Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Tuesday 11th November 2025
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberBorder Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 136-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (7 Nov 2025)
Baroness Coussins
“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)
Baroness Coussins
“(6) After “wherever necessary” insert “and in compliance with the Interpreters Code of Conduct version 5.0”.”
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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?
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.
Lord Hanson of Flint
“(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.
Lord Hanson of Flint
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 62 at page 67, line 33.