which creates a very high risk of their becoming homeless. To integrate these people properly into society, we need to be generous on the timing of their being thrown out and on to the streets, in many cases to become rough sleepers. I strongly support Amendment 37.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for Amendment 37, and for being able to listen again to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, speak in support of Amendment 37. Amendment 37 seeks to increase the period of financial and accommodation support for newly recognised refugees from 28 to 56 days and to allow the Secretary of State discretion to settle on the period following a grant of refugee status. The amendment is clear. It seeks to formalise what we are currently assessing as part of a pilot. I recognise that there have been changes to the pilot mid-flow, but, essentially, it is ongoing.
The Government recognise the importance of a smooth transition for all the reasons that have been mentioned by my noble friend and noble Lords who have spoken. I give the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the benefit of the doubt, in that he did not support the general thrust of what is been said, and I understand his position.
There is benefit in examining these issues. This is why—despite the fact that we have inherited significant pressures in the asylum system and our strategy has been to provide targeted, conditional support to restore credibility to the system and ensure value for money for the taxpayer—we are undertaking, particularly at the moment, the pilot. Extending the period by four weeks would put an additional strain on the accommodation estate, exacerbating pressures on the Government’s commitment to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend, referred to the pilot that was introduced to extend the move-on period to 56 days from the point an individual had been notified of their grant of leave. The pilot has been put in place to support local authorities during a period when we anticipated an increased volume of asylum decisions being made, and coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees.
The pilot, as my noble friend knows, is in place until the end of the year. In early September, the Government took the difficult decision to pause the pilot only for single adults due to pressures on the accommodation estate. But the pilot continues for those who were in the system prior to September, and it applies now to families and the most vulnerable. The key point is that there is an independent evaluation currently ongoing regarding the impact of the pilot. We want to look at the pilot and the lessons learned and make judgments on this issue before deciding the longer-term policy.
I give everybody in the House the firm commitment that the intention is that the pilot’s findings, when produced, will be shared with Parliament, so we will be transparent on what that says. Members who are today arguing that the pilot is of assistance will be able to scrutinise the impact of that assessment. Those who believe that the length of the period is too long, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will be able to judge whatever the pilot says and either revise or keep their opinions in due course. But it is important at the moment that we examine the outcome of the pilot.
A wide range of stakeholders have taken part in the evaluation, including—this was requested of me—local authorities, voluntary organisations and the community sector. Indeed, we are involving in the pilot individuals with the lived experience of going through the system. It is important that we do not see the extension of the move-on period to 56 days as a straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why we are looking at a wider range of support measures and initiatives, including improved communications and support, and we are working with migrant help and asylum move-on liaison officers.
I say to my noble friend that the Government remain committed to offering support, improving the process that underpins transition from Home Office asylum support, and ensuring that any changes to the system are informed by robust evidence, which is the very reason why the pilot is in place. I think I mentioned that to my noble friend when I dealt with her Bill earlier in this Session, as did my noble friend Lord Katz when he dealt with this Bill in a later part of the Session. We both emphasised that point, so I hope that will help her. The pilot needs to run its course.
Lord German (LD)
Can the Minister say when the pilot is due to end and when it will present its report?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have said, even in the last few moments—as I am sure the noble Lord will remember when I tell him again—that the pilot runs to the end of this year. The end of this year is about seven weeks away. We have to evaluate the pilot. I do not have a date for him as to when the pilot’s evaluation will be produced, but the circumstances of where we are now remain in place. The pause on single individuals from September is in place, but people from before September will still have been dealt with under the old system, and individual families and others are still being dealt with under the terms of the pilot. I will report to the House as soon as possible, but the actual period of the pilot finishes at the end of this year.
Lord German (LD)
I am grateful for that answer. There will be a gap between the end of December and whenever the pilot evaluation takes place. Is it therefore expected that when the pilot ends, all people will go back to the 28 days rather than just some?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord, again, tempts me. We are examining a whole range of issues and I will announce and report to this House when decisions are taken. As I have said to him to date, the evaluation is ongoing. Local authorities and others are looking at that. We will make decisions in due course and report them to this House.
That gives me a straight segue into his own Amendment 73, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seeks to provide “Nightingale” accommodation to clear the backlog of asylum cases. Again, I welcome the interest in and support for dealing with that backlog. We want to ensure, as a Home Office, that we invest in a programme of transformation and business improvement to speed up decision-making, reduce the time that people spend in the asylum system, decrease the number of people in that asylum system and maximise our capacity. The noble Lord, Lord German, is absolutely right to say that we inherited a massive backlog from the previous Government, which in part is due to the fact that they effectively paused asylum application assessments because they wanted to find a mechanism to send people to Rwanda, which failed miserably. That backlog built up before we took office in July last year.
At the end of June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision. By December 2023, the Home Office had completed processing the majority of the legacy backlog. However, everything was put on hold by the Illegal Migration Act. That meant that a number of decisions made by the Home Office in 2024 led to an emergency backlog being developed and, as noble Lords will be aware, the then Home Secretary laid a statutory instrument on 22 July 2024, not 19 days after the general election, to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act.
As a result, we have been able to take decisions on claims being resumed, and the number of people waiting for decisions has fallen again. We have seen in the past 12 months—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned—that despite the record number of people claiming asylum, we now have 28,000 fewer people awaiting an initial decision than in the month before the general election—a 24% reduction. The backlog inheritance left by the previous Government has now been cut by 18%, and the percentage of cases processed within six months has increased from 7% to 41%. So we are in the process of taking action to deal with the very backlog that the noble Lord mentions.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, before we move on, I remind noble Lords that the guidance in paragraph 8.82 of the Companion says that Members
“pressing or withdrawing an amendment should normally be brief and need not respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving the amendment”.
I say this because speeches appear to be getting longer at this point. I urge noble Lords to be brief so that we can continue to make progress and get to the votes.
I add that there have been a couple of occasions where we have had Back-Benchers intervening in the middle of the process of Front-Benchers winding up. That is not the usual practice of the House either.
Clause 43: Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail
Amendment 38
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On that note, I will try to move Amendment 38 as quickly as possible to help support my noble friend. This group includes three government amendments to Clause 43. On this occasion, the Government have listened to debates that have taken place in the House. We have carefully considered recommendations in the JCHR report and listened to representations from the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. In the light of this, government Amendment 40 does not alter the original purpose of Clause 43 but instead sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring and curfews placed on their leave to enter or to remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security, public safety or has been convicted of a serious crime or offence.
The powers in Clause 43 are therefore in place to protect the public and to meet our obligations under domestic and international law. The clause will end the disparity in powers available to protect the public in respect of immigration bail and conditions of leave to enter or remain. I know that the Government have listened to the points made in Committee and I will therefore move the amendments on their behalf.
I note that my noble friend Lord Bach has tabled Amendment 41. I will respond to any points he raises once he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is quite right. I have a short but important amendment that is very fittingly in this group. It is unusual in that lawyers who act in immigration cases and the Home Office itself are at one on the issue. Both sides agree that in paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, “specified in the condition” should be widely interpreted to mean
“that is known at the time of the grant or variation of immigration bail, or”—
and this is the important point—
“an address that is yet to be specified”.
This has been the Home Office’s interpretation of that paragraph for a number of years. There is evidence from 2018 that that is the Home Office’s view. It has occurred in cases, and guidance was issued as recently as this summer. In my submission, it is a practical and sensible way of interpreting it.
Why, then, does this amendment, with its proposed change of words in paragraph 9(1), need to be laid and discussed in your Lordships’ House at all? The reason is that there is a Court of Appeal case in Northern Ireland called Bounar, which was decided not many years ago, in which their Lordships in that court took a different view and decided on a much stricter interpretation of the words of the schedule: for a person to be given bail by the Secretary of State, they must already have been granted immigration bail—and here are the words that matter—with a condition to reside at a specific address. So one has on the one hand the decision of the court in Northern Ireland and, on the other, I submit, a practical, sensible way of dealing with a situation that arises more often than the House might think. The Home Office has dealt with it in that way, as have the lawyers on the other side.
Why does it matter that there are these two conflicting decisions about and ways of looking at this element of this schedule? It matters, first, because it is unsatisfactory in principle to have legislation that has been interpreted quite differently in the courts and in practice in government when dealing with this issue. Secondly, who knows what situations may arise where a court, for example, would prefer the Northern Ireland precedent. Thus, a bail claimant—someone who the Home Office wants to give bail to—might lose his or her bail merely because, for good, practical reasons, the specific address is not yet known. This is what happens in a number of cases.
There are already significant delays between grant of bail in principle and people being released to Home Office-sourced accommodation. In recent months, 21 people have faced a delay of more than three months. The Home Office wanted to bail them and was happy to, but there was no specified address at that moment so everything had to start all over again. Without amending the statutory provision relied on in the case of Bounar, every individual would need an address provided by the Secretary of State prior to applying for bail, resulting in wasted places and longer delays. My invitation to my noble friend, to whom I very grateful for having taken the trouble to meet me on this issue, is to accept this amendment to the schedule. I very much hope that he feels that he can do that today.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the government amendments in this group would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in new sub-paragraphs (vi) to (x) of Section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by Clause 43(2), may be attached to a person’s limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. This does not require too much comment from me. This is, in my view, a tidying-up amendment which would clarify the circumstances in which these conditions can be imposed.
Clarity on this point is welcome. Can the Minister explain how the circumstances could be altered to either augment or narrow the scope of the circumstances which would come under this section? As we all know, the nature of the threats we face can change, and it is important that we do not have an unwieldy and prescriptive list to which these conditions can only be applied, although, that being said, it is imperative that this does not undermine the role of Parliament in scrutinising what comes under this section. If the Minister could update the House on how this balance will be achieved with respect to his amendments, I would be very grateful.
On Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, while I appreciate some of the intention behind this amendment, I cannot support it. If we want to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, we simply must ensure that those awaiting removal or further decision remain within the reach of the authorities. In short, while I understand the desire to make the system more flexible, this amendment would do so at the expense of the very oversight and accountability that make immigration bail credible and enforceable. For those reasons, I do not believe it would be wise to support it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The government amendments were tabled in response to requests in Committee, not just from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—who I hope to see back in her place as soon as possible—but the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and others, including Members from the Opposition Back Benches and Front Bench. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we have taken all those matters into account in bringing forward the amendment today.
On Amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue with him outside the Chamber and get clarification on the points he is pressing me to examine. I hope that the explanation I give him now will meet his points of concern, but we will see whether that is in fact the case. We believe that the amendment, while testing the Government, is ultimately dealt with in other ways, and would make no material difference to the operation of the legislation. The Bounar case, which my noble friend mentioned, pre-dated changes to our bail accommodation guidance. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision was handed down in December 2024, and the Home Office guidance was republished on 31 January 2025.
There is a key extract from the guidance that I want to read to my noble friend, so I hope the House will bear with me:
“Where an individual is not subject to a residence condition, but they are applying for accommodation under Schedule 10, they may request for their bail conditions to be varied to include a residence condition on the BAIL 409 application form. Bail conditions can be varied to include a residence condition at an address yet to be specified, where the individual does not have a residence condition imposed and a refusal of accommodation would be in breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights”.
The key point for me in that extract is that in the case of Bounar the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found that the person could not be given bail accommodation because they did not have a bail residence condition. Although that is technically correct, I believe and hope that our guidance—and I hope this satisfies my noble friend—now makes it clear that bail can be varied to impose a residence condition that will enable a person to be granted bail conditions, where to refuse to do so would breach the person’s human rights under Article 3. The key point that I emphasise to my noble friend is that our guidance is now clear that the situation in Bounar should not arise. If the person requires a bail condition in order to prevent an Article 3 breach, we will create one rather than refusing the application, and the courts can now apply that, as our guidance makes clear.
I am genuinely grateful for the discussions that I have had had with my noble friend outside both Committee and Report. He has raised these issues with me regarding the Bounar case as recently as today, outside the Chamber, prior to Report commencing. I have tried to give him an answer based on our legal interpretation of the understanding of that case in relation to our guidance, and I hope that, with that clarification, he is able to reflect on that, if not today then later in Hansard. I am happy to have further discussions with him about the application outside the Chamber at a later date, but I hope that the explanation I have given meets the objectives in his amendment, and I ask him not to press it.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, as always, for his response. I cannot hide that I am disappointed by what he had to say, but I have not yet had the chance to read it in Hansard. I am sure I will want to take up his remarks with him, but I will not be moving my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
For clarification, it is the Minister, with the lead amendment, who must now seek to press his amendment, if he so wishes.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 43 at page 39, line 40.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.
Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.
Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.
Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the amendments tabled today. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lord Rees of Easton and Lord Barber of Ainsdale to discuss these matters outside the Committee. I was pleased also to have discussions with a number of other noble Lords on this matter. Today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Ludford, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, my noble friends Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester have all spoken broadly in favour of these amendments. I just want to try to put some context to it.
The key to all this, ultimately, is for us to be able to speed up the asylum decision-making system, so that individuals either have asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals who have had that asylum claim turned down are therefore then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That is the key to all this, ultimately. What the Government are trying to do, as I have tried to explain on previous amendments, is speed up that process very significantly. The question then remains: what do we do with those individuals in the system at the moment? The amendments seek, first, to reduce the waiting period for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three—a proposal which does not find favour with all those who have spoken today—and to address issues on domestic workers and modern slavery that I will come to in a moment.
As noble Lords would expect me to say, the Government’s current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system, the speeding up of claims and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern is that reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. We can debate that; it is a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, and I share his concerns.
It would be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to get work in the United Kingdom. That would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system and divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. I ask noble Lords: what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who is in work for three months and then maybe finds that they are not eligible for an asylum claim? That is a real issue.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I was afraid that the pull factor would rear its ugly head. There is a pull factor and it comes from the black economy. The smugglers have friends in the black economy and are often in it themselves—they are the employers. The pull factor exists now, but if we permitted people to work legally and not in the black economy, the pull factor would be reduced.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me turn to that in a moment. I have spent my entire life making sure that people have protections at work and are not exploited, and that unscrupulous employers are weeded out, tackled and dealt with according to law. That is why, in the previous Labour Government, we introduced justice measures on things such as the minimum wage, and have spent hours, with Members from the Opposition Benches opposing us, trying to put an Employment Rights Bill through this House. That is why we have fought long and hard; I refer to arguing against the changes the then Government made on overseas domestic workers in private properties, where they did not have the rights that were later restored to them in this House. I accept fully that there will be exploitative, unscrupulous businesses that try to employ people who are in the difficult situation of being here while their asylum claims are processed, and that is why we need to speed up asylum claims.
However, I am afraid that a legal requirement to work would still be a pull factor; we need to deal with unscrupulous employers, and we will do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. Ultimately, any policy change must carefully balance allowing asylum seekers to work and protecting fair job opportunities for British citizens and lawful residents. I therefore cannot support the amendment.
On Amendment 43, 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, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract. Support is tailored to each victim, according to their individual circumstances. Those with permission to work are helped to access employment and, through the modern slavery victim care contract, there is support for recovery and integration. Victims without immigration status who receive positive conclusive decisions may be granted temporary permission to stay, and that includes the right to work. There is no time limit on how long a victim can remain in support after receiving a positive conclusive grounds decision.
Therefore, there are several reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment; expanding access to employment at an early stage would, in my view, incentivise the misuse of the national referral mechanism. The current framework maintains a clear distinction between protection and economic migration routes, and this is essential to uphold the integrity of our immigration system.
Again, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, well. On her Amendment 44, moved ably by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government remain concerned about links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. As the noble Baroness will know, the immigration White Paper has already set out our intention to reconsider how this route operates.
My noble friend Lady Lister suggested that she would welcome the amendment. I understand why, but I believe that it tries to combine visas for two different groups of workers, and it would not be appropriate to do so. There are those on the overseas domestic worker route, who are accompanying private households visiting the UK for a short period, and there are domestic workers in diplomatic households, who are served by the temporary work international agreement visa and are required to stay longer to support them.
The conditions of each route reflect important differences. For overseas domestic workers, it is not the purpose of the route to establish them in the labour market full time. The visa grants permission for up to six months and cannot be extended, as this aligns with that of the overseas domestic workers’ employer, who, as a visitor, cannot intend to stay in the UK for longer than six months. They can also now change their employer during their stay. I argued for that when I was a Member of Parliament in opposition; we pressed for that and the Government listened. They should be able to change their employer because they are not slaves tied to an individual.
My noble friend Lady O’Grady made some very valid points, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I know that my noble friend is fully aware of this, both from her professional background and from her championing of these issues in this House, but I remind her that the fair work agency, which we are currently establishing, will strengthen the ability to identify and respond to labour exploitation —and rightly so; I celebrate the fact that it will do that. We will be able to share intelligence more effectively between enforcement partners, making it easy to spot patterns of abuse, in order to pursue the kinds of unscrupulous employers that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, it will provide protection for vulnerable workers, including those—this goes to the point my noble friend made—employed in private households. That was previously beyond its remit. This Labour Government will make those changes in the Bill, to provide people working in private households with those rights at work. I cannot accept the amendment in its current form, but I hope that my noble friend will know that we are not shying away from this, because people have a right not to be exploited at work.
In summary, Amendment 44 would significantly alter the purpose of the route—a route that we have already committed to reviewing. We welcome any views that the noble Lord, Lord German, wants to put through that review. We will also hear from some expert stake- holders, who are currently looking at how we can improve the route. The immigration White Paper is looking at that and, on behalf of the department, I will bring forward changes in that area in due course.
My noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke to Amendment 45, which seeks to produce annual reports on the restrictions placed on asylum seekers seeking to engage in employment. That is a noble and valuable point to make, but the Home Office already engages in policy reviews and stakeholder consultations, and Ministers are accountable to both Houses. Ministers directly responsible for this issue, such as my honourable friend Alex Norris, the Immigration Minister in the Home Office, meet regularly and review those matters. I hope that that information will be examined without the legal necessity of putting a provision in the Bill.
I remind noble Lords that the Government will shortly announce reforms to modernise the asylum system later this year in our asylum policy statement. I touched on that in the Statement I gave to this House on 2 September. Reforms are under way and forthcoming, and we will bring that forward in relatively short order. I always use that phrase and people ask me what it means; in this case, I expect it to be done, dare I say it, before Christmas. I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance. The Government remain committed to reviewing and improving the asylum system, including the permission to work policy, but that must be done with greater detail and evidence-based reform, not through statutory reporting obligations.
I recognise that I will not have satisfied noble Lords who feel very passionately and strongly about this issue; however, I say from the Dispatch Box that I am not in the business of supporting poor employers who exploit people or provide work opportunities that undercut British workers, who deserve our full support. That is why we, the Labour Government, have supported, through the whole of our existence, improvements to rights at work. However, I feel that this amendment would be, in the framing of today’s discussion, a pull factor; it would add additional burdens to the issues we are looking at. We will bring proposals back to this House in due course. I urge noble Lords not to press the amendment and to give the Government an opportunity to look at these issues in a new way over the next few weeks and months.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I just cannot understand why the Government are resisting placing the controls of work in the hands of the Government instead of in the hands of the black economy. It just does not seem the correct way to do things. There is so much support for letting people work in our communities and in the public sector that I think I must test the opinion of the House on Amendment 42.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
This discussion reflects some of the discussions we had in Committee and, as a sort of aperitif for the House, I am likely to say pretty much what I said in Committee. I hope Members will bear with me, because the Government take these matters seriously and welcome the scrutiny and discussion that we have had today.
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their Amendments 46, 47, 68, 82 and 86, which seek to abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the First-tier and Upper Tribunals, create a review board in the Home Office and limit the ability of an individual to challenge, by way of a judicial review, a decision of the Secretary of State as proposed by an asylum and immigration review board. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, was correct in saying that I would not accept those amendments. I hope I have not surprised him by saying that I will not accept them.
Amendments 47A and 68A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would further restrict the ability to challenge in the cases of those with modern slavery experience. I regret to tell the noble Baroness that I will not accept those amendments either.
That does not mean we are denying that there is a real challenge in the asylum system. I could say that we have inherited a mess, and I think we have. It is not satisfactory for published statistics to show appeals taking over a year to be determined on average. That is why the Government are working hard to end these exceptional delays.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The Minister says that he inherited a mess, but I have scars from trying to promote the idea of the Rwanda Bill, which might have provided an answer. We were excoriated as being mad, bad and dangerous to know. We were told then that Labour had the answers. Where are the answers now, only 18 months later?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I mention to the noble Lord the deal with France, the deal with Iraq, the scheme we are taking upstream with the Germans to tackle various issues, the work of the Calais Group, the work of the Border Security Command being executed by this Bill, the important measures in this Bill to tackle illegal migration, the measures we are taking to speed up asylum claims and get them through quickly, the two new barracks that we announced last week would be opened to speed up asylum claims and get a deterrent in place, and the work on illegal working in migration. We have done a whole range of things. Although I never cross my fingers on these matters, the last couple of weeks have seen no small boat crossings whatever. It is a difficult challenge, but let us look at how we deal with these issues.
We know that more must be done to address the backlog in the immigration and asylum appeals system. Clauses 46 and 47 set a statutory timeframe on First-tier Tribunal decisions. We have put in place additional funding to increase sitting days in 2025-26 to speed up the processing of asylum claims. I know that more needs to be done, which is why we are introducing a new appeals body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals, fully independent of government. We are committed to setting out further details of our plans very shortly.
Although the Government share the frustrations about the inefficiencies and delays in the immigration and asylum system, there is still a need to ensure due process, which is a fundamental part of our legal system. That touches on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, mentioned, because we have to have due process as part of our legal system. The amendments would remove any judicial oversight of Home Office decisions and prevent an independent review of a decision other than by a Home Office board—effectively putting the department in charge of marking its own work. That is not a good place to be; judicial oversight is an important matter. There would inevitably be legal challenges against the Government based on that lack of independence. It would also be contrary to important UK legal principles, notably the rule of law, the protection of rights and access to justice, as well as more proposals on the most vulnerable, including in modern slavery cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, mentioned this.
Without alternative ways of independent and impartial redress, these amendments would cause serious issues with the withdrawal agreement, which—like it or lump it—is in place. It is a legal agreement with the Government of the day. This also impacts upon the Windsor Framework and the relationship with Northern Ireland. All this points me to saying that I cannot accept those amendments.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I might be wrong, and I hesitate to say this in the presence of so many eminent lawyers, but my understanding is that there is a precedent for this suggestion, in that coronial verdicts are not traditionally appealable unless there has been irrationality or the coroner has erred in law. It is not the case that every single decision made in the criminal justice system, or the justice system generally, is necessarily traditionally appealable.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I defer to those who have expertise in coronial decisions—that is an MoJ matter—but in this case, this is what we have, and I am not prepared to give it up. We can disagree on that, and there are Division Lobbies on either side if we need to sort this out, but I do not expect to support those amendments, on the basis of the arguments that I have put forward today.
Amendment 79A from the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, would require the Home Secretary to disregard the Human Rights Act. I am not going to support that either. It would further limit when the UK could comply with interim measures and how they should be treated in domestic courts. The UK is fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as the Prime Minister has made clear—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. As he will have seen, the amendment would not require the Home Secretary to ignore human rights; it would require courts not to consider the Human Rights Act when considering applications in relation to immigration legislation, which would greatly help his department.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord’s comments clarify, from his perspective, what he seeks to achieve. I have to clarify again from my perspective that I still cannot support the amendment. I am very sorry—we are not going to get an agreement on these matters.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am just wondering whether it would be worth the Government looking at what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the margin of appreciation in looking at an international document. In particular, it may be that the courts are applying Article 8 too narrowly, and it might be worth the Government reconsidering how Article 8 should be applied. That would not be getting rid of the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, but it would look at how Article 8 is being applied.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely valid point, and I shall come on to that issue in a moment. The commitment to the ECHR does not mean complacency on the Government’s part. To retain public confidence in our policies on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice, the ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. I must say to the noble and learned Baroness and the House as a whole that the UK is safer and stronger when we work with our international partners—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord German. That is why we need to co-operate with Europe, in answer to the noble and learned Baroness, to look at a whole-of-route approach to tackling these challenges. Membership of the ECHR is essential to our ability to work with our European partners, including on the trade and co-operation agreement, the sharing of intelligence and evidence, and practical agreements to stop people-smuggling.
The Government have set out their plans to reform the immigration system in the immigration White Paper. We will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test to take back control. To answer the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Faulks, as well as the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the immigration system, and we are also reviewing the application of Article 3 in immigration and extradition cases.
I accept that I may be pressed on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pressed me on it in September in Committee. I have repeated what I said in November, now, on Report, but I hope the noble Lord will recognise that I have given a commitment that we will look at those issues and bring back things that this House can investigate, test, challenge and question to try to achieve the objective of giving greater flexibility on Articles 3 and 8, in line with what the Prime Minister has said and what the noble Lord, Lord German, has suggested, as well as what the noble and learned Baroness has just intervened on me to suggest. I ask the noble Lord for patience, after saying that it will be brought forward. I have given commitments to this House on two occasions, but I cannot do it in the way he wants it to be laid before the House today—but the commitments are there to achieve that.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I do not want the noble Lord to have to repeat himself, but he said earlier that there was going to be a statement in relation to the Government’s approach to asylum, but then he said to me that there was going to be legislation. Now, I understand that he has not yet got clear riding instructions. Is there to be a statement of intent or is there to be legislation? Which is it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me phrase it this way: the Government will always bring before the House, in the form of a Statement, matters on which we intend to provide policy changes. When we are in a position to make further policy announcements in this area, there will undoubtedly be a Statement in the House of Commons and in this House that Members can question and examine in detail. That Statement may include signalling for legislation; the two things are not incompatible. I know I said this in September and I have said it again today, but that is the direction of travel, and when we are in a position to make clear the policy direction the Government wish to take for public scrutiny, we will make that Statement and bring forward proposals accordingly. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
I cannot agree to the amendments, and I hope that Members will not press them. I hope too that, if nothing else, the case I have made today on Report is as clear as I can make it in the circumstances.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. I rather suspected that the Liberal Democrats and the Government would decline to support these amendments. I am aware of some of the concerns noble Lords have. I listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, had to say, but the public want us to end illegal migration via small boat crossings. They want us to deport illegal entrants. Ending the legal logjam of endless appeals is crucial to giving the Government the ability to get a grip on this border crisis. If the Government are too weak to act, then I submit that we will have to try to force them to. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, to add to what noble Lords expect I would say, this seemingly small amendment and its consequential amendments seek to remove the words
“to be presumed to have been”
from Clause 48. It has enormous implications, in effect transforming a balanced legal measure into an irreversible and potentially unjust set of rules.
I will not read out Article 33 of the convention on refugees, but it is quite clear that it says that the person would have
“been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.
The explanatory memorandum from the UNHCR on what a serious crime is gives examples of murder, rape, arson and armed robbery. The amendment certainly does not meet that.
In short, the existing text in Clause 48 is carefully constructed to allow the courts to address serious criminality, such as sexual offences, while remaining compliant with our international obligations that require an assessment of whether the person poses a continuing danger to the community. Amendment 48 destroys this necessary balance and should be rejected.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.
Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.
Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.
Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.
The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.
The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I regret that the Government have not listened to the arguments advanced here. Clause 48 will complicate this area of law by reintroducing the confusion that was cleared up by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. No noble Lord raised any issue with that change at the time, so there is no reason to be reintroducing the rebuttable presumption. It is surely farcical that convictions for sexual offences could be argued to be not particularly serious crimes, when no other offence could be so argued. This seems like a case of intransigence on the part of the Government and a denial of the clear error they have made. As disappointing as this is, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.
I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.
To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubsfor tabling the amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue but his personal experience. I cannot imagine how my noble friend faced these issues as a child himself and I fully understand, and hope have empathy with, the driving motivation that he has brought to the House today.
The noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Wigley and Lord German, the noble and learned Baroness, |Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Berkeley, all spoke in support. However, I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, being a voice that will have to test my noble friend’s aspirations in this amendment and try to offer him a way through that understands the issues he has raised, at the same time as putting down the policy that the Government seek to have this House endorse in relation to the Bill.
The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix child-relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation, maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend’s amendment would seek to ensure that the asylum-seeking children include children
“under the age of 18 … the child, sibling, half-sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild, or stepchild of the person granted protection status”.
I make it clear to the whole House that the Government firmly uphold the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children. Self-evidently, we have to recognise that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and because of the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I gather that it is proposed to have a meeting. Would it be possible for other Peers to join?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I offered the meeting to my noble friend Lord Dubs but I am very happy— I am committing my honourable friend Alex Norris to a meeting—for, let us say, a representative group of Peers to join my noble friend, should he wish them to. Let us make an offer: we have space for a Member from the Liberal Democrat Bench, from the Cross Benches, from the Bishops’ Bench, should they wish to do so, and from His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that it is a fair approach, on a difficult issue, for him to take the case to the Home Office and bring with him a representative group of NGOs. Maybe it could be a separate meeting, if Peers want to meet the Minister personally. I will try to be present, given my commitments to taking the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as this Bill, through this House.
I do not want to find myself in the opposite Lobby to my noble friend Lord Dubs but, if he pushes the amendment, I am afraid that I will have to. I hope he can accept the offer and look at exploring further with Ministers the appropriate points which he has rightly put in a passionate contribution today, supported by Members across this House.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has gone out of his way. He will always be my friend, even if we are in different Division Lobbies tonight. I appreciate that he has done his best to meet me, and I have had discussions with him up until now.
I have listened to the debate, and I have talked to many people outside. We are faced with a position where, for example, we may have a 14 year-old in Calais, sleeping under the trees, who has an uncle or another family member over here and who wants to join them. The answer, unless we pass this amendment, is that he or she will not be able to do so. That would surely encourage that 14 year-old to use the traffickers, which is the last thing we want; I would rather see a legal and safe route for that child to come here. I do not want it to be so exceptional that it would hardly ever happen.
I say this with a heavy heart: I do not want to be in a different Lobby. I have never done this before—I am not a rebel anyway. With a heavy heart, I honestly feel—for the reasons to which over the years I have committed, the Labour Party in the past has committed, the whole House and the Commons have committed—that morality suggests this is the right course of action. I regret having to say this, but I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short but focused debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I hope that we do not see too many fireworks during the course of my response. It is good to be able to debate the matter with him and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. I would add that, although he may not be very pleased with what I am about to say, I am very pleased, as I think we all are, to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place following his accident.
I fully understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, in tabling this amendment. I will set out the Government’s position and I hope that noble Lords will appreciate why we are taking the position that we are. To be absolutely clear, the Government place the highest priority on ensuring that openness and transparency are at the heart of our justice system. They are also at the heart of the judiciary’s work, demonstrated in particular by the establishment of the Transparency and Open Justice Board by the Lady Chief Justice last year to, as she said,
“lead and coordinate the promotion of transparency and open justice across the courts and tribunals of England and Wales”.
Understanding the clear public interest in this area, work to consider the publication of all immigration and asylum chamber decisions began some months ago. Discussions between the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and the judiciary are ongoing. It would therefore not be appropriate to comment further at this time. I can confirm that, in principle, the judiciary supports the publication of judgments. However, at this point it is important to restate, for the sake of comity between different arms of the state, that this really is a matter for the judiciary and something that Parliament has very rarely legislated on.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned, as he did when we discussed this in Committee, that Lower-tier Tribunals will publish their judgments. In response to that I can say that each chamber takes its own approach; some publish and some do not. Generally, chambers that handle sensitive matters, such as immigration but also mental health and special educational needs, have tended not to publish their decisions for what I would hope might be obvious reasons. However, it is clear that the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, giving it a similar status to the High Court, which means that its decisions can set binding precedents and are enforceable without further intervention. Because of this, transparency and accessibility are essential, and reported determinations are routinely published, whereas First-tier Tribunal decisions will, in practice, be more closely tied to the facts of a specific case and therefore be of more limited utility to those journalists or academics who wish to examine them.
I note, putting aside some of the technical deficiencies in the amendment, that the First-tier Tribunal does not make judgments but gives decisions. Let me be clear that this is not a straightforward proposal. Any decision to publish all FTT IAC decisions is not about operational cost and resource implications. From additional administrative resources to judicial training, substantial work would be involved in publishing decision notices and written reasons for all decisions, of which the First-tier Tribunal currently delivers approximately 2,500 per month. This includes thousands of decisions without reasons that are published every year, which would be fairly otiose—really just replicating the outcome of that decision.
It is important to note that publication requires judges to consider whether personal details need to be removed from a decision, or even whether an anonymity order is in place, and we would expect an increase in applications for anonymisation to be received. We would expect additional judicial training to be required. Also, decisions in the IAC can be delivered orally. Publishing these would involve an administrative process and judicial oversight, with an impact on the capacity of the tribunal, as I said. To conclude, the Government maintain our view that primary legislation is not necessary.
Lord Gove (Con)
I sympathise with the Minister, because obviously the judiciary has reassured him—or perhaps not reassured him but told him—that this will add to its burden. But given the clear view across this House that it is in the interests of strengthening confidence in our system, might he have a word with the judiciary and point out that this Bleak House-style obscurantism on its part does not foster confidence in the judiciary in the way that every part of this House would wish to see?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I am not sure it is really my position to go around having a word, as he put it, with any members of the judiciary, or indeed, that of any member of the Government to be having a word with members of the judiciary, because we quite like its independence. However, as I said, there are discussions going on between HMCTS, the MoJ and the judiciary about publishing, and in principle the judiciary supports the publication of judgments, but it is in its hands, and it is appropriate that it is its decision to make. That is because we value the rule of law in this country, and part of the rule of law is that we have an independent judiciary.
As I was saying, we still believe, as I said in Committee, that primary legislation is not necessary to effect change in this area, and such a change would be most appropriately delivered through non-legislative means or in procedural rules. In the meantime, members of the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of written reasons in a specific case. Decisions of the immigration and asylum chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against First-tier decisions on points of law, as I have said, are already routinely published online, and those are the ones that are of most interest and saliency when it comes to understanding the evolution of immigration to this country. Given that explanation, and also, I hope, the understanding that there is a process to consider publication going on, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Murray, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions that we posed. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for his support for the amendment, my noble friend Lord Davies and, particularly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom I am delighted to see back in the Chamber and, earlier today, chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as excellently as ever.
I am afraid I must let the Minister down gently. First, he said the use of “judgments” in the amendment was wrong, because the employment tribunal makes findings, and this was at the heart of his defence. If he looks carefully, he might find that a court would construe judgment in this section of the Act to include all findings and decisions of the tribunal, because that is exactly the word that is used in relation to the employment tribunal.
The Minister’s second reason was that they are having discussions with the MoJ, and the MoJ is having discussions with the judges; there are no timelines, no dates, no indication of what is going to be said, but noble Lords should feel reassured by that. I am afraid that is a warm bath of words. The long and short is that the resource implications of publishing these decisions are limited because we know that all these judgments are provided electronically, because that is the practice—one needs to look only at the immigration decision practice direction. So I do not accept that reason; it is very easy for them to be published, and the cost of it would probably be less than we spend on asylum hotels in a day or two.
For those reasons, I say to noble Lords that it is surely a right to get the facts about decision-making on human rights grounds out there for the public and journalists to see. To adopt the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, let us let the sunlight in. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. We cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal routes, which have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs.
Through the Hong Kong British national (overseas) visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those with whom we share deep historical ties. More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation’s history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family scheme and Homes for Ukraine programme have provided sanctuary to more than 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion have found not just safety but welcome and support in communities across our country. In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces.
The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we are willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively. Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all contributors to this debate. I am acutely conscious that I stand between noble Lords and the Recess—rather a short Recess, as it happens, but nevertheless. Before I make my remarks, I want to say that it is a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, back in his place. I thought he sounded on pretty good form, but if he is not fully back to top form, I hope he soon will be.
Amendment 61 deals with the Ukrainian scheme. I hope that everyone in your Lordships’ House knows that the UK remains unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine and the scheme that we have in place. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked us to look again, and we have done that. Our commitment to the scheme is demonstrated by the Government’s recent 24-month extension to the Ukraine permission extension scheme, providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the visa scheme. However, from the outset the Government have maintained— I think everybody knows this, not just in your Lordships’ House but in the country more widely—that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict, and they have been widely supported throughout the country. The Ukrainian Government share with us a strong desire for their citizens to return and contribute to Ukraine’s future recovery.
On Amendments 70 and 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, let me reaffirm, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. We have a strong history of protecting people in those situations. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR.
However, there is no provision within our Immigration Rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we could not possibly consider a scheme that accepts applications from large numbers of individuals overseas. I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will forgive me for not commenting on the situation in the United States. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Safe and legal routes are nevertheless an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration White Paper published in May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out in due course.
Amendment 70 includes a provision that relates to biometrics. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control. They enable us to pay comprehensive checks against immigration and criminal records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety or immigration controls, or who are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK.