House of Lords

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 11 November 2025

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Overseas Musicians Touring in the UK

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Lord Brennan of Canton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce administrative burdens for overseas musicians touring in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The United Kingdom has a thriving creative industries sector that the Government are committed to supporting. The UK has one of the most generous offers in Europe for workers in the creative industries, including for touring musicians, many of whom already benefit from the very streamlined immigration requirements.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. UK Music’s annual report will be published tomorrow, but I can give your Lordships a sneak preview of one of its findings: 95% of musicians impacted by our leaving the EU have seen their earnings decrease since Brexit. The movement of musicians in and out of the UK is vital to our live sector, our economy and our culture. Will my noble friend the Minister make two pledges today? The first is to work urgently across government to ensure that the new ETA and visa system does not make it more difficult for overseas artists to tour in the UK. The second is to prioritise sorting out the bureaucratic mess that Brexit has brought to our touring musicians by fulfilling the Government’s manifesto pledge for a European cultural touring agreement.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK is looking very closely with our European partners at resetting the relationship, and that means looking to make sure that we reduce as much friction as possible. As my noble friend has mentioned, this is an industry worth around £30 billion a year; it is important that we support that industry as a whole through our creative plan. I will certainly look at the points he has raised. The ETA applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and we are working to examine those issues, but the points he makes are very valid. I look forward to seeing the report when it is published tomorrow.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, one of the key asks from the sector is for visa waiver agreements, not just with the EU but with other countries. Are the Government pursuing this urgently, both as part of the reset and globally?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government are certainly looking at that as part of the reset, because it is very important that we have movement between countries that is as frictionless as possible, particularly in areas where individuals can now apply for long-term visas, although obviously the amount of time that they can stay in the UK depends on the visa that is granted. Musicians, entertainers, artists and technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, can perform in the UK for up to six months requiring only an ETA, which costs just £16 and currently lasts for two years. That is a pretty good deal.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, another area in which musicians touring in the UK, and UK musicians touring in Europe, need help is selling merchandise. Merch was once a good earner for bands on tour, but now artists in the UK have to register as an exporter, secure an economic operator’s registration and register for VAT in every country. Europeans touring here must also do so, but for only one country—the UK. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing to reach a mutually beneficial deal on this?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The UK Government are currently consulting on reforms to the UK’s convention on international trade, which includes musical instruments, certificates, goods and services. The noble Baroness makes an extremely valid point. It is one of the consequences of Brexit, but we cannot relive that debate now. As part of the reset, we want to ensure that we have movement that is as frictionless as possible, which is in the interests of everybody, without the UK rejoining the EU.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, while I very much welcome this initiative from the Government, and it is overdue in many respects post Brexit, I have some concerns about reports that appear to be emanating from Europe that the Commission is looking more and more at conceding these things and various other important agreements between us only on the basis that we will contribute to the financial pot of the European Union for everything that we get. Surely that is not the right attitude and the right atmosphere for us to proceed with.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let us let the UK negotiate with the European Union on these issues. The important thing is that we have as frictionless movement as possible for these sectors, both for UK residents going to the EU and EU residents coming to the UK. For the very reason that the noble Baroness gave, we need to ensure that we have effective movement of goods. The temporary movement of goods such as equipment continues to generate significant effort and cost, and we are looking now at having a carnet with the EU for the temporary admission of goods, so that we can deal with the very issue that she mentioned. Let us have that negotiation, but the objective is quite clear: let us make it as easy as possible for us to do business with the European Union.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it is vital, as we have heard, that costs for British artists touring in the EU are reduced urgently? I welcome his view on carnets—that is indeed a step forward—but what about cabotage? What about, as the noble Baroness said, the possible signing up to the CITES agreement? The merchandise issue, as my noble friend will know, can often make or break a tour, especially for small bands. If they cannot sell their merchandise because of rules of origin problems, it is not worth their while going to Europe.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said in answer to earlier questions, the Government are looking at making movement as efficient and effective as possible for all concerned. On the CITES reforms, the Government are currently consulting with the musical sector and we remain committed to making touring as straight- forward and affordable as possible. The points on merchandise that my noble friend and the noble Baroness made are extremely valid. The Government and the European Union need to look at how we make that as frictionless as possible. That does not dilute the Brexit agreement, it simply makes sure that British and European businesses can operate at a profitable level and that we can support the very acts that my noble friend is concerned to support.

[Lord Strasburger (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the problem that caused this issue was not just Brexit but the bungled trade and co-operation agreement, which completely left out Britain’s second-largest economic sector—the creative industries? This does not affect just musicians, it affects dancers, theatre, fashion, and so on. Is it not now time for the Government to try to put right what was done badly at the time of Brexit?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There were a lot of things done badly at the time of Brexit. The issue is—with due respect to everyone in this House—that we are where we are. Therefore, being where we are, the first step is to engage positively on a productive reset with the European Union on issues of benefit to it and benefit to us, which retain the spirit of where we were in 2019 and where we were in 2016, but which ultimately ensure that businesses—particularly, in this case, artists—do not find themselves victims of what was a hashed settlement in the first place.

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

Arriving here, I passed a plaque which read “Mozart lived here”, and, of course, he travelled to Britain and toured freely, as it was in those days. Everyone in the cultural sector knows that the arts know no boundaries of talent, inspiration or pleasure. It is important, in making rules and administration, that the position of the cultural industries as something that is international and free-flowing between nations and audiences is recognised by the Administration.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. Anybody who looks at the cultural sector will know that it is a significant earner for the UK economy. We are world leaders in every sector of musical accomplishment, as well as in drama, cinematography and television production. That is a major earner for the UK taxpayer, which brings revenues that we can spend on health, education, transport and other matters. It is vital that we make the work of that sector as simple as possible without regulation.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile, and musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or a West End production in order for that to go ahead; I saw this as Arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. What work is the Minister’s department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, and to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. It is vital that people get that because there can be need at short notice, and potentially the need to put on additional concerts or gigs due to greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. The point he has made is valid.

In the European context, which I think is where the noble Lord is mainly focused, this forms part of our examination on the reset. We currently have the best regime of any European country for allowing movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues to earn that level of revenue.

Police: Records

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:47

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to bring police force records in England and Wales under legislative control and to make police forces subject to the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records under the Public Records Act 1958, as recommended by the Hillsborough Panel in its report in September 2012.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

It is very important that the police properly retain records, balancing the public interest of archiving with keeping people’s data only for as long as necessary and proportionate. That is why, in 2023, the College of Policing introduced a code of practice and authorised professional practice, which updates and strengthens the existing statutory framework.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, as my Question indicates, this issue has been around for over 13 years. Bishop James Jones’s devastating report called ‘The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power’, published in 2017, said that this issue should be addressed as a matter of urgency. He noted a comment from the South Yorkshire chief constable Med Hughes, who was quoted as saying:

“I am under no obligation to disclose anything and the papers belong to me. If I wanted to I could take them into the yard and have a bonfire with them”.


The Minister has answered that, in some sense, with his comment, but perhaps he can reaffirm what he feels about that comment. Is it not the case that this could not happen in Scotland, where police archives are protected by the Public Records (Scotland) Act 2011?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Following the recommendations of Bishop James Jones that came out of the Hillsborough inquiry, there was a request for a code of practice on public sector record keeping to be introduced within the police. The code was introduced in 2023, following consultation and the support of the previous Government, and it will be in operation until 2028, when we expect to review it accordingly. My noble friend will know that the code of practice is essentially a police code, but the accountable Minister is the Home Secretary, who I suspect would take a very strong view on a chief constable seeking to undertake the course of action that my noble friend indicated could be taken by South Yorkshire Police. We should examine the code, make it work, monitor its progress and, ultimately, make sure that it is fit for purpose in 2028.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, since the College of Policing introduced its updated code of practice on records management, both South Yorkshire Police and Northumbria Police have admitted destroying records relating to Orgreave, despite long-standing calls for a public inquiry. Does the Minister accept that voluntary compliance has failed to secure proper accountability and that legislative oversight is now required?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, the Home Secretary is the accountable Minister with political oversight for the code of practice, although it is obviously in part an operational matter for the police. The noble Baroness mentions the alleged destruction of papers by Northumbria Police. There is for the first time an inquiry into Orgreave, which is ongoing and which this Government established, chaired by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield. He has terms of reference to look at all matters relating to Orgreave. I do not want to pre-empt any discussions or any judgments that he may make but, self-evidently, from my perspective, if papers are available then they should be available to the inquiry and should not be going missing or being destroyed.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

Is this not complicated by the fact that we have 43 separate police forces in this country? Do the Government feel that is the right number?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are 43 police forces; I bear the scars of being the Police and Counter- terrorism Minister in 2009-10 looking at potentially encouraging some forces to merge. I will not comment on the numbers—the important thing is efficiency. A policing White Paper will be published very shortly, in which we will look at how we can improve the efficiency of police forces. I look forward to the noble Viscount’s contribution when that paper is published in due course.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the phone hacking scandal that hit Britain, which was never properly investigated by the Met, leaves a lot of things unsaid and unheard. Should we not release all the files from the police so that we can see what went on in that case?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very interesting point. I bear the scars of that one as well, in the sense that I answered for the Home Office in 2009 when the phone hacking scandal first erupted. Lessons have been learned. There have been many litigious court cases and a range of policy changes have been made as a result, but, self-evidently, transparency is key. I will certainly examine my noble friend’s comments if we can add further to that transparency.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the police release data on arrests relating to the details of the offences but do not publish data specifying aggregated information about the offenders. Will the Minister commit to publishing further data about who has committed what offences?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Lord will allow me, I will reflect on that rather than commit today. There are a number of important issues around data collection. My noble friend asked about the integrity of that data; the noble Lord is asking about widening that data. It would not be appropriate to make a judgment quickly at the Dispatch Box on that issue, but I will certainly reflect on it and contact him in due course.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

Would my noble friend consider meeting the Archives & Records Association to discuss some of these issues, in particular whether the records of police forces in England and Wales could be brought under Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I make a point in this House of never refusing a request from a Member to have a meeting, if at all possible, so I will look at how we can fit that meeting in in the near future. The key point is that the organisation he mentioned was party to the consultation on the code of practice and is party to the consultation which has determined already that the code of practice will be reviewed in 2028. I can happily meet them, but it has signed up to a course of action which involves the production of a code and its exercise and review in time for 2028. I will reflect on what my noble friend has said, and if I can fit that in, I will.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Goschen, will the Minister have a look at what is going on in Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, where the two constabularies are already co-operating on things like the issuing of firearms certificates and forensics? There is a lot of collaborative effort going on between the two forces. Surely that is the best way to go, which could then lead to a merger, rather than forcing mergers through.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. There is the idea of 43 police forces, going back to the noble Viscount’s initial point, but we should be trying to encourage co-operation on procurement, on personnel services and on a whole range of other issues where we can save resource and put it into front-line policing. Without trailing too much, the White Paper will examine how we improve that collaboration. When it is published, I hope the noble Lord will welcome it, contribute to it and, if need be, challenge it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, peacekeeping needs to be local as well as national. If one centralises too much the way the police is organised, we will lose touch with people in communities. I also recall that the four Yorkshire forces have a number of collaborative operations about organised crime, terrorism and, as I remember, helicopters and animals. These are obvious things to collaborate on, but one should retain a sufficient link with local communities in order to make sure that policing makes sense to the people it serves.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely. The whole principle of policing is that it represents and is accountable to the local community. If I may say so to the noble Lord, it is still absolutely vital that we get best value out of the police resources that are put in. It is a valuable course of action to follow to find mechanisms to ensure that police forces can co-operate, where they want to, on getting a better deal for the taxpayer on some major procurement or on efficiencies generally. When the police White Paper is published relatively shortly, it will offer a number of pointers for where that co-operation can potentially be encouraged.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, the rural task force was first set up by North Yorkshire Police and has been quite a success in preventing urban criminals coming into rural areas. Do the Government plan to roll out rural task forces in other parts of the country?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

A lot of those decisions are for locally elected police and crime commissioners or, in some cases, mayors, who have responsibility via their deputy mayors for policing. We are concerned to ensure that we look at a number of areas to do with rural policing. The Government are focused on a number of aspects here including equipment theft, sheep worrying and shoplifting in smaller towns. We are trying to encourage police forces to buy in to some of our general pushes. All police forces have had additional police officers this year to meet some of their targets, particularly on shop theft and anti-social behaviour.

Airport Expansion

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what advice they have received regarding the implications of net airport expansion for the United Kingdom’s net-zero target and economy.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Climate Change Committee, CCC, is the independent adviser to the Government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The Government have committed to routinely engaging the CCC as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Taskforce.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the aviation industry will never be environmentally sustainable, and this Government really ought to understand that. At the moment, the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers are not, and potentially EV drivers as well. Therefore, why not tax frequent flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

This Government are making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There is a Bill before the House on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. The Government are also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to £2.3 billion over 10 years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next-generation sustainable technologies. The distance-band structure of the air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty. Similarly, given that the air passenger duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, rather than discouraging air travel, surely the aim of the Government should be to encourage sustainable aviation. Can my noble friend the Minister say a little more about what progress we are currently making on the sustainable aviation fuel targets?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which is already in force, seeks to reduce aviation emissions by up to 2.7 of a unit that I cannot describe—it is called MtCO₂e, if anyone here knows what it is; I am sure someone does—in 2030 and by up to 6.3 in 2040. A lot of work is going on, and the House will shortly debate the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, which seeks to increase manufacturers’ sustainable aviation fuel. Together with the investment I already discussed for the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, this will all contribute to a future sustainable aviation industry.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

The Lib Dem Benches next.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, what specific work are the Government undertaking to understand the emissions not only from aircraft but from the surface-access and freight traffic associated with airport expansion? How can the Government meet net-zero commitments while supporting airport expansion at Gatwick and Heathrow?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Previous Questions in this House have dealt with the construction of the third runway in relation to carbon. The Government expect those two schemes, which are being taken forward, to demonstrate how carbon reduction applies not only to the construction of the runway itself but to the freight traffic and surface transport implications of the third runway. Those factors will be taken into account. There is no reason for the expansion of Gatwick—and, for that matter, of Stansted and Luton—to be incompatible with that of Heathrow. Heathrow is the UK’s only hub airport and deserves to be of a size that can increase economic growth for the whole country.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I would like to help the Minister. The current Airports National Policy Statement states that it expects Heathrow to have

“landside airport-related traffic … no greater than today”—

namely, in 2018, when the document was published. Can he state—I think this would help the noble Baroness —whether the same requirement will appear in the new airports national policy statement, which will appear next year and be the basis for the Heathrow expansion?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord will of course recognise that things should have moved on from 2018 but have not. This Government are determined for the first time to move forward with the expansion of the UK’s only hub airport. The statements made in the Airports National Policy Statement in 2018 will be reviewed in the light of the two proposals the Government are currently pursuing, and we will choose one of them before the end of November. The necessary alterations to the draft new airports national policy statement will be available next summer.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister answer a question that is very puzzling to me? When we proposed airport expansion, it was about increasing business traffic into this country. Since Covid, that has simply not been the case; so much business is done online, and in fact, what we are benefiting is tourism. A recent report from the New Economics Foundation found that in 2023, we exported £41 billion abroad, and this is a deficit. What is the logic, given that we are all encouraged to do things online, of vastly expanding our airports right now?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Heathrow is as congested now as it was before Covid, and it will remain congested unless more capacity is given to it. The previous questions on this subject in a short debate we had a few days ago rightly suggested that not only human traffic but goods and services are important—although we did have a debate about whether books or salmon were the most valuable or frequent commodity to be transported. The point is this: the airport is full, it remains full and for the benefit of the British economy, we need to expand it in order to get more flights and build the economy in this country.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I share the concerns expressed about the environmental disbenefits of a third runway at Heathrow Airport, while understanding the potential economic benefits. As the Bishop of London, I have spent time with Reverend Richard Young of St Mary’s Church Harmondsworth, and with residents whose homes and communities lie within the proposed demolition zone of the third runway. They have faced uncertainty for decades, and under the potential proposals, they will continue to face uncertainty for years to come. What are the Government doing to allay their fears and the uncertainty faced by these communities, and to ensure that Heathrow Airport itself provides the appropriate support to them?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for her question. The best thing the Government can do is move forward on this for the first time. The debate about the third runway has been going on for years and years, and the airport is as congested as it ever was, as I said. The residents she refers to, in Harmondsworth, Sipson and other villages, have no satisfaction about the future because the future has been uncertain for a long time. The best thing we can do is to get on with this and make a decision. Of course, we would expect whoever the promoter is to actively work to look after the communities affected by the third runway development.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on moving on with proposals that originally came in the 2003 White Paper, which, as Minister for Transport, I had some hand in. I also point out that our very successful aviation industry is beneficial not only to the economy as a whole but very much to local communities around our main airports, providing well-paid, unionised jobs. Will he get on with it?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

Well, what can I say to my noble friend, who not only asks this question but gives all the answers as well? I think that will do.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are absolutely right to be pressing ahead with the expansion of Heathrow Airport; it is long overdue. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill will, I hope, answer some of the questions about the environmental impacts.

However, I am concerned about the debate between a short runway and a long runway. Whatever the outcome in the medium term, may I seek assurance from the Minister that we will at least still go ahead with the DCO for the full plan? If we do not, we are going to end up short-changing ourselves again. In the end, Heathrow needs to expand, and it needs to expand properly. Please ensure that that is what happens.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. That is a premature request, because he will know—and maybe the rest of the House does as well—that the two schemes being taken forward are different, and the length of the runway proposed is different. A decision such as the one he suggests ought to be taken as we go forward with one of the two schemes.

British Council

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continued operation of the British Council.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the British Council plays an important role in supporting the UK’s soft power and interests around the world through its work in the arts, culture, education and the promotion of the English language. We are providing over £160 million grant in aid to the British Council this year alone, which underlines our support for its important work.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, last week, Scott McDonald, the chief executive of the British Council, told MPs that the council was going to sell all its assets and close 40 country programmes unless the Government reschedule a £197 million loan costing £12 million to £15 million in interest. The council has already sold its English language business in India and its school in Madrid, and is withdrawing from the frontier Baltic states. Why, given the crucial role of the British Council as a key instrument of soft power which is technically close to insolvency, has there been no resolution of the loan and grant in aid at all? Why is there—to quote its chief executive—a “complete unwillingness” to help? With these cuts in aid, to the BBC World Service and to the British Council, are the Government just managing the decline of Britain’s soft power from its former position of pre-eminence?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are helping a lot. We provide about 16% or 17% of the British Council’s funding each year. There is an issue with an outstanding loan which was given as part of a Covid package by the previous Government. Terms for that loan were never agreed, and terms need to be agreed. We have organised an extension, in order for work to take place. As the noble Lord rightly says, the British Council is a vital part of the UK’s soft power internationally. It does a fantastic job, and we want to work with it to put it on a long-term, sustainable and stable footing.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Question we have just heard did not get a very reassuring Answer. Is this not precisely the sort of resource that we, as an advanced country, should be developing to underpin both our security and our trade? Is this not the sort of glue that binds together the Commonwealth countries, which are, of course, an expanding resource as well? Will the Minister tell her colleagues in the Foreign Office that most other countries recognise that Commonwealth power and soft power generally are part of our future? Will she encourage them to give a lot more attention to it than appears to be given in some commentators’ columns in certain newspapers, who frankly do not understand what is going on?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am not going to make any comments about our newspapers today—I could, but I will not. We do a great deal of work with the British Council, which is an important part of soft power. We are, as I said, giving it £160 million each year and are working to help it restructure its loan. It needs to carry out modernisation work. It is getting on with that, which Scott McDonald is doing a very good job leading. However, our soft power in 2025 is not, if it ever was, just the British Council; it is the Premier League, our music, our cultural industries and the BBC—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is an interesting response to that today.

There are so many different levers for soft power that may not have been there in the past, but that does not mean that the British Council is not central to our soft power around the world. We are committed to strengthening it and making sure that it can continue to do outstanding work well into the 21st century.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. My noble friend the Minister will have the sentiment of the House on this matter and the overdue delay in resolving a Covid-era loan. Remembrance Day is the right day to remember that the British Council was founded 90 years ago, to fight fascism. It is the greatest soft power asset that this country has, and it is envied by friends and foe alike. The reality is that it is financially imperilled by a loan from the Covid era. Will my noble friend commit that the Foreign Secretary will now finally grip this issue and meet the leadership of the council to resolve the financial issues and allow it to continue to be the credit to this country that it has been in the past and should be in the future?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no lack of will to get this resolved. We need to see modernisation at the British Council; it is working hard at this and deserves credit for that. As the noble Baroness says, it is incredibly well-networked internationally, but I have to say that its network inside this House is equally impressive.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred a number of times in her answers to the important issue of UK soft power. In January, the then Foreign Secretary announced the UK Soft Power Council. We do not seem to have heard much about it since then, but the British Council is a member. Can the Minister confirm what the UK Soft Power Council’s role will be in promoting the UK abroad, how many times it has met since the announcement, and whether any of those roles are duplicating work that is already being undertaken by the British Council?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, the British Council is part of the Soft Power Council, which is a joint initiative between the FCDO and DCMS. It brings together the arts, heritage, Kew Gardens and the Premier League—many of the different soft power assets that the UK has—and the aim is to co-ordinate them and use them to best effect. I believe it has met three times now. I attended the first meeting and it met again after that, in Cardiff. I pay absolute credit to the people who are taking part and giving their time to do that. It has working groups as well, which get together and organise alongside it. It has the potential to do great things for the United Kingdom.

[Lord Inglewood (CB)]

My Lords, the House will have heard in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, how the assets of the British Council are being threatened with dispersal. Among those assets is the important collection of works of art. Bearing in mind that these are public property, would not the appropriate outcome, if that unhappy event takes place, be for them to be allocated, along the lines of articles which are accepted in lieu of tax, to all the museums the length and breadth of the whole country?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think we need a bit of reality here. The idea that the Treasury is going to accept art in lieu of a loan is a little fanciful. It is up to the British Council to decide what it wants to do with its assets. Setting aside the loan, the British Council still has work to do to make itself financially secure and sustainable into the future. It is getting on with that and doing a really good job of it. I commend the British Council for what it is doing. What it decides to do with its own assets is a matter for the British Council.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

We will hear from the Labour Benches next and then the Lib Dem Benches.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, as the trade envoy to Bangladesh, I hosted here in Parliament, attended by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander, the signing of a higher education partnership between the British Council and the University Grants Commission of Bangladesh, which will improve not only higher education links but trade links. Will my noble friend the Minister recognise the power of those kinds of partnerships, not only to improve trade but to provide the soft power that she has referred to, when considering the granting of money to the British Council?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

One of the reasons that we have worked hard to protect the British Council’s funding and are committed to the £160 million is because of the amazing work that it does supporting higher education and opportunities for young people—and some older people too. The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I am travelling to Bangladesh tomorrow, due in no small part to her encouragement. I commend her for the amazing work that she has been doing to develop trade in Bangladesh.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I was very surprised to hear the Minister’s response on the art collection and the indication that it would be okay, therefore, if the British Council sold this off. Would it not make a lot more sense for us to keep that within public ownership in the way that the British Council has proposed, as a way of offsetting the loan? Surely the Treasury should be looking at it in that light. To have heard the Minister’s response does not inspire me with confidence. I want to add that, on soft power, I hope the Government will support the BBC, which we now see is under dire pressure. As the Minister said herself, the BBC is very important for soft power and international renown as far as the United Kingdom and the wider world are concerned.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I completely agree about the role of the BBC in soft power, particularly the World Service and BBC Verify, which do a tremendous job. I would go so far as to say that they are saving lives every day with the work that they do.

On the issue of art, it is right that the British Council makes these decisions. If it wishes to dispose of assets—it has assets other than an art collection, of course—that is its decision. I am not suggesting that it does this. The council came to me previously with that suggestion. If there is a way for the British Council to avoid doing this, which would be its preference, it is well within the council’s powers to make that choice. There is no pressure from anyone I can see to make the council make a particular decision. However, the British Council would agree that it must get itself on a stable footing. We must make an agreement with the Treasury on the loan, and we will do that. Terms should have been agreed when the loan was made. Other people will have to explain why that was not done, but it needs to be addressed. Even if the loan is taken out of the equation, there must be a stable financial footing for the British Council, with a modern vision for the future of its activities, because it is vital. We will work with it to make sure that that happens, but it needs to take responsibility for this too.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:22

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 8 September be approved.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:22

Moved by

[Lord Stockwood]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 September be approved.

Relevant document: 37th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.

Motion agreed.

Conflict in Sudan

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Urgent Question

The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Wednesday 5 November.

“I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the shocking violence against civilians in El Fasher. The latest reports, including of 460 civilians being killed in a single attack, are harrowing. This is part of a pattern of appalling violence perpetrated against civilians and is just one element of the suffering driven by the war in Sudan, a conflict that has now created the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid and 12 million have been displaced. Famine is spreading and cholera is widespread, with the parties continuing to block life-saving assistance. As the Foreign Secretary said at the Manama dialogue last weekend,

‘no amount of aid can resolve a crisis of this magnitude until the guns fall silent … the world must do more’.

The UK is using all the tools at our disposal to protect civilians, to get humanitarian aid to those in most need, and to secure a lasting ceasefire in Sudan. A year ago, the UK, along with Sierra Leone, brought a resolution to the UN Security Council. This would have brought forward concrete measures to protect civilians if it had not been vetoed so cynically by Russia. Six months ago, we brought international partners to London to host the London Sudan Conference to build consensus around strengthening humanitarian access and ending the war. On 30 October, we called an emergency UN Security Council session, condemning the assault on El Fasher by the Rapid Support Forces and its devastating impact on the civilian population. We led a press statement to maintain the spotlight on the situation and the pressure on the RSF to de-escalate in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2736.

On Saturday, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £5 million in aid in response to the situation in El Fasher, which will provide life-saving food and health assistance as well as support to survivors of sexual violence. That is on top of the £23 million we have already mobilised from existing budgets through partners such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Sudan Humanitarian Fund. We are providing £120 million this year to the crisis in Sudan, and both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this funding is protected. We will keep working at every level to bring this horrific conflict to an end”.

15:23

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Sunday Times reported at the weekend that British military equipment sold to the United Arab Emirates was discovered in Sudan being used by the RSF, which of course was responsible for the horrific massacres that we saw all over social media and other places last week. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have investigated this, whether these reports have been verified and whether they have been discussed with the Government of the UAE?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

Of course, we are aware of those reports and we have investigated them thoroughly. I can confirm that no military equipment from the UK has found its way to Sudan and we will continue to monitor this incredibly closely.

The three items that were found were a seat belt, something for target practice and some engine components. We have been able to trace the export of these items; it happened around 10 years ago. We will continue to keep an eye on it. We want to make sure that the integrity of our arms controls is maintained, especially on the issue of diversion, and I can commit to the House that we will investigate incredibly thoroughly any further reports like this.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I note the very recent ICAI report on the Sudan policy of this Government and the previous Administration, and I declare that I was an implementer of the governance strand over recent years, which was positively recognised in that ICAI report.

I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the imperative is that we put urgent mechanisms in place to continue to guard against the atrocities against civilians that we are seeing. I hope the Minister will also agree that it is extremely important that we increase our efforts for a ceasefire, with the UK backing the Quad powers and the regional mechanisms for an immediate ceasefire.

Will the Minister also restate what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said on numerous occasions: that the future of Sudan is for the civilians of Sudan, led by civilian groups, so that any ceasefire and post-ceasefire agreement will not be a division of spoils for those very entities that have been carrying out the atrocities in recent weeks?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did on Sudan for many years: certainly, during his role as Minister for Africa, it was outstanding. The leadership that he showed on an issue that, at many points, must have been quite a lonely place to be, given the lack of interest that there was at various times, is highly commendable.

We engage regularly with all members of the Quad. I have spoken to the UAE and the US and my ministerial colleagues at the FCDO do likewise. We are absolutely committed to doing whatever we can, both as penholder at the UN and through our role at the Human Rights Council, and just as a concerned partner and ally, to make sure that we do everything that we are able to do to bring about a ceasefire and then a lasting peace.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The Minister is saying we are doing everything, and indeed we are the penholder at the UN, but there are some concerning reports that we are not doing as much as we should be due to financial constraints, particularly with our responsibilities towards women as victims of rape and crime and so on. Is the noble Baroness concerned about that? Is she equally concerned, as the situation there continues to deteriorate, about the possibility of migratory pressure on the UK from that part of the world?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Of course I am concerned. I think the reasons why the Prime Minister insisted that we protect our aid to Sudan speak for themselves, and we will be making sure that Sudan receives as much, or perhaps even more, support than it has done previously.

I visited the Adre crossing and spoke to many of the women that the noble Lord refers to, and I heard first-hand accounts of their horrific experiences. We will continue to work to support those women who have made it to Chad, to South Sudan and to other neighbouring countries.

We will also continue, difficult though it is, to work with NGOs and mutual aid groups within Sudan to provide support as much as we possibly can. I should emphasise that this is not a question of a lack of aid. There are real difficulties with access for organisations, but we continue to do everything we possibly can.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister say what representations the Government have made to the UAE about its continuing support for the RSF, including the provision of military equipment?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We speak to anybody we believe has an interest in this. We urge them all the same: they should not be providing arms or equipment—nobody should. Anyone with any influence over any of the armed groups in Sudan should be using that influence to urge dialogue, de-escalation and the securing of that lasting peace, so we can have a civilian-led Government in Sudan.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, the other element of the involvement of the UAE has to do with gold and rare earth minerals. What are the Government doing, to influence the ability of the RSF, particularly through the UAE, to get into those markets? So long as access to those markets continues, the conflict will continue and the arms flow will persist.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is right that we are reminded of the role that the natural assets of Sudan play in this conflict. The people responsible for this need to know that we are serious about accountability, which is why we have supported the fact-finding mission, why we support the ICC in what it is doing, and why we will not give up. We will make sure that those people who are responsible for these undoubted atrocities are held to account.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the recent announcement of £5 million in additional aid to survivors of sexual violence, and I am pleased that the Minister has met some of those survivors. Can she say what steps the UK has taken to ensure accountability for sexual and gender-based violence, which is being used as a weapon of war across Sudan?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The use of sexual violence as a weapon of war is extraordinary and has almost become normalised in this conflict. We will work through our partner agencies, in particular the UN but others too, to make sure that evidence is gathered and testimonies are taken in the right way that means they can be used when proceedings are able to be brought—soon, I hope.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, earlier this year, UNICEF released a report entitled Sudan’s Child Rape and Sexual Violence Crisis, which gave some harrowing accounts of armed men raping and sexually assaulting children as young as one. I listened very closely to what my noble friend the Minister said. Specifically, what is British aid doing either to support those children who have already been victims or to ensure that no future child is affected in Sudan in this way?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. Some of the accounts that we have heard are completely harrowing. I will never forget being told some of these stories, sitting in a tent in Adré and looking into the eyes of a mother who told me her account of what has happened. We need to make sure that accountability is achieved. We also need to make sure that we work with some of those armed groups, even now, to try to make the case—futile though that often seems, you have to start somewhere—for the need to adhere to international humanitarian law. That is not happening by any stretch of the imagination at the moment. We are clear about what we stand for and on the rules of conflict that we expect, but this is not going to stop until the leaders of these armed groups decide that they would prefer a political solution, which involves dialogue, coming to a conclusion and the election of a civilian Government. These things feel a very long way off at the moment, but until they are achieved we will continue to see the darkest shade of hell that I have ever had to bear witness to. I fear for what happens to those communities in Sudan, particularly those women and those very young children.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, those were very moving remarks by the Minister. In addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said a moment ago, there are many other examples that the most appalling war crimes are being committed—crimes against humanity. The Minister mentioned the gathering of evidence. What early discussions have taken place with the ICJ to make sure that these criminals—these barbarians, these war criminals—are arraigned and face justice in the future?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We talk to competent courts about this, but the thing we are doing at the moment is ensuring that that evidence is there. Unless we do that, accounts become less admissible and have less status within a process. It is essential that we do this, not just for those people who have already become victims but to send a very clear message on such atrocities. The world has not covered itself in glory on this. Too little attention has been paid to this conflict for far too long. I am glad that there is focus on it now. We must use that to put pressure on all those who have any influence in this conflict and to make sure that those responsible are brought to account quickly.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (4th Day)

Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh legislative consent granted.

15:34

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

59: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Amendment to Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023(1) Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), for paragraph (a) substitute—“(a) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The Secretary of State may declare an asylum or human rights claim made by a person who is a national of a State listed in section 80AA(1) inadmissible.”;”.(3) In subsection (2), after paragraph (c) insert—“(ca) in subsection (4) after “considered” insert “or if the failure to consider an asylum or human rights claim would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Human Rights Convention”.”. (4) In subsection (3), after subsection (4) of the inserted section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 insert—“(4A) The Secretary of State must by regulations amend the list in subsection (1) so as to remove a State if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statements in subsection (3)(a) or (b) are no longer true of a state or territory, or part of a state or territory, in relation to a description of person.(4B) In deciding whether the statements in subsection (3)(a) or (b) are no longer true of a state or territory, the Secretary of State must have regard to the circumstances and information listed in subsection (4)(a) and (b).(4C) A description for the purposes of subsection (4A) may refer to—(a) sex,(b) language,(c) race,(d) religion,(e) nationality,(f) membership of social or other group,(g) political opinion, or(h) any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the amendments made by section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to sections 80A and section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. It turns the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. It also creates a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 59 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I thank for their support. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, again for their support in Committee, during which I proposed a repeal of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

I proposed that we bring to an end the proposition that states may be declared safe despite the objective evidence that they are not. I explained why there should be no blanket ban on considering human rights claims when such claims have nothing to do with a state’s safety and everything to do with family unity, ties of dependency and the best interests of children. I have no doubt that banning all family claims of European wives seeking to live with their British husbands and children—when American wives, for example, would face no such impediment—will make us no friends in Europe. However, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 does precisely that. It extends what was a minimal pre-existing duty to declare asylum claims from EU nationals inadmissible to also cover human rights claims from EU nationals and a much wider list of states that the former UK Government called safe.

Despite these anomalies, noble Lords will recollect that I did not push my amendment to repeal Section 59 to a vote. Instead, I promised to return to the issue. From my noble friend the Minister’s response, I understand the Government’s position to be that the retention of Section 59 is worthwhile, given the flexibility it offers in ensuring that unmeritorious claims do not unnecessarily absorb limited resources. However, in my noble friend the Minister’s response to the debate on this amendment he said, in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Davies, that the Government are wary of inadmissibility duties that could result in,

“a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible”,

who then

“would be in a holding position, unable to be removed, including those with genuine claims”. —[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

For the reasons my noble friend set out, Section 59 inevitably will gather in its net fish we do not intend to catch, including those with meritorious human rights claims whom we cannot lawfully remove. Therefore, although I appreciate that there must be a mechanism to manage claims fairly and efficiently, that mechanism, given the Minister’s own words, is clearly not Section 59 in its current form.

Amendment 59—I assure noble Lords that the numbering is an unintentional coincidence—is an attempt to helpfully suggest to the Government how they might turn Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 into something workable and operationally useful. It would alter rather than repeal Section 59. It would further the Government’s objective of keeping a mechanism on the statute book that might be used to increase efficiency while ensuring that it can be operated lawfully and in a manner that does not breach fundamental human rights should the Government ever wish to implement it.

To this end, the amendment would do three simple and minimal things. First, it would turn what would be an unworkable duty to declare claims inadmissible into a workable power so to do. Interestingly, by coincidence, such a change is in harmony with Clause 38, which scraps other unworkable duties in the Illegal Migration Act. In creating a workable power, our amendment would free the hands of the Secretary of State to give her true flexibility over when and in relation to whom the power is exercised. If the Minister disagrees with our amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify when and why a statutory duty gives greater operational flexibility than a statutory power. If the Minister is able to give an example, that would be greatly helpful to noble Lords.

Secondly, our amendment would provide the simplest and most minimal of safeguards. By “inadmissibility”, the Government are saying, “We do not wish to even consider this claim”. All this amendment would do is say, “You need not consider it if to fail so to do would not result in the UK breaching its obligations under the human rights convention”, a convention to which our Government have committed to remaining a party. Undoubtedly, the courts will not presume that it is the Government’s intention to breach their international law obligations. Rather than leaving the murkiness of exceptional circumstances to save the Government from illegality, it would be much simpler if we—and by “we” I mean Parliament—were to write what we mean in the statute book, rather than hoping that what we mean will be read by the courts into the legal uncertainties of a non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances.

I appreciate that if Section 59 were ever fully commenced, the Government would have to issue guidance giving their interpretation of exceptional circumstances, but such guidance is not an aid to statutory interpretation. As this Government intend to comply with their human rights convention obligations, a proposed minimal safeguard should not pose any obstacle to them. However, it would provide guardrails should future Governments have different intentions—and that may be a possibility that is nearer than we would like to think.

If this Government do not intend to implement Section 59, they should amend it if they will not repeal it. If they intend to implement it, they must be prepared for litigation and to be tied up in the courts for the rest of this Parliament trying to explain whether it is compliant with human rights and what they mean by exceptional circumstances. Woolly exceptional circumstances should not be made to do all the hard work and be interpreted expansively to comply with human rights. That will only bring unnecessary criticism down upon our human rights framework and overcomplicate the matter for our courts. I suggest that a matter as important as this should not be left to guidance to be interpreted by the Government of the day. It is our job, it is Parliament’s job, to set the appropriate boundaries. If the Minister disagrees with me on this point, I should be grateful if he would clarify how the exceptional circumstances test would apply to EU nationals making private life claims or even seeking entry to live here with their families. Would they really be considered only exceptionally or would they be considered as a matter of course? How about Georgia? Would protection claims from Georgian nationals be considered only exceptionally? What further exceptional circumstances would the Government need simply to admit the two above claims?

Thirdly, and finally, the amendment would create a simple mechanism for a state to be removed from the safe state list. If the Secretary of State considers that it is no longer safe in general or safe for a recognisable section of the community, in this amendment we have listed the descriptions of persons who may be unsafe because of their sex, language, race, religion, nationality, membership of a social or other group, political opinion or any other appropriate attribute or circumstance. Only truly safe states should be on the list at all. This again would further operational efficiency as it would ensure that caseworkers need not make hard case-by-case decisions about whether to declare a claim inadmissible when the Government already consider that the state generally is unsafe or ordinarily unsafe for minorities. Fortuitously, the Government have already agreed to undertake a continuous review of the safety of the states on the list and to remove from the list states that are no longer safe. Therefore, this amendment is wholly in line with their commitment.

15:45

Also, I urge the Government, if they resist legislative amendment to the status quo, to consider how future Governments might behave and whether they might share in the Government’s commitment continuously to review safety. If future Governments wish to act as if unsafe states are safe because they were added to a list once upon a time, we must be able to have a proper debate in this House. I need not remind noble Lords of the tortuous fiction that followed Rwanda being added to a list of safe states. No state should be legislated as perpetually safe. I know that this Government recognise that fact. Therefore, in Section 59 it is only logical for there to be a clear safety valve, a reviewing mechanism, to avoid repetition of the idea of a state once designated as safe being for ever deemed safe.

I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider these three practical recommendations. This Government need not retain and be haunted by unworkable and performative provisions by past Governments if their intentions are operational flexibility, upholding our obligations under the human rights convention and balancing efficiency against the need for fairness, I beg to move.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 59—to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee —which was moved so effectively and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. In Committee, I spoke about the importance of our amendment then, and the amendment before your Lordships today reflects changes which we believe will make it attractive to the Government, as well as being a balanced and effective approach; I hope the Government will agree with that opinion.

As has been said, once fully commenced, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act would make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum and human rights protection claims from EU and other nationals introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We believe this will likely result in violations of the United Kingdom’s international human rights obligations.

As my noble friend said, in Committee our Amendment 104 sought to repeal Section 59 of the IMA in full. It was widely supported and I was particularly pleased by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, following my recognition of the importance of the 2010 Supreme Court judgment in HJ (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. As noble Lords will know, he was one of the justices in that case. The concern in Committee and the concern now is about the efficacy and legality of Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act as currently drafted. The Government have made it quite clear that they believe that Section 59 of the IMA must be retained, hence why we have tabled this new amendment which looks to make changes to Section 59 with the intention of ensuring that it can provide the flexibility that the Government may require, but in an effective and legal manner that has as few unintended consequences as possible.

To put it briefly, the amendment would turn the duty of the Secretary of State into a power. It clarifies the exceptional circumstances test and provides an effective mechanism for the management of the safe states list and the removal of states which are no longer safe. Importantly, it would enable the United Kingdom to uphold the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be less likely to be challenged within the courts.

To be safe, a state must be a place

“where its citizens are free from any serious risk of systematic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents which the state is unable or unwilling to control”,

and free from a serious risk of persecution in general. That is from the 2015 Supreme Court judgment in R (on the application of Jamar Brown (Jamaica)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As I said in Committee:

“There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 802.]


In relation to the HJ (Iran) Supreme Court judgment, the hard-won legal rights for LGBTQI+ refugees are meaningless if the safety of states does not account for their safety. Such refugees will have to hide fundamental parts of their identity if they cannot leap over the “exceptional circumstances” test currently in place, and are sent back home in contravention of that judgment. But, surely, even if their claims are declared inadmissible this Government will not send them home, forcing them to live in hiding in a state that the UK has called safe but is not in reality safe for them. I therefore look to the Minister to reassure me on that point.

If there is a real risk that a person would suffer inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to their home country, it would be a breach of their human rights to fail to rigorously scrutinise their claim. I believe that such claims must therefore be considered. This means that if the wider inadmissibility test is to be kept, it must be altered. Similarly, hard-won gay marriage rights will mean little if we must still show exceptional circumstances before a national of a safe country may be permitted to live here with their British or settled partner.

These are some of the reasons that we have added to the exceptional circumstances test the requirement for the Government to consider these claims if a failure to consider them would breach the human rights convention—arguably, a minimal safeguard to ask for. I hope the Government will have the courage to do the right thing: accept their human rights obligations and adopt this amendment or, at the very least, further reflect upon it and our submissions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee. It has been quite improved and I therefore agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Cashman. I do not want to go over what they have said because they put the case clearly.

It must be welcome that this amendment would turn

“the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not”

in the end

“be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”.

That to me is the nub of it and, therefore, the Secretary of State, instead of simply having a duty, would actually have a power to do something about it. There is an ability, under the Human Rights Act sometimes, for people to know that this has been breached—but who should then put it right? It seems that this Bill gives the opportunity to turn a duty into a power.

The amendment would also do another thing. It would create

“a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe”.

To have a list over which you cannot have the power or duty to do that can really prolong a misnomer. When people may have come from some places that were safe yesterday, but tomorrow are no longer safe, it seems to me that the Secretary of State needs to be given the duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is so changeable.

When South Sudan became independent everybody was full of rejoicing. I was involved with a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda, because I was hearing cases as a judge up in the north. After the sheer carnage that went on in South Sudan, where people’s lives were ruined and destroyed for so many years, peace came and everybody rejoiced. Who would have believed that it would not be long before warring factions were tearing that country apart? The carnage in Darfur was quite unbelievable.

Then what happened? Sudan was being ruled by a real dictator, but then that Government were overthrown, and overnight law and order began to collapse. It was not very long before two warring factions were tearing that country apart. Yes, we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations, but, my friends, we almost do not have the wherewithal to deal with such brutality.

Therefore, a country that was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess. We created a list of safe countries under that Act, so the Secretary of State should have the duty to remove such a country when it is judged to no longer be a safe country. This amendment is in keeping with that. I am very grateful to the Government for saying how much they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law. There is nothing here that is not supported by the rule of law, so I support this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.

In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right

“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.

In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his amendment and for his submission today, which I listened to carefully, on the case for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, the general issues of which we explored in Committee. That said, I regret that we cannot support his amendment—I do not think that will come as a massive surprise to him—because it would, in our view, weaken the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous Government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims. Consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord’s attempt to downgrade the duty under Section 80A to a power that “may”, rather than “must”, be exercised by the Secretary of State.

16:00

Despite that, his amendment rightly draws the attention of your Lordships’ House to the list of safe countries under Section 80AA, and that is an important part of the Act. To conclude, I simply ask the Minister a couple of questions about that list. Do the Government have plans to expand the list to better reflect the number of safe countries there are across the world? Will he set out the process of engagement that exists between the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that that list is kept up to date?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Browne of Ladyton and Lord Cashman for the amendment today, and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his support. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet my noble friend outside the House to hear his concerns at first hand. I again wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, all the best for a speedy recovery and return to this place.

Amendment 59 seeks to change the way in which Section 59—that is confusing, I know—of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would, if fully commenced, amend the inadmissibility provisions of Sections 80A and 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I am grateful to my noble friends for the consideration they have given to this matter and I acknowledge the importance of the issues raised.

As my noble friend has said, Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act has not been fully commenced. The Government have been clear that we are retaining it to allow for flexibility—that goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, made—in its future implementation in a way that best assists us to address the significant challenges brought by asylum and migration.

Section 59 itself will, if commenced, amend Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the effect that the existing inadmissibility provisions in respect of asylum claims made by EU nationals will extend to human rights claims made by nationals from a wider list of countries set out in Section 80AA(1) of that Act. The first part of the amendment in my noble friend’s name seeks to change the duty at Section 80A to a power, and to add an explicit provision allowing the power to be exercised only where it would not result in a person’s human rights being breached. I understand why my noble friends Lord Cashman and Lord Browne of Ladyton put forward this amendment, but, as I hope to explain, it is not necessary and could prevent us implementing Section 59 in a different, more robust way.

Those bringing this amendment are aware of the provision currently set out in Section 80A of the 2002 Act which displaces the duty to declare an EU asylum claim inadmissible in the event that exceptional circumstances are identified. Although Section 80A(5) sets out some examples of when an exceptional circumstance will arise—currently in respect only to certain EU claims—these examples are not exhaustive or indeed rigid. Exceptional circumstances can already be applied more broadly, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure fairness and lawfulness in all EU asylum claims, and well-established case law already sets this out very clearly.

If Section 59 is commenced in its current form, updated policy guidance will be published to set out clearly how the exceptional circumstances safeguard should be applied for all claim types, taking account of the different considerations due in asylum and human rights claims. This will allow us to robustly and promptly process unmeritorious asylum and human rights claims at the earliest juncture, but—and this is the important point that goes to my noble friend Lord Cashman’s point—whenever necessary, it will allow us to divert claims from inadmissibility action and instead consider them substantively, ensuring that individuals’ rights under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights are maintained. It is not our objective to not have those rights upheld.

This amendment seeks to impose a duty for the Secretary of State to remove a country from the list at Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act if that country no longer satisfies the rules in that section. I say to my noble friend that the intent of this amendment is clear and commendable. It is well understood—this goes to the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu—that countries’ conditions may change, and that may mean that a country previously assessed as safe can no longer be regarded as such. It is for that reason—the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, was seeking further clarification on the power in Section 80AA(6)(b), under which regulations to remove countries from the list can be made—that if Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced in its current form, and the list at Section 80AA(1) has effect, it is unquestionable that a country assessed to be unsafe would be removed from the list by the Secretary of State under regulation. In the short term, however, ahead of regulations being made in such cases, the exceptional circumstances safeguard would apply, displacing that inadmissibility duty and allowing the claim to be considered substantially.

Noble Lords have asked why we are keeping inadmissibility under Section 80A of the Nationality and Immigration Act as a duty, rather than a power. While the exceptional circumstance provision does admit a measure of discretion, allowing for individual risks or changes in circumstance to be taken into account, the overall duty provides for greater consistency and focus in processing such claims.

I hope that, following the meeting I have had with my noble friend on the issues that he has raised and the debate that we have had today, I have reassured him that although his points are valid, they are covered by the discretion in the legislation currently in place. I hope he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have participated in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cashman for his contribution to the debate and his continued support on these matters. I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for repeating the points he made when we debated this in Committee very powerfully. I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I would be grateful if he would wish her well in these circumstances and thank her for her unstinting support.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for his personal comments. I am disappointed, as he expected I would be, but not surprised at his contribution to the debate. I recollect that, in Committee, although there were numerous contributions from the Conservative Benches behind him, not one speaker supported the provision in Section 59 of the IMA. Today, there are no speakers at all from his party on the Benches behind him even to support it by their presence, if not by their contribution to the debate.

Behind these amendments is not my legal brain—which has been relaxed for many years—but advice that I got from an expert in the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. I thank them very much for their support.

I am disappointed by my noble friend’s response. I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue, but I reserve the right to keep it open for the next stage of deliberation. I ask my noble friend, who is generous with his time and support, whether he will reflect on—I think that is the phrase used—the implications of the provisions that I have put before the House and why they are a better resolution to the challenges of Section 59 than the view of those who support him.

I should have thanked my noble friend for his willingness to meet me and others to discuss this. We did our level best to find the time on a very busy day last Wednesday to have that meeting. It probably lasted for about three or four minutes, while I was out of the room—if I remember correctly, I was voting, but then I was voting almost every minute of every day last week. Would it be possible between now and the next stage of deliberation on this Bill to have a meeting at a time when those who have been advising me and those advising him can sit in the same room for a reasonable period of time to go through the implications of the differing approaches?

As I say, I do not intend to divide the House on this matter and therefore withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.

Amendment 60

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

60: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) A good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings,(b) the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women,(c) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,(d) the Convention on the Rights of the Child,(e) the Statelessness Conventions,(f) the Human Rights Convention,(g) the Palermo Protocol, and(h) the Refugee Convention.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets a good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance published by the Secretary of State and in force at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section—“a good character requirement” refers to the requirement or consideration that an adult or young person, applicant, or person who applies for naturalisation or registration is of good character in section 41A (registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), section 17I (acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1;the“Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings” refers to the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings agreed by the Council of Europe in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; the“Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women” refers to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women adopted in New York on 18 December 1979;the“Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” refers to the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination adopted in New York on 21 December 1965;the“Convention on the Rights of the Child” means the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted in New York on 20 November 1989;the“Statelessness Conventions” means the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons adopted in New York on 28 September 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness adopted in New York on 30 August 1961;the“Human Rights Convention” means the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4 November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom;the“Palermo Protocol” means the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, adopted in New York on 15 November 2000;the“Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations across a number of instruments. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published and in force at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I declare my interests as per the register. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for their support as signatories and for their guidance, especially as this is the first amendment that I have sponsored to a piece of legislation. My thanks go also to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for rightly explaining in my absence in Committee that I have tabled this amendment because I am passionate about the issues it raises: namely, how best to include, not preclude, those with a legal right to be here—those friends, neighbours and colleagues whom we live, work and worship alongside.

The Government’s change to the good character guidance, enacted through secondary legislation with retrospective implementation, in effect makes the “how” of a person’s travel to the UK a determining factor in their character assessment, not the “why” of the reason behind their travel in pursuit of sanctuary. This is a fundamental cultural shift and introduces a factor that bears no correlation to someone’s moral character, their worth and value or the contribution they might make to British society.

I will try not to repeat the issues raised in Committee, but the Minister raised a number of points that deserve our attention. I thank him for meeting me and engaging sincerely. In his response in Committee, he defended the good character test. There are certainly broader concerns about its application that I will not pursue now, but the point of this amendment is not the good character test per se but the addition to it of the manner of entry to this country. I do not believe that the Government have clarified why entry by irregular means is evidence of bad character, particularly when we consider the challenges faced by people fleeing conflict and persecution, which he earlier acknowledged with some compassion that he could never imagine.

It is important also to remember that many asylum seekers have few, if any, options to apply for asylum before making a journey. Even though a territorial system of asylum will always be required, if the Government provided preauthorised travel routes then asylum seekers could look to travel regularly and not fall foul of the recent altered guidance. Does the Minister agree that currently this is not possible?

I bring to the attention of noble Lords that, since Committee, the amendment is now drafted to be more specific as to what the UK’s obligations under international law are: to protect from discrimination refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking, women and children. The Minister said in his response in Committee that citizenship should not be afforded to those who have broken the rules and entered illegally, but I respectfully argue that the refugee convention makes it clear that it is not illegal to travel to claim asylum; hence, the state rightfully considers the merits of each claim. Why, then, should a legal act, forced upon many in the most desperate of circumstances, be used as a future test of their character and prevent them from ever truly becoming a full member of British society? It is not just too high a bar but an unattainable and, I suggest, an immoral one.

16:15

It remains the view of many legal experts that the exclusion of refugees from citizenship on the grounds that irregular entry infringes the good character requirement contravenes the convention—a warning issued by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Article 31 prohibits people seeking protection from being penalised for entry, provided they present themselves to authorities without delay and show good cause for their action.

We may not be able to agree on this, but perhaps the Minister could consider strengthening the guidance so that, first, it makes it clear that a person must not be refused citizenship on these grounds, if to do so would breach the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention—which is no more or less than what the Minister says is intended. Secondly, and importantly, perhaps he could consider that the guidance should spell out more explicitly than now that the rules should not be applied to children who entered the UK by irregular means. I welcome the fact that the Government have stated that, given that illegal entry is normally considered to be outside a child’s control, most applicants would not be held accountable for immigration breaches that occurred when they were a minor. Why, then, is it not possible to place this assurance in the guidance? The Minister stated in Committee that discretion gives flexibility, but for this matter I suggest that it will lead only to ambiguity, which is not in the interests of the child.

If I may be personal for a moment, I am very mindful—and indeed thankful—that I have been able to explore my vocation and serve and lead in the Church and wider community as a fully accepted member of British society, having arrived in this country as an asylum seeker when I was 14. Without British citizenship, this journey would not have been possible—indeed, I would not be standing before noble Lords today. If citizenship is to be seen as a privilege, not a right, then surely it is a gift that we should not close off for refugees merely on the basis of how they travelled here. Let us not forget that we are talking about people who have an established and legal right to remain in this country.

The guidance as it stands is needlessly unkind and will, moreover, harm and work against good integration, for the benefit of wider society as well. I cannot help wondering what the long-term impact will be of segregating refugees and British citizens in this manner, especially at a time when some seek shamelessly to exploit division and employ harmful rhetoric. Legislators need to be careful that they do not inadvertently divide us along arbitrary lines which do not properly reflect who we are.

Finally, basic discretion, without stronger guidance and safeguards around how it should be applied, may lead to children being sanctioned. It will needlessly segregate refugees and British citizens, in the end damaging community cohesion. Stating how discretion should be exercised does not nullify the discretionary element of the guidance. Therefore, I implore the Government to commit to look again at the guidance for what I argue are minimal safeguards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to express my strong support for everything that the right reverend Prelate said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in Committee, but I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated that

“it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers”.

One way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the right reverend Prelate’s request that the guidance spell out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry if that were to contravene our international obligations, particularly under the refugee convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry.

Leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity, despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside their control. Indeed, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds, based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRCBC also contests what my noble friend said in Committee about the guidance providing flexibility; in its experience, the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the right reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations under international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised on sentencing policy, children are not mini-adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when, subsequently, they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.

I wish we could strike out completely this unjust and, as the right reverend Prelate called it, immoral rule, which will, as we have heard, impede refugee integration. The amendment would, at the very least, erect some guardrails around the rule’s implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Her arguments need to be listened to.

Archbishop Robert Runcie defined a saint as a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We all have a dark side to ourselves. If we talk about good character, it may appear in a person’s life only when they have moved away from all the bad stuff that was hanging around them. We carry within ourselves both a sainthood and some not so good characteristics—that is why Archbishop Robert Runcie’s definition of a saint was right.

When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to study theology and my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months that I was going in and out to see doctors. Eventually, they said that I must have lost a lot of blood through internal bleeding, from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers. I was very angry—extremely angry—that I should be subjected to such terrible things. Of course, that was all bottled up, but I was very angry. Had someone said to me at the time, “We want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen”, I would still have been extremely angry in those interviews.

It was not until one night, when I remembered my mother saying, “John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you”. Friends, noble Lords, noble Baronesses, this whole question of good character can be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly when they come as children. We all have the grace and ability to grow out of some of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a very rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we go through the gate of death.

I find it strange that this country—that I have grown to love, that always shows give and take, that always has this magnanimity of meeting people halfway—would, I am beginning to understand, now use good character as a ground for someone being accepted as a citizen. How do you know that at the time you receive them? They could go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad. Legislation based on good character as a way of allowing someone to be a citizen has probably not understood that we are on a scale of learning, of growing, of finding ourselves in the future. Even when we die, there will still be lots of stuff that we have not dealt with.

May I plead that when the guidance comes, particularly on dealing with people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than the harshness which I sometimes hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgmental, more unloving, more uncaring. The legislature should be the guardian against such attitudes and behaviour. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, we listened to the right reverend Prelate talking about coming to this country, as indeed did the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. Just think for a moment: the right reverend Prelate and her parents arrived in this country as refugees from a place they could not go back to, and where, I seem to remember, the right reverend Prelate’s brother had been murdered. If they had come to this country illegally, would we really have sent them back, as being of bad character? If one thinks about it, it is quite extraordinary.

As Members of this House will know, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, I was a judge. I spent a lot of my time hearing evidence, often from people of bad character. Bad character is, of course, a wide definition. Technically, I suppose, you are of bad character if you speed: to that I admit—on more than one occasion. Are you of bad character if you are fleeing a place you had to leave because you might otherwise be dead, and are coming to this country by the only means you could? Let us bear in mind that the places people can go to in order to come legally to this country are almost non-existent. Consequently, nearly every refugee to this country comes illegally. Are we to say that doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, all people fleeing for good reason, are to be treated as being of bad character? I say to all Members of this House: we really need to reflect every now and again on what comes before this place and what we ought to do.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I am not able to support the right reverend Prelate on the first occasion she has tabled an amendment, and hope that I will be able to do so on future occasions. I will make a few points to balance the argument.

The right reverend Prelate and one or two noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment put the case on behalf of the individual seeking citizenship. The amendment refers to citizenship, not to sending people back—that is important to bear in mind. The amendment is also about the decision the Home Secretary and her officials have to make in protecting the rest of the country. They have to make a judgment on whether someone should be granted citizenship. The right reverend Prelate referred to the way in which decisions are made regarding children and the assurance the Minister gave before. Given that over 256,000 people have been granted citizenship this year, it seems that the department is not being overly harsh in its decision-making when it grants citizenship on that scale.

16:30

There is an argument about getting the balance right. From my experience as Immigration Minister, I know it is important that Ministers who remain accountable to this House have the discretion to take into account all the facts. If I have read the amendment correctly, it is about wanting to rule that out. The Minister has previously made it clear that the fact that children have come to this country illegally will not become a determining factor in most cases, but I want the Government to have the power to take that into account with all the other facts. For example, if there were other facts about a person’s conduct then coming to the country illegally might be relevant and I might want the Minister to take that into account. I want those decisions to be made by the Minister—the more these things are prescribed in law, the more we hand decisions over to judges instead of those who are democratically accountable.

Most of the debate so far has been about children; the second part of the amendment is about a test of good character and whether someone came here illegally, also ruling out adults if the details were not set out in guidance. I want the Government to take into account that someone has come to this country illegally as an adult when making a decision. It should be done in the round, in addition to all the other factors, but I do not want it to be ruled out by statute. As I said, the fact that over 250,000 people were granted citizenship in the last year that records are available does not suggest that the Secretary of State and her officials are being unduly harsh when exercising their powers. Respectfully, I would leave the position as it is rather than pursue the amendment.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I feel that I must, particularly about those who arrive here as children. Some in this House will know that I was a teacher in my professional life. I dare say that, on some days, some of those I taught showed bad character, but they were all completely redeemable. It is not a matter of how many people we have granted citizenship to until now; we would be bringing into the lives of these young people undue insecurity about their future. As others have said, this is a moral question, and it is so important that those of us in this House who are making these decisions look at things in the round. If we feel that something is a moral matter, we should stand by it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that my name is attached to this amendment, and I feel very strongly that the House should accept it.

I will not spend time talking about the issues that were raised in Committee: that it is a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, it is very costly, and people may not be able to use their valuable money in order to clarify whether they are part of an exception. We are also an outlier: I listed all the 33 countries—all the big ones in Europe—and nobody else does this. Then there is the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which has been so adequately put on the agenda by the right reverend Prelate.

I draw attention in particular to what will happen if the Government’s policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey, and it may be that that is where the Government want them to stop—to be people in this country who have only indefinite right to remain. But there are other parties—one of them sitting on my right-hand side here and one of them with a very small representation in the other place—which have a Bill before this Parliament, from the shadow Home Secretary, saying that people’s indefinite right to remain will be removed. So, at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, who currently have the right to remain in this country and will be given it, will suddenly have that stripped away, according to the Bill before the House of Commons.

The danger then, of course, is this. If the journey to getting citizenship in this country is 10 years—which is what the Government are proposing; it could be somewhat longer than that—and you come as a single person, marry somebody from this country, have children and send them to school, at the end of it all another Government might well say, “Thank you very much. You’re an outlier—you’ll have to go back”, and we would expel them from this country.

Just imagine what the consequence of that policy would be if carried through. This measure started in February this year. We are not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate time, because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it in the ways that we have heard from two Members of this House so powerfully today and to build up that good character. To do that, you then have to seek citizenship so that you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you will be judged on, but the Government propose to make that judgment right at the beginning, from February. So, people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees and may be granted the right to remain, and they may even be granted the indefinite right to remain, but there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment, who would then say, “No, you cannot become a citizen, and if you’ve got indefinite leave to remain you will lose that right”, after many years.

I ask Members of this House, when they consider this matter, to think of it in the longer term as well as the shorter term. There will be amazing consequences from this right down the track. We are not expecting people who have come here since February to suddenly get citizenship. They have to prove the right to be in this country and that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. It does not take much for us to look around this country and see people who have done just that. We are in danger of splitting up families, splitting up husbands and wives from each other, and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile Government in place in this country. I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about the consequences of not supporting this important amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.

However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.

Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for Amendment 60 and in particular for her courage in bringing her personal experience to the Chamber today. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, the noble Lord, Lord German, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for speaking in support of the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord German, indicated that there may be different political parties that may at some point in the future have the power to make changes that he and maybe even I would not find palatable. In the event of either of those political parties that he is concerned about winning an election, they could probably do what they wanted in both Houses of Parliament anyway, taking forward those policies that they probably would have won a mandate on. I may not agree with that point, but his argument not to make a change against the right reverend Prelate’s proposal today, because it might open up a gateway for a future party to exploit that amendment’s acceptance, does not seem to be a sensible way forward. If a Government of any political party, not mine, wish to make a change, they would be the Government. Like me standing at this Dispatch Box, they probably would have the numbers in the House of Commons to take that policy through and the numbers in this Chamber to make that case over a period of time for that discussion. So I do not accept that contention.

Having said that, my concerns are different. British citizenship is a privilege, not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one that goes back to 1981 and the British Nationality Act. It is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant British citizenship. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harper, made, it is for the Home Secretary to make changes to the discretion in that policy. This amendment seeks to limit that discretion by preventing the consideration of illegal entry into the UK if the person was a child when they entered the UK.

Apart from this potentially encouraging people to make false claims about their age to benefit from the provision, the amendment also seeks to ensure that the consideration of good character is compliant with the UK’s international obligations. The right reverend Prelate may not have received it yet, but I sent her a letter this morning which she can have a look at later. In it I say that the good character policy is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. Where a person has come directly from a country where they fear persecution, their protection under Article 31 of the refugee convention means that they will not be penalised when their application for citizenship is considered.

I hope that this will partly reassure the right reverend Prelate, but I will say again that the decision-makers are required to take into account the UK’s international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights, when assessing whether a person meets the good character policy. Furthermore, guidance on the good character policy provides for a decision-maker to be able to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. It may not find favour across the whole House, but it does include disregarding immigration breaches such as illegal entry if it is accepted that this is outside the applicant’s control. That case is for the applicant to make when they make that decision.

For example, a victim of modern slavery, or a person who is trafficked, or, indeed, going to the very nub of her argument, someone who entered the UK illegally as a child, would not be implicated by the policy and would have that discretion open to them by the decision-maker. I will just emphasise that still further by saying the good character policy does not apply to children under the age of 10 on the date of application.

The amendment would seek also a more generous approach for migrants—

16:45

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the question of children, the Minister has just said the policy does not apply to children under 10. What is the logic for applying it to children over 10? I do not understand the distinction, and it would be helpful to.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a valid question. I can say to the right reverend Prelate that it will normally—I say “normally”—be appropriate to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted this was outside the applicant’s control. Given that illegal entry is normally considered outside a child’s control, most children would not be held accountable for their immigration breach. Certainly, as I have said before, no child under the age of 10 at the date of their application would be dealt with in that way. I hope that gives her some reassurance.

I consider that individuals seeking to become British citizens should demonstrate an equal regard to immigration legislation as we expect them to show to other aspects of the law, including the criminal justice system. We do not consider there should be an expectation that a person will benefit in the future from the policy in place when they arrived. This is consistent with the position taken in previous changes to the good character policy, such as the change in 2023 to align the criminality thresholds with the Immigration Rules.

I say again that I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for bringing her personal experience to the Chamber on Report today, but the Home Secretary makes the policy—they are accountable to the House—decision-makers have discretion, particularly for children aged 10 to 18, and no child under the age of 10 would be impacted.

I hope that gives her the reassurance that the good character test, which the noble Lord, Lord Harper, mentioned, is valid and accountable to the House, but that changing it today would lead to confusion and, potentially, particularly at the borderline areas of the older child, a contention that would cause difficulties for our purpose in life, which is, in the Bill, to try to stop small boats and illegal migrant crossings, and to not provide an incentive for them. I would hope that, on that basis, she could, with all humility, withdraw her amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for engaging in the debate. Forgive me, I am not going to name individuals, but all the contributions—both those for the amendment and those against it—have been very heartfelt and some of them deeply moving, enabling us to reflect even more widely than the issues specifically pertinent to the amendment.

I have listened with care to the Minister and I want to thank him for his thorough response. However, regrettably, I have not received the assurances that I was hoping for, that the character guidance will adequately prevent a scenario where an immigration caseworker is not having to choose whether to break international law or not, or that, without further changes to the guidance, a child’s right to naturalisation will be safeguarded.

It is not right, I believe, that discretion remains to hold a child responsible for their travel to the UK when they had no control over it, even if that is only a small possibility. As I think I have already clearly expressed, dividing access to citizenship in this way for those who have a legal right to remain in the country will have grievous societal and, I believe, cultural consequences, however unintended. Therefore, I would like, with respect, to test the opinion of the House.

16:49

Division 1

Ayes: 89

Noes: 195

17:00

Amendments 61 and 62 not moved.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

63: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Age assessments: use of scientific methodsThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 specifying scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person’s age and to disapply the requirement for consent for scientific methods to be used.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this group speaks to an incredibly important issue in the current asylum system. As it stands, there is no standardised method for verifying the age or identity of those who enter the country illegally. These amendments seek to correct that and give the relevant authorities the power to mandate an age test where they consider it necessary. It cannot be right that a person is automatically assumed to be a child if their age is doubted or they lack documentary evidence. We currently exist within a system that grants people claiming asylum innumerable privileges once their applications are processed. People are given a roof over their head, food, electronic devices and many other amenities. Social activities are often offered. Those who need it have access to healthcare. Children are put into schools. Surely the least we should aim for is ensuring that these privileges are not overprescribed to people who should not qualify for them.

The current process does not, unfortunately, provide for this. If the authorities doubt whether someone is of the age they claim to be, there is no lawful way demonstrably to prove the truth. They must give the benefit of the doubt to the age-disputed person, while the same person can avoid taking a definitive scientific age assessment by denying consent. What is worse, incentives exist for people to lie and game the system. It is well documented that asylum NGOs advise that applying as a child offers a better chance of being accepted. A GB News investigation demonstrated a spike in asylum applications, across all nationalities, of people claiming to be 16 or 17. This is what happens when we offer asylum to children and do not include the necessary safeguards.

The result of this system is that many adults are incentivised to masquerade as children, giving themselves a higher chance of being accepted. The state, in contrast, has no way to challenge these people. The prerequisite of consent essentially gives the age-disputed person control over whether they are found to be lying. The consequences have been dire. Take Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai, a proclaimed 14-year-old Afghan who, unbeknown to the state, had shot and killed two men in Serbia on his way to claim asylum in Britain. He was placed in a secondary school and was moved to another school after being found with a knife, there injuring a pupil. Then, two years after arriving in the country, he fatally murdered aspiring marine Tom Roberts in a knife attack. Abdulrahimzai was actually 19 when he entered the country. I understand that this is an extreme case, but it highlights the importance we must give to verifying the identity of those who illegally enter the country. If someone is willing to lie at the very first hurdle, who is to say we can trust them in society afterwards?

Verifying the person’s age is the first step to solving this. It prevents adults being placed in schools among children and highlights potentially illegitimate claims from those attempting to game our generosity. Amendments 63 and 64 achieve this balance. Those claiming asylum would still be given the opportunity to state their age and would not automatically be required to take an age assessment. However, the discretion would ultimately lie with the relevant authorities. If the age of a person is doubted, powers would exist to scientifically test their age without being obstructed by consent claims. This is the bare minimum we should expect from a system that is being perpetually defrauded. Removing the requirement for consent takes the process out of the hands of the asylum seeker, encourages honesty and trust, and disincentivises fraud. That is what an asylum system should aim for.

I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say about this. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to support my noble friend Lord Davies. I will also acquaint your Lordships with the information the Government set out in July when the Minister for Border Security and Asylum said what the Government were doing on some of the technology. We discussed in a previous group the potential for artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology to make a big change in this area, and I argued that we should leave open that opportunity. The Minister in a Statement earlier this year confirmed that testing was under way, and said that,

“subject to the results of further testing and assurance … Facial Age Estimation could be fully integrated into the current age assessment system over the course of 2026”.

I do not think the Government’s current position on setting out regulations is that far away from my noble friend’s.

There is a potentially big advantage of this technology, in that previously available scientific tests were not particularly accurate and were medical or invasive in nature, involving MRI scans or X-rays, for example. There are some legitimate reasons why you would not want somebody to be forced to undergo that sort of procedure, and their refusal to undertake such might not be held to be unreasonable. With artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology, there seems to be a very weak case, if any, for refusing to undergo such a test. Subject to the testing being in order, I hope that, if the Government bring it in, they will not give people the opportunity to refuse to undergo it; I see no legitimate case for that. If testing gives Ministers accurate information about somebody’s age, I hope that they will make it mandatory and that if someone refuses to take the test, the presumption of their being a child can be overturned and they will suffer a consequence for not using that technology. So I hope the Minister can update us on how that testing is going and on whether the timeframe the Borders Minister set out earlier this year, hoping that this technology could be rolled out next year, is still on track.

I very strongly support my noble friend’s two amendments.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I feel as if we have been around this one a fair number of times. I am very much looking forward to the Minister saying what he can about AI facial recognition technology, but I want to remind everybody that the Home Office’s own Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has made it very clear that no method, biological or social worker-led, can determine age with precision. We really need to be very clear about that. Biological evidence can test only whether a claimed age is possible; it cannot set a hard line under or over 18. It is important that we recognise that. AI technology may be able to bring us something, and I know the Minister has said that he is going to tell us more about it. Meanwhile, I think we should resist these amendments very hard.

The reason for that is that the sort of scientific methods, such as X-ray and MRI, that were proposed before—and were on some occasions in use—are unethical. Doctors, nurses and all health professionals will say that using X-ray, in particular, or any kind of radiation for a purpose that is not for the benefit of the individual concerned is unethical. I think many noble Lords know that I have spent much of my working life in and around health services, so I have met a lot of doctors in my time. I have not yet met a single doctor who believes that using either radiation, as X-rays, or MRI for the purpose of age determination is an ethical thing to do.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I wonder whether that is quite reasonable, given this amendment. I do not think anybody would suggest that I am an extremist on this, but it seems a sensible amendment to me because it is carefully written. I hope that the Minister will take it very seriously. The reason is this: if we are going to get through this difficult period, we have to face those things which the public in general find most difficult. We have discussed before the fact that the public find it very difficult to accept that we do not deport people who have committed crimes in this country. The second thing they find very difficult to accept is when people appear to get away with pretending to be children when they are not. All this amendment does is to ask the Government to take this seriously and to produce, within a reasonable period, the advice that they are going to give. I find it awfully difficult to understand why one could possibly vote against that.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, but the amendment does not refer to the insistence that we should use some invasive system. What it asks is that the Government produce a clear statement as to what may properly be used; I find that perfectly acceptable. If we were talking about the details, that would be a different issue—I am not sure I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, but that is not the issue. I hope that right across the House, whatever view one holds generally, Members will recognise that we have a responsibility to try to meet those points where the public are particularly concerned. If we do not then those on the far right, who have no understanding of what it must be like to be an asylum seeker and who have no care for those people, will have another opportunity to lead other people astray. I very much hope the Minister will take this amendment very seriously.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I very much deprecate people who come to this country and commit crimes. The sooner they are deported, the better. However, I do not really understand why we need these amendments. I am hoping that the Minister is going to tell us, as he previously said he would, how the Government are going to move forward in identifying the age of people. Again, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that those who are not children—and pretend to be—should be found out.

However, as I said at an earlier stage of discussion on the Bill, when I went to a drop-in centre with Safe Passage some years ago, I met two 16 year-old Afghans: one with a beard and the other with a bushy moustache. We need to recognise that boys in other parts of the world mature, particularly facially, at a much earlier age than they do in this country and in western Europe. That is an issue which raises real problems for identification.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that, over the last four to five years, we have been round the Houses on this issue, not just in this Bill but in a large number of Bills. It keeps returning because there are concerns.

I want to start by trying to find some common ground on this issue, as we did last week, with the noble Lord, Lord Harper, in particular. Age verification—determining whether someone is 18 or not—is extremely difficult. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, it is completely inappropriate for people who are well over 18 to come into a school system where they are treated as much younger, and even these Benches would not support that.

The difficulty—and the reason why we keep raising this—is that it is clear that no doctor will apply any of the scientific methods. We have had this debate since 2023, when the BMA made it clear that they were unreliable. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke in your Lordships’ House about how hormonal change because of poor diet, and the possibility of hormonal change because of minor and benign tumours, are impossible to tell just from looking at an MRI.

17:15

Amendment 63 asks the Government to set out

“scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments”.

However, I am reminded that, under the previous Government, regulations were put in place to do that. If it needs to be done again, I would like evidence to show that the situation has changed and that doctors now say it is safe. If doctors say it is not safe, we should not be doing it.

On Amendment 64 and powers to make provision about refusal to consent, time and again we have said that somebody under 18—and we do not always know whether they are—cannot give informed consent, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it very clear that that should be taken into account by a state.

In 2023, the then Minister—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—told your Lordships’ House that the Netherlands uses age assessment, but he failed to mention that, in the Netherlands, anyone investigated as to whether they are 18 or under has access to free legal advice to support them through that age assessment and ensure that their rights as a child are not contravened.

That still does not happen here in the United Kingdom, which means that, if the Government have the right to make a decision and speed up a process if a person does not give consent for that examination, that person has no protection under the law. That is worries us on these Benches considerably. With that in mind, and the fact that we do not seem to progress with the scientific evidence, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendments.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling these amendments. We have indeed been around the Houses, but in trying to reach some common ground, I agree with every noble Lord who has spoken that we need to have some method of assessing age. Children who are placed in settings with adults are at risk, and adults who are placed in settings with children potentially pose a risk. I think there is common ground across the House today on the need to find some mechanism to establish age verification.

Amendments 63 and 64 refer to scientific methods of age assessment, and Amendment 63 places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations under Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act within six months of the passing of the Bill. This is one of the reasons, in addition to those that I have given, that I support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Regulations have already been made under this power that specify X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment.

Amendment 64 would, in effect, reintroduce Section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill looks to repeal. Under the powers given to the Secretary of State in Section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act, the Secretary of State would not make regulations to the effect that this amendment seeks to achieve unless and until the specific scientific methods in question were sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent would be compatible with the ECHR. The specified methods—that is, X-ray and MRI images of certain body areas—do not currently meet this threshold. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, also emphasised that point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Harper, to some extent.

That does not mean that the Government do not wish to have age verification measures in place. I can assure the House that, in the context of the Government’s wider work to reform age assessment systems, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, the then Minister for Security and Asylum set out in a Written Ministerial Statement in the House of Commons, which I repeated in this House in July, that this Government have commissioned work to determine the most promising new and emerging methods of age assessment to pursue them further. As a result of that, currently the work to operationalise X-ray and MRI methods of age assessment have been stood down, because facial age estimation methods—this goes to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger—are less intrusive, cheaper and faster, and there is no requirement for a physical medical procedure. As I mentioned in Committee, we are not there yet, but facial age estimation technology is currently being explored by the Home Office. It is a potential assistive tool in the age assessment process, and we have commissioned further testing and trialling with the intention of implementing the technology during 2026 if it proves a worthwhile addition to our armoury.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The last Government produced an expert report in the run-up to our 23 debates on various amendments. Will the Government undertake to have an expert report from doctors and scientists, which would then be published in full, so that Parliament and the wider community can actually see the detail? The Minister is absolutely right to say that AI age assessment is not there yet, and I always worry about passing something that might mean that we do not see the detail when doctors are unhappy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that it is in the interests of the Government to get technology in place that is less intrusive and more accurate and does not rely on X-rays and MRIs, as we have now, for that physical contact. The question of what that development will be is something that we are working through at the moment, and I am expecting that in the latter part of 2026 I will be able to come to this House—if still in post—to argue the case for the implementation of a better facial age estimation technology. I will, on the basis of what the noble Baroness has said, make sure that I can put into the public domain whatever information I think does not compromise the operation. That is the best I can give her today, but I will reflect on what she said and look at whether I can agree to her request. I do not want to give her an immediate response, because there may be reasons why it is not in our interest to put some of that information into the public domain, because people will always try to subsume facial recognition technology or any other method. I will just reflect on that, if I may.

The key point is that these emerging new methods and the regulations applying the automatic assumption of adult provision for refusal to consent to methods of scientific age assessment as set out in the IMA cannot be laid until the specific methods are sufficiently accurate. Because we do not believe that they are going to be, these amendments are not necessary. For those reasons, I hope that we can share common ground with the noble Lord: his objective, my objective, and I think that of every noble Lord who has spoken, is to ensure that we have accurate age assessment. The methodology he has brought forward in these amendments is not the way forward, but I give an assurance to the House that the exploration of other methods is under way and I will report back when those tests are complete. I urge him, therefore, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a short but important debate, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have contributed. As I said in my opening remarks, there is clear evidence of adults pretending to be children in order to gain refugee status in the United Kingdom. As boat crossings rise, so does the number of fraudulent asylum claims. This means that there is a high number of unchecked people who should not be here and, perhaps more importantly, a high number of adults in children’s schools. This is a crisis that the Government can and must face head on. Ensuring that people are the age that they claim to be is just one step that we must take to end this crisis, but it is an important step, and Amendments 63 and 64 offer a framework for how it may be done.

Amendment 64 would provide a fair and balanced approach to age assessments. It would not provide the state with overreaching powers to assess anyone who enters the country, but it also would not retreat to the position where the age-disputed person is given the right to deny any form of comprehensive assessment. It would give the relevant authorities the discretion to enforce a scientific test where there are no reasonable grounds not to consent to one. This measure would allow for a fairer immigration system that incentivises honesty, rather than one that rewards fraud.

However, if we are to take away the right to consent when there are no reasonable grounds, then it is just that we also specify which methods may be used to assess age. As I have said, assessing age has become a necessary measure in certain cases, which is why Amendment 64 is so important. Amendment 63 is just as important, as it would allow the Secretary of State to lay out a clear and comprehensive list of scientific methods that may be used to achieve this end.

The current system in place incentivises dishonesty and puts children across the country at risk as a result. These amendments provide a comprehensive framework that goes a long way to resolving that problem, and I hope the Minister considers taking them on board. I have heard what he has said about finding common ground for age assessment, and for now I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Amendment 64 not moved.

Amendment 65

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

65: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Refusal of asylum claims from illegal entrants(1) The Secretary of State must refuse without consideration an asylum claim, protection claim or a human rights claim made by any person to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a person who—(a) commits an offence under sections 24 or 24A of the Immigration Act 1971, or(b) did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) a person is not to be taken to have come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.(4) Subsection (2)(b) does not apply if a person—(a) entered the United Kingdom lawfully,(b) at the time the person entered the United Kingdom lawfully the person came directly from a safe country, and(c) whilst the person has remained in the United Kingdom the person’s home country has become an unsafe country.(5) Where subsection (4) applies to a person and the person makes an asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim, the Secretary of State must consider the claim.(6) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) a country is a “safe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would not be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(b) a country is an “unsafe country” if in general a person’s life and liberty would be threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion;(c) a person entered the United Kingdom lawfully if the person entered the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration Acts.(7) A claim refused under subsection (1) cannot be considered under the immigration rules.(8) This section applies to any asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim that was made by a person to whom this section applies on, after or before the day in which this section comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, in 2013, 20,587 people travelled illegally by boat to Australia. The Australian Government instituted Operation Sovereign Borders, whereby illegal migrants entering by boat are either turned back to their point of departure, returned to their home country or transferred to a third country. Australia established an asylum processing centre in Nauru for this purpose. None of them was allowed to stay in Australia. The year after this policy was introduced, the number of small boat arrivals fell to 450. They went from 20,587 to 450; that is how you successfully protect your borders. That is how you prevent illegal migration and people smuggling. It is done not by handing illegal migrants hotel accommodation, giving them money and then permitting them to make all manner of spurious asylum, protection and modern slavery claims. It has been tried and tested before; it can be done. Yet there are political parties in this country—the Government and Liberal Democrats, here in this Chamber—which still refuse to support such action that has been proven to work.

The Government’s policies on border security, illegal migration and asylum have so far failed. My Amendments 65 and 77 would give the Government the opportunity finally to get a grip and follow the positive example of Australia. They are intended to work in tandem with each other to permit the Government to refuse asylum claims from illegal migrants and remove them to a third-country processing centre.

Amendment 65 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to refuse, without consideration, any asylum protection or human rights claim made by a person who has entered the country illegally. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch’s Amendment 65A includes modern slavery claims within that list, and I support that inclusion. The amendment also includes any person who has not come directly from a country where their life or liberty was threatened within the meaning of the refugee convention. My noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has spoken in detail about that during Committee, and I again echo his arguments. Subsection (4) of the new clause proposed in the amendment includes a crucial safeguard for persons who enter the UK legally but whose home country has become unsafe while they have been in the UK and they subsequently make an asylum or protection claim. In this case, their claim would be able to be considered in the usual manner. This ban on asylum claims from illegal migrants would absolutely act as a deterrent for illegal migration. People will not make the journey across the channel if they know their claims will be automatically refused and they will be swiftly deported.

Amendment 77 follows on from this. It would require the Home Secretary to establish third-country removal centres where we would be able to send those who cannot be returned to their home country. Australia has done this with Nauru and the United States has done it with Uganda, Honduras and Rwanda. The Government claim that the previous Government’s policy of sending illegal migrants to Rwanda was unworkable, yet the United States has done precisely that, and it has worked. Illegal crossings across the US southern border have fallen by 89% in one year. Australia and the United States prove that illegal migration can be stopped, yet we are constantly told that we cannot do the same in this country. That is false. We can replicate their success—all it requires is a recognition of the concerns of the British electorate and a desire genuinely to end illegal entry to the UK. I beg to move.

17:30

Amendment 65A (to Amendment 65)

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Harper (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is all very well saying that people who have come from a safe third country are not entitled to asylum here. That is the law; there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is in removing such people. These amendments provide no assistance in relation to that. People who have come here from France and Belgium, which are of course safe countries, cannot be removed to those countries—those countries will not have them back, other than under the scheme that the Government have agreed with France. So they cannot be removed there.

They are also not to be given asylum under these amendments, so are they to be removed to their own country? Are we really going to remove people who have arrived here unlawfully to countries where they face persecution? That seems intolerable to me. The problem is not saying that these people are not entitled to asylum; the problem is removing them from this country and these amendments make no contribution to that.

[Lord German (LD)]

I strongly support that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to his interpretation of the letter. I prefer to rely on Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will refer to later, as the defence against the offence that he allegedly conducted in his letter.

These amendments target asylum and modern slavery claims made by those who have entered the UK irregularly. They risk compounding injustice and playing directly into the hands of the very criminals we seek to defeat. First, focusing on restriction of access to modern slavery protections for individuals, particularly those identified as illegal entrants, risks undermining the UK’s reputation for compliance with our international obligations, notably with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking. We must remember that victims of trafficking are frequently coerced into criminal activity and that extending disqualification criteria or imposing restrictions disproportionately affects genuine survivors of modern slavery.

Secondly, if these amendments aim to limit the judicial scrutiny of claims made by irregular arrivals seeking protection, they threaten the balance of fairness that underpins our legal system. Any such attempt would introduce legal uncertainty and risks violating individual human rights. Asylum legislation and decision-making must prioritise the principles of compliance with human rights obligations. We resist the temptation to craft legislation based on a political narrative that disregards the plight of those fleeing persecution and violence.

We must focus finite resources on those who truly need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. For these reasons, based on principles of compassion, international compliance and operational effectiveness against criminal exploitation, we reject these amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 65A (to Amendment 65) withdrawn.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have, of course, decided to abandon the Conservative policy of removal to a third country, for which we had an agreement. We urge the Government to retain the Rwanda agreement. As I detailed earlier, the Australian model was a great success.

This week, we have seen the second migrant deported in the one-in, one-out scheme returned to the UK. We have also heard that the Government will be handing asylum seekers £100 a week to move out of hotels and move in with family and friends they may have in the UK. These measures will not deter illegal migration. Channel crossings have continued at an even faster rate.

It does not have to be this way. If we leave the ECHR, ban asylum protection, human rights and modern slavery claims, and deport all illegal migrants then we can establish third-country removal centres and replicate Australia’s success. The Government’s policies do not carry the support of the British people. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 65.

17:44

Division 2

Ayes: 201

Noes: 238

17:55

Amendments 66 and 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

68: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Exclusion of judicial review of asylum and immigration decisions(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply where— (a) the Secretary of State has made an initial decision in respect of a relevant immigration decision, or(b) the asylum and immigration review board (“the review board”) have made a final decision in respect of a relevant immigration decision under section (Abolition of appeals for immigration decisions).(2) The decision is final, and not liable to be set aside in any court.(3) In particular—(a) no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to an initial decision by the Secretary of State or a final decision by the review board;(b) the review board are not to be regarded as having exceeded their powers by reason of any error made in reaching the final decision.(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply where the Secretary of State or the review board is acting or has acted in such a manner which exceeds the Secretary of State’s or the review board’s powers under the Immigration Acts.(5) In this section—“the Immigration Acts” has the same meaning as in section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007;“relevant immigration decision” means—(a) a decision to make a deportation order under—(i) section 5(1) of the Immigration Act 1971,(ii) section 32(5) of the UK Borders Act 2007, and(iii) section (Duty to deport illegal entrants) of this Act,(b) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c. 33) (removal of person unlawfully in United Kingdom),(c) a decision that an illegal entrant is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions under paragraphs 8 to 10 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) (control of entry: removal),(d) a decision that a person is to be removed from the United Kingdom by way of directions given by virtue of paragraph 10A of that Schedule (family),(e) a refusal to revoke a deportation order under section 5(2) of that Act,(f) a decision to reject an asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim,(g) a decision to refuse support under section 95 of the immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,(h) a decision to certify a protection claim or human rights claim as clearly unfounded under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,(i) a decision to revoke a person’s asylum status or protection status, and(j) a decision not to grant immigration bail.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent judicial review of any immigration decisions, except in a case where the Secretary of State or review board have acted ultra vires.

Amendment 68A (to Amendment 68) not moved.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 68 relates to the exclusion of judicial review of asylum and immigration decisions. It has already been debated. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

17:56

Division 3

Ayes: 207

Noes: 240

18:06

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 70

Moved by

[Lord German]

70: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Humanitarian travel permit(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person, subject to subsection (2).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a monthly cap of the number of applications that may be granted under subsection (1).(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom,(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success, and(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted,(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom,(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has, and(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.(5) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.(6) The requirements are—(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).(7) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).(8) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. (9) A condition under subsection (8) must include the provision of biometric information under section 34 of this Act.(10) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.(11) For the purposes of this section—(a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1),(b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971,(c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”),(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection, or(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”),(d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention, and(e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment would remove the smugglers’ business by creating a safer legal route. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:07

Division 4

Ayes: 66

Noes: 175

18:18

Amendment 71 not moved.

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

72: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to remove foreign offenders(1) The Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person to whom this section applies.(2) This section applies to a person (“P”) who—(a) is not a British citizen,(b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom, and(c) has completed their term of imprisonment and been released accordingly.(3) The Secretary of State must make the deportation order against P within the period of seven days after P’s release from imprisonment.(4) A deportation order made under this section is not subject to appeal under—(a) section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971,(b) section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or(c) any other enactment.(5) A deportation order made under this section is final and not liable to be set aside in any court.”

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment was comprehensively debated last week. It is, for the avoidance of doubt, about the efficacious deportation of foreign national offenders who have been released after serving a custodial sentence. On the basis of an unsatisfactory response from the Minister, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

18:18

Division 5

Ayes: 193

Noes: 236

18:30

Amendment 73

Moved by

[Lord German]

73: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Temporary asylum processing units(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make such provision as is necessary to enable him or her to develop and provide temporary facilities for the expedited assessment of asylum applications or to enable other persons to do so and for the subsequent cessation of such use and the restoration of land.(2) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any local authorities likely to be affected and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the creation of ‘Nightingale’ processing units to speed up the process of clearing the backlog of asylum applications.

[Lord German (LD)]

This amendment seeks to set up processing centres to clear the backlog and remove the need for asylum hotels. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:30

Division 6

Ayes: 68

Noes: 169

18:40

Amendment 74

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

74: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Defence under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention(1) Section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is repealed.(2) Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention) is amended as follows.(3) Omit subsection (2).(4) After subsection (3)(c) insert—“(d) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(5) After subsection (4)(d) insert—“(e) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).”(6) Omit subsection (4A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment alters the statutory defence for refugees to ensure compliance with Article 31 of the Refugee Convention which prevents penalisation of refugees who transit in a country on their way to receiving sanctuary in another country, if they have come directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened and they have good cause for their irregular entry or presence. This amendment restores the common law position and repeals section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act which sought to overturn it. It also expands the defence to cover not only offences relating to those who enter with false documents but also those who enter without any immigration documents.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee I proposed replacing Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 because it is incomplete. That section attempts to comply with Article 31 of the refugee convention by providing statutory defences for refugees who have irregularly entered or are present in the UK but who have come directly from a country persecuting them; they have presented themselves to the authorities without delay and shown good cause for their unlawful entry or presence. However, as described by our Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on this Bill, the statutory defence

“is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention”.

Strangely, the defence is available only to refugees who have used false documents; it does not extend to refugees who arrive, enter, or are present here irregularly, with no documents at all.

It is unclear to me why our country would privilege the refugee arriving by plane on a false passport over the stateless person or refugee with no passport or visa. Refugees are often compelled to flee with nothing but the clothes on their backs. What little they have may be stolen or lost along the way. I raised this anomaly in Committee, and my noble friend Lord Katz said that he understood what he called this “specific inconsistency”, very kindly agreeing to write to me on the point—that was on 13 October, at vol. 849, col. 113 of Hansard. As my noble friend helped explain to the Committee, also in col. 113, the defence is also imperfect and incomplete because it fails to protect from prosecution the refugee who, in fleeing persecution, stops in another safe country.

Sadly, those who drafted my noble friend’s letter to me of 24 October demonstrated neither his logic and compassion nor, frankly, any acknowledgement of what he actually said at the Dispatch Box. Indeed, the letter would be more fitting in support of opposition amendments proposed by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and rejected by the Government and my noble friend that day in recognition of refugees who transit countries en route to the United Kingdom. The Home Office letter said:

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


It is as if last year’s general election never happened.

Therefore, almost all who arrive in the UK, even if eventually found by the authorities, by the Home Office or the appeal system, to be refugees, have no statutory defence to protect them from criminalisation and prosecution. That is contrary to a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention.

18:45

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the guardian of the refugee convention, recently issued guidelines on Article 31. These make clear that, just because a refugee has transited an intermediate country, that does not mean they have not come directly from their country of persecution. Rather, the directness of their travel needs to be assessed against the realities and context of journeys which often require circuitous, delayed and interrupted travel over land and sea.

The late noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Bingham of Cornhill, helped establish this purposive interpretation of our common law. My Amendment 74 simply seeks to restore that position. The reality of today’s world means the refugee may need to transit an intermediate country. Even before my own days as a Home Office lawyer, we had carriers’ liability. The impact of this is that commercial carriers fear financial penalties. Airlines do not allow refugees to board safe planes directly from their country of persecution. If they did, refugees would not risk perilous journeys across the Mediterranean, the continent or the channel; smugglers are far more expensive than aeroplane tickets.

If noble Lords cast their minds back three years to the prior borders Bill, they will recall that the roots of criminalising the act of arriving to seek asylum began there. I would remind my noble friends in government that, in opposition, we rejected that Bill in its entirety at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord Coaker, now a Minister, called it “wrong and unethical”—that was on 27 April 2022, at col. 306 of Hansard.

Labour in opposition supported every one of the Lords amendments, and noble Lords defeated the then Government 19 times, seeking to mitigate the worst excesses of that Bill, which sought to reinterpret and chip away at the refugee convention—it criminalised the act of arriving as a refugee. Since then, 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted. The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and/or torture. When noble Lords decided against sending the Nationality and Borders Bill back to the other place for a fourth time, my noble friend Lord Coaker promised that the battle

“and the campaign for a proper refugee system will carry on”.—[Official Report, 27/4/22; col. 308.].

Amendment 74 is my attempt to carry on that campaign by making the most technical and legal of changes to ensure compliance with the refugee convention and to restore the common law position. It seeks to rid us of the false notion that a refugee who merely stops in another country can be punished and penalised. However, it would retain the requirement that a refugee must come directly from a place where their life or freedom was threatened, and the term “come directly” must be interpreted in line with our common law tradition.

The amendment would add irregular entry and arrival to the list of offences for which refugees may have a statutory defence and not be criminalised for arriving in search of sanctuary. For those who are not refugees, the offence is untouched. It would repeal Section 37 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, with its bad-faith interpretation of the convention. Apart from anything else, is it really a good use of a criminal justice system that is on its knees to prosecute even recognised refugees for illegal entry? This borders Bill and this Government might finally put clear blue water between a fair asylum system and the failed performative cruelties of the recent past. I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I do not know whether the Opposition want to come in on this, but I may as well jump in. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Her amendment is simplified from her one in Committee. She is quite right that this Government ought to wish to stick to Article 31 of the refugee convention. That is what they maintained over the last few years, and it would be sensible and right to come back to that position. As she said, we can rely on the common law position, which I think was contributed to by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and rely on the court to understand what “directly” means. It can sometimes include short stops in transit— I think we can all understand why that might be—but it is a question of assessment in any individual situation. It is important to go back to the refugee convention definition and understanding for reasons of fairness and justice.

In the closing part of her remarks, the noble Baroness picked up on something that I was keen to ask the Minister. She repeated the statistics that she gave us in Committee: 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival and 455 were convicted, and the vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum. In her remarks just now, she added that a lot of these people who were prosecuted had refugee status. I wonder: what is the point of adding new pressure on the criminal justice system, particularly in the light of all the demands on it that we heard about in this House yesterday? It cannot cope. Surely the important thing is to get on with assessing someone’s claim so that you can decide whether they have a valid refugee or other humanitarian claim and are allowed to stay—or not, in which case they ought to be deported. What is the point of wasting time, resources and energy, and putting people who may well get refugee status through that process, when you go on to grant them refugee status anyway? What is the point of the diversion? I have never understood this, to be perfectly honest.

The noble Baroness is offering a way to get back to a sensible position. Of course people who are guilty of smuggling and trafficking offences might still get caught by this, but we have a baroque arrangement at the moment. We need to cleave to the refugee convention, which has been the traditional position of the Labour Party in opposition—and ought to be in government—and not waste resources, time and everything else in prosecuting people instead of just getting on with the asylum determination and removing those who have no claim. The present situation does not make any sense, in justice or in practicality. I hope the Minister can give a positive response to the noble Baroness’s amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, whose long and well-known experience in these matters I greatly respect. I have sympathy for the underlying principle of her amendment, but I fear that, though well-intentioned, it would take us back to the position that, in our view, Parliament quite rightly sought to clarify in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Section 37 of that Act was introduced for a very clear reason: to ensure that the UK, while complying with its obligations under the refugee convention, could define in domestic law how those obligations should be interpreted and applied. This amendment would lead to the repealing of Section 37 and the expansion of the statutory defence and, in our view, would go far beyond what the refugee convention requires.

Article 31 exists to protect those who come directly from danger and present themselves without delay. It does not exist to provide a blanket immunity for all irregular entrants, including those who have travelled through safe countries and have not claimed asylum there.

In our view, there has to be a system that is firm, not open to abuse and, above all, determined by Parliament. Diluting the provisions of the 2022 Act would undermine confidence and encourage, not reduce, the dangerous business of people smuggling. For those reasons, although I acknowledge the sincere spirit in which this amendment is brought forward, I respectfully urge noble Lords to oppose it.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, seeks to remove the requirement that asylum seekers must come directly to the UK to benefit from the defence provided by Article 31 of the refugee convention. Furthermore, it seeks to expand the list of specific offences set out in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, which asylum seekers who arrive illegally have a statutory defence against. I thank my noble friend for her amendment, while noting the previous amendments she suggested during the passage of the Bill, and for her kind words about my response to the debate on her previous amendment in Committee.

The Government remain committed to ensuring that all asylum claims in the UK are considered in accordance with our international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. Indeed, all our asylum-related legislation, rules and guidance will continue to fully comply with all our international obligations. I hope that provides a level of assurance for the avoidance of any doubt. All claims which are admitted to the UK asylum system will continue to be considered on their individual merits by assessing all the evidence provided by the claimant against the background of published country information.

The Government consider that those fleeing persecution should seek asylum in the first safe country in which it is reasonable to do so. This is in the asylum seeker’s best interest, serves to reduce the risk inherent in making further dangerous attempts to reach the UK illegally, and prevents further profit going to criminal people and those who organise the terrible criminal offences the Bill is designed to stop.

Providing a statutory defence to illegal arrival and illegal entry would, in effect, provide a defence to virtually all individuals who reach the UK by illegal means. It is difficult to see how this could be seen to support the Government’s stance on enforcing the law on illegal migration. Again, it would only undermine the confidence of UK citizens in our wish to maintain a fair and safe immigration system.

Both my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the question of recognised refugees being prosecuted for illegal entry, so I will spend a bit of time explaining the grounds when considering whether or not to make an arrest. In that case, Immigration Enforcement criminal and financial investigators must consider whether or not the suspect is likely to benefit from the statutory defence in Section 31. They must consider the defence as set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as the published CPS guidance on statutory defences. If it is deemed that the individual would benefit from the defence, they are not to make an arrest. If evidence suggests that a prosecution would be possible then continuous liaison between investigators and the relevant asylum caseworker must be undertaken throughout the asylum claim process.

19:00

A decision about whether a Section 31 defence applies must not be made without discussing and agreeing the decision with a supervising officer at chief immigration officer level or above. All details of the subsequent assessment and decision-making process must be recorded on the case management system. When referring a case to the CPS or devolved equivalent in the event that a prosecution is deemed to be appropriate, the investigators must pass on all relevant information about the suspect’s personal status and circumstance, including age and any physical or mental health conditions, as well as their status in the UK. The CPS must be updated on any progress in the asylum process.

This is all to say that the decisions to pursue prosecutions in cases where there is an active asylum claim are not taken lightly and to give some assurance that there is a process in place to ensure that those who stand to benefit from the defence in Section 31 are not prevented from doing so. I hope that detail provides some extra level of assurance to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and to your Lordships’ House. The Government remain committed to the protection of refugees and to their obligations under the refugee convention 1951. Given that, I invite my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for even being in the Chamber, let alone participating in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his courtesy and sincerity once more.

As to the advice that he has been given, I am afraid there is a circularity about saying, “Do not worry, because we will look very carefully at whether someone has a defence”, when, on the basis of the correspondence I have been sent and this legislation, there will be no defence, even for a genuine asylum seeker or a recognised refugee who came in a boat. To me, that is a huge contradiction: “Welcome to Britain. You are a refugee and the beginning of your life in the UK will be criminal prosecution”.

None the less, I know my arithmetic, and I do not want to test noble Lords’ patience much longer— I know that there is other business. I am afraid this will have to be sorted out by the DPP or in the criminal and appeal courts. Perhaps in the longer term, the Government may think again—who knows? For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Amendment 75

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

75: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to have due regard to family unity(1) A relevant authority must, in the exercise of relevant functions, have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family.(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), a relevant authority must, in the discharge of its duty under that subsection, have due regard to—(a) the public interest in children being properly brought up,(b) the right of children to be cared for by their parents unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare,(c) the right of children to have direct contact, in person, with members of their families, unless this would be contrary to the child’s welfare, and(d) the principle that maintaining contact with family members by electronic means of communication is not an adequate substitute for direct contact in person.(3) This section is subject to section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 (duty regarding the welfare of children); and nothing in this section requires or authorises a relevant authority to do anything which is contrary to the welfare of any child (whether that child is in the United Kingdom or not).(4) Nothing in this section—(a) requires or authorises the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to refuse to grant a person leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom where they would, apart from this section, have granted such leave, or(b) requires or authorises the First-tier or Upper Tribunal to find that a ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is not made out when it would not, apart from this section, have so found.(5) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18, and “children” shall be construed accordingly;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State,(b) the First-tier Tribunal, and(c) the Upper Tribunal;“relevant functions” means—(a) any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration or asylum;(b) any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer in relation to immigration or asylum;(c) any function of the First-tier or Upper Tribunal in connection with the determination of any ground of appeal under section 84(1)(c) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Amendment 75 would insert a new clause after Clause 48 to place a duty to have due regard to family unity on the Secretary of State, immigration officers, and the immigration and asylum tribunals. This is supported by the organisation Bail for Immigration Detainees. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, in the exercise of immigration and asylum functions, those charged with making decisions have due regard to the need to promote the unity of the family. It is a modest but vital safe- guard to ensure that decisions affecting people’s lives are made with a clear understanding of the human consequences.

Subsection 1 of the proposed new clause sets out the core duty that every relevant authority, in carrying out its functions, must have due regard to the need to promote family unity. Subsection 2 then provides helpful clarification of what that means in practice. These principles are rooted in common sense and compassion. They simply reflect what every parent, teacher and social worker knows: that children who have the love, stability and presence of their families can thrive.

This proposed new clause would complement the existing duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which already requires regard to be had to the welfare of children. Subsection 3 makes that explicit. The new duty would sit alongside Section 55 and be subject to it, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains paramount.

Equally importantly, proposed new subsection 4 provides clear limits. It ensures that nothing in this clause would require or authorise the Secretary of State or a tribunal to refuse leave to enter or remain, or to allow or dismiss an appeal contrary to what they would otherwise have done. In other words, this clause does not create new rights to remain in the UK. It simply creates a duty of consideration and a framework for fairer, more humane decision-making.

This amendment would not diminish the Government’s ability to control immigration. It would simply require that, when exercising discretion or assessing proportionality, decision-makers take proper account of family unity and children’s rights to grow up in the care of their families. By including the First-tier and Upper Tribunals within the scope of this duty, we would ensure that the principle applies consistently across the whole system, from the Home Office desk to the final appeal. It would give tribunals a clear statutory steer that family relationships are not peripheral to human-rights decisions but are central to them.

The UK has long recognised through international commitments and domestic law that the family is the fundamental unit of society. This amendment would give practical effect to that principle in the immigration and asylum context. It reflects our obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which emphasise the importance of maintaining family life. It does so in a proportionate way, respecting the primacy of the child’s welfare and the proper limits of executive power.

I hope the Minister will see that this amendment would strengthen rather than weaken the integrity of our immigration system by ensuring it operates with fairness, consistency and humanity. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the importance of family life and family unity is a principle that no one in this House would dispute. The principle already has a firm statutory protection. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 imposes a clear duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom. It is a duty embedded in every decision taken by immigration officers and by tribunals that consider appeals.

With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment before us would, in effect, duplicate these existing safeguards and reduce them in a way that risks generating uncertainty and inconsistency. It would open the door to litigation and invite the courts to revisit and reinterpret established principles of immigration law. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the House to resist the amendment.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 75. As she outlined, it would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the unity of family in exercising immigration functions. She has raised an important point, but the amendment is unnecessary. I will try to explain for her the reasons why.

The important protections it seeks are already firmly embedded in legislative frameworks and policies, such as Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the public sector equality duty derived from the Equality Act 2010. As announced in the immigration White Paper in May, we are exploring further reforms to the family route. As she mentioned, there is already a statutory duty to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. That places a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK. That every child matters is set out in our statutory guidance.

The Immigration Rules balance the right to family and private life under Article 8 and the right to respect for private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Part 5 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, Parliament set out the view of what the public interest requires in immigration cases, engaging the qualified right to respect for private and family life under Article 8. It requires the courts to give due weight to this public interest when deciding such cases.

Where an applicant under the family rules does not meet all the core eligibility requirements, the decision-maker will consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which would render refusal a breach of Article 8. This involves considering whether refusal would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences for the applicant or, indeed, their family. Under Section 149 of the Equality Act, which I mentioned earlier, the Secretary of State must have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. Due regard for family unity must not limit the ability of the Secretary of State for the Home Office to remove serious criminals who would do us harm. Article 8 claims, as we will discuss, will succeed only if a deportation’s impact on a qualifying child is unduly harsh. The immigration White Paper confirmed plans to legislate for easier removal of such offenders under Article 8, but not in other circumstances. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I hear so often in this Chamber that the amendments the Opposition have brought are completely unnecessary, it is already in law, and we do not have to worry our pretty little heads about it as it will all be fine. The fact is, it is not. This issue, in particular, will continue to make an awful lot of money for lawyers, who will fight what the Government are doing. However, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

Amendments 76 and 77 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

I cannot call Amendment 77A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 77.

Amendment 78

Moved by

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel]

78: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Rights of Chagossians(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius, or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory, the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom may not be altered or amended in any way.(2) In this section—“the immigration rights of Chagossians with respect to the United Kingdom” means any visa, indefinite leave to remain or immigration status, with respect to the United Kingdom, granted to a Chagossian or the descendant of a Chagossian;“Chagossian” means a person who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of the person’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that any change in the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory would not change the UK immigration rights of Chagossians.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community, notwithstanding any agreement the Government may make with Mauritius. This is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments made in this House and the other place regarding the Diego Garcia military base Bill, but I thank the Government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that Bill until the new year, following calls from these Benches for additional time for further scrutiny. We fundamentally disagree with the Government’s agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen.

This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status they deserve, and I urge the Government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment because it would protect the rights of Chagossians. After the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any Chagossian who has claimed BOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry into force. If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territories citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until the treaty enters into force. That is the issue about which we need an explanation. That protection of rights ends when the treaty comes into force.

I remind the House that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers. The summary of the evidence received was as follows:

“We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement”.


With that knowledge, it is important that we secure the rights of Chagossians—not just resettlement in the Chagos islands themselves, but that the status the United Kingdom has given them is protected.

19:15

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

My Lords, Amendment 78 aims to prevent changes to the UK immigration status held by Chagossians and their descendants, regardless of any agreement or treaty between the United Kingdom and Mauritius or any change in the sovereignty status of the British Indian Ocean Territory. Under UK law, as noble Lords noted, Chagossians and their descendants are either automatically British citizens or have a right to apply to be registered as British citizens. As British citizens, they are free to make their home in the UK without being subject to immigration control.

The Government have been very clear that the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill will protect British nationality rights, so I give the noble Lord, Lord German, that assurance. The treaty and the Bill make no changes to the citizenship that Chagossians currently hold or to their right to claim British citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned, this is being debated in respect of other legislation. All Chagossians will remain eligible for British citizenship and free to make their home in the UK should they wish to. The immigration status of Chagossians living in the UK who do not wish to take up British citizenship will not be impacted by the agreement between the UK and Mauritius.

In the Government’s view, this amendment is therefore unnecessary and would prevent the UK Government exercising their lawful power to amend or alter the immigration status of those subject to immigration control in the UK—for example, if the basis upon which someone’s immigration status was granted changes, or, as we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, if an individual is convicted of a criminal offence for which they receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Furthermore—this is the salient point—the amendment would also effectively prevent Chagossians applying to amend their immigration status and prevent them exercising their right to apply for British citizenship, should they so choose. I therefore ask the noble Lord, in the light of my comments and the assurance I have given, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons outlined.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful, especially to the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support for this amendment. I am delighted finally to be on the same page as him on this Bill, after many days of Committee and Report. He made a compelling argument for the basis of this amendment, and it is a topical question. In our view, it is an opportunity to do right by the Chagossians and give them the statutory certainty they deserve, but in the light of what has just been said by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 78 withdrawn.

19:18

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 7.58 pm.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reasons

19:19

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.

1A: Clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) The Minister may—
(a) investigate or take enforcement action in respect of suspected fraud against another public authority, or
(b) recover money on behalf of another public authority, only at the request of that public authority or if the Minister considers that it is necessary in the public interest to do so.”

1B: Clause 2, page 2, line 11, leave out “at the request of” and insert “on behalf of, or in relation to”

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A and will speak also to Motions B and D. I want to start by thanking this House once again for the constructive debates and meticulous scrutiny that the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill has received throughout its passage. It has undoubtedly been strengthened, and I am grateful for the time noble Lords have put into engaging with the Government.

I believe that the Bill, as agreed by the House of Commons, makes a significant step in delivering this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard public money and ensure that every pound is wisely spent. At the same time, the Bill now contains further significant safeguards on the use of the new powers for the DWP and PSFA, strengthened by the scrutiny and insights of your Lordships’ House.

In moving Motion A, I will, with leave of the House, speak also to Motions B and D, which are grouped together. I turn first to Amendment 1 and the government amendments in lieu, Amendments 1A and 1B. As I said on Report in the Lords, the Government were unable to accept the original drafting of this amendment. However, we have listened to the desire of your Lordships’ House and, with some technical changes, are happy to propose these alternatives. I am grateful for the constructive discussions on these with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—to whom I wish a remote happy birthday.

The amendments will give the Minister for the Cabinet Office the power to initiate an investigation when they consider it necessary in the public interest. As my colleague, the Minister for Transformation, set out when proposing this amendment in the other place, the Government believe it will almost never be necessary for the Minister to exercise this new power, due to the collaborative approach of the normal working of government, but it will be available if there is genuine necessity. It is the Government’s intention to create a fraud investigation service and this amendment is compatible with that continued intention.

Our amendments in lieu also make some consequential changes to Clause 2 to preserve the intention that the PSFA should not take on matters assigned to the Secretary of State with responsibility for Social Security, or His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, for the reason which has remained unchanged throughout the passage of the Bill: that those departments already have considerable resources and powers to tackle tax and social security fraud.

I now turn to Lords Amendments 30 and 31. As I set out on Report, the Government support the principle behind these amendments. However, we could not accept the drafting as it stood. We agree that staff must be appropriately trained before they are able to use these powers and that robust oversight, both internal and external, is essential. I am therefore grateful for the constructive and rewarding discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—who is very young today—and propose the alternative government Amendments 31A, 31B and 31C. They have indicated their support and I hope that other noble Lords will also support them. The amendments mandate statutory guidance and a new reporting requirement and set internal recording requirements. They strike the right balance of ensuring strong ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the powers, without unnecessarily involving Ministers in operational decisions.

First, the statutory guidance will detail how the Minister will exercise the function of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It will outline governance arrangements, delegation of powers to authorised officers and authorised investigators, standards for the training and appointment of authorised officers and investigators and how the Minister will collaborate with an independent reviewer. Secondly, a report will be prepared following the end of each financial year and will be laid in Parliament by the Minister, stating how many times investigation and enforcement powers in Part 1 of the Bill have been used. This ensures regular ministerial and public visibility without compromising operational details. Lastly, there is now a requirement for the PSFA to keep internal written records of the exercise of the powers, which will be made available for scrutiny by an independent reviewer.

These records will specify the power exercised, date, reason for use and by whom, ensuring internal accountability. They will be made accessible to the independent reviewer, who will assess the use of the powers and produce a report which the Minister will publish and lay in Parliament. This addresses the need for a written record without public disclosure of sensitive information. Together, these amendments underscore our commitment to transparency, oversight and accountability, which we have maintained over the passage of this Bill.

We further committed during Committee in the Commons to adhering to the Cabinet Office governance code on public appointments, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments; adding the independent reviewer to the Order in Council; following the established process for agreeing posts that should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by Select Committee without the need for legislative provision in the Bill; and compiling a list of all the concerns raised in both Houses to put before the independent reviewer, who will also meet with parliamentarians who have raised areas where they think their work should be focused.

I have also agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that, because she really enjoys debating with me at the Dispatch Box, the initial statutory guidance will be subject to a take-note debate in Grand Committee after it is laid in Parliament. Together, the amendments ensure that Ministers are accountable for the use of the powers in Part 1 of the Bill and show how they are delegated. In places, they build on processes that would already have been in place but that we have brought forward into the Bill. I am grateful for the constructive discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on these amendments and I am pleased to put in place these commitments. I hope this is sufficient to address the concerns of noble Lords and that they will agree to the Motions not to insist from the other place.

Finally, I turn to a minor and technical amendment the Government made to Lords Amendment 75 to Schedule 2. Amendment 75A simply ensures that authorised investigators are captured within the regulation-making power set out by Schedule 2, if or when the powers conferred under Part 1 of the Bill are transferred to another public authority that is not within the scope of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975, or if the PSFA is set up as its own statutory body. It does not change the use of any powers laid out within the Bill. I hope noble Lords will support the Motion from the other place and I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for listening to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, myself and others. We are dealing here with Motions A, B and D, so let me deal with Motion A first. The Lords amendment aimed to give more powers to Ministers to take investigatory or enforcement action and we voted against it in the Lords due to it giving, in our view, too many powers to the Minister.

The Government have, to some extent, listened, and the amendment in lieu reaches what I would describe as a middle ground. That seems to be, as far as I know, acceptable to other people who will be speaking in this debate, I believe—coming first, I cannot be certain of that. On that basis, on these Benches, we are willing to accept the amendment in lieu in Motion A.

Turning to Motion B, Lords Amendments 30 and 31 relate to limiting the extent that powers can be used and ensuring that, when powers are used, they are properly reported. As noble Lords will know, we supported the amendments in the Lords and have noted again what the Government’s reaction has been. I am reasonably pleased at the reaction. The amendments reach, as I said on the other amendment, a middle ground, and from these Benches we are minded to accept the amendments in lieu.

Turning to Motion D, the powers to establish the PSFA and transfer functions, the Lords amendment created the Public Sector Fraud Authority. The amendment in lieu is a tidying-up amendment, as the noble Baroness said, and is uncontroversial. On these Benches, we accept that amendment in lieu. I look forward to the other amendments in due course.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, as we consider the amendments brought forward by the Government, I want to begin by recognising the diligent and constructive work undertaken across this House throughout the passage of this Bill. We have examined almost every clause in detail, identified weaknesses and proposed sensible, proportionate reforms. I think it is fair to say that, as a result, the Bill before us today is stronger, fairer and more workable. The Government have listened to many of the concerns raised, not least from these Benches and from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I want to put on record our appreciation for the collaborative spirit in which the Ministers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, and their officials have engaged.

19:30

First, on Clause 2, we welcome that the Government have now substantively accepted the case that we on these Benches made for empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority to undertake proactive investigations where credible evidence of fraud arises. The amendment brought forward in lieu by the Government substantively and textually reflects the amendments originally advanced from these Benches and represents a significant step forward. It means that the PSFA can act swiftly on information, rather than waiting to be invited in by an authority to initiate an investigation. I previously described the PSFA as toothless, but this change will strengthen deterrence, support whistleblowers and potentially help prevent major losses to the public purse before they occur. It is a practical, proportionate reform, and a good example of what can be achieved when this House works together to improve legislation.

On the amendments to Clause 66, I want to acknowledge the strong cross-party support that this House showed for proper ministerial oversight of the new investigatory powers, and I thank noble Lords across the House who showed their support. Our amendment commanded a majority of 110, across party lines and political divides—a clear message to the Government that the principles of accountability and transparency are vital. The Government’s amendments in lieu, introducing guidance, annual reporting and record-keeping represent some progress. However, they fall short of the full safeguards that this House voted for, so it remains, I am afraid, a half-fat version of the accountability measures proposed in our original amendment.

The Government have opted for guidance rather than binding regulation, meaning that standards can be changed without further parliamentary scrutiny. There is also no requirement for ministerial authorisation when the most intrusive powers are exercised, something that 270 noble Lords agreed was a necessary safeguard, so oversight will now be largely retrospective rather than preventive. While we will not oppose the Government’s position, we support it with reservation. Much now depends on the quality and transparency of the guidance that will follow, which we will scrutinise closely when it comes before this House. I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has agreed that the initial statutory guidance will be subject to a take-note debate in Grand Committee after it is laid in Parliament. I very much look forward to our further debates on the subject.

These amendments work together to strengthen the PSFA and give it a clearer mandate to act proactively, but they also remind us that the fight against fraud must be matched by proper safeguards and accountability. The new provisions in this part of the Bill leave it in a better place than when it entered this House. We will continue to monitor and ensure that the PSFA is both effective and answerable in the exercise of its considerable powers.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for what I will take as wholehearted support for what we have done. I am grateful for their contributions and for the constructive engagement that led us to this point, both on these issues and in our earlier discussions with regard to whistleblowing. I genuinely believe that collaboration has got us to a good place with this legislation, and of course very much look forward to our ongoing discussions in Grand Committee.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30 and 31 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 31A, 31B and 31C in lieu.

31A: After Clause 66, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on exercise of investigatory functions
(1) The Minister must publish guidance about how the Minister will exercise the Minister’s function in section 1(1)(a) (investigating suspected fraud against public authorities). (2) The guidance must include guidance about— (a) how authorised investigators and authorised officers are to be appointed, (b) the training which individuals must undertake before being appointed as authorised investigators or authorised officers, (c) governance arrangements in relation to how authorised investigators and authorised officers are to exercise their functions for the purpose of the function in section 1(1)(a), and (d) how the Minister will work with an independent reviewer appointed under section 64. (3) The Minister may revise or replace guidance published under this section. (4) The Minister must publish any revised or replacement guidance. (5) The Minister must lay a copy of guidance published under this section (including revised or replacement guidance) before Parliament.”

31B: After Clause 66, insert the following new Clause— “Reports on exercise of functions (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, the Minister must prepare a report stating how many times the powers in subsection (3) were exercised in that financial year. (2) The Minister must— (a) publish each report, and (b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament. (3) The powers are— (a) the power to issue an information notice under section 3, (b) the power to apply for or execute a warrant under section 8(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) that is conferred by virtue of section 7, (c) the power to obtain access to material under section 9(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the 1984 Act that is conferred by virtue of section 7, (d) the powers under section 19 of the 1984 Act (general power of seizure etc) that are conferred by virtue of section 7, (e) the power to apply for an order under section 8 (disposal of property), (f) the power to give a recovery notice under section 11, (g) the power to apply for a recovery order under section 16, (h) the power to make a direct deduction order under section 17, (i) the power to make a deduction from earnings order under section 38, and (j) the power to impose a penalty under section 50. (4) “Financial year” means— (a) the period beginning with the day on which Part 1 of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 comes fully into force and ending with the following 31 March (which is the first financial year), and (b) each subsequent period of 12 months beginning with 1 April. (5) Before acting under subsection (2) the Minister must exclude from the report any matter which the Minister thinks is likely to prejudice any— (a) criminal investigation, (b) other investigation, (c) criminal proceedings, or (d) civil proceedings. (6) If the Minister— (a) excludes any matter from the report in reliance on subsection (5), and (b) in a subsequent financial year thinks that the excluded matter is no longer likely to prejudice the investigation or proceedings concerned, the Minister must include the matter in the report that relates to that subsequent financial year.”

31C: After Clause 66, insert the following new Clause— “Record of exercise of functions An authorised investigator or authorised officer must keep a written record of each exercise of a power in subsection (3) by that investigator or officer. The record relating to a particular exercise of a power must state—(a) the name of the authorised investigator or authorised officer, (b) the power which was exercised, (c) the date on which the power was exercised, and (d) the reason the power was exercised. The powers are— (a) the power to issue an information notice under section 3, (b) the power to apply for or execute a warrant under section 8(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”) that is conferred by virtue of section 7, (c) the power to obtain access to material under section 9(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the 1984 Act that is conferred by virtue of section 7, (d) the powers under section 19 of the 1984 Act (general power of seizure etc) that are conferred by virtue of section 7, (e) the power to apply for an order under section 8 (disposal of property), (f) the power to give a recovery notice under section 11, (g) the power to apply for a recovery order under section 16, (h) the power to make a direct deduction order under section 17, (i) the power to make a deduction from earnings order under section 38, and (j) the power to impose a penalty under section 50.”

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

[Baroness Sherlock]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43A.

43A: Because it is not appropriate to make further provision about reviews relating to eligibility verification measures.

[The Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions E and F, with the leave of the House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his continued constructive engagement on these issues. I hope that today we will reach a resolution with the amendments in lieu and assurances that I provide.

I start with Motion E and Lords Amendment 84 on the treatment of information obtained using an eligibility verification notice, or EVN. As drafted, this amendment carries three key risks: first, it risks DWP not being able to use EVM information properly, even in those cases where it might be a strong indicator of potential fraud; secondly, it risks legislating for a person’s state of mind; and thirdly, it risks undermining the existing public law principle that staff at DWP take decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State. Government Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu are therefore presented as a substitute. These amendments address those risks, build on the amendments I tabled on Report and reflect the Government’s stated policy intent throughout; namely, that EVM information considered in isolation cannot constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion or indicate wrongdoing.

These amendments focus on the actions which DWP staff must take following receipt of EVM information and clarify that where DWP has received it, staff must also have regard to all other relevant information held before taking further action. This approach would, first, require an authorised officer to consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to issue an information notice under new Section 109BZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, as well as the relevant EVM information. As a reminder, an information notice under that new section can be issued only where the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or intends to commit fraud, and the authorised officer considers the notice necessary and proportionate for the purposes of investigating that suspicion. The amendments in lieu make it clear that where EVM information is relevant to those considerations, the authorised officer must also consider non-EVM information that is relevant to the question of whether to issue the notice.

Secondly, it requires that before a DWP staff member can suspend benefit payments, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to do so, as well as the relevant EVM information. Finally, it requires that before a DWP staff member can make a change to an earlier benefit decision, they must consider all information held which is relevant to the question of whether to change that earlier benefit decision, as well as the relevant EVM information.

DWP will always hold at least some further information on benefit claims, such as the presence or absence of relevant capital disregards, claimants’ declarations about capital or known vulnerabilities. This amendment provides the necessary assurance that DWP staff will consider this context carefully before taking further action. I think this reflects the intent of the original amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as well as the Government’s stated policy intent. I am grateful for his engagement on this matter and hope that these government amendments in lieu offer the necessary reassurance.

I turn to Motion C and Lords Amendment 43 on the requirements of the independent reviewer. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, knows that I cannot accept his amendment; I shall go through each part to explain why. Officials in my department have discussed its proposed paragraph (d) with the finance industry, which agrees that it may place a significant burden on financial institutions if they are asked to report on costs every year. However, I have put it on record before, and reassure the House again today, that the Government are committed to keeping costs associated with this measure proportionate.

I can assure the House that we will continue working closely with businesses as we implement these measures to ensure it is done in the most efficient and effective way. I have also previously committed to publishing a further, updated impact assessment within 12 months of Royal Assent, taking into account the ongoing work with industry through our test-and-learn period. I am happy to reaffirm that commitment to the House today.

As for proposed paragraph (e), there is no reason for individuals to lose access to banking services solely because of information shared under EVM. We have been clear that this information does not imply any wrongdoing, and we have worked closely with the finance industry to provide clarity in the draft code of practice to prevent any such problems. The role of the independent EVM reviewer is not to review every process which DWP carries out; rather, it is to review the exercise and effectiveness of that specific data-gathering power and to consider the Government’s compliance with the legislation.

I have stressed often before that DWP has strong support in place for vulnerable people. For example, all DWP front-line operational colleagues are trained to help identify and support our most vulnerable customers. This includes mental health training and the ability to provide reasonable adjustments.

Amendments 84A and 84B reaffirm that further decisions will not be taken without considering all relevant information, in addition to EVM information. This would of course include any available information on vulnerabilities.

Government amendments made on Report also introduced a specific requirement that the Secretary of State be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to issue an EVM, and clarified that the purpose for which an eligibility notice can be issued is to assist in identifying incorrect payments. As such, the independent reviewer can assess the Government’s actions against these requirements as part of their consideration of compliance with the legislation. We will work closely with the independent reviewer, especially in the test and learn phase, to identify any issues quickly and take steps to prevent or mitigate them.

Turning to subsection (f), Government amendments tabled on Report address this point. They require the Secretary of State to provide the independent EVM reviewer with all reasonably required material. I hope that this duty, alongside the Government’s commitment to work constructively with the reviewer, is sufficient.

My noble friend Lady Anderson made a commitment that Members will have an opportunity to meet with the PSFA’s independent reviewer. Today, I offer the House a parallel commitment that there will be opportunities for Members of this House to meet with the EVM independent reviewer, once they are appointed, and share their views with them.

I turn to Motion F, and Amendment 97 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which concerns DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force. As I have made clear to the House, the powers of search and seizure, including warrant applications and production orders, are drawn from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This also includes the power of reasonable force, as set out in Section 117 of PACE. These powers will be used by expert DWP staff, trained to industry standards, to tackle only serious and organised crime against DWP.

As I outlined on Report, I am not able to accept Lords Amendment 97 as drafted, although our stated policy intent is that DWP-authorised investigators would not use reasonable force against a person. The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that we cannot break down Section 117 of PACE to make the distinction between property and persons, and there is no precedent for specifying in PACE where or on what reasonable force may be applied. The Government’s preferred approach is for DWP to take powers of reasonable force from PACE, following precedents from other government departments.

However, I have listened to the concerns expressed in the House and looked for another way to reflect the stated policy intent in the Bill. The Government have therefore introduced, as amendments in lieu, Amendments 97A, 97B and 97C to Clause 76, and Amendments 97D, 97E and 97F to Schedule 4. These reflect our stated policy intent and draw a distinction between the power of reasonable force, exercisable by DWP-authorised investigators, and police officers or others with constable powers. These amendments remove the power of reasonable force that was derived from Section 117 of PACE and instead create a stand-alone provision on reasonable force in this Bill. This provision restricts DWP-authorised investigators’ use of reasonable force to force against property only, while retaining the police’s power to use reasonable force where necessary against people and property. This delivers our stated policy intent but brings DWP’s power of reasonable force outside of PACE. I believe this reflects the intent behind Lords Amendment 97, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, will welcome it.

However, this is a bespoke approach, and it is important that we maintain the same safeguards when DWP-authorised investigators exercise reasonable force. My department is working closely with the Home Office on this. To ensure that DWP-authorised investigators will still operate in the same way as others with powers of reasonable force under PACE, we will maintain compliance with PACE Code B, which governs the exercise of powers of entry, search and seizure.

The Home Office has confirmed that, when parliamentary time allows, secondary legislation will be brought forward to ensure that the stand-alone provision in the Bill will be subject to PACE Code B. My department has also worked swiftly to secure assurances that inspection of the use of this stand-alone provision will be provided by HMICFRS and the IOPC. The other relevant powers of entry, search and seizure, beyond reasonable force, will still be drawn down from PACE, and are subject to the safeguards and operational standards I have outlined over the passage of the Bill.

A different approach has been adopted for the provisions in Schedule 4 which apply to Scotland. These broadly replicate PACE search and seizure provisions to achieve parity but make some small, necessary adaptations for Scots law. Therefore, Amendments 97D to 97F make equivalent changes to powers of reasonable force in Scotland.

I hope this reassures noble Lords and puts this question about the use of reasonable force beyond doubt, as DWP-authorised investigators now cannot use reasonable force against people. I hope that the House will support this Motion. I beg to move.

19:45

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, as we have just heard, Motions C, E and F relate to amendments that I tabled on Report, and which the House very generously supported.

I will start with Motion C, which relates to Amendment 43. This would have broadened the scope of the independent review of the use of the eligibility verification notice process powers to consider the costs to the banking industry and the potential impact on vulnerable people. I regret that the Government did not feel able to accept that, and I am very grateful to those in the other place who supported the amendment so passionately, including quite a number on the Government’s own Benches.

However, I thank the Minister for the assurances she has given, especially in relation to the publication of a revised impact assessment, and her offer of the opportunity to meet with the independent reviewer once they have been appointed. I also take comfort from the point made by the Minister in the other place, repeated just now by the Minister, that the amendment the Government made on Report, which requires that the use of EVM powers be necessary and proportionate, will potentially allow the independent reviewer to consider impacts on vulnerable people if concerns arise. Therefore, while I would have preferred that my amendment be accepted, on the basis of these assurances I will not push it further.

Turning to Motion E, this Lords amendment would have made it clear that the existence of an eligibility indicator alone could not constitute reasonable suspicion, and that no action to suspend or change a benefit or utilise the extensive investigation powers that the Bill creates could be taken unless the information had first been reviewed by a suitably qualified person. This has been made even more important when we read about how HMRC has behaved recently in respect of child benefit. HMRC used incomplete travel information and stopped paying benefit solely on the basis of that information, unfairly impacting up to 23,500 people. That is a tangible example of how information used in isolation, without proper checks or review, can cause real and unfair harm. It is essential, therefore, that EVM information alone should not be used to take decisions that may have a serious impact on someone who may be entirely innocent, and that all decisions should be reviewed by a person so that we do not see something similar happening at DWP.

Although they do not accept the original amendment, the Government have tabled amendments 84A and 84B, which get us most of the way there. The authorised officer or the Secretary of State must have regard to all the information they have, including, importantly,

“information that is not EVM information”.

Some concerns have been raised in the other place and outside about what would happen if the only information the DWP had was EVM information. The Minister touched on that, but it would be helpful if she could comment a bit further when she winds up. Is there any situation where, because EVM information is the only information the department has, that could be the only basis for a decision?

Otherwise, these amendments in lieu substantially cover the concerns that were raised in this House, especially when we also take account of the Government amendments passed by this House on Report that restrict the use of the EVM process so that it may only be used to assist in identifying incorrect payments. I thank the Minister for her continuing constructive engagement in trying to meet the concerns raised by this House, and I urge noble Lords to accept Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu, and to support Motion E.

Finally, I turn to Motion F. The Bill grants a number of police powers to DWP officials, including the power to use reasonable force. The original Amendment 97 would have restricted the use of reasonable force by DWP officials to force against items and property—the example we have been given many times is breaking into a filing cabinet—rather than allowing force against people.

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for the Government amendments in lieu. These, in effect, turn the amendment around. Rather than taking the general power to use reasonable force but then restricting it to items and property, as the original amendment did, the amendments in lieu removed the general power to use reasonable force but introduce a bespoke power for DWP officials to use reasonable force only against items and property. Ultimately, that is very much the same thing.

I am pleased that the amendments in lieu retain the oversight of the Independent Office for Police Conduct, which is an important safeguard. With thanks to the Minister for her engagement on this, I urge noble Lords to accept the amendments in lieu and support Motion F.

With these amendments and the others that have been proposed, the safeguards around the use of the significant new powers that the Bill will give to the Cabinet Office and DWP have been strengthened. This is a very good example of how this House can improve legislation. I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the House who have been so supportive and constructive throughout the process, and particularly the Ministers, for their always constructive engagement throughout, which has allowed us to make real improvements to the Bill. It now achieves a better balance between achieving what is intended—to reduce fraud and error—while being fairer and better protecting vulnerable people.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her constructive approach. It has not always answered all the questions but it has gone a long way towards that. I put on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his constructive initiatives on which some of these amendments are based, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for all the informative stuff that has come from her.

I will speak first to Motion C. The Lords amendment was agreed upon by this Chamber to ensure that the impacts of this legislation on the most vulnerable in society are properly considered by the Secretary of State. While I stress that the Government have been forthcoming in offering compromise solutions, it is disappointing that they did not offer any real alternative solution. I was pleased to see the Liberal Democrat Benches in the other place push this issue to a vote and was disappointed that neither Labour nor the Conservatives supported this amendment. Disappointing as this is, I appreciate that the Government and Parliament have made their mind up on the issue and I am not going to break ranks and push a vote on it.

The Bill introduces an independent review on the use of eligibility verification powers. This Lords amendment expands the scope of the review to ensure that the costs are proportionate, to consider whether the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers in Schedule 3B has had any adverse effect on vulnerable people, and to consider the ability of benefits claimants to access banking services. As noble Lords know, we on these Benches supported the Lords amendment. The Government have, sadly, disagreed, saying that it is not appropriate to make further provision about reviews relating to eligibility verification measures. While it is disappointing that the Government have not looked to be as constructive as we would like them to be, it is clear that we are unlikely to make further progress on this than that which we have reached. On that basis, I do not intend to challenge the Commons response.

I turn to Motion E. The use of reasonable force— a point I raised a lot at earlier stages—lies at the heart of guaranteeing civil liberties for all citizens and ensuring that no innocent party is treated unfairly and without cause. The original Lords amendment would have prevented authorised officers using force against a person during entry, search and seizure. I am pleased that the amendment in lieu continues this principle, while explicitly outlining that it is only constables who are trained in the proportional use of force who will be able to use reasonable force in respect of persons. We spoke about force on filing cabinets, but it is persons we are really concerned about.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will therefore support the Government’s amendments in lieu, but we will continue to make sure that the powers granted in this legislation relating to the use of force are used proportionately. We will carefully scrutinise the independent review that has been promised on the exercise of the functions, including the reasonable use of force, which the Secretary of State must commission and later publish. I hope the Minister will give us some idea of when that is going to be published. Any assurance the Minister can give the House on this independent review and when it will come will be very much appreciated.

On that basis, we welcome the constructive comments that the Government have made and the points that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made in introducing these amendments. We do not intend to press further on these issues.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, as we come to this final group of government amendments on the DWP section of the Bill, I begin by recognising the real progress that has been made on the DWP use of PACE powers and eligibility verification provisions—progress that has been driven by this House’s detailed scrutiny and the persistence of Members from all sides, not least the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. Throughout, we on these Benches have sought to ensure that the Bill strikes the right balance—strong on fraud prevention but fair, proportionate and mindful of its impact on vulnerable people. We therefore welcome the Government’s concessions in several areas, which have come about as a result of the sustained pressure applied by this House.

Amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism. Our overriding concern has been the impact on vulnerable individuals and those at risk of financial exclusion. The system must not lead to people being debanked, subject to excessive deductions or left unable to access essential services. We are pleased that the Government have now committed to an assurance that Parliament will be able to engage with the independent reviewer after Royal Assent to explore these issues, and that the concerns that we have raised here and in the other place will be formally shared with the reviewer.

I am grateful that the Minister in the other place claimed the may/must change as a government initiative—imitation, after all, is the sincerest form of flattery—but it was in fact first proposed from these Conservative Benches. That is another example of the constructive scrutiny that has improved the Bill, and I am sure that the Minister will be keen to correct this on the record.

We welcome the Government’s concession in Amendments 84A and 84B. These make it clear that human decision-makers must have regard to all relevant information and ensure that human judgment remains embedded in the process. This protects against the risks of mechanistic or AI-driven decision-making, not only now but into the future as these technologies evolve and become more widespread. This is a sensible safeguard and a direct result of arguments advanced in your Lordships’ House.

Regarding PACE powers, I am pleased that the Government have finally accepted that DWP investigators should not be able to use reasonable force against individuals. This corrects a serious drafting flaw in the text of the Bill and aligns its provisions with the Government’s stated policy. It makes the law safer, clearer and more coherent. I really thank the Minister for her valiant efforts in this area. However, it is surprising, especially given that it protects the integrity of the Government’s stated policy, that it should have required so much persuasion from your Lordships’ House for the Government to get to this position.

As a result of the changes made to the Bill in this House, the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the DWP will be better equipped to act against frauds while operating within a framework of stronger safeguards. Because of efforts on these Benches and others, the PSFA will be proactive but also more accountable and transparent. As a result of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and other noble Lords, vulnerable people will be better protected and represented in the independent review, and the use of artificial intelligence will be subject to clearer human oversight. Fundamentally, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to property, not people.

Having said all that, there are still gaps in the Bill. The Government have yet to engage seriously with the growing problem of sickfluencers, online figures who use their platforms to encourage and advise people to make fraudulent benefits claims. Unless the Government begin to analyse and address this issue, they risk falling behind and missing the opportunity to tackle a significant driver of future fraud risk. We welcome the progress achieved, but we will continue to raise the issues we have championed during the passage of this Bill and keep a watchful eye on how its provisions are enacted. The Bill now better reflects the need to protect the public purse from fraud and the duty to safeguard the public. It leaves your Lordships’ House in a far better place than when it arrived and demonstrates once again, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, the constructive and vital work of this House.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful that all noble Lords who have contributed have conceded that we have reached a point where we are all now content to move forward with this important Bill.

On the specifics, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we would move forward without any other information. DWP will always hold some other information on benefit claims, but it is crucial that appropriate weight can be given to EVM information if necessary. That is the reason we took the approach we did in the new amendment, because it makes clear that, where EVM information is relevant to a question, DWP must also consider non-EVM information that is also relevant. That other information could take different forms; it could be about the presence or absence for disregard or other information, as I went through. I hope that helps.

20:00

Most of the questions raised are ones we have been through in considerable detail. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that I went through in some detail in my speech explaining why the Government did not accept the amendment that we rejected: all the concessions we made previously, the amendments the Government introduced on Report, and the fact that we felt we had covered off all the areas that could be covered off.

On reasonable force, I have no doubt that, as he says, the Liberal Democrats will be watching carefully how the powers in this Bill are used. But, thanks to the very considerable changes that this Government have brought in, there is now extensive oversight. The Liberal Democrats will be watching the use of reasonable force in terms of the powers in this Bill, and so will the IOPC, so will HMRC FIS and so will the independent reviewer—there will be lots of oversight of the use of powers in this Bill. So the Liberal Democrats, and other Members, will be in good company. I think we can safely say that, unlike with previous incarnations, a lot of people will be watching this, and we have made sure that everybody will know what they think about it.

I am not going to dwell in any great detail about the other points that have been raised, because I think we have covered them all. I will simply say that I hope the House can now unite behind the fact that it is in all our interests to make sure that fraud and error are tackled in our social security system and in our public services. This is what we should all be gathering around doing. Public money is tight enough; we need to make sure it goes to the places it is needed and to the people who need it. I am grateful for the constructive engagement. I think we have a better Bill now as a result, and we will all be able to go out there and get behind this now as we tackle the scourge of fraud and error in our society. I beg to move.

Motion C agreed.

Motion D (as an amendment to Amendment 75)

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 75A.

75A: Line 36, at end insert—
“(4) In this paragraph, “authorised officer” includes “authorised investigator”.”

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 84 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 84A and 84B in lieu.

84A: Schedule 3, page 80, line 26, at end insert—
“(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—
(a) an authorised officer is considering whether to give an information notice under section 109BZA in relation to a person, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice.
(3) The authorised officer must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to give the information notice, including information that is not EVM information.
(4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether to suspend payments of a benefit to a person in accordance with regulations under section 21 or 22 of the Social Security Act 1998, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments.
(5) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether to suspend the payments, including information that is not EVM information.
(6) Sub-paragraph (7) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State is considering whether a decision taken under section 8, 9 or 10 of the Social Security Act 1998 in relation to a person (“the earlier decision”) should be revised or superseded, and
(b) the Secretary of State has been given EVM information that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded.
(7) The Secretary of State must have regard to all information that the Secretary of State has that is relevant to the question whether the earlier decision should be revised or superseded, including information that is not EVM information.”

84B: Schedule 3, page 91, line 4, at end insert “(but this is subject to paragraph 5)”

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Moved by

[Baroness Sherlock]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 97 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 97A, 97B, 97C, 97D, 97E and 97F in lieu.

97A: Clause 76, page 45, line 4, after “investigators” insert “, including”

97B: Clause 76, page 45, leave out line 24

97C: Clause 76, page 45, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) An authorised investigator may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of a power conferred by a provision of the 1984 Act as applied by subsections (3) and (4).
(4B) Subsections (4C) to (4E) apply where a person has the same powers as an authorised investigator by virtue of section 16(2A) of the 1984 Act as applied by subsections (3) and (4).
(4C) Where the person is a constable, the constable may use reasonable force in respect of property or persons if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(4D) Where the person is not a constable, the person may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(4E) But a person may use reasonable force under subsection (4D) only in the company, and under the supervision, of an authorised investigator.”

97D: Schedule 4, page 96, line 26, leave out “take other persons, equipment and materials on to the premises” and insert “be accompanied by other persons, and bring equipment and materials on to premises,”

97E: Schedule 4, page 96, line 29, leave out “taken onto the premises” and insert “accompanying an authorised investigator”

97F: Schedule 4, page 97, leave out lines 14 to 16 and insert—
“(6) An authorised investigator exercising powers granted by a warrant under paragraph 1 may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of those powers.
(7) Sub-paragraphs (8) to (10) apply where, by virtue of paragraph 3(3), a person other than an authorised investigator may exercise powers granted by a warrant under paragraph 1.
(8) Where the person is a constable, the constable may use reasonable force in respect of property or persons if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(9) Where the person is not a constable, the person may use reasonable force in respect of property if necessary in the exercise of the powers.
(10) But a person may use reasonable force under sub-paragraph (9) only in the company, and under the supervision, of an authorised investigator.
(11) Sub-paragraphs (6) to (9) do not permit the use of force to enforce the requirement described in paragraph 2(1)(f).”

Motion F agreed.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment

20:04

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, we had a vigorous debate on the Bill at Second Reading last week, and I thank each and every noble Lord who participated in that debate. I understand and respect the concerns that have been raised, both inside and outside this House. It is worth repeating what I said last week: this Government are committed to supporting—indeed, encouraging—the thorough scrutiny of this Bill throughout its progression.

Noble Lords will understand the reason for the delay to the committal Motion last week. The Opposition’s lack of notice to the House regarding their amendment to the Motion made it impractical to proceed. I am pleased that, now the dust has settled, we are able to proceed with the committal Motion as originally planned. I reassure noble Lords that this short interruption will not impact the timing of Committee, which will be on 18 and 25 November.

The debate at Second Reading reflected the strength of feeling across the House on this important issue, and I will take this opportunity to address some of those concerns. Last week, we heard the concern across the House that Chagossian perspectives were not sufficiently reflected in the treaty and the Bill. I respect and understand this concern. However, noble Lords will also know that there is a considerable diversity of opinion across Chagossian communities. To inform further debate on this matter, and to demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the Chagossian community, the Government invite the International Relations and Defence Committee to engage a range of Chagossians to ascertain their views on the implications of the Diego Garcia treaty, and to produce a report. This process will not hold up the passage of the Bill but will be a welcome addition to debate in the House. It will be for the committee to determine the timing of the report, and I extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, who has agreed in principle to undertake this work.

I also welcome the challenge we heard to increase the participation of Chagossians in political processes. Noble Lords will know that the Government have established a Chagossian contact group to provide Chagossians with a formal role in decision-making on the UK Government’s support for their community. Following last week’s debate, the Government will explore opportunities to enhance that group by increasing its transparency and frequency. We are clear, however, that any decisions about the contact group must be made in agreement with its existing members. The Government will engage the group on this question shortly.

Further concerns were raised at Second Reading about the Chagossian trust fund and British Chagossians’ eligibility for resettlement. The Government are committed to making a Statement about both to the House as soon as can be practically achieved. Noble Lords will understand that this should happen only with the agreement of the Mauritian Government, which the Government are urgently pursuing.

I welcome the discussion we had on the Bill’s defence and security provisions. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, that I am committed to writing a response to the forensic questions that she asked last week. This response will be sent later this week and a copy will be laid in the Library of the House.

Finally, I am aware that noble Lords have a strong interest in the protection of the environment around the Chagos Islands. Last week, I mentioned that the Government have welcomed the announcement of the Mauritian Prime Minister’s Office on 3 November, confirming Mauritian plans for the establishment of a marine protected area after entry into force of the treaty. This protected area will utilise the internationally recognised categories of the International Union for Conservation of Nature. There will be no commercial fishing across the entire 640,000 square kilometre area. The Great Chagos Bank will be given one of the highest levels of protection, with the rest of the MPA categorised as a highly protected conservation zone. Noble Lords will be reassured that there will be limited provision for controlled levels of artisanal fishing in confined zones intended for resettlement to allow for subsistence fishing by any Chagossian communities that resettle, while maintaining the commitment to nature conservation.

It is clear that this Bill is fundamental to the operation of the base on Diego Garcia and the protection of national security. The Government have also demonstrated their firm commitment to supporting Chagossians and enhancing environmental protections for the archipelago. I look forward to further debate on these important issues in Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Callanan will respond to the Minister on behalf of these Benches, but I have been requested to make a brief intervention on defence and security. I am rather in the horns of a dilemma; I feel as though I am being asked to judge the weight of the baby when the baby has not yet been born, because I do not know what the Minister’s letter will say until I receive it. However, I thank her and her colleagues for their genuine and close engagement with me, my noble friend Lord Callanan and our colleagues as we endeavour to clarify issues.

The assurance I seek from the Minister at the Dispatch Box is this. It is possible that, when we receive her letter, we may disagree with the Government’s interpretation. We may consider that areas of ambiguity and doubt remain and would reserve the right to bring forward amendments in Committee. I would be very disappointed if the Government’s response were that these amendments were out of scope of the Bill and that all matters are dealt with by the agreement. That would be a very unfortunate response, so I seek a reassurance from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that, if we tabled amendments on defence and security issues, the Government would be prepared to debate them.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I mentioned last week the Chagos Refugee Group led by Olivier Bancoult, the biggest group of Chagossians. I want to quote two paragraphs from a statement that he has made today:

“I wish to explain how important it is for the British Government to make amends for the cruel treatment of our Chagossian community, by endorsing the Diego Garcia and BIOT Bill at the Committee stage in the House of Lords … With the UK government set to return Chagos to its rightful sovereign, we urge all House of Lords members to support and pass this measure to aid the Chagossian community. To delay or frustrate it will cause further societal damage to our worldwide community”.


I think that injunction is worth taking on board.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is the bit of unfinished business from last week—it is a little more temperate too, so far. I note the agreement between the Conservative Opposition and the Labour Government to advance the Bill to its next stages in implementing the treaty. These Benches hold our committees in this House in high regard. I am certain that the IRDC will carry out the work diligently and provide much valued information for us in advance of Report.

I hope that amendments that any Member might wish to bring in Committee will be considered in the normal way, within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill. Questions have been raised consistently by these Benches on right of return, determining the views of the Chagossian community on self-determination, the legal underpinning of the MPA—it is a positive development but we nevertheless seek further information on how it will be guaranteed and underwritten in Mauritian law—oversight of expenditure to the benefit of the Chagossian community in particular, and the mechanisms by which the community, whose rights have been denied them for generations, as my noble friend said, can have rights going forward. We hope that all these aspects can be aired properly in Committee and, if we seek to test the opinion of the House, on Report. I note the agreement between the Opposition and the Government. We should get on with considering the issues that these Benches have raised consistently.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Government and the Chief Whip in particular for the constructive discussions we have had since Second Reading. As the House will be aware, we took the unusual step of tabling an amendment to the committal Motion last week which would have required a government consultation of the Chagossian community before the beginning of Committee. Surprisingly, the Government then withdrew their committal Motion.

I am pleased that, following discussions in the usual channels over the past week, the Government have confirmed that Report will now not commence before the new year, allowing more time for proper scrutiny of this important Bill. This will allow the views of the Chagossian community to be taken into account as part of our scrutiny of the Bill on Report. It is very welcome news that the Government have committed to publishing further details of the Chagossian contact group and on the trust fund for the Chagossians.

20:15

Finally, I welcome the statements of my noble friend Lady Goldie and hear that the Government have committed to respond in detail to the legitimate concerns she has raised on the defence aspects of the treaty and, I hope, lay a copy of their response in the Library. In the light of positive movement from the Government, we will not seek to oppose the Motion today.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.

On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about being asked to judge the weight of the baby before the baby is born, I am in a similar position on her amendments. Without knowing what she intends to attempt to table, it is very difficult to know whether they will be in scope. Obviously, the clerks of the House will advise on this. However, I can assure her and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who also raised this, that the Government intend to approach Committee in a constructive way. When helpful amendments are tabled that would improve the Bill and not interrupt the implementation of the treaty but enhance it, particularly around engagement with the Chagossian community, we will debate them as we normally do and we can resolve issues, should we need to, on Report. I very much look forward to getting on with that process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was probably one of the best-informed participants in our debate last week—she shakes her head very modestly—and I thank her for reminding us of the diversity of opinion there clearly is among Chagossian communities. I expect and hope that this surfaces as part of the committee’s work.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for the constructive way in which he has approached this so far. We are still at the early stages but, having worked with him for some time now, I expect that this is how we will continue. I very much look forward to committee so that we can thrash some of this out, get some answers to questions that noble Lords quite rightly have of the Government, and do our job, as this Chamber so often does, with the rigour, passion and diligence that we always apply. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Report (4th Day) (Continued)

20:18

Amendment 79

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

79: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Provision of interpreters and translators under the Immigration Rules(1) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules as follows.(2) For “an interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, substitute “a qualified, professional interpreter”.(3) After “interpreter”, in both places in which it appears, insert “or translator”.(4) After “case,” insert “or engage with any of the procedures or requirements contained in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025,”.(5) Omit “The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview.””

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the three amendments in this group are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who is unfortunately unable to be in the Chamber this evening. I thank him for his support. I also thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, his officials and the Bill team for the meetings they have had with me and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and for taking our concerns seriously and sympathetically. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and honorary president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

My amendments are designed to clarify and specify once and for all that, where interpreters and translators are needed by asylum seekers and others to whom the procedures in the Bill would apply, those interpreters and translators must be qualified professionals and, as I said in Committee, not just someone who happens to speak a bit of the language in question—someone from the office or a friend or neighbour, for example. We are talking about serious, possibly life-changing circumstances, and about procedures which will involve technical and specialist knowledge and vocabulary. The use of properly qualified interpreters is for the benefit not just of the individuals concerned but of the Home Office, because it is important for claimants to have their case accurately presented in order to avoid errors of fact or in understanding which could lead to time-consuming and costly appeals.

In the helpful discussions I have had, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, has brought my attention to Immigration Rule 339ND, which says, in part:

“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary”.


So far, so good. I have also been made aware of the Home Office’s Interpreters Code of Conduct, which I had not come across before but provides a very strong foundation for what I am trying to achieve, even though there are some gaps there.

Apart from the need to clarify that interpreters and translators should be professional and qualified, my concerns are twofold. First, translators as well as interpreters should be included in the rules, regulations and the code. For example, the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 mention only interpreters, not translators. These are two very different functions, requiring different skills and different training. Secondly, it must be made clear that the code—which is, after all, guidance and not statutory—is rigorously monitored for compliance.

On the question of translators, I understand that the reason why they are not currently included in the code of conduct or in regulations is because translation services are contracted out. Therefore, I would like to know a little more about the outsourcing process and contract, in particular whether there is consistency in the standards of professionalism and qualifications required of translators and interpreters alike.

I understand that the Government are reluctant to place those two key words of mine—“professional” and “qualified”—in the Bill in case that should lead to a loss of flexibility in cases where there is a need for an interpreter of a rare language for which the standard qualifications for public service interpreters simply are not available, meaning that the Home Office has to turn elsewhere for someone suitable. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain a bit more about why they feel this hesitation, especially in view of the fact that the National Register of Public Service Interpreters has its own protocols for interpreters of rare languages in this very situation.

I did not encounter that sort of hesitation or reluctance over those two words, “professional” and “qualified”, when we debated the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. At that time, Labour, in opposition, strongly supported an amendment to the victims’ code to make it say:

“If you have difficulty understanding or speaking English, you have the Right to”


be provided with a qualified professional interpreter to help you to understand and communicate effectively. I have been a bit nervous about promises to amend guidance and codes, simply because that amendment to the victims’ code has never happened.

However, I have had a much more positive experience with the Ministry of Justice on another issue. In lieu of amendments I proposed to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2022, the MoJ responded very positively by commissioning a detailed, independent review of the qualifications and experience required of interpreters in our courts and tribunals. That has proved to be a successful exercise, which, when fully implemented, will no doubt improve both services and justice, as well as save the Government money by avoiding case adjournments and appeals.

I would very much like to hear something similar and convincing tonight, to reassure me that any strengthening or clarification of the Home Office’s code of conduct—however good a starting point it most certainly already is—will actually be undertaken and not just promised. That should happen in short order and be independently conducted with the involvement of stakeholders in the sector. If that were to be undertaken, along with an assurance about the consistency of standards for translators, I believe that my concerns about professionalism and qualifications could be satisfied without troubling the House to divide on the amendments. For now, I beg to move.

Amendment 79ZA (to Amendment 79)

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

79ZA: After subsection (5) insert—
“(6) After “wherever necessary” insert “and in compliance with the Interpreters Code of Conduct version 5.0”.”

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

I beg to move.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I second what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has said, in the same way as I supported her in Committee. I was pleased to join her in one meeting with the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and I apologise that I was unable to do so again yesterday. He has been very helpful in making himself available to discuss this subject.

Although the merits of the issue speak for themselves, I was specifically drawn to supporting the noble Baroness because I was involved, in a previous life, in promoting access to interpretation and translation services for defendants in the criminal justice system—that was an EU directive. Therefore, I wanted to transfer my support to the area of asylum law.

I will say a few words on EU-derived law. The noble Baroness mentioned the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. I was interested to see a reference to that in a letter, which was also kindly made available to me, that the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Katz, sent to the noble Baroness on 24 October. That followed the meeting we had had with him and officials, in which it did not cross my mind to look at the implementation of the EU asylum procedures directive. This stuff is all getting quite old for me now; I was involved in the debates on that directive in 2005—good heavens, that was 20 years ago. I was interested, if a little surprised, to see the UK regulations which implemented that directive mentioned, after our meeting, in the letter of 24 October. In it, the Minister says:

“The Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007 … implemented basic standards for asylum system procedures including translation provision as part of the UK’s transposition of Council Directive 2005/85/EC … on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status. Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals and in proceedings in the higher courts. This regulation remains in force”.


I think that there is some confusion or confounding of translation and interpretation in that paragraph.

The second to last sentence there is right that:

“Regulation 5 provides for a right to an interpreter during asylum appeals”.


I have checked the directive and, indeed, it refers only to interpreting; it does not refer to the translation of documents. However, this paragraph in the letter referred to “translation provision”. It is absolutely true that those two terms sometimes get conflated, but I think I have properly understood that the Government are saying that this applies only to interpretation.

20:30

I would like to get an explanation, if I could, from the Minister. These regulations are still in force. Despite the reference to translation, we understand that they apply only to interpreting and the right to an interpreter, so can they be mentioned in the Minister’s reply and reassurance? I am not entirely sure why they have not been mentioned so far when they were in his letter, but I do not think they are among what the Minister intends to assure us about tonight. If he could integrate the famous Asylum (Procedures) Regulations into the code, which I think he is going to talk about, and if he could show how they work together, I would be very grateful.

Overall—I do not want to go on anymore—I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and I congratulate her on her persistence in pursuing this very important subject. It is important for the asylum applicant to be able to be understood, and it is important for the taxpayer to make sure that we have efficient processes that do not run on because of defects due to lack of understanding. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, as much as I thank the Minister.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments raise a very important point, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for opening the group with the arguments she made. The important point is the need to ensure that interpretation and translation services in our asylum and immigration system are both adequate and effective. Self-evidently, clear and accurate communication is essential to the fairness and integrity of any decision-making process, and that is particularly true in cases which can have serious consequences for the individuals concerned. The amendments before us seek to strengthen the standards applied to interpreters and translators. In principle, that is a very sensible and worthwhile aim.

Before we consider making changes to the existing framework, it would be more helpful to understand from the Minister the current position in a little more detail. The noble Baroness laid out specific deficiencies that she believes are presently affecting the system in providing these services. Objective standards are important, but some are already in place under the current arrangements, such as the interpreters code of conduct—the noble Baroness mentioned this and the need for a review of that code in her speech. If there are demonstrable gaps or failings in quality assurance, that would certainly merit attention. Indeed, we would welcome assurances from the Minister on this point that the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, are being actively addressed. Equally, if existing mechanisms are already achieving those aims, we should be cautious about introducing additional prescription, which may duplicate what is already in operation.

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

My Lords, the asylum interview is an important part of the asylum process for many asylum seekers, because it is one of the main opportunities to provide relevant evidence about why they need international protection. Similarly, for the asylum decision-maker, and indeed for the whole of the Government’s processes, it helps draw out and test the evidence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in moving the amendments, paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules provides that:

“The Secretary of State shall provide at public expense an interpreter for the purpose of allowing the applicant to submit their case, wherever necessary. The Secretary of State shall select an interpreter who can ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the representative of the Secretary of State who conducts the interview”.


Interpreters are required to interpret to a high standard on a range of protection-based and human rights topics, including, although not limited to, religious conversion, female genital mutilation, sexuality and gender-based claims, all types and forms of persecution, physical and mental health, and political activity.

It is really important that we are having this debate. I am again very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Ludford, for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I also salute the indefatigability of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this subject, being flexible and meeting myself and officials to get clarification on this important subject area.

Amendments 79ZA and 79F seek to amend the provisions relating to interpreters in the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations 2007. Amendment 79F seeks to include the provision that interpreters must be professionally qualified. For an interpreter to join the Home Office panel of freelance interpreters, they must be either a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters or hold one of the qualifications or assessments listed in the Interpreters Code of Conduct, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred. The code exists to ensure that expected standards of conduct and behaviour are met and that any potential misconduct issues are addressed at an early stage.

Throughout this process, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has been tenacious in stressing the importance of experience and professional standards. We feel that that is very much the spirit of the code of conduct and its practice. Interpreters must conduct themselves in a professional and impartial manner and respect confidentiality at all times, irrespective of whether they are attending an interview in person, remotely via video conference or by audio only. Prompt and decisive action is taken when the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct by an interpreter.

The Home Office requires interpreters who wish to join its panel to already be a full member of the National Register of Public Service Interpreters—NRPSI—or hold a specified qualification or assessment. There may be instances, where a language is particularly rare, when the Home Office will accept documented proof of hours worked as an interpreter in that language for a reputable business or charity, but these are assessed on a case-by-case basis and must be approved by a senior manager. We wish to preserve the spirit of flexibility that the current system has for these exceptional cases, and specification in the Bill might prohibit that sort of approach to a particularly rare language or dialect where interpretation is required.

The minimum standards are long-standing and demonstrate that interpreters already need to prove that they are proficient before being accepted on to the Home Office interpreters panel. They also allow for a level of flexibility which ensures that even those who speak rarer languages can be serviced by the Home Office, protecting the proficiency and standards of Home Office interpreters. The qualifications needed by interpreters are freely available to all, published on GOV.UK.

It is considered that amending the Immigration Rules in the way envisaged by the amendment would have little impact. The code of conduct sets out clear expectations around impartiality and the standards of conduct and behaviour that interpreters are required to meet. Interpreters must hold recognised qualifications. They undergo rigorous background security checks and are required to sign a declaration of confidentiality.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about enforcement of the code. Feedback is collected on interpreter performance, and any incidents of alleged behaviour falling short of the code of conduct will be fully investigated. Feedback is primarily compiled by interviewing officers completing an interpreter monitoring form, but this form may also be completed by other Home Office officials. Prompt and decisive action will be taken as soon as the Home Office becomes aware of any alleged inappropriate conduct, and this is obviously in the best interests of the department, the interpreter, the wider public and, of course, the claimant. The way in which the code of conduct is managed and enforced minimises any risk of bias, including for sensitive, asylum and immigration cases.

Interpreters must comply with any requests from the Interpreter & Language Services Unit for information within the time specified. If there is evidence of behaviour falling short of the code of conduct, interpreter monitoring may be considered, to determine any further action.

The amendment also seeks to include “translator” within the provisions relating to interpreters in paragraph 339ND of the Immigration Rules and the Asylum (Procedures) Regulations. This relates to providing at public expense a translator to allow an applicant to submit their case and appeal their claim, as well as a translator to ensure appropriate communication at interview. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in her contribution, raised a number of questions around the role of translation in the Home Office rules and code of conduct; I will come to what she was referring to in a short time.

The asylum interview guidance makes clear that where a claimant wishes to submit documents relevant to their claim, where those documents are in a foreign language, the asylum decision-maker must ask what it is and what relevance it has. If the document is or could be useful, they must give the claimant an agreed period to submit a translation, noting this on the interview record.

Specifically on translation services, to be clear, the code applies to anyone conducting any assignments on behalf of the Home Office. The Home Office contract for written translation is held by thebigword, whose stringent quality control processes in place should ensure that translations meet the high standards required.

Although I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for the amendments and indeed the wider debate we have had on this issue both tonight and in Committee, the Government see no reason why the existing framework should be changed in the way suggested by the amendment, and for that reason I invite her to withdraw the amendments.

As I said, it is important that we are able to retain some flexibility in the way that we provide interpreter services particularly, specifically because of very rare languages. Too much specificity in the Bill could constrict the effective service that we want to provide to asylum seekers and might also have a negative impact on our ability to provide a fair, effective and efficient system.

However, I am pleased to say that, following our extensive discussions with officials, I am happy to commit from the Dispatch Box that the Home Office will work with stakeholders to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct and provision of translation services—to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—including a section in the code that outlines the criteria for becoming a Home Office interpreter, reflecting the need for qualification or professional experience, including reference to NRPSI standards, as I have set out. Given that additional commitment tonight and the conversations that we have had over the past days and weeks, I very much hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and that she will see fit to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Katz, very much for his response, and I especially thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support. I am encouraged that my concerns have been well understood and I appreciate the commitment to review the Interpreters Code of Conduct, including the involvement of stakeholders and the commitment to look at the role of translators as well as interpreters. At this stage, I ask only that the Government resist kicking this issue into touch and forgetting it, as happened with the victims’ code, but go very quickly to agree a timetable as soon as possible for the review, which I warmly welcome. On that hopeful note, I thank the Minister once again and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 79ZA (to Amendment 79) withdrawn.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

Amendments 79A and 79B not moved.

Amendment 79C

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

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

20:45

Amendment 79D relates to information in the asylum system on conversion to Christianity. I have tabled Written Questions to the Home Office and questioned the Minister in this House to find out how many asylum claims have been accepted based on religious conversions in each of the past five years in respect of conversions to Christianity, Islam, Judaism and any other religion. I got the following Written Answer:

“The requested information on asylum claims being accepted based on religious conversion is not available from published statistics and the relevant data could only be collated and verified for the purpose of answering this question at disproportionate cost”.

I have discussed this amendment with the Anglican bishop Matthew Firth. He has spoken out about this topic a number of times after he was brave enough to come forward and say that he had seen extensive cases of abuse of Christian baptism by male asylum seekers. He described people coming to him in his former parish church in Darlington, representing groups of asylum seekers, saying, “These people need to be baptised”. In giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in March 2024, he stated that

“the vast majority, if not all, of the people seeking asylum who were coming to me for baptism were seeking baptism after having already failed in their initial asylum claim”.

Subsequently, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford told the same Select Committee that she did not have a problem with what he said about the truth of this issue. He further tells me that a number of Church of England clerics have contacted him to say that what he observed in Darlington is happening across the country in their parishes, too. They say that they are too afraid to speak out because of the treatment that they are likely to get from Church of England bishops with very distinct political views. They tell him that it is happening constantly. Asylum seekers who fail on their first application are suddenly asking for baptism as a way to overturn the result.

I am aware that many right reverend Prelates in your Lordships’ House have questioned the veracity of these reports and anecdotes. I agree with them that we cannot make policy on a matter of great importance based on the testimony of one bishop. That is why I ask that the Government look again at their processes and take steps to collect detailed data that can be used for robust scrutiny.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of London]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I want to draw attention to one factor which has been represented to us here. All the evidence seems to be addressed to the Anglican Church, which of course is the Church of England, and for those of us who belong to a disestablished church in another part of the United Kingdom, these matters have never been discussed or raised with us.

Debating an English-only issue in a Bill which relates to asylum seekers across the whole of the United Kingdom is worrisome, but introducing a statutory requirement for breaking down asylum grants by religion risks shifting the focus away from the merits of individual claims towards demographic patterns. The cornerstone of a fair protection system is that every asylum claim must be determined solely on its merits. The Minister told us in earlier debate on this matter that no judgment is taken on cohorts of people; it is solely on the merits of a case.

The objective of the state must be to focus its resources on those fleeing regimes where oppression and violence are a real and present danger. Decisions should not be driven by statistics based on demographic information, such as religious affiliation, but by the specific personal risks of persecution faced by the applicant upon return. Although transparency is welcome, requiring reporting that segregates data by religion risks underpinning policies that lead to blanket refusals or differential treatment that disregards the crucial individual assessment needed for effective asylum decision-making.

We must ensure that our system focuses on those who truly need our help—the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. Based on the principles of individual justice and effective resource management, we reject these amendments.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for Amendments 79C and 79D. Both amendments are proportionate and consistent with the principles that underpin the Bill; namely, that our asylum and immigration system should be firm, fair and founded on clear evidence.

There is a common theme that has run through a number of amendments tabled by these Benches in this Bill and that is transparency. If we are to build and sustain confidence in how this country handles claims for asylum, and particularly those made on sensitive grounds such as modern slavery or religious persecution, we must ensure the facts are available and that Parliament can see them clearly set out. Without good data, good policy is impossible.

Amendment 79C would require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on how many individuals identified through the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery go on to receive asylum or refugee status. This is a vital area of public concern. The link between the asylum system and modern slavery referrals has grown significantly in recent years, and questions have been raised about whether that system is being exploited by those seeking to frustrate legitimate removal or immigration control processes.

An annual report as proposed would shine a light on the outcome of modern slavery referrals, who is granted asylum, on what grounds, and through which routes they arrived. It is about evidence-based policy-making, and it would strengthen, not weaken, our collective efforts against the crime of modern slavery.

Amendment 79D addresses another area that demands careful scrutiny: asylum claims based on religion—in particular, cases where an individual has converted to a new faith after arrival in the United Kingdom. Again, this is a matter that touches on deeply held convictions and our tradition of religious liberty, but it is also an area where the integrity of the system must be beyond reproach. Legitimate concerns have been expressed in this House and beyond about the authenticity of some claimed conversions—for example those said to have been made to Christianity—and the consistency of decision-making in those cases. I simply suggest that we cannot be squeamish about addressing this. My noble friend has asked several Written Questions on this matter. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

My noble friend’s amendment is agnostic on this issue. It does not preclude asylum claims being granted on the basis of religious conversion, nor does it state that all such claims should be declined. It does not prejudge any claim or seek to cast doubt on anyone’s faith. It requires the Home Office to publish each year a factual report on how many asylum claims were granted on religious grounds and, crucially, how many of those cases involved a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. That data will be broken down by religion and laid before Parliament. That is transparency in action. It would not alter a single individual’s right to claim asylum or change the grounds on which such claims are assessed, but it would give Parliament and the public the information necessary to scrutinise and understand how such claims are being made and determined, and give reassurance to genuine converts and the faith communities that support them that the system operates fairly and consistently. The amendments are about ensuring that government policy is grounded in evidence and that Parliament can fulfil its duty of oversight.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, for tabling the amendments before us. They have certainly begun a short debate. I regret to inform her that I will not be able to accept them. I hope that she can withdraw them, but I will give her an explanation as to why.

The amendments seek to make the Government publish two annual reports. Amendment 79C would commit the Government to an annual report on asylum and refugee grants for those identified in the national referral mechanism as victims of modern slavery, and Amendment 79D would provide for an annual report on how many of the cohort of asylum seekers were granted asylum based on their religion or religious conversion.

The important point, which I think has been recognised across the House, is that every asylum claim is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Each claimant is given the opportunity to explain their reasons for seeking protection in the UK through an asylum interview. Although individual records are, of course, maintained for each claim and record the reasons for a grant of asylum, we do not publish statistics which set out in total all the reasons why individuals fear persecution. The Home Office publishes a significant amount of data on a range of different aspects of the asylum system, but not in the way that the noble Baroness asks for.

I take very strongly the comments from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on her view, and that of other members of the Church, of the issue of religious persecution. Faith and belief—or, indeed, lack thereof—can be very complex. Just like the pride we have in providing protection for those who need it, we should pride ourselves on the religious freedoms that we enjoy in the United Kingdom. I want to continue protecting those who need it, particularly when they face persecution for having a belief that differs from the faith they are expected or, indeed, forced to have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, wishes for the annual report to include the number of those who changed their religion after arriving in the UK. Again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with changing your religion when you arrive in the UK. Those matters will be explored in the individual claim when it is presented by a claimant and, as part of the process, decision-makers must take into consideration and test the claimant’s motivation, for those adopting a new faith and those who have renounced their previous faith.

Officials at the Home Office have worked with stakeholders, including the Church, to ensure that asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution are well considered, that those in genuine need are supported, and that there are no loopholes for claiming asylum in this country.

As a resident of Wales myself, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the Church of England is one aspect of Christian religion and there may be other aspects, and indeed other religions, where persecution results in change. That could be due to marriage, personal beliefs, or a whole range of reasons, and these will be tested in the individual interview.

21:00

Amendment 79C would require data drawn from different datasets across the Home Office to be produced showing asylum and refugee grants for those identified as victims of modern slavery. I genuinely understand the intention behind the amendment, because we have discussed this in Questions and in debates, but it is important to put on record that the quarterly national referral mechanism statistics on victim identification and the quarterly immigration statistics provide more than enough insight into the outputs of the respective systems. I will obviously keep published data under constant review, but I believe that imposing a duty as in the amendment proposed today to produce a new annual report would not be proportionate at this time. The published quarterly immigration statistics demonstrate that overall grant rates can vary for a number of reasons, including the mix of nationalities claiming asylum and the protection needs of those who claim asylum in the United Kingdom. My suggestion to the noble Baroness is that that information is available.

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

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

Amendment 79C withdrawn.

Amendment 79D not moved.

Amendment 79E

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[The Lord Bishop of London]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I must start with what may have been a slip of the tongue from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, when she talked about safeguarding this country’s conditions and living standards. In so doing, she mentioned the established Church. I have to say once more that it is the established Church in England; it was disestablished in Wales, and there is the Episcopalian Church in Scotland and so on. If we are trying to protect the nature of our society in its broadest context, we have to recognise that we are very diverse. We are diverse in religion, across nationalities and across language and diverse in all sorts of other ways as well. As a country, we should celebrate that diversity no matter where it comes.

This amendment introduces what I would call an inflexible barrier to protection based solely on the timing of a person’s religious conversion. The long-established principle in our asylum system is that claims must be evaluated strictly on their merits. Amendment 79E mandates a blanket refusal based on a characteristic—post-arrival religious conversion—rather than considering the genuine risks of persecution faced by that individual on return. We must focus ourselves on this matter.

Adopting such a provision would also place the United Kingdom in breach of our obligations under the refugee convention, which is built on core principles including non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement. The timing of religious conversion is a deeply personal matter. If a court or tribunal determines that a person genuinely holds a religious belief, established after arrival in this country, the removal of that belief protection solely because of when the conversion occurred would undermine the foundational commitment to non-refoulement. We must resist the temptation to attempt to fundamentally change the interpretation of the convention by unilateral domestic legislation—an approach which has rightly been scrutinised elsewhere.

We should not tie the hands of the courts and decision-makers by removing their ability to grant protection in cases where genuine risk of persecution has been proven, merely because the threat arises from faith adopted while seeking sanctuary here. For those reasons, we therefore uphold the principle that justice demands we look at the substance of the persecution claims regardless of when the circumstances giving to rise to them developed.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch for this amendment which, as she said, addresses the interpretation of the refugee convention in cases where an individual claims asylum on the grounds of religious persecution following a conversion that took place after arrival in the UK. The amendment would make it clear in statute that refugee status should not be granted solely on the basis of a claimed religious conversion that occurred after a person has entered the United Kingdom.

Again, the purpose of this amendment is not to question the sincerity of anyone’s personal faith, nor to diminish the fundamental right to freedom of religion. Rather, it seeks to uphold the integrity of our asylum framework and ensure that the refugee convention is applied as originally intended: to those fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, not to those who have created new grounds for asylum only after arrival here. This is a matter of fairness and of public confidence. It is no secret that concerns have been raised, both within this House and among the wider public, about individuals who, having exhausted other immigration routes, subsequently claim asylum on the basis of a newly professed faith. If the Minister does not accept this amendment, how will the Government address this issue?

21:15

We cannot and should not allow the generosity of the asylum system to be manipulated. By clarifying the interpretation of the refugee convention in this specific context, guidance would be provided to decision-makers, reducing opportunistic claims. At the same time, it would not prevent genuine converts seeking other appropriate forms of protection or leave to remain on humanitarian grounds. It would simply ensure that the definition of a refugee is applied as intended. The refugee convention, admirable as it is, was drafted in a very different age and has sometimes been stretched beyond what its drafters could have envisaged. Parliament has a duty to ensure that the law reflects contemporary realities, including the growing challenge of fraudulent or opportunistic claims, while maintaining our proud record of offering sanctuary to those in genuine need.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Amendment 79E withdrawn.

Amendment 79F not moved.

Clause 60: Regulations

Amendment 80 not moved.

Clause 62: Commencement

Amendment 81

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

81: Clause 62, page 67, line 33, at end insert—
“(ba) section 42;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would bring clause 42 (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc) into force on Royal Assent.

Amendment 81 agreed.

Amendment 82 not moved.

Amendment 83

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

83: Clause 62, page 68, line 1, leave out “, 42”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 62 at page 67, line 33.

Amendment 83 agreed.

Amendments 84 to 86 not moved.

House adjourned at 9.24 pm.