Live Debate: Lords Chamber

Lords Chamber

Monday 13th October 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate

Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded

14:54

Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)

- -

same. Has the government been tracking how many of those Sen pupils without an EHCP have moved, and is it looking at the impact both on children and schools, including school finances?

14:54

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady for a question, and I know that this is an issue that she cares deeply is an issue that she cares deeply about. We've had discussions on this point in the past. Absolutely. We recognise that the current Sen system is not delivering the outcomes that pupils and parents rightly expect, and is placing unsustainable burdens upon local unsustainable burdens upon local schools, local authorities and on taxpayers. And the government will set out the detail of its reform set out the detail of its reform plans in the context of the wider school strategy later this year.

In terms of specific pupil movements. As I say, those pupil movements are As I say, those pupil movements are in line with the estimates that we set out at the time of the last budget. Those estimates were budget. Those estimates were assessed by the OBR and we remain confident in them. I think it's worth noting that so far this year, 49 private schools have closed, but 70 private schools have opened. And 70 private schools have opened. And of those, 70 private schools that have opened, 59 of them are special educational schools.

14:55

Lord Gove (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

educational schools. My Lord my Lords my Lords my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords my Lord. Thank you, my Lords. The government pledged at the last government pledged at the last election that this tax increase would pay for 6500 new teachers in state schools. Over the last year, this government has seen the number of teachers in state schools drop by more than 400. How can -400 be an addition? Even in the crazy Treasury?

14:56

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

Yeah. one of the leading proponents for Brexit, so I think he would know. He would know all about crazy mathematics. This measure raises £1.7 billion to spend on state schools. He will have seen that in the previous SR settlement for schools to raise school standards for every child and break down barriers to opportunity, the government is increasing the school core schools budget by £4.7 billion per year by 2829. This is a real terms increase of 1.1% on average each year on a per pupil basis, taking per pupil funding to a new record high.

Yes, Minister.

14:56

Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (Crossbench)

- -

Notice that the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry Minister. Comment on data that seems to infer that schools are using some of this additional money to fund free school meals because there is insufficient funding for

14:57

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

there is insufficient funding for the level of the cost of those meals. Rather than employing more teachers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't know about specific decisions that each individual school is making, obviously, how the school is making, obviously, how the individual schools fund this specific policy is a matter for those individual schools, but I am

14:57

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

very confident that our free school meals policy is fully funded. when.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Opposition claimed that. It would. Shut schools.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And yet it hasn't. So they've switched in their arguments on a daily basis. But does he also agree. With me? It's hard to.

14:57

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's hard to. Take from a party that. Cut state. School spending. Every year virtually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Every year virtually. They were in power. Almost. Well, I'm grateful to my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I'm grateful to my noble friend for the points that he makes, and I agree very much with what he's saying, as he knows we are saying, as he knows we are increasing per pupil funding to record amounts. I also think it's absolutely correct that we've heard many scare stories about this policy that that schools would close. I think since VAT was applied on the 1st of January, private schools have continued to open and close in line with historic trends. As I've said already, 49 private schools have closed, but 70 private schools have so far opened.

so far opened.

14:58

Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)

- -

As the minister knows, as the minister knows. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I start by echoing the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Ming of Campbell? It seems only Ming of Campbell? It seems only yesterday that he was with us. My Lords, I believe that taxing Lords, I believe that taxing education is a shabby policy, and we've seen some 50 schools close we've seen some 50 schools close since the VAT on private schools was introduced. This is another example of Labour attacking the sectors of Britain that are most successful, in this case, our private schools are this case, our private schools are very well regarded internationally and key to our country's academic and key to our country's academic successes.

Has the noble Lord. The minister learnt anything from this regrettable episode about how and

14:59

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regrettable episode about how and where we tax? Yeah. I'm grateful to noble Lady for a question. What I've learnt from this episode is not to listen to scare stories from the party opposite. I'm sorry that she didn't listen to the figures that I gave when she talks about school closures. Yes, 49 schools have closed, but 70 private schools have opened. So obviously there's a net increase in the number of private schools in our country. There has historically been significant turnover within this sector, with around 75 private schools in the UK opening and closing each year, and the overall number of private schools remaining broadly stable.

14:59

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

Could the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could His Majesty's Government. Consider using. Some of the money it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Expects to get from this policy to reverse its. Recent decision to remove funding from state schools

14:59

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remove funding from state schools for the International Baccalaureate? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I don't specifically know about the specific policy the noble Lady is talking, but as I say, we Lady is talking, but as I say, we have significantly increased funding in the previous spending review in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terms of per pupil funding to a new schools. I like to confirm that.

15:00

Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I like to confirm that. Without Brexit. His. put. VAT on private schools.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

VAT on private schools.

15:00

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. So. Although he could. Without without Brexit GDP would

15:00

Lord Naseby (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Without without Brexit GDP would be 4% higher so we wouldn't need to. And as a minister, no, as the minister knows.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minister knows. There's very little. Boarding availability. In the state sector. And against.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In the state sector. And against. That background, will the Majesty's Government look at understanding all Government look at understanding all the families who need boarding are probably heavily involved in exporting and helping our nation. And against that background, will he review whether the government can consider removing VAT on the boarding element when there really is no other choice than to go to the private sector?

15:01

Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)

- -

I think the answer to that is no. VAT applies to private boarding fees as well as private tuition fees. At private schools, boarding is very often included as part of a single overall tuition fee. Not applying VAT to private boarding fees would open up significant risks of value shifting from school fees to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

boarding fees in order to avoid VAT. So don't question Baroness Ritchie.

15:01

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ritchie. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.

15:01

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. My Lords, in the ten year plan, we announced. We would deliver the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First ever modern service. Framework for. Frailty and dementia. To reduce unwanted variation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To reduce unwanted variation. And narrow. Inequality in diagnosis and care for those living

**** Possible New Speaker ****

diagnosis and care for those living with dementia. It will set national standards and redirect NHS priorities to provide. The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Best care and support. Which will be essential, along with access to a timely and accurate diagnosis.

15:02

Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

timely and accurate diagnosis. My Lords, could I thank my Noble friend, the Minister, for the answer, but I would like to press answer, but I would like to press her a little further. According to Alzheimer's Research UK, 1 in 3 people in the UK living with dementia currently do not have a diagnosis, unlike other major. Unlike other major conditions such as heart disease or cancer, dementia does not have national waiting time targets. Therefore, I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister, what plans do the government have to introduce an 18 week referral to treatment target to give dementia and to give those people with dementia and their carers and conditions.

15:02

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

And so, in our. framework for frailty and dementia, what we are doing is engaging with a wide group of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Partners because we need to understand what should be included understand what should be included to ensure the best outcomes, and I hope my noble friend will welcome the fact that we're going to be considering what interventions should be supported to improve diagnosis waiting times, which are, diagnosis waiting times, which are, I would certainly agree, are too long in many areas. And in addition, we are considering all the options to help reduce variation, including reviewing metrics and targets.

As my noble friend refers to.

15:03

Lord Bethell (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friend refers to. My Lords. My Lords. I mean Nordisk. The results of incredibly Nordisk. The results of incredibly extensive clinical trials on the use of GLP one to treat dementia, particularly Alzheimer's disease. This is an incredibly exciting potential development. Could the Noble Minister please share with the House what the government is doing to prepare diagnosis for Alzheimer's disease, so that those who have Alzheimer's disease can be ready for this exciting treatment? this exciting treatment?

15:04

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well, the noble Lord is right to identify what are exciting developments in this area and perhaps I could say that we are investing in dementia research across all areas and that includes causes, diagnosis as well as prevention, treatment, care and support, including for carers. So I think it's very important to identify the wide range. But in terms of preparation, we are ensuring that clinical trials are maximised and also reductions in waiting times do happen.

And also, as I said, through the modern service framework, we will be looking at the whole arrangements, which I think will give a very useful range of direction, which we do need to include the point. The noble Lord says.

15:04

Lord Weir of Ballyholme (Democratic Unionist Party)

- -

My knowledge, in light of other positive developments, such as the adopt and readout trials, which are concentrating on using blood tests as a device to ensure that that diagnosis is done more effectively. Can the government outline what steps they're taking to ensure the NHS is able to adopt such innovations, to ensure them that everyone has a right to an early and effective diagnosis?

15:05

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

Well amongst. In addition to the points that I've already made, I would also add actually that the work through the Life Sciences plan will also be of great assistance in ensuring that we remove obstacles and we make that route that the noble Lord refers to be as quick as possible so that we can move from development to the people who actually do need this. So we are ensuring that we're reducing friction, and we're also optimising access and also uptake of new medicines.

And that includes speed of decisions and also implementation. I'm sure that will

15:06

Baroness Bull (Crossbench)

- -

be most welcome. For my Lords. Thank you. The noble Ladies question asks you. The noble Ladies question asks not just about access to care, but also quality of life. Is she aware of the growing body of evidence that creativity enhances the quality of life of those with dementia, but life of those with dementia, but also their carers, and provides an effective mechanism for interaction between the two? So can I ask what between the two? So can I ask what is her department doing to explore how creativity can be embedded as

15:06

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

how creativity can be embedded as part of the treatment to improve quality of life for those with dementia? Well, the noble Lady makes dementia? Well, the noble Lady makes a good point. I have personally been involved in a number of discussions about the role of creativity, and I about the role of creativity, and I certainly would acknowledge it and perhaps helpful to refer to the right care dementia scenario, which right care dementia scenario, which works through the whole of the pathway for those who have dementia, pathway for those who have dementia, not just about diagnosing, but also about looking at the best kind of about looking at the best kind of approaches to support people on their journey from that diagnosis

15:07

Baroness Burt of Solihull (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their journey from that diagnosis through to the rest of their life. I lost. One of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. As we know, Alzheimer's is the main form of a Alzheimer's is the main form of a number of types of dementia and early diagnosis allows for help to identify the specific type of dementia, leading to targeted dementia, leading to targeted treatment and access to support services which have been discussed services which have been discussed already this afternoon. But the expected time from someone presenting at a GP surgery and diagnosis has increased from 13 to diagnosis has increased from 13 to nearly 18 weeks.

My, this is going in the wrong direction. What will in the wrong direction. What will the government do to speed up this diagnosis so that more people can diagnosis so that more people can benefit from some of the treatments that the noble Lady has already

15:08

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

that the noble Lady has already referred to? Well, diagnosis is as the noble Lady says, absolutely crucial. And I would say that I feel our health system has somewhat struggled to support those who have got complex needs, including those with dementia. And that's why I would emphasise the role of the modern service framework in this area. It's the first time we've had one and would take that whole view that I think has been sorely lacking, and it's going to be informed by the Independent Commission on Social Care next year.

So we're not waiting for years. We are looking at at next year. But the final point I'd make is about the dementia diagnosis rate for patients aged 65 plus, and the government is committed to recovering that to the national ambition of 66.7. At the end of August, it was 66.1%.

15:09

The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)

- -

The evidence is clear across the board. Eating healthy and staying active helps brain health and the prevention of Alzheimer's. So is it not a huge concern to the government that more than half of the calories and average UK person in the UK eats and drinks come from ultra processed foods, and less than 25% of the adults in the age groups most prone to Alzheimer's are not meeting the chief medical officers. Guidelines for aerobic and muscle strengthening exercise.

15:09

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

I think that the points, the valid points that the noble Lord raises actually refer to a whole range of health conditions, and particularly I referred to the struggle of our health service to support those with complex needs. And clearly at prevention, one of the pillars of the ten year plan at prevention of ill health is absolutely going to be crucial. And that will include good diet and that will include a good exercise and movement programme.

I can't comment on the specific link with dementia. There is so much more work to be done, which is why we are investing so much in terms of Research and Development.

15:10

Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)

- -

That family members who.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look after those without timer's often a great stress to themselves of the House will no require respite care. That's one of the most valuable ways of helping them. Traditionally, they've looked to the nursing home sector to provide 1 or 2 week admissions to give them a break, perhaps a chance to attend a family event. Increasingly, they're finding these more difficult to obtain. Not only are they prohibitively expensive, but the nursing home sector is reluctant now

15:11

Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

nursing home sector is reluctant now to offer short term placements. Well, I thank my noble friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my noble friend for those very helpful. Although concerning observations, and would concerning observations, and would say that's why I very much look forward to the first phase and later phases. In terms of the Independent Commission into Adult Social Care, chaired by the noble Lady Baroness Casey, not least because it will inform the modern service framework which will have account of matters such as those that my noble friend raises.

15:11

Oral questions: Current state of the jobs market in the UK, and the implications for the economy

Fourth oral question what of will I beg leave to ask the question? Standing in my name on the Order Standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, economic growth.

15:11

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Remains as government's number one mission, and boosting Labour market participation is central to achieving this. The UK jobs market continues to show resilience with high employment and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Falling inactivity. However, there. Is. More to do. Which is.

15:12

Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why we are continuing with I Get Britain working strategy to drive forward the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employment support in a generation. My Lords, given that every Labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, given that every Labour government in the last century has left office with unemployment higher left office with unemployment higher than when they came in, will the noble Baroness the Minister now reconsider the government's opposition to those cross-party amendments achieved by substantial majorities in your Lordships' House to the Employment Rights Bill, which seek to protect jobs? In that way, she can prevent history repeating itself. Yes. Noble Lords.

15:13

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

I'm very fond of our traditions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in the House of Lords, but we have a new one now which is on a monthly basis. Let's relitigate. The Employment Rights.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Employment Rights. Bill in the form of an oral question. Can I say to the. Look this to the noble Lord? And one of this to the noble Lord? And one of the reasons I don't like this question every month, as we end up having the kind of ding dong that is really more typical of the Commons. really more typical of the Commons. So let me try to answer it in a more in a more serious way without getting into scrapping about it. getting into scrapping about it.

This government has had to take some difficult decisions to strengthen the country's finances. However, the Employment Rights Bill was, we Employment Rights Bill was, we believe, the right choice. We've looked at the evidence. It is backed by academic and business voices as a driver of productivity. And if I driver of productivity. And if I would encourage the noble Lord to look carefully at the employment data, he will see a positive trajectory. Employment is up in, trajectory. Employment is up in, activity is down, wages are growing and vacancy levels remain healthy, which are clear signs of resilience which are clear signs of resilience in the Labour market.

But there are clear global headwinds. And where there is slack, one of the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most important. Things for a government to do is to address supply side measures, because if times get tough, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because if times get tough, the people. And those. Farther from the Labour market. So we have a strategy as to how we support people, tackle the barriers and to work and make that work. My Lords, that is what we're trying to

15:14

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, that is what we're trying to do. We're pushing forward and it is getting results. There. Given the emphasis that's now being put on Goldstar Vocational Qualifications, would my noble friend the Minister say what the government is doing to encourage local businesses to horizon scam with regard to future skills requirements and work with local educational institutions so that courses properly reflect the local jobs market and avoid the rather hit and miss approach when skills don't match the actual jobs that are on offer locally.

offer locally.

15:14

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

And the my Lords, I think my noble friend. to the recent announcement the government has made, that we are moving away from a target for university entrance and to a target, an ambition to have two thirds of young people by age 25 reaching level four and going on to have 10%, reaching level 4 or 5. One of the things we have in this country, we've traditionally done well on university degrees, but too few young people have less than four and five qualifications.

That kind of missing middle the whole back of productivity and stops people getting those higher technical jobs. The point she makes is crucial, which is horizon scanning. We know that by 2040, 2030 will need 900,000 more skilled workers in priority sectors, and two thirds of those are going to need qualifications about four and five level. So we are working very closely. DWP is working with business and indeed that local level local skills improvement plans are employed, led by employers working with Jobcentres and local partners.

But my Lords, the detail is coming. The government has a strategy for looking at post 16 education and skills and long term and all that will be coming out in a white paper on education and skills, last.

15:16

The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)

- -

Thing, my Lords, over 84,000 jobs have been lost since the last budget in the hospitality industry, an industry that should be growing, not contracting. I hope the Minister would agree. What is the government's assessment of why this is occurring in the hospitality industry, and how will they address this? Yeah. this? Yeah.

15:16

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

The one thing I will say is within hospitality, there are still 78,000 vacancies in accommodation and food service activities. That is unchanged on the quarter and is only 7000 below their pre-pandemic level. And well, of course, there are global headwinds across the economy, but the retail and hospitality, for example, are sectors where there has always been a lot of churn. And what we one of the things they need to do is to make sure they are the appropriate workers at the appropriate level.

So we have announced the roll out of hospitality swaps, pilots. So sector work Academy programmes launched in partnership with UK hospitality. We're spreading them to 26 new areas which are in need of jobs and opportunity, including 13 coastal towns just to Scarborough. And Blackpool, and will also be working with other key sectors as well. One of the challenges we have is to make sure that we match the skills the workers need for the jobs they are there. What a swap can do is get someone job ready, able to move into these jobs whenever they're there, and part of our job is there will always be vacancies.

We want to make sure everyone's got a chance of getting them and that's what we're focussed on.

15:17

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, the UK is experiencing a decline in payroll and employees, and a significant drop in graduate job opportunities, with listings for entry level graduate jobs at the lowest level for seven years. This doesn't really tie in with the wonderful statistics the noble Lady the minister has told us about. There is another level of statistics and they're not very good. And I wonder if the Minister could say what she's doing to improve those statistics in real terms.

Yeah.

15:17

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

There are, there are, there are a whole range is the noble Lord I'm sure is very aware. If he goes through the official statistics, he will see a wide range of different data, each of which tells us something slightly different. He's right about nudging at payroll data, but I'm absolutely right in. The employment rate in the UK is at record levels. That's a fact. It's from Nash. It's from national statistics. So one of the challenges for us is to make sure that even when times are tough, they come to the strategy to do three things.

We need to make sure we continue to work hard to develop growth and investment in our economy, to make sure it's working hard and the Labour market is functioning. We then need to make sure that it's an inclusive Labour market. In other words, those who are farthest from the Labour market get the skills they need to have a chance of getting the jobs so employers can have the workers there when they need them. And finally, we need to make sure every area of the country works.

There are some local Labour markets which have got 80% employment already. Others haven't. Our job is to target each of those three things and we're doing it. My Lords. Lords, my Lords, my Lords there I work for them, worrying figures showing that the number of working age people signing off work for sickness benefits has gone up for sickness benefits has gone up from 2000 to 5000 per day, per day, with a direct negative negative government. government.

15:19

Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)

- -

Going to do now? Before the publication of the Timmins Review, and a reminder to the House that we have a whole year to wait, which will be one of inaction, inactivity and spiralling costs, will it not?

15:19

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

Well, my Lords, given the levels of inactivity due to health of which the noble Lords government presided? That's a brave question, if I may say so, but let me answer it nonetheless. This government is absolutely not simply waiting for the review. The Timms Review is looking specifically at Pip, which, as I know the noble Lord knows is a benefit that applies in and out of work. What this government has done, as I have told the House before, is to look carefully at two things.

One is what are the what happens to people who are on benefit, and one of the difficult choices this House made and backed us in. It was making a decision to change the incentives so that for new people coming in, we would reduce by about half the extra amount of money you get on Universal Credit to make sure the incentives are there. But the second is to invest up to £1 billion over the scorecard in making sure we give people the support they need.

So people out there do want to get jobs, we have to help them. And finally, we have we invited Sir Charlie Mayfield to produce a report looking at employers. What can be done more to make employers, employers, for example, every time someone loses a job, it can be £8,000 a loss to the employer from lost productivity. We are investing in all three of those.

15:20

My Lord. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lord, Palace, new.

15:20

Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thing. We're here for crossbench. Well, the thank you. The noble Lady quite rightly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady quite rightly. Earlier mentioned young people and the importance of them, the opportunities them. But there does seem to be increasing evidence. That seem to be increasing evidence. That entry level opportunities are reducing. That is becoming more difficult for young people to take

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that all important first step into work. So could the noble Lady. Please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Explain why the government is still insisting on pushing through a change to employment law, that. Its own.

15:21

Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Its own. Impact assessment says will actually make it harder for young people to find a job.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. The government. They of young people, is the one in which the government is making in which the government is making significant investment. If the if the noble Lord is referring, which I suspect he is to employers, National

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insurance now is not OK. There are. Over my Lords with the what the government has done in terms of government has done in terms of employment rights is we have to have a level playing field. However, one of the things that we are doing is of the things that we are doing is investing in supporting young people with the Youth Guarantee. We have said there should be young people who are intensively looking for who are intensively looking for work. There should be no fourth alternative education training allowed or a job and to put our money where their mouth is.

We have announced that we will say if somebody has been 18 months looking for a job on Universal Credit, then for a job on Universal Credit, then we will give them a guaranteed job. Young people should be out there at that age. There should be learning or earning or working. We'll make

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or earning or working. We'll make sure they can. Did the Minister appreciate that. Er opened by her Chief Whip

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Er opened by her Chief Whip asking for shorter answers? My Lords, that concludes oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, that concludes oral questions for today. And any member wishes to lead the chamber at this.

15:23

Private Notice Question: Ability to protect Parliament from Chinese espionage in light of the collapse of recent legal proceedings

protection of Parliament from espionage. Lord True. My Lords, I beg leave to ask a question of which I have given private notice. The I have given private notice. The question is as follows. To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of their ability to they have made of their ability to protect Parliament from Chinese espionage, in the light of the collapse of recent legal proceedings. Yeah.

15:23

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

My Lords, the UK government remains steadfast in its commitments to reducing the threat from foreign espionage targeting UK domestic institutions, and continues to drive cross-government work to respond to the threat through the Defending Democracy Task Force, the National Cyber Security Centre and the centre for the Protection on Critical National Infrastructure. Produce advice and guidance for members of both Houses of Parliament. MI5's National Protective Security Authority has today, 22 minutes ago launched a new guidance to protect the UK's democratic institutions from foreign interference.

15:24

Lord True (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, I welcome. I look at the action that she's recommended has mentioned. I'm sorry the Leader of the House is not in her place. To answer this question will enable Baroness agree that no step must be left unturned to safeguard the integrity of our Parliament from espionage by foreign state actors, and notably, the malign and relentless activity of China. My Lords, any suggestion of executive action or inaction that may have led to the collapse of these proceedings must be investigated thoroughly and unequivocally condemned.

So will the noble Baroness give the House a categorical assurance that if any evidence occurs of Chinese targeting of members of your Lordships' House past, present or future, she will press colleagues in government at the highest level to ensure that those involved will be brought to court and made to answer for their actions. No ifs, no buts, and certainly no secret quid pro quotes.

15:25

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lords for his question. He's absolutely right. Of course we would expect full prosecution for anybody that undertakes espionage for members of your Lordships' House, but also of anyone working in Parliament. My anyone working in Parliament. My Lords, I want to make it very clear that we are very disappointed at the CPS decision. This was made by them CPS decision. This was made by them as an independent body, and noble Lords will be aware that a statement is being made by the security is being made by the security officer, by the Security Minister this afternoon, which we will have the opportunity to discuss in later

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opportunity to discuss in later in this week about the actions that this government is taking. The former director general of

15:25

Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The former director general of the Security Service has warned the country that Chinese espionage has been carried out on an industrial scale, including seeking influence over Parliament but also on industry and education. It's why I and these benches warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence Registration scheme under the National Security Act was a strategic mistake by the government. Not only that, but the government and with the Conservative Party support exempting government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

administration and public bodies in their entirety. From. The furlough scheme was a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The furlough scheme was a strategic error. I wonder that on the 5th of June, will the Minister not agree with me that new guidance is fine, but it's hamstrung if the government and the official government and the official opposition continue their support for the exemption of the furlough scheme of the very areas where we

15:26

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

scheme of the very areas where we know China are seeking to influence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord has consistently made these arguments. I just want to confirm, as has been said previously in your Lordships' House, that no decision has yet been made in relation to specifying China on the relation to specifying China on the enhanced share of the scheme. As noble Lords would expect, my officials continue to consider whether and how the enhanced here whether and how the enhanced here can be used to provide greater protection for areas where China and other countries pose significant threats.

Adding countries to the threats. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests, and any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the

15:27

**** Possible New Speaker ****

brought before Parliament in the usual way. Hello! My God, oh my God. No doubt. The government's made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government's made. The decision not to proceed with the prosecution was. Entirely that. Of the Director of Public

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prosecutions. Will she acknowledge that in the light of the director's subsequent statement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

statement. That was. Economical with the truth? While I.

15:27

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

While I. Have huge respect for the noble Lord, I absolutely do not. This was an independent decision made by the an independent decision made by the CPS. There was no ministerial involvement. There was no special adviser involvement. This was and the deputy national security adviser without interference gave three without interference gave three different witness statements to the CPS for their use. My Lords, this is not a matter of this of us not assisting the case. This is an independent matter for the CPS.

embassies.

15:28

Lord Watts (Labour)

- -

Have.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Spies in them. But the larger the embassy, the more spies can fit in. Is it is it appropriate to have an embassy the size of the one that's being proposed for China?

15:28

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I never thought I'd be discussing real estate and espionage, but, my real estate and espionage, but, my Lords, we find ourselves in a strange set of circumstances. I thank my noble friend. But let me be clear, as he is very well aware, the decision about the future location of the Chinese embassy is a matter for the Secretary of State, for the Department for Local Government, Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and a decision will be brought forward in due course.

15:29

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

This is the government. country or not.

15:29

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Noble Lords is famous for asking such straightforward and easy questions. The government is clear that we have that. Our relationship with China is complex. We are to compete, to challenge and cooperate. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. But let's be clear the Chinese government has operated in such a way, or actually state agents have acted in such a way that is a potential threat to the United Kingdom. We consider we continue to have conversations and engage in a collaborative way with our Five Eyes partners to counter that challenge, and will continue to do so.

15:29

No ladies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's could the minister confirmed

15:29

The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Bishops)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's could the minister confirmed that spying by the Chinese is not a new phenomenon, and it's been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conducted under previous governments as well. The president makes a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The president makes a very important point and including with relation to this case. This case was

15:30

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

relation to this case. This case was conducted, was allegedly occurred under the last government. The role of China and other nations seeking to get information and access to members of your Lordships' House is nothing new.

15:30

Lord Pannick (Crossbench)

- -

Noble Lady said in. Answer to my Noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Butler. The decision not to. Continue the prosecution. Was entirely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Was entirely. A. Matter for the DPP. With no. Involvement whatsoever from any advisor or special adviser. Surely it is the role of the National Security Advisor to advise in relation to such a matter, and for that to be taken strongly into

15:30

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

account by the DPP? Yeah. As I have previously said, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I have previously said, the Deputy National Security Advisor gave on behalf of the government, gave three different witness gave three different witness statements as requested by CPS and the DPP. We gave for and would continue to for all prosecutions evidence as available. It was a matter for the DPP to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed, and in this matter they chose not to. chose not to.

15:31

Lord Grocott (Labour)

- -

I think that's my recall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Osborne, and. Amongst the many things. He said. And this was. Ten years ago.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten years ago. In the dying days. Of. The Osborne Cameron government. That it was. We should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We should. make. It a golden decade for both our countries. And the aim was to make countries. And the aim was to make China the second largest trading partner for Britain. All parties are partner for Britain. All parties are entitled to change their policies, but does my Noble friend have any information as to when the

15:31

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information as to when the Conservative Party made this 180 degrees shift? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I very much thank my noble friends for his question. Let me be clear about some of the interesting clear about some of the interesting comments in terms of where the opposition have been, that when Foreign Secretary, Right Honourable James Cleverly MP, who I have a huge amount of time for, called the decision to sum up China in one word as a threat quite impossible, impractical and most importantly, unwise. I think most interesting for your Lordships' House is the leader of the opposition.

When Business Secretary said, and I quote, we should not be describing China as a foe. My Lords, the winning government, the opposition had some interesting views on China. So did some of their ministers. On that basis, I think that we need to be about.

15:32

Lord Gove (Conservative)

- -

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the minister, for her answers. Is it the case that the witness statements of the Deputy National Security Advisor will be published? Is it the case that any communications between the National Security Advisor and the Deputy National Security Advisor relating to this case will be published? Is it the case that the National Security Advisor and the Deputy National Security Advisor will make themselves available to a committee of this House or to a joint committee in order to explain their decisions? And is it the case that the Attorney General, who has ministerial responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service, will share information with this House about how that decision was reached? And if not, why not? And if not, why not?

15:33

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

That noble Lord invite? First of all, I'll say series of questions. That question time that typically is just one. But the noble Lords invites a series of questions, which I suggest that we discuss when we have the statement repeat in the other end. Because obviously, my noble, my honourable friend from the other place, the Security Minister will be on his feet about this very issue within the next two hours.

15:33

Lord Sikka (Labour)

- -

My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will the government and ownership of the UK infrastructure by. of the UK infrastructure by. Entities connected with the Chinese government? That kind of infiltration formed part.

15:34

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

infiltration formed part. Of the previous. Government privatisation policies. The noble privatisation policies. The noble Lord raises an interesting point, which has been discussed by Noble friend rather, which has been discussed many times in your Lordships House about the role of Chinese investment in our country. The reality is that we both consider there are there is an element of security threat, but they are also have the potential to compete, challenge and cooperate with China. My Lords, this is the second largest economy in our third largest trading partner.

We have to have a level of engagement. engagement.

15:34

Lord Laming (Crossbench)

- -

The noble Lady the Minister, agree that to the average layperson such as myself, it seems strange that the government can or the prosecution services can bring serious charges against two people. And for 18 months these charges remain and the court is convened to prosecute these charges. And then at the 11th hour, it is said they haven't sufficient evidence. To the strange.

15:35

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

Yeah. important point. Obviously, the 18 month delay is unfortunate, which is why we're trying to fix the court services going forward. With regards to the case made by noble Lord. Actually, there was the Rousseff case. There was a piece of case law about the Official Secrets Act, which which concerned the DPP, which is why additional information was taken then, which is why he has made the CPS has made the decision, from my understanding.

15:35

Lord Balfe (Conservative)

- -

Can I remind the Minister of the old Foreign Office dictum that we have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests? It is our permanent interest not to fall out disastrously with the biggest country in the world. We have to live with them. We have to talk to them, and both sides have to realise that there are things that cannot be done. But for goodness sake, let's stop talking about enemies and start talking about cooperation.

talking about cooperation.

15:36

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

I hope the noble Lord has appreciated that I have said cooperate twice in the last 13 minutes. The noble Lord is right. I would, however, say that the first duty of government is our safety and security, and to provide that. So there is a balance here between making sure that the population in the United Kingdom is safe and secure, that your lordships are available to go about their work, unconcerned about the threat of espionage, while at the same time appreciating the international reality in a very uncertain world, that we need to make sure that we are engaging with who is our third biggest trading partner.

15:37

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)

- -

My thoughts will be.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is to have another go. To answer my question, does the government. Regard China as a threat to our

15:37

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regard China as a threat to our national security or not? Just for the noble Lord? I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just for the noble Lord? I will read from my part. The government knows that China poses a series of threats to UK national security. We threats to UK national security. We have seen Chinese espionage and cyber attacks on our soil, and transnational repression of Hong Kongers. I think based on that my Lords, I can say yes.

15:37

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)

- -

It has as much as government had any discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service about the wording of the Official Secrets Act in light of the collapse of this case, and is it the government's understanding that the wording of the acts was a factor in the collapse of that case?

15:37

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)

- -

The noble Lord raises a very important point, and one which I hope is going to be discussed this afternoon in the other place, that we can then have a conversation about later on today and later on this week.

15:38

When you see the background of the build up of what China is building to create war, the number of ships they're building.

15:38

Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Conservative)

- -

And every conceivable way of drones, without doubt. And I totally support the view that China is probably the most dangerous enemy that we have to deal with. And so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the future. I wasn't necessarily used the

15:38

Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - committee stage (day 6) - part one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't necessarily used the word enemy. My Lords, as we have discussed and in response to earlier discussed and in response to earlier questions, it is clear that we are there areas where we both need to compete and challenge as well as cooperate with China, and we will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to do so. Before we move into committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before we move into committee. Perhaps any noble Lords wishing to leave the chamber would like to do so now. Would. Would. Like. Would. Like. Thank Would. Like. Thank you Would. Like. Thank you very Would. Like. Thank you very much. Would. Like. Thank you very much. Oh.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh. It's me again in committee on the Border security, Asylum and immigration. Bill hands nothing.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But my Lords. I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into a committee upon the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. The question is that the House do not again resolve itself into not again resolve itself into committee on the bill. As many as of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content. The contents country not content. The contents

15:40

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

15:50

Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)

- -

16:01

Lord Dubs (Labour)

- -

16:08

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)

- -

To father.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord, dance. And I was delighted to add my name to amendment 177. I have very little to add to the way in which he introduced the in which he introduced the amendment, but I do think that it is amendment, but I do think that it is important that the Minister should be clear to the Committee on what be clear to the Committee on what the present position on refugee family reunion actually is. As the family reunion actually is.

As the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee said, we saw the announcement on the 1st of saw the announcement on the 1st of September that the refugee family September that the refugee family reunion process had been paused, temporarily. Pause. As I understand temporarily. Pause. As I understand it, cases applications submitted before the 1st of September are before the 1st of September are being handled, and perhaps the minister could confirm that. But no more applications are being looked at until a review has taken place.

at until a review has taken place. At the time, on the 1st September, and the Home Secretary was very and the Home Secretary was very clear that this was a temporary pause. But on the 2nd of October, number ten announced that. In her forthcoming asylum policy reform, the Home Secretary will introduce a fundamental change to the rights provided to those granted asylum in the United Kingdom looking to end automatic family reunion rights. Looking to end family reunion, rights? That seems to me to indicate not a temporary pause, but something a bit permanent.

And to my mind, on the face of it, shocking. I don't know exactly what is meant by automatic in the number ten statement. But I guess, charitably, one could assume it simply means free. The one should no longer have the right to apply to bring in the lost child without an application fee, without attaching a check or a check. For jolly. Nearly 2000. Pounds. And under the present role. RFM cases, there is no cost attached.

There's no health surcharge and there's no application fee you could construe. And this is this is the good interpretation that the automatic in the number ten statement actually meant three. That people are going to have to pay to bring in the lost child. The opposite of what Lord dubs has so eloquently argued for. I, I don't want to say I hope that's explanation and the correct interpretation. But the alternative seems to be to be worse, that we're going to end the ability for people to bring in the lost child.

So what kind of country do we think we are? What Lord dubs is saying in his amendment is that. The lost relative who turns up in the transit camp in Libya or in Turkey, is not entitled to come to this country. And the bona fide. Refugee here, the member of the family who got here, whose case for asylum was established, who was granted protection status, is not alone to bring in the child, the wife, the cousin who got lost en route.

That's a shocking idea. And surely that cannot be what the number ten announcement on the 2nd of October meant. I strongly support Lord dubs amendment, but I and I would be with him in saying that if it is not brought now, it should be debated at report stage. I will be with him on that, but I don't know on what playing field this match taking place. It's what happened on the 2nd of October. All these amendments were drafted before the summer, before the Home Secretary paused the policy at the beginning of September, and number ten apparently killed the policy, or at least announced its modification.

Massive modification automatically depends what automatic means on the 2nd of October. And I think we need to know before report stage what the present position on the policy is. I, of course, support 165 and 166

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and 178, and I might surprise the noble Lords Lord Jackson by saying. That.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That. I think 168 is a rather good idea

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think 168 is a rather good idea if the I expect the Minister will say it's not necessary because all say it's not necessary because all satisfactory. Or thorough checks are carried out in any case. But if I'm carried out in any case. But if I'm wrong about that, I would be happy to support Lord Jackson on that. But I think before we go much further in this committee, we need to hear from the Minister what the real situation

16:15

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

16:20

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

signed amendment. 166. Whereas several here. I could have. Supported because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I feel that they're common. Sense and I do. Feel how can this government. Be so heartless as to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be so heartless as to. Not accept that families have to be together? Surely that is basic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be together? Surely that is basic humanity. And why is it? Is this government. So happy to. Shed many. Many voters.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many voters. Simply. By hanging on to this right wing nonsense that asylum seekers are to blame for all the seekers are to blame for all the problems that we face in Britain, you know, responsible for shortage of housing, the damage to the NHS and no jobs. This is not the fault of asylum seekers. This is a fault of the previous government's policy of austerity that has. So damaged our processes here. The right wing gets this opportunity to pass the blame onto other people.

With this government, please get a backbone and stand up for the rights of people. people.

16:21

Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)

- -

16:25

Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)

- -

amendments. But and I also apologise to the committee that my other to the committee that my other public commitments have not allowed me to participate in this bill today, but I could not let this today, but I could not let this opportunity pass to pay tribute to my friend, the noble lady Baroness my friend, the noble lady Baroness Hamwee, who has been a tireless campaigner on this issue of family reunification. And together with my friend the noble Lady Baroness friend the noble Lady Baroness Ludford, has been have been authors of a number of Private Member's Bill of a number of Private Member's Bill bills with content similar to bills with content similar to amendment 165, which I wish to speak in support of.

In my opinion, this has resulted in an amendment that has resulted in an amendment that has been revised, refined and honed to perfection as a result of the to perfection as a result of the extensive previous debates in this House. I only wish to make two House. I only wish to make two points if there are issues with excessive immigration. Asylum excessive immigration. Asylum seekers are only a very small proportion of that problem. And proportion of that problem. And secondly, the push factors, the so-called push push, the push factors prompting people to seek asylum are far greater than any hypothetical pull factor.

Something that I will or the minister may say. I agree with the noble and learned lady Baroness Lister sorry with the noble and learned lady in her comments about. There is no evidence to support this suggestion of pull factors. As the no. As the noble Lord, Lord Jackson makes general comments about small boat crossings and foreign criminals trying to illegally enter the country. This amendment 165 is not about undocumented migrants. It is about children who have already been given refugee status, who should be allowed to be reunited with their family members, perhaps in the absence of documentation, something that noble Lord mentions, family links, if necessary, could be established by means of a DNA test.

The noble Lady Baroness Hamwee has comprehensively and convincingly made the arguments in favour of this support.

16:27

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

I endorse the noble Baroness Humphreys 166 would not merely oblige the Secretary of State to change the rules of the Immigration Act, 1971, section three two, but to accommodate her proposed amendment would extend the type of relatives and oblige the Secretary. After obliging the Secretary of State to change the rules so as well as those allowed under appendix F, which was, as you know, suspended in September 24th, pending review, I dependent children under 18 and partners of civil partners.

It would mean that others would be adopted to the list of those who could enter and remain in the UK, and parents, adoptive parents, unmarried partners, children as old as 25. In respect of persons, this is not in respect of the children amendments, because the people of this country have no appetite for increasing the scale of immigration and the numbers, but want the numbers cut, and have made that increasingly clear. I support my Noble friend Lord Jackson's amendments to 166 and moved by the noble Baroness Hamwee to which I have added my name one six 7 to 7 one.

And I'd like to associate myself from comments which suggest that the majority of people in this country who want immigration cut and controlled are of some extreme disposition. Time and again I hear references to the far right or the extreme right, or something else. Most of these people are ordinary people who have seen their communities torn apart very often and explain it on television perfectly, clearly and lucidly. They're not put up to anything that worried about their children, the worried about what's going on in their local hotels.

And they are not extreme people. If any of your lordships had a hotel beside them and had young children going to school, and problems arose with the, the, the people in that asylum hotel, I didn't think you Lordships

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would be considered extreme for raising the concern and questions. As we can. We have a voice, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we can. We have a voice, but the people of our country won't have any voice to the next general election. And so I haven't said election. And so I haven't said that, and I'm sorry for slightly depressing, but the reasons am I want to support these amendments. want to support these amendments. It's not just 168, which should be a deterrent to foreign criminals deterrent to foreign criminals coming in, no. And 16171 to ensure coming in, no. And 16171 to ensure that inserted on the face of the bill is the aim of a secure securing bill is the aim of a secure securing the border.

But really, to kerb the numbers coming in rather than escalate them. We know that in the year ending June this year, 110,000 year ending June this year, 110,000 people claimed asylum. Actually, it was 108,138. And this is almost a 20% increase on last year, 18% up 20% increase on last year, 18% up and on the previous year, and a fivefold increase on the numbers fivefold increase on the numbers since 2022. Of the total 80 of this since 2022.

Of the total 80 of this total 110, 84,231 were main applicants, but 23,907 were dependents. The highest annual number of applications ever recorded except I think, one other. Yeah, what would the numbers be? Were amendment 166 to be accepted with someone's parents, and I'm talking about a person to whom refugee status has been granted, not a child. If someone's parents, adoptive parents, unmarried partners with no documentation to say that they were the stable spouse of the person who had been given status, the adopted siblings, or even other persons potentially covered under the noble Baronesses five e which my Noble friends amendment seeks to drop.

Who could apply, as well as an equally uncertain number of those who might wish to be considered or answered. The description of being an I quote necessary to the physical, emotional, psychological well-being of the person, or in order to avoid any risk of to such well being. To that question, how many would there be? The noble Baroness during our debate on her Private Member's Bill had no answer, so we do not know how many people potentially one, six, six would open the country to.

Fund my Noble friend Lord Jackson's amendments. The these additional categories other than the spouse of the person or the children dependent under 18 and I know that is suspended as the government is reviewing it, but as it would, would not be eligible. The unsustainable levels of immigration are threatening the stability of the settled political arrangements of the country, its cultural cohesion and its traditions, and the order and community and the ordered communities of this country.

The worries. This promise ample, and the fact the level of immigration does no service to those unfortunate people whose lives and liberty are indeed threatened under great danger in their home country, and who can come directly to the UK. Over centuries they have had a sympathetic hearing in this country, as have others seeking a better life. Long before the international conventions of the post-war period. Yes, of course, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think my noble friend and she's making a very compelling case. Just in response to will she agree with in response to will she agree with me that in response to the noble and learned Lady Lady Butler-Sloss, the context is that the last government context is that the last government did take an outward looking, internationalist approach and its safe routes to citizenship for safe routes to citizenship for Syrians, for Ukrainians and Hong Kong citizens was widely supported Kong citizens was widely supported across the world.

So to be fair, that is the context she she was that is the context she she was careful of praising the existing government that's been in power for 16 months, rather than the very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

16 months, rather than the very strong and positive record of the previous Conservative government. I thank you. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To. The conservatives as having carried on the very good. Practice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Practice. I thank my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness for their noble and learned Baroness for their interventions. But what I was saying there is that the country has always there is that the country has always been sympathetic and fair and accommodated people fleeing, fleeing accommodated people fleeing, fleeing here when their lives or liberties here when their lives or liberties have been in danger. And. Look now, however, with mass global movement posing a threat to stability to Western democracies and not just Britain's but other Western European countries Italy, Germany and France, particularly the fonder countries of the European Union.

If we are to continue to give a sympathetic hair hearing to those who have a real claim, we must avoid extending the potential numbers so that in addition to children under 18 and a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spouse. The whole extended family, plus anyone judged to matter to the person's psychological or other well-being and can come in. We do well-being and can come in. We do not have a right to defy the clear wishes of the people of this country who pay the bills for housing, for who pay the bills for housing, for the Home Office, asylum and Border Force officials. My noble friend has Force officials. My noble friend has referred to some of these costs, but the policing, the courts which are clogged, the appeals system, the clogged, the appeals system, the housing and subsistence of large family groups, we know that this family groups, we know that this costs money and indeed many individuals or families, when they individuals or families, when they leave a Home Office accommodation must be supported from the benefits must be supported from the benefits system.

In the first months of 2020 5th January to March, more than 4000 5th January to March, more than 4000 refugee households in England were recorded as homeless, meaning that either a single person or a family either a single person or a family unit had applied for support after leaving home. Office accommodation leaving home. Office accommodation figures. Similarly to the previous quarter. And with that sort of expanding family as proposed in 166, what would the housing bill then be? And the Accommodation and Benefit bill? So may I conclude by proposing that even if the government is tempted by the noble Baroness amendment 166, then my noble friend amendments one six 6 to 7 one should be accepted in order that the government can help bring the numbers down rather than stuck, and not stop and stop them escalating.

16:37

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

16:47

The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)

- -

OK. Please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One to which I have put my name, and two to which the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford, has put hers. As we've heard, she regrets she cannot be in her place today. I refer to 177 in the name of today. I refer to 177 in the name of the Lord. Lord dubs 178 in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness of the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee and 203 K in the name of the noble Baroness Baroness Lister.

And my Lords, it is not just the Christian church which regards the family as more than a merely biological unit. It is the fundamental, God given building block of community life, the source of belonging and stability for of belonging and stability for children. The former Home Secretary recognised this when she wrote in 2020 when children lose their home, 2020 when children lose their home, their parents and their country through war or persecution, through war or persecution, reuniting with surviving family members elsewhere can be their only hope of rebuilding their lives.

But hope of rebuilding their lives. But they need a safe and legal route to do so. The truth is, families belong together. These amendments speak to that truth, my Lords. We must not keep families apart. No parent can keep families apart. No parent can be expected to build a meaningful new life, contribute to society, new life, contribute to society, establish roots in a new country, knowing their child is stranded elsewhere and no separated children should be prevented from reuniting with their parents.

We are told this bill partly seeks to stop the vile work of smugglers and traffickers. Yet 93% of those travelling safely via family reunion were women and children who may now be at the mercy of smugglers taking criminal advantage as a lawyer at Safe Passage puts it the lack of accessible alternatives means we are not able to compete on equal terms with smugglers who make promises to children to cross the channel within a few days and can actually deliver on those promises.

I do urge the noble Lord, the Minister, to ensure that when this bill is mature, it will provide dedicated arrangements to support refugee children who have been separated from their parents.

16:49

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lord, I wish to support the amendments led by my Noble friend Baroness Hamwee and by the noble Lord Lord dubs, and with signatories from from others. We have debated refugee family reunion at numerous points in the last five years or so. My friend noble Lord Lord Paddick, recalls that I picked up the relay at one point from my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, and took a Private Member's Bill through this House successfully. Unfortunately, it didn't get successfully through the Other place, but I have been somewhat involved on this issue and feel strongly about it.

And just to pick up the words of the Reverend Pilot, the Bishop of Sheffield, he just spoke. He talked about family being the basis of belonging and stability. And I think that's important not only for the personal feelings of security and, and, and being able to thrive with within the family, but but also a practical issue about integration, which has been much talked about in in recent months. So on the one hand, people you know want to shout, why aren't why aren't immigrants properly integrated? And yet we want to pull the rug from under refugees by saying, you have no right to have family reunited with you, which would help you settle and get on in our society.

And there's obviously room for discussion about the scope of the amendments that I'm supporting and colleagues to the right have, have, have pulled various holes in them. And, you know, one can one can discuss some of those. But I must admit, I'm somewhat shocked. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, whom he and I aren't always completely eye to eye, and other fora. And here and he he makes some reasonable suggestions in some of his amendments. But this one I do find.

That he wants to delete five e in my noble friends, amendment 166 he wants to delete. Having regard to issues like the importance of maintaining family unity, the best interests of a child, and any risk to the physical, emotional, psychological well-being of a person granted refugee status. So it no point is that as a noble Lord or dubs said, in the words of the Right Reverend Prelate, if the principle is important here about family unity. But I, I think also that the sort of social aspects are very important and there seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency in the policies of successive governments.

And like like others, I find pretty shocking what's happened in the last six weeks. And, you know, first, the Home Secretary paused family reunion and then, perhaps tellingly, number ten appears to have possibly may have been an interesting internal debate with the Home Secretary then said, actually, we're going to make permanent. It's not just a pause. We're going to eliminate family reunion as, as as. We know it. I must say, I did find there were some remarks which went to wider issues about immigration and asylum from noble Lords on the Conservative benches.

And I always find it a bit rich that. That complaints are made and there are valid issues about the control of migration, security, borders. No one denies that. But we mustn't forget that the big explosion in legal migration that took place after Brexit, with the noble Lord supported Brexit, and then we had far greater volumes than ever happened under EU free movement. Besides court eliminating the two way street allowed Brits to migrate within the EU. So I do think that a bit of non joined up thinking that that goes on there reference has been made to I think noble Baroness Lady Lawlor talked about how we do not have a right to deny public opinion and of course public opinion, which is perhaps in a rather inflamed state at the moment is important, but I read in, in a, in a briefing from the Safe.

Routes Coalition that recent polling undertaken by British by the organisation British Future found that 67% of the public support a controlled official route for refugee children to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Travel his safely, whose only remaining family. Are in the UK. Says two thirds of the public polled.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the public polled. Support family reunion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For children who are stranded abroad, which is a large element of these proposed amendments. So, you these proposed amendments. So, you know, public opinion. You have to be know, public opinion. You have to be specific about what the public is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

specific about what the public is reacting to. So if our aim apparently the. Aim of some is, is to kerb the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Aim of some is, is to kerb the numbers coming in, it depends what. Numbers you're you're talking about. In case of family reunion and child refugees. We're not just talking about compassion and talking about compassion and humanity and human rights or even the principle of family unity, but the principle of family unity, but you know the best interests of the child, the best interests of the people who will settle in this country. And we hope and they hope they will make a big contribution to they will make a big contribution to the success of this country.

And we can't expect them to do that if they are lonely and anxious and, and deprived of the support of their family. So I think we have to always remember that we're talking social practicalities here, as well as high principles of, of human rights.

16:57

Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)

- -

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords sort through this wonderful bill, I was going through Second bill, I was going through Second Reading of that, through all the committee meetings. And today I start out simply because I think I have been moved by the amendments have been moved by the amendments 177. Lord dubs, Lord Carr, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford and Baroness Bishop of Chelmsford and Baroness somewhere. Why am I giving this few somewhere. Why am I giving this few words? I think the speech of Lord dubs really put the finger on what dubs really put the finger on what the issue is.

It isn't just children, it's about family reunion children, it's about family reunion for asylum seeking children outside of the United Kingdom. He's narrowed of the United Kingdom. He's narrowed it up to such a way that it will be quite non right in our statute to quite non right in our statute to use it as an assurance instead of a statement of public policy, because statement of public policy, because if you use the statute as an assurance, you go to end up in that assurance, you go to end up in that wonderful or awful bill which went through Parliament, the Dangerous through Parliament, the Dangerous Dogs Act.

Do you remember? It intended to give assurance, but it was a very bad legislation, and it was repealed very quickly. So we don't want to be in that kind of assurance of the rising public opinion, which for some they see it as a court of public opinion. What is important is that a legislature should really be concerned about statement of public policy, and the law should express the reality. When I was Bishop of Stepney, there was a lady called Lasha.

She came from West Africa, came here as a student. She studied, got her degree and did very well. They left her job and she worked here for a number of years. She then became pregnant, had a son and they were now catching up with her, overstaying and then discovering she had a son who already actually has been registered as a British citizen. So the adjudicator said, what's going to happen is the son would rather British citizens should stay, but the mother should be sent back to East Africa.

And that was an ugly and ugly state matters. Hackney was up in arms. So was Islington and I. As Bishop of Stephanie, I wrote to the Prime Minister at the time was Sir John Major, and I said, at the moment I've got to leave to remain. I'm willing to exchange my leave to remain and give it to Alicia so that she can stay with her mother. And you know what happened? The Prime Minister, I was very quick to say that the decision is ridiculous.

Now we can understand what has gone on. What's happened? You shouldn't have been Earl of Stair. We didn't catch up with her. So the fault actually is on our side. So she stayed and there was such great rejoicing, both in Islington and. And Hackney. So children who are seeking asylum outside of the United Kingdom want to be reunited with their families that are here. I actually a thing common sense tells us this. Whatever the law in the future may do, should guarantee it, because that's the only way.

If you've given somebody asylum and their children are not united with them. And the edges, again, are very clear in that particular amendment, limited to those who are not 18 yet. And then let's see what happens. So for me, I am moved by Lord dubs, who has been a great campaigner for children. You've been known for actually working, and the same is true of the noble and learned Baroness Butlers, who has actually, in her work as a judge, dealt with a lot of family cases.

So she's speaking from wonderful experience of her knowledge. And again, I want to be a little dubs who say to the noble Lord the Minister, if it isn't to be decided today, this is a matter which cannot be rushed or kicked into the long grass. But at reports stage, the Minister may then have gathered ideas on how to respond to this marvellous amendment, but I support it.

17:01

Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)

- -

17:09

Baroness Neuberger (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I haven't spoken in this particular bit of the debate, and particular bit of the debate, and indeed most of what I would have said has already been said. But there are three things I do wish to say. First of all, I do support amendment one, six, five, 167 and 203K and I would have added my name. Have I been able to at the time? Secondly, I may be one of the very few people within this House who actually has some family experience of child family reunion.

My mother came as an adult refugee to this country in 1937. Her brother was ten years younger and he was stuck in Germany, being treated abominably at school. After Kristallnacht in 1938, and my mother got commissioned to bring her 13 year old brother under family reunion rule, such as existed back then. That meant that he couldn't be a charge upon the state, but he was allowed to use such health services as there were. This is before the NHS and the people around his neighbours, her neighbours, the wider society who came into contact with him were on flinching.

She supported, and I believe that we live in the kind of society now as much as then, where people would believe that children who are stuck and in danger and have family here, who will support them and look after them, I think people will support that now just as much as then. And for that reason, I support these amendments that would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether he would be prepared to really tell us where we're going on family reunion more generally, because I think, to put it mildly, we're all a little confused.

And I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who I admire hugely, that his amendment 177 is a really beautifully crafted piece of legislation because I can't see how anybody could possibly object. anybody could possibly object.

17:12

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Well, my Lords, this has been a really interesting set of speeches and debates around a cluster of amendments, which I would remind the House are largely about children and women. If you look at the background for the present system, of which all of all the visas granted since 2010, and that's 91% of them were for women and children, and children were the majority, 56% against 35% women. So just remember that we are looking at something very important towards the sort of society that we want and the sort of society we want people to integrate within.

If you believe that we need a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, and if we're serious about solving the challenges that our borders, we've got to acknowledge that enforcement alone is not enough, because we have to pare control with compassion. And that is what is in the motion and the amendments put forward by by Noble friend Baroness Hamwee and persistently over a number of years. These amendments are comprehensive in trying to establish that compassion, which is part of the a full migration system.

One thing I would agree with Lord Empey about is that we must have a comprehensive system and a comprehensive system. Are those four things controlled, humane, order and planned? All four things are incredibly important and to concentrate, as this bill does, potentially on one aspect. Of course it is fine, but you need to bring together those which are also, you know, a part of the whole system which needs approaching, which is why safe routes are so important.

And when Family Reunion is about safe routes, when separation occurs due to conflict, it's essential that we uphold the principle that families belong together. The best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions concerning family reunion, and we have to address the barriers which push vulnerable people towards smugglers when accessible legal routes are lacking. Families who are unable to reunite will often feel forced to find alternative, dangerous ways to reach their loved ones.

Restricting family reunion will not stop dangerous journeys. It will only push more desperate people into the arms of smugglers and the noble and learned Lord. Lady Butler-Sloss just now indicated in Calais that they were people, children seeking that family reunion. And we must be prepared to say that they were on a dangerous route, because that's what they were attempting, an irregular route. And surely we need to get this as part of a comprehensive system so that people, young people particularly, do not feel to be pushed into the arms of smugglers.

There are three things which I think in this legislation at this point, which are necessary in order to try and simplify the whole process. One of them is removing restrictive requirements. That means for those people who are unable to return to their country of origin of origin, meaning that family reunion is the only way they can exercise their right to family life. Yet, of course, we've got new financial and English language proposals which are being put forward by the government.

We'll come back to some very specific questions on the fundamental point which Lord Cao puts to the government. Minister to noble Lord the minister earlier on. We also have to facilitate visa access. We've had that debate here in this chamber around this bill, where people are having to make dangerous journeys simply to make the application process appropriate. And the fundamentally, of course, we must uphold children's rights and we must say the district, the deeply restrictive policy which places UK as an outlier in Europe.

Any solution to these problems, in the end, must occur between and between the countries who are our neighbours in Europe, because that's the solution we must all seek jointly. It's interesting that when my visit to Calais, the subway, the subprefecture of the Calais region, told us that every single person who they think would are going to attempt to cross the English Channel in a small boat, was offered the choice of seeking asylum in France. Some of them did, but it was available to them.

And so we got a concern ourselves with what it is that the people of are coming at the end of our line, when other countries are accepting in some cases, in many cases per capita, far more than we are accepting in our own country, promoting family reunion is a practical strategy for integration. When refugees are reunited with their families, it significantly improves their well-being and integration outcomes and supports community cohesion. Now, conversely, the opposite of that, of course, is that separated refugee fathers are twice as likely to suffer from mental health conditions, which impacts their ability to work and to contribute to our society.

All of these issues have been talked about in these in this debate over these amendments. But sitting underneath this, of course, is the situation in which the government is sliding the floor from underneath the debate. Given that we were allowed to put down amendments, and those amendments all went down until those two announcements in September and October took place. So we do need to know, and we need to know urgently what is the direction of travel which the government is proposing to take the suspension of family reunion, refugee family rule until the spring creates particular risk to unaccompanied children outside of the UK, whose refugee family members in the UK would have made the application.

I asked the question has the government given this group who are now in that frozen category, any particular consideration? Secondly, will there be a consultation process for the new Refugee Family reunion framework? Who will be consulted? When will we be consulted and will this include refugees with lived experience of family reunion? And thirdly, what consideration has the government given to the impact on numbers of people taking irregular routes as a result of the suspension of Family Reunion? Because that is the situation we are in at this very moment.

In conclusion, I think I would like to simply say to, to, to colleagues here that there have been a number of amendments put forward before us today, and we have the amendment from the noble Lord dubs, which seeks to ensure that children can join their parents here, and a Second Amendment, which says that children who are here can have their parents brought to them as well, and remember that those are children who are coming here and will be allowed and given the rights to remain as asylum seekers.

So both of these facets around children are recognised in amendments which are before us here today. But overarching that are the wonderful amendments which my noble friend Baroness Hamwee has put together to make this a really comprehensive approach to this very specific issue of refugee family reunion. We are facing some very, very tricky decisions in the next coming months. If we can't find out from the government at this stage what their proposals are, or at least the direction of travel, because the direction of travel that seems to be indicated is that as it is now, that if you want to bring someone to this country in your family, you have to have that very high level of annual income, and you also have to have all the background that goes goes with that.

So children, you take your chance alongside everybody else who is in this business, who is in this situation. So we do need to know what the government's direction of travel is. Otherwise it becomes very tricky indeed for us to be able to amend the bill in a way which makes sense of it for the future. But then, of course, if we do manage to amend it, it does mean, of course, that the government will have to recognise that this House has taken a decision, which means that the government will have to follow that with its own regulations.

So I'm looking forward to some very concrete answers from a very important man who was sitting as the noble Lord, the minister, right opposite me. right opposite me.

17:22

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

My Lords, this group brings us to a very topical and significant point of contention. Amendments one six, five, 166 and 177 all seek, in their own way to expand refugee family reunion provisions, in some cases dramatically. So let me begin by acknowledging the sincerity of those who support this amendment. We will. We all recognise the tragic circumstances that false families apart due to conflict and persecution. But we must equally recognise that compassion, if not tempered by realism and control, risks undermining both the integrity of our immigration system and the public's confidence in its fairness.

Each of these amendments, they are well intentioned, risks undermining those very principles that underpin the sustainable, fair and secure asylum system. Amendments one, six five and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee, have made the argument that those granted refugee status in this country should be able to apply to bring their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner, their children, grandchildren, sister, brother, nephew or nieces to the UK and for a child they should be able to sponsor their parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts and uncles.

My Lords. This is a fundamental shift in the architecture of our immigration policy. It creates wide ranging entitlements without the necessary safeguards, verification mechanisms or limits, and it risks creating perverse incentives, particularly the possibility that families might send unaccompanied children on dangerous journeys in the hope of opening a pathway for broader reunification. Such unintended consequences consequences which risk perverse incentives, are not compassionate. They are, to put it mildly, reckless. Amendment 166 would require the Secretary of State to rewrite the immigration rules within six months to provide an expansive new framework for refugee family reunion, one that far exceeds the scope of existing policy, internal norms and operational capacity.

Subsection five of the proposed new clause includes as of right, not only spouses and dependent children, but also siblings up to age 25, unmarried partners, and potentially a wide range of others where there is dependency or concern for well-being. In that regard, I think my Noble friend Lord Jackson is right to raise the issue of unmarried partners via his amendment 169 and crucially, it opens the door to almost unlimited discretion under subsection five E, this would empower the Secretary of State to admit other persons based on subjective criteria, including emotional or psychological dependency, with no practical limiting principle.

My Lords. This is not a measured enhancement of our current rules. It is an open ended expansion that risks transforming refugee protection into a de facto right to extended family migration. Far removed from the original purpose of asylum law. It would not only increase pressure on our asylum system under the UN, already under significant strain, but also risk distorting the principle of individual refuge into a system of family by family resettlement through the backdoor. The current Refugee Family reunion framework already allows for spouses and children under 18 to join those granted protection, recognising both humanitarian concern and practical enforceability.

But what is proposed here goes far beyond that. It creates a prescriptive and permanent legal duty to change immigration rules backed by statutory timetable, without proper democratic scrutiny or flexibility to adapt to changing geopolitical conditions. My Lord, this raises several concerns. Firstly, security and verification. How will we reliably establish family links, particularly when documentation is scarce or unreliable? The broader we cast the net of eligibility, the more vulnerable our system becomes to fraud, abuse and trafficking. Second, operational consequences the Home Office is already processing record numbers of applications with finite resources, imposing a statutory obligation to widen the criteria, potentially by tens of thousands of additional claimants, will undermine our capacity to deal swiftly and justly with the most urgent cases.

This amendment, with this wide eligibility, statutory rigidity and lack of safeguards, risks sending precisely that signal. And also I must ask, what is the endpoint if we legislate to allow adult siblings, adult children, up to 25 unmarried partners and those in psychological dependency, where does it end? We risk normalising a model where refuge is no longer about the individual at risk, but an entitlement for entire extended families, however genuine their desire to reunite. That is not what the Refugee Convention envisaged, and it is not something we can responsibly support.

And now, my Lords, become to amendment 177, which proposes a statutory family reunion right for asylum seeking children overseas to join relatives already granted protection in the UK. The amendment removes virtually every safeguard no maintenance of accommodation requirements, no fees, no health surcharge. It also obliges the Secretary of State to facilitate travel arrangements and coordinate with foreign authorities, regardless of the complexities or security conditions on the ground. In effect, this would create a state sponsored international reunification scheme for extended relatives with no meaningful eligibility checks or financial thresholds.

The idea may be noble in sentiment, but is completely divorced from operational reality. We already suffer. We all. We already offer safe and legal routes for those in greatest need. A resettlement scheme for Syrians, Afghans and Ukrainians, not to mention the Hong Kong Bno route, demonstrate that when this country chooses to act, we do so with generosity and resolve. But that generosity must be targeted, managed and sustainable. At the heart of all three amendments is the belief that compassion must override control.

But compassion without control is not kindness, it is chaos. The British people expect an asylum system that is firm but fair. Not one that is open ended, unverified and vulnerable to abuse. We must not confuse individual acts of empathy with a systematic rewriting of our immigration obligations, nor should we allow our policies to be shaped by emotional pressure alone. A functioning asylum system must serve those in greatest need first and foremost, and it must do so within the bounds of national sovereignty, operational capacity and public trust.

My Lords are fully respect those who have brought these amendments forward, but I urge the Committee to reflect seriously on the risks they pose. We cannot allow emotion to drive policy at the expense of security, sustainability and the long term integrity of our borders.

17:29

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

Ahead. Yeah, yeah. movers of the amendments for bringing them forward to the committee and to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Lord Noble or German Baroness Jones the noble Lord Jackson noble Lord. My.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. Noble friend, Lord dubs, Lord Kerr and Baroness Lister my noble friend for their. Proposed amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed amendments. Because they have generated a debate, which is a debate that we, I think, need to have and have a think, need to have and have a discussion. I'm grateful also, if I may, for the noble Lord MPs recognition of the difficult job recognition of the difficult job that we face in the Home Office this week alone, it's immigration. Today it's deprivation, the citizenship of tomorrow, it's climate policing on Thursday, and the possible repeat statements on the Manchester statements on the Manchester incident as well.

And I'm coming to the Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in the Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb in a moment, if I may. So it is a full agenda for the Home Office to deal agenda for the Home Office to deal with. I just want to start with the Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. I'm not rightwing, I'm not pandering to not rightwing, I'm not pandering to right wing tendencies. I'm trying to ensure with my colleagues in the Home Office that we manage some Home Office that we manage some important issues in an effective way for the response to the required for the response to the required from the public, but also for the management of this system.

And she may not like some of the policies may not like some of the policies that we bring forward, but I think it's responsible of government to try and deal with some of those issues in an effective way. And what we're trying to do in the immigration bill as a whole is to put a range of frameworks in place to deal with illegal migration and to break the model of the gangs. But it's also important that we look at some of the issues that have been brought forward today in the amendments and some of the statements that we've made.

And again, going back to what the noble Lord Harper said, it is fluid sometimes because the government has become the government in July of last year and is now on its 14 or 15 months of government, and what was appropriate in some places last year with the bill is still relevant, but there are still other issues that need to be brought forward to deal with ongoing situations. And the debate today has conflated a number of issues. Family reunion for children who are travelling to the UK by irregular means.

Family reunion to allow adults to be reunited with children. Having come to the UK via irregular means and family reunion for legal migration routes. And the amendments that we've had before us deal with all those issues in many different ways. And while family unity is a key priority under the refugee family reunion and Child relative protection routes and other family routes, the government, I think, and any government would take this view, has a duty to ensure the public services are not placed under unreasonable pressure, and that giving the reasonable immediate pressures that result from family reunion.

We look at those issues in a in a way which reviews the situation, which is why we have introduced the temporary suspension of the refugee family reunion route. And as we undertake a full review and reform of the current family rules to ensure we have a fair and properly balanced system, that that suspension doesn't impact upon people who are in the system before September, the first of this year, but it does immediately have that suspension examination now so that we can look at that further.

And I know the noble Lord Chair mentioned October the 2nd and the Prime Minister's statement, that is it adjacent but similar issue where the Prime Minister has said that migrants granted asylum in the UK will no longer automatically and I emphasise the word, automatically be given settlement or family reunion rights, and that the asylum policy reform that has been trailed by the Prime Minister in October will be one which will be fleshed out further by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, in due course.

And there will be further announcements because, as has been said by a number of members, this remains a fluid situation. But today I'm faced with a response to the amendments before us in the committee today. And amendment 65 and amendment 166 tabled by the noble Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord German have had support from the noble Lord Paddy, from the noble Baroness Neuberger and liberal Baron, who spoke again, I think with very strong personal experience that I understand, appreciate and welcome their contribution today.

And I also welcome the contribution from the noble Baroness Ludford in support of that amendment, that amendments 165 and 166 are seeking to expand the scope of the refugee family reunion eligibility to include a range of individuals the sponsor, sibling, adoptive sibling, parents and broaden exceptional circumstances in which an applicant can join a sponsor. Now I want to make it clear from the despatch box here today that the government upholds the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children.

In fact, the family reunion issue that we're going to be looking at now, we will be engaging with relevant bodies and organisations going to the point that a noble Lord chairman made about the context of family reunion as part of that ongoing review, but it is important that we also recognise that in the scope of this legislation and the scope of amendment one, 66 would in fact widen the extended family quite considerably, including those who may or may not need protection, which risks reducing our capacity to assess the most vulnerable refugees.

Now, the noble Lord Jackson, supported by Baroness Lawlor and by the noble Lord Harper, has sought to amend 166 and put some caveats in that I'm not commenting whether that's good or bad. I'm trying to say to the noble Lord Jackson and his colleagues as well, that I'm not wanting to accept the principle of 166 as a whole. So his his tweaks and amendments are potentially worthy of discussion, and we can debate that in due course. I would argue that the border security bill as a whole, under the functions of the border commander, set down clear demands on the effectiveness of our partner authorities relating to threats to border security, minimising such threats and maximising coordination to secure our borders.

I would say that was already in the bill, and the intentions that he has are in that bill. But I look particularly at amendment 166 because even with the limiting amendments that the noble Lord Jackson has proposed, there would be a significant increase in the numbers if we qualify to come here from any country from which someone is granted protection. Amendment 165 would permit children to sponsor a wide range of family members. Now, as the Home Office, we believe that this would risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK to be put under on unnecessarily into harm's way, and would allow people smugglers to prevent to particularly exploit still further those children.

Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees apart from the parents, but we have to consider the implications to date. And similarly, if I look at the proposed amendment 178 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee and Noble Lord German, which again the Right Reverend prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield, supported, and even with the amendments again proposed by the noble Lord Jackson, it would require changes to the immigration rules to allow unaccompanied refugee children to sponsor family members to join refugee in the UK, and it would raise the same issues.

Now we can debate that and I sense we are going to debate this again at report. I sense we're going to have further amendments, that report. I sense we've got time for the government to again examine what's being said today, but this is going to be an issue. It will return. But I would say to the noble Baroness the move for that amendment, that this is not an amendment that the government in its current form would wish to support. I have to leave it at that and we may revisit that at that report in due course.

Now, again, the amendment 177 from my Noble friend Lord dubs, again supported by the Right Reverend, the Bishop of Sheffield. I'm grateful for the discussion. Noble Lord, cure of kin. Lockhart again has supported that, and it does seek to expand the eligibility of children under the child relative route. Noble Baroness Ludford has also supported that as indeed noble Lords Sentinel has done, and Baroness Butler Sloss, now, again, the expansion of that definition of who can sponsor child relatives without any financial requirements, noting another tabled amendment also aims to remove the requirement that children should not be living an independent life from the child relative route.

Now, the existing appendix child relative route allows already a close relative with protected stations status in the UK to sponsor a child to stay with or join them, but only when there are serious and compelling circumstances. This can be situations where the child has no family other than the cross relative, and also that the relative could reasonably be expected to support or care for them. I would argue to the committee today that to uphold the integrity of that route, it's essential that route is only for children.

And the definition, as in the amendment from my Noble friend Lord dubs of close relative to the immigration rules, already includes a wide range of family members such as siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. And therefore, I would argue to my noble friend that we already have an appropriate definition of sponsors. Again, I suspect we may revisit this part report, and again, I'm happy to engage in discussion with my noble friend between now and the end of October. So early November when report dates will come.

But essentially, the government will contend that we have that appropriate definition of sponsors already. The extension of the child relative routes, without careful thought, could significantly increase the number of who could qualify to come here. That may be the intention of my Noble friends amendment, but we have set out in the Immigration White Paper reforms to ensure a fair system which lessens the burden on the public purse, and by expanding the scope and definition, these amendments would undermine the purpose of those intended reforms, and also to remove the financial requirements in the immigration rules risks placing further burdens on taxpayers.

It would result in additional pressures on public services and local authorities. It may have to accommodate and support those new arrivals. It is our policy intention that these should be waived only in the most exceptional circumstances, and it's the intention of the appendix child relative routes to require sponsors to demonstrate that suitable arrangements have been made for the child's care, which serves both to ensure the best interests of the child and prevent further strain on local authorities. Now it's our longstanding position that under family routes that we do allow for discretion in exceptional circumstances that might include where there are compelling, compassionate factors or where indeed meeting our international obligations.

Refusal would breach article eight of the ECHR. Our guidance provides instruction on the extent to which the spirit of section 55 duty and the best interests should be applied to children themselves. So I would ask you to mind Noble friend and he can reflect on what I've said in Hansard prior to report that we've met that obligation that he's put in his amendments. But again, I'm expecting to revisit that in due course. That report. And finally, I'm grateful again to my noble friend.

Baroness Lister to set and also with support from the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield, for amendment 203, K, which seeks to establish a new bespoke pathway for children and families with children to be resettled to the UK. And as I've stated throughout this debate in committee, the government does support the principle of family unity and we have several existing routes for families to be reunited and resettled safely. Indeed, those routes are such that since 2015 we've resettled more than 31,000 individuals under our global UNHCR resettlement scheme, of which more than 15,000 have indeed been children.

Our current resettlement routes allow for children to be resettled alongside their immediate family members and as set out in the Immigration White Paper, we're currently reviewing resettlement and sponsorship schemes to develop a more cost effective and sustainable framework which will deliver better outcomes for refugees and the communities that welcome them. We will be setting out further details of that again in due course. We believe that the points that my Noble friend Baroness Lister has made, there might be a point of contention here.

There's an argument that I have to make that says that if children were allowed to sponsor parents, this would risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged, even forced to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK. The policy is not designed to keep child refugees apart from their parents, but he considering any policy, we must think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily in harm's way. The Court of Appeal has recently handed down a judgement in the case of M.

We're reviewing this judgement and are considering its findings as part of our work to reform refugee family reunion in the long term. Again, I recognise that for the committee today, much of what I've said is a taste of what the government are bringing forward in the next few weeks and months, and members of the House in the committee want to have answers to some of these points. Today. There will be an opportunity at report to reflect further and indeed if need be, to test the House at that stage.

But I hope I've set out to the committee today that we believe that the amendments are not necessary. They can't be supported by the government, but that doesn't mean that we're not interested in or committed to ensuring effective family reunion. And I know that all the members have spoken, and indeed, I missed the noble Lord paddock off the list of members who have supported the amendments. Apologies to him for that, but I know that those members are speaking with good intentions to try to ensure that we have a fair and effective asylum and refugee policy.

There may be a difference between those amendments and the government, but I hope it's one that we can certainly. Accept as one from the government's honest perspective, as well as the movers of the amendments on this perspective. And I'm grateful for the tone in which this debate is taken today. But I would ask that the noble Lords do withdraw their amendments. But I expect, as I said, that we will revisit these matters at a later stage in the bill's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee hearings. My Lords, I'm conscious that we have another. I'm not sure how many

17:45

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

have another. I'm not sure how many groups of amendments go through, so I must resist the temptation to whip is nodding vigorously to respond to everything that's been said. But I will make just very few points. I quote. The first is to say that I think we have, at some points in this debate, fallen into the trap of conflating asylum and refugee policy with immigration policy, and we should resist that. The second is to say that references to traffickers and smugglers, other criminals, they will find new and mo modi operandi and legislation isn't going to achieve everything, or indeed probably very much in that area.

And that is why proposing safe routes is so important. It's tackling it from the other end. If you like. The point has been made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Thompson and Baroness Neuberger, that the public opinion, public response, if you like, when the explanation is given that we are seeking to support children, is a positive one. And that's my experience too, as it is also my experience that if you talk about individual refugees or indeed individual immigrants, people say, oh yes, I didn't mean him or her that fine like that person.

And we actually we should be thinking about a lot of individuals, not a sort of cohesive, amorphous group. If that's not a contradiction in terms, we should, I think, recognise that other countries have cultures which aren't the same as hers. And to pick up one particular point, the noble Lord Lord Harper talked about de facto adoption, adoption in many countries is quite different, as I'm sure he does from ours. It is only de facto, and I believe that the Home Office hitherto, at any rate, in its family reunion policy, has recognised that.

The point has been made that we should not be attacking people for their views on immigration. I think that what is happening is that we have a lot of people in this country who are very anxious about the economy, about housing, about these things. The far right has encouraged the focus to be on immigration, and it's incumbent on all of us to address what really makes people anxious. The. We're not, of course, starting from here, I and I should say, following that, as I have said many times before, that we will need to be very careful about the language that we use on this subject, and that will include in our response as well, in future announcements and our responses to them.

But we're not starting from here. We're in a very odd situation, as many noble Lords have referred to the minister for whom whom I thank for his his long answer. And yes, he is in the toughest positions. It's a credit to his to him that he maintains his good humour over all of this. He used the term suspension over the September. Announcement and regarding the October announcement, described it as adjacent under the trail for what is to come.

I guess we have to contain ourselves. So we hear more about it. But the more that we that can be got into the public domain. So there is a public debate about the issue that the more helpful, he said that family reunion policy has always recognised exceptional circumstances. I think we're in a world where, in a widespread way, circumstances are exceptional, not going to cure them

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tonight. So I beg leave to withdraw amendment 165. Is your Lordship's pleasure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. Amendment 166. Minus. Hamwee. Not moved. That not having been moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. I can't call amendments 1672171.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can't call amendments 1672171. Amendment 172.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 172. Minus Hamwee. Amendment 173. No

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minus Hamwee. Amendment 173. No German, in which case I can't call amendment 174, amendment 175 Baroness pension.

17:51

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

One of Baroness Brinton for very sad personal circumstances. I move sad personal circumstances. I move the amendment in her name and I will do my best to replicate what I think it was in her attention when she laid the amendments, which I have also signed. I think this will end you to say that the government, of course, has already set to pass in that way by announcing on the 30th of September that they are intent on having the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers.

In the government's press release was announced on that date. What I do also notice is that this agreement will not take place in the fair pay agreements, will not come into positions until 2028. So there is a particularly small gap of what happens between now and 2028, when the when the new regime comes into place. In the meantime, what we have been calling the a fair wage for care workers, we have classified it as calling it a carer's minimum wage, which I think suits the style at which the government is attempting to deal with this matter.

The challenge of managing migration, particularly within the health and social care sector, requires solutions to address both workforce needs and the ethics of recruitment. We must address the reliance on migration by focusing, obviously, on domestic reform. All that, I think, is in accord with what the government's intention is. And of course, the core area for intervention is the issue of paying conditions for domestic carers, which directly influences our reliance on overseas recruitment in this sector.

So the minimum wage would significantly impact migration levels in social care by tackling the underlying drivers of domestic workforce shortages. The policy case is clear. Vacancies in the social care workforce are largely driven by poor pay terms and conditions, and I don't think the government would disagree with that because it's announcement was made to deal with that. And that leads to low domestic recruitment and retention rates, poor pay and often subminimum wages in the worst workplaces have allowed reputable employers who look after their staff to be undercut.

There are significant concerns over abuse and exploitation of individual workers, and the government has already committed to tackling this issues through its Fair Pay Agreement to empower worker and employer representatives to negotiate improvements in terms of employment. A specific carer's minimum Wage would be a decisive step in this direction, and this policy links directly to the government's stated intention to end overseas recruitment for social care visas and to address the long term reliance on overseas workers by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as social care, and by improving pay and conditions.

This would make these roles more attractive to UK residents, reducing the pressure on the government to rely on international recruitment. The recent expansion of the health and care visa route triggered a sharp increase in migration for below degree level jobs, rising from 37,000 in 2020 2 to 108,000 in 2023. And following concerns about exploitation and subsequent scrutiny, the number of health and care worker visas granted for main applicants and dependents fell significantly in 2024, so implementing a statutory minimum wage would cement the move away from reliance on low skilled migration by addressing the root cause of domestic vacancies.

What this amendment simply does is to ask the government to lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration within the 12 months of this act been passed, and that would mean that we would be able to see what the situation was, and also to understand the direction of travel which the government has laid out in its announcement of the 30th of September. And it's important that we measure the success of using domestic Labour market improvements to regulate immigration in this key sector.

So it's about finding that balance between one and the other that this is that this is this is important. There are a we the with an ageing population as part of this strategy on social care. There's obviously going to be an increase in the numbers of people required to undertake the duties of, of care, particularly in the home. And social care is going to be naturally an increasing requirement on, on our workforce. So improving the pay and conditions of UK recruitment of care workers and the corresponding level of vacancies that then will then need to be filled through migration.

So understanding the numbers between the gaps between those who are will become it. Come into the marketplace as employees from the domestic market against those who are currently in the migration market, who are undertaking these roles. It's the purpose of this report. It's a straightforward request for a for a report, which will help us understand the direction of travel. And I think it will be in accordance with what the government is proposing anyway, for 2028, I move, I move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So the new clause, which is set out for the march of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out for the march of this. And my Lords, there are two amendments in this group, 175 and 176. I'll speak briefly to both of 176. I'll speak briefly to both of them on the first one, in my spirit today of agreeing with people where today of agreeing with people where I can agree with them, I don't think there's a massive disagreement with there's a massive disagreement with us on the link between wage levels and migration. I just think that the amendment, the, the, the noble Lords or Germany's just moves got it rather the wrong way round.

So if

17:58

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

rather the wrong way round. So if we're talking about the Labour market generally and I'll come on to carers and the social care workforce in a minute, I think it's actually you start with limiting migration and that then forces employers to think about how they're going to attract the relevant staff and stop thinking about bringing them into the country as their first resort.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There should be some. Challenge in the. System that says to employers, there are circumstances in which you can import Labour from overseas, but you have to jump through some hoops and demonstrate some shortage and some reason why those people cannot some reason why those people cannot be recruited domestically. And I think that's the right way of approaching it. I would just say in passing that when we were in government, and we used to say that when I was immigration minister, those on the opposition benches, both Labour and Liberal Democrats, used to come up with all sorts of reasons why we should just let lots reasons why we should just let lots of people in.

That was when we were more robust in controlling more robust in controlling migration, when both I and the noble Lady Baroness Meyer were in the Home Office, where we robustly controlled Office, where we robustly controlled such things. Now there is a challenge in the social care sector, of course, because a significant of course, because a significant amount of the costs that would be borne by an increase in wages are, borne by an increase in wages are, of course, not borne by the private sector, in effect, because there is sector, in effect, because there is a lot of public money used to pay for this.

And actually the thing that I haven't heard from the that I haven't heard from the government as it talks about increasing wages in the sector, and that may well be the right thing to do, is actually who's going to pay for it. Because actually, what that will do is drive up the cost of delivering social care, not just, of course, for older people, the, the noble Lords right to mention that, but of course, half of public money, over half of public money was spent on social care is, of course, on those of working age.

And so one has to think about both aspects of that. So I don't disagree with him about the link between wages and migration. But where I don't believe I think this amendment is very helpful. Is it sort of starts by assuming that you you import people as the sort of default, and then you have to change the Labour market to deal with migration. Actually, we control who comes to the country. And actually we should we should set some tough rules about who you can bring in that then drives the market to have to change the wages that it pays people, all the skills that it trains them in to be able to, to deal with them.

And that flows nicely, I think, onto the Second Amendment in this group, which is amendment 176, which I'm not quite sure what my why the noble Lord didn't touch on it, which is about exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. And I, I chose to speak after he'd spoken because I was hoping he would explain the point of that amendment. What I genuinely don't understand is the if I understand it correctly in the noble Lord, the Minister will correct me if I've got this wrong.

The point of the immigration skills charge is to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Challenge employers. To invest in training the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To invest in training the domestic workforce, and not default to. Increase the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Increase the. Cost of importing people so that they train them. Now, I can't for the life of me see why you would decide to exempt the health service. We shouldn't be. If you do that, it We shouldn't be. If you do that, it means that the health service is more likely to import people than more likely to import people than train them. It's a very significant employer. We spend something like 40% of public spending on the health 40% of public spending on the health service and employs upwards of a million people, so it doesn't seem to be very sensible to exempt it from the immigration skills charge.

from the immigration skills charge. If NHS trusts are finding the cost of the immigration skill, charge is a problem. Actually, that's a good a problem. Actually, that's a good thing and what we should say to them if they're complaining is we should say that's your incentive to spend say that's your incentive to spend some of your resources on training your domestic staff, domestic your domestic staff, domestic workforce, either new people and bring them into the workforce, or in bring them into the workforce, or in skilling up people who are already at work in the workforce.

And it seems to me, actually having the immigration skills charge in place is a good thing. And I'm not entirely certain. I can't see from the explanatory note or from the amendment why on earth we would want to exempt the NHS. And just as a final point, but if it's about the cost, as I said, partly we should want the NHS to train people. But also I don't understand why we would exempt the NHS and not other public services. If you're going to do it for one bit of the public service, surely you do it for all of them.

I would actually say it should apply to, as in the immigration skills charge should apply to all public sector organisations because we should want them actually to be, if anything, the leading providers of training and skilling up the workforce rather than the worst. And so I really don't understand that amendment. So as I said, 176I think is just a terrible amendment and we shouldn't support it. 175 I think the sentiment behind it is correct. The link between wages and migration.

I just think it's rather the sort of causality round the wrong way. And we should have a tough immigration system. And that's then what puts the incentive on employers to train and hire people employers to train and hire people

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from the domestic Labour force. My Lords Lords the two amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords Lords the two amendments in this group, in the name of Baroness Lady Brinton and moved by the noble Lord, Lord chairman, raise two slightly different yet two slightly different yet interlinked points. And I just a few observations. There is often much talk about the necessity of talk about the necessity of immigration because people are unwilling to do certain jobs and therefore to prevent understaffing, we must fill vacancies with workers from abroad. And this is evident in the social care sector, which undoubtedly does suffer from a workforce shortage and low wages.

Although not guaranteed, there is the possibility that were wages in the care sector to be higher, we may the care sector to be higher, we may see more British people willing to enter carers roles and thus end the reliance on importing Labour for the sector. There is the obvious caveat, of course. This amendment asks for a of course. This amendment asks for a report to assess the effect of introducing a sector specific minimum wage for carers on net migration. We must be careful about setting wages via statutory setting wages via statutory intervention in a highly selective manner.

If we begin carving out bespoke wage floors, sector by bespoke wage floors, sector by sector, we risk distorting the Labour market and undermining the effectiveness of our broader immigration and wage policy framework. Nevertheless, amendment 175 raises an interesting point and look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response. Turning now to amendment 176, which seeks to exempt NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. On this, I'm far more sceptical. The NHS currently relies on talented professionals from around the world. They are a credit to our country and an integral part of our public services.

But I would suggest that there is a fallacy inherent in this debate. For far too long, our solution to the problem of Labour shortages in the health and care sector has been to simply import workers from abroad. That is the easy solution. I have no issue with admitting that in the past, my party has been all too complicit in this as well. But just because this has been the prevailing policy for some time does not mean it is right. The immigration skills charge exists for a reason to ensure that businesses and public services invest in domestic training and workforce development.

Staffing shortfalls in the NHS have been filled by migration. But what demonstrates, but what that demonstrates is a fundamental weakness in our healthcare training and education system. As it stands, we are clearly not doing enough to hire British doctors, nurses and care workers and that is why we are having to rely on immigration to fill those gaps. And this is precisely the inverted logic that has been applied to healthcare, has been applied to healthcare, hiring and immigration for far too long to exempt NHS employees outright risks, setting a precedent outright risks, setting a precedent that could ultimately weaken the incentive for long term workforce planning in our health system.

And applying exceptions to the charge will therefore not solve the problem we have. It may very well exacerbated. exacerbated.

18:06

I am grateful to the noble Lord German for moving the amendments on

18:07

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

behalf of noble Lady Baroness Brinton, and they've raised two specific issues as noble Lord Harper specific issues as noble Lord Harper and Lord Davies of Gower have mentioned. First of all, I just want to say, if I may, that the to say, if I may, that the government recognises the vital contribution to which international care workers have made to both the care workers have made to both the NHS and to adult social care. However, it is known that the Immigration White Paper that we Immigration White Paper that we published in May and the government's general position is we should be trying to encourage should be trying to encourage greater use and greater support for opportunities within the United opportunities within the United Kingdom for those levels of skills training and engagement for those who are economically inactive in the who are economically inactive in the resident UK Labour market, and the purpose of the Government's White purpose of the Government's White Paper, and indeed the announcements on the 30th of September on the Fair on the 30th of September on the Fair Pay Agreement for the adult care sector is so that we can ensure that professionals are recognised and professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do.

And it's a manifesto commitment that we will be committed commitment that we will be committed to extensively engage with the care sector on the design and implementation of a fair pay agreement with the process and objective of, along with the Immigration White Paper of increasing the use of UK based residents in the social care sector. I'm grateful for the introduction and comments from the noble Lord Germa because he did, in doing his introductory comments, clarify for me what he meant about the minimum wage, because obviously there is no specific minimum wage for carers as a whole, although there is a national minimum wage, which I was proud to vote for and indeed stay up over several days to vote for.

Back in 1998, in another place. And it's a very important piece of legislation. But people looking to recruit international care workers and senior care workers must now pay at least 25,000 per year, based on a 37.5 hour a week, equating to £12.82 per hour. Noble Lords will be aware that the government have changed the immigration rules in July to remove the right to recruit care workers internationally and therefore, again, the amendment has drafted. It's unclear as to what the minimum wage would be reported on, although I did get a sense that it is the living wage that the noble Lord chairman was speaking to.

However, I don't believe it's necessary to allow a report in Parliament given the government published details of migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes on inward migration and in due course, once we've had an opportunity to consult further upon it. The impact of the fair pay agreements on adult social care as a whole. More broadly, in the light of changes to the immigration system, the government has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review salary thresholds across the skilled worker route to ensure that international recruitment is never a cheap alternative to fair pay, and must reflect the new changes to our immigration system.

And I think that's a very positive development by the government to ensure that foreign workers are not undercutting wages for people based in the United Kingdom, which again, I've experienced when a Member of Parliament in my own former constituency. So I think that with due respect, as ever, it's the noble chairman that the amendment is not necessary and misses the target on this point. Now, with amendment 176, I hope the House will bear with me when I say that.

I actually agree with almost every word that the noble Lord Harper has said in his contribution, which is a is a novel experience, but one which I welcome today, in that he's made the arguments that I would have made and will make in relation to amendment 176, removing the immigration skills charge will send the wrong message. It will be removing an important tool in encouraging employers to look first at the domestic Labour market, and what more can be done to train and improve the skills of those in the UK, rather than simply looking outside of the UK to import individuals who may may be employed on a lower rates of pay.

Accordingly. And I think that given the arguments that we've made in the Immigration White Paper, we want to ensure that we reduce the reliance on overseas trained workers to support our public services, and that we upskill and support the development of local talent to fulfil those roles. And again, a point made indeed by the noble Lord David Sagawa also, and I find myself in agreement with him as well by seeking to exempt the NHS. This amendment would allow the NHS to benefit from cheaper recruitment for non-clinical roles such as health service and public health service managers, or people working in I.T occupations for the NHS.

The amendment would not cater for health and care professionals who are not employed by the NHS. For example, it would not cover nurses working in private hospitals or health professionals who may be working in private organisations, but which support the wider health sector. So for once in committee, I agree with two noble Lords from the official opposition benches and I have to say, in doing that, I will hopefully rely on their support. If they did come up. Report to ensure that the motion proposed by the noble Lord chairman, if he did choose to bring it back, a report would be defeated at that opportunity sometime later this month or early in November.

But I hope that with the explanation I've given him, the noble Lord will withdraw it and reflect with Baroness Lawrence, and I hope to see you back in that place very shortly, so that this is not necessarily to be discussed again at report stage in a couple of weeks time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank those who have spoken in this short debate, and I hear what

18:13

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

this short debate, and I hear what you say about amendment 176. However, in respect of 175, I think this is I think has been a slight misunderstanding about what the intention is here, because the direction of travel, which the government is seeking to get, which is to remove, to reduce the, the, the, the, the, the pressure upon having migratory care workers and increase the numbers in our domestic workforce is one which obviously is related. And to do that, and the government has obviously recognised that in in what it's in its way, it's challenging the pay and conditions aspect of this issue.

So what this is merely requiring the government to do is to say how what how much of a difference is it actually making in the numbers who are recruited locally and the numbers who are being who are coming from a migratory workforce in order to make sure that we're on the right track. So I would I my, my intention is to think very carefully about 175 before report stage, because I think it actually goes far more with the flow of what the government is doing.

And I think that we need to understand that we need to be able to, to genuinely agree what is happening before the this, this country as, as the new process of, of agreement on, on a new wage level is brought into effect. But with that I just seek to withdraw. 175.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 1764 German not moved. Amendment 177 Lord Dubs not moved. Amendment 177 Lord Dubs not moved. Amendment 178 Baroness Hamwee not moved. Amendment 179 is not called moved. Amendment 179 is not called because it was amendment to 178 which was not moved. Amendment 180 which was not moved. Amendment 180 Lord German, in the name of Baroness Brinton, not moved. We now come to the third Group amendment 181.

In clause 48, Baroness cousins.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 48, Baroness cousins. My Lords, amendment 181 in my name is very straightforward indeed.

18:15

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

name is very straightforward indeed. Baroness Morris of Yardley and Lord Sherborne of Didsbury have kindly added their names to, and both regret that they are unable to be present this evening. The amendment seeks, quite simply, to ensure that any immigrant or asylum seeker who needs interpreting or translation services in connection with the procedures in part two of this bill, has access to qualified professionals who can provide those language services. I declare my interests as co-chair of the Appg on Modern Languages and Honorary President of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.

Now, my Lords, I am rather hoping that this will be a no brainer for the government to accept, given that when they were in opposition, Labour was such a strong supporter of very similar amendments which I proposed to the then police, crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. So I'm sure the noble Lord the Minister will understand the case for this amendment very well indeed, and I shan't waste time spelling it out in unnecessary detail.

There are just two points I want to emphasise. First, why it's important to specify the need for qualified professionals, as opposed to anyone who happens to speak a bit of the language in question. And secondly, why the need to have this on the face of the bill? So first, we know from the work that has been undertaken for several years now on the provision of interpreters and translators in courts and tribunals, that public service interpreters do a highly skilled job, often in difficult, possibly life changing circumstances for the person concerned.

A thorough, independent review commissioned by the Moj in 2022. As a result of the discussions I had with the then minister, the noble Lord Lord Wolfson has resulted in very welcome changes and clarifications in the MoU. The expectations and requirements of the levels of qualifications and experience that must be held by interpreters in our courts. And my amendment today seeks simply to see this rigour and professionalism rolled over and replicated in the context of services to immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

We're looking at issues, procedures and decisions which will be triggered by the measures in part two of this bill and which could be critical and life changing to people, many of whom may have already experienced danger, trauma and fear. So whether it's the rules on residence schemes, the mechanics of getting biometric data, the purpose of monitoring devices or the appeal system, they deserve and need no less than to have any and all oral and written communications in the language they understand, delivered by qualified professionals familiar with the relevant terminology.

Casual use of a lay speaker of what is thought to be the right language will not do. Google translate will not do. Secondly, the reason I think this right needs to be spelled out on the face of the bill is twofold. First, because unless the Minister can give me a categorical assurance that my worries are unfounded, and believe me, I'd be delighted if he could, I am concerned that the retained EU Law Revocation and Reform Act of 2023 might not offer protection in this context of the right to interpreting and translation services.

In an answer to an oral question on that subject in 2023, the then minister, the noble Lord Lord Bellamy, advised that there would be no adverse effect on this right as it was enshrined in common law and the Echr. But I'd like to be reassured that subsequent legislation such as this bill is also covered. And in any case, I want to see those vital two words, professional and qualified, spelled out as part of the right to which people are entitled.

The second reason for wanting to see this amendment on the face of the bill is, I'm afraid, a feeling of nervousness based on past experience, that if all I hear from the government is an assurance that this right already exists, or that it might be mentioned in some future operational guidance or code, then I'm afraid that won't cut it. For me, this is because when the Victims and Prisoners Act was going through its final stages in this House, the then minister, Lord Bellamy, agreed that the victims code should be amended to state that interpreting and translation services should be provided by qualified professionals.

And in pushing for this, I was very glad to have the strong support on the record of the then opposition frontbench, now His Majesty's Government. But the trouble is that that important change has never come to fruition. The promised public consultation on this and other amendments to the Victims Code has never happened. And so there is still no guaranteed right to those language services being professionally provided. So I want to see this right clearly spelled out on the face of the bill of this bill, so that there's no excuse and no wriggle room for shortchanging some of the most vulnerable people in circumstances where they need to understand exactly and reliably what's happening to them.

One brief final point I would make is that my amendment is needed in the interests of the Home Office, as well as of immigrants and asylum seekers, because the exclusive use of qualified professional interpreters and translators will help to achieve absolute clarity as to the claimants case, thereby avoiding any potential later dispute or allegation that the Home Office has misunderstood the claim. So it must be reconsidered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So, my Lords, for all these reasons, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48, insert the following new clause and print the words as printed in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall List. Without any prior liaison. I must admit, with Baroness Cousins, I

18:22

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

admit, with Baroness Cousins, I would like to strongly support her amendment, and that is because, not that I have experience of translation interpretation in the asylum system, but because 15 years ago I was the lead member of the European Parliament on a directive on translation interpretation in the justice system. I was very proud to have have led on that. Of course, as an MEP, one depended a great deal on professional translation and interpretation services for the wheels of legislative work to run as smoothly as as possible.

So in a sense, one was in a natural environment for understanding the importance of. Linguistic support. But I want to support her on both arms. I think of her argument for. Qualified properly, professionally qualified interpreters and translators. You know, it doesn't do Ireland to have Google Translate or just to have someone who who happens to know, who claims to know a bit of the language when you're dealing with the need for precision and clear understanding, it is absolutely imperative to have people who are qualified professionals who can bring that necessary rigour into the procedures and the proceedings, and that is for two, two broad reasons.

One is in the interest of justice and fairness to the person, the individual concerned, so that they know, as she said, how they need to understand what is happening to them. In what may be an extremely confusing and distressing and disorientating experience. But secondly, as she said, it would be good for the Home Office because if you don't have efficient and accurate translation interpretation, the risks of something being misunderstood and then, you know, possibly leading to disagreements and further proceedings litigation, you're not going to save any money from that original penny pinching.

So it's investment not only in justice and fairness, but also in efficiency and good administration. So I do hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, is going to give a positive response to this. I must admit, she she referred to and retained EU law. I have not managed to follow whether the 2010 Directive on Translation, Interpretation and Justice system is still part of our legal noble Lady Baroness cousins is nodding, so I'm hopeful that that it is, I'm afraid, retained EU law is one of those things that in the last ten years, you know, one has mercifully forgot, forgotten some of the late night proceedings, various bills and horrible Brexit stuff.

But I hope this is because she's quite right. I mean, relying on common law and the ECHR doesn't cut the mustard. In fact, we specifically I remember when we were working on the EU directive, I mean, there is an article in the Echr about, you know, right to a fair trial and that is absolutely too broad in general. And the EU directive was building on that foundation to, to spell out exactly what could be expected in, in respect of translation interpretation in the justice system, which is, which is what you need to do.

So just to reiterate my strong support for this amendment, and I do hope the Home Office can see it, not as and everybody else can see it, not as some kind of wishy washy desire to be nice to people, but actually an essential tool for the Home Office to make sure that its procedural procedures are effective and cost effective.

18:27

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

And this was one of those amendments where I haven't decided whether I wanted to say anything about it until I listened to it. And I hope the noble Lady Baroness cousins will recognise some positive things and some areas, perhaps, where the Minister can can work on helping to shape it. First of all, I'm probably as surprised as the Minister that there was so much concern for the Home Office, and that's probably a new thing and probably something that won't happen very frequently.

Listening to the argument, I was struck by two things. I absolutely agree with the noble Lady Baroness cousins about the need for those going through the system to understand what's going on and for things to be properly translated and interpreted for them. So I think on that we're in agreement. There are a couple of areas where I think maybe I'd like to hear from the ministers. First of all, the extent to which the Home Office already delivers that level of support to those going through the system and where the gaps are.

In other words, what would the cost to be of delivering the amendment as set out here or something like it? Is there a is there a big gap that we're trying to cover here? The second thing was it's a bit prescriptive about how it thinks the services should be delivered, and I absolutely accept that. The noble Lady throughout the reference to Google Translate, which was picked up. And I'm not suggesting that that's the way of delivering this, but I do think that this is quite an important point, though, which is I don't think it's sensible for the way public services are delivered to be set out in primary legislation.

Artificial intelligence is moving very quickly and whilst we may not think it should be a complete substitute, actually I think it seems to me perfectly sensible that both Home Office staff and indeed people representing those going through the immigration system may well use artificial intelligence tools to help them be more productive and more cost effective. And actually, what I wouldn't want to do is have the legislation sufficiently prescriptive that it actually rule that out. We can't just put to one side the cost of delivering these services.

So actually, I think perhaps one of the things that when we've listened to the minute the noble Lord the Minister's response that the Home Office may wish to just think about, is there a way of if there is a gap to be delivered, is there a way of drafting an amendment which recognises the importance of properly qualified staff, which is exactly what the noble lade is driving at? But whether there's a way of allowing for the use of technology and those services being delivered in a different way in the future, because we shouldn't try to shut off those benefits.

The final point I would make is one danger which she didn't touch on, which is because this is framed in the sense of giving the these rights to people. I want to know what would happen if these services weren't delivered, because I'm afraid, as a former immigration minister, I'm afraid this looks to me like another example where if something wasn't delivered to the standard required, and there's a range of things in this list now, it may be that the Home Office absolutely shouldn't fail on things like deportation decisions to make sure someone understands them.

But if, for example, and the failure to properly explain the accommodation that was being provided to someone meant that someone was then able to successfully legally challenge a Home Office decision. And I don't think that would be very sensible. It would just open up a whole nother range of areas where those very litigious people can use to drive a coach and horses through our immigration rules. So I think we should if the Home Office is going to bring back something to reflect the perfectly sensible concerns, I share that the noble Ladies set out.

I think it needs to have something in it that recognises what happens if it's not possible in all cases to deliver those services. What would be the ability of somebody to challenge those decisions? But having put those concerns on the record, which I hope the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Thrust of. Her amendment is a very good one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I look forward to what the responds. I support Baroness Collins

18:31

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support Baroness Collins amendment. She's been consistent in arguing for. This with various. Governments, and I'd like to be

18:31

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consistent in my support. For her. I think, as Lord Harper said, I

18:31

Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, as Lord Harper said, I think this essentially is an amendment about standards rather than the method of delivery. And than the method of delivery. And from the very beginning, Baroness has made the point that where it is vital that we get consistency of language or the written word, that we ought to be able to rely on translation where English is not the first language. I mean, I have to say, my experience of policing is that sometimes English is not that precise at the best of times anyway, and with the police or others, sometimes it's quite hard to determine exactly what people have said.

I think what's particularly important here is that the list that this amendment goes through is a list of rights or expectations that people really do rely on for the system to be fair. And the way that we rely on that is to understand in language what it is that we're being asked to do and what it is that we are possibly going to be able to do in the future. It also allows the individual to ask questions. And one of the things that underpins human rights law, which we all debate at times, is the fact that the individual, in their rights and responsibilities against the state, should be protected.

The state can be an overwhelming and a powerful thing at times, but all of us need to be able to have rights to be able to argue our case when we come into conflict, potentially with them. It seems to me that language obviously can be precise, but also is very nuanced at times, and sometimes it can be by dialect, sometimes it can be by different languages. And it's absolutely vital that we all understand we're talking about the same thing in any judicial, any tribunal or any procedure where our rights are going to be affected.

And that's all this is arguing for. They start arguing. I would say to Lord Harper's point about extra rights, it's just saying that where you have a right, you're able to make your argument. And probably as importantly, I think finally, for me is to say that what it enables the individual to do is to, first of all, understand the process. What is the process involved in what is going to be the outcome? What are my rights within it? Secondly, it's to understand the questions you've been asked.

And finally, that you're able to provide an answer which is accurate and understood. I don't think he's asking any more than that. I acknowledge. And again, Lord Harper made this point, is that there may be a cost. The police service actually in this area has got quite a good system because it's vitally important to the criminal process where you run the risk of having a sanction of being imprisoned. They, in fact, you are represented well and you are understood well. And in fact, the police have in fact developed a system which has got some good standards.

There is a cost. And as migration has increased over the years, that cost has significantly increased. A city like London, around 38%, 40% of the people who are arrested are foreign national offenders. And often language can become an issue. That's not to say they are. That's not unrepresentative of London. It's just the fact that that's what London's like. So the rising cost of migration and the rising changes that migration brings means that we have to sometimes change our process. I think this is a vital part of it.

And all it's about is setting standards. You could argue that it's hard to imagine why Baroness Cousins has to make this argument. Why do you have to argue for a high standard? But worst of all, standard a presumably significant standard to make sure that people understand what they're involved in. So it's hard to understand why you need to make that argument. I think we all might imagine it's already there. I'm afraid it's not. And that's why this amendment, I think, is vital and I support it.

support it.

18:35

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

My Lords, I think I absolutely support Lord Hogan, Howe and also Baroness cousins in this matter. I draw upon my own experience. Of course, that is of 11 years of a Parliament in this country which has been which is bilingual, and in the Senate Committee, if we if we had not got accuracy and if we didn't have professional translators, then it would have led to difficulties in in the creation of the laws, which we were undoubtedly doing during the course of those 11 years.

And accuracy and clarity are absolutely critical. And there is a cost, of course, as you rightly say, to, to having it done properly. But if you don't get it properly done, it will end up in the courts. It will end up with the with legal aid, it'll end up with a whole set of more detailed having to be put there and to be created. So I don't agree with, with Lord Harper that that you shouldn't face the cost, because the cost may be displaced over time.

I will wait for Baroness Cousins to. In her reply to about AI and assistance. But there is a big difference between people seeing what and hearing it exactly, and reproducing it in exactly the same way as it's being spoken. And that's the issue here, because when someone speaks, it is the interpreter and, and the translator who are translating those words exactly as they were said. That is the important issue for, for, for in this matter. I do want to tempt the minister to talking about what's associated with this, of course, which is the learning of the English language.

There is undoubtedly a real problem in providing sufficient language courses to help people to get an experience of the English language. So I wonder whether in his reply, the noble Lord the minister could tell us whether they have any ambitions for improving the teaching of English as a, as a, as a language to those people who are coming here on the migration route. But, but it seems to me that, as Lord Hogan has said it, there's why we having this amendment.

We shouldn't be putting amendment. We shouldn't be putting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ourselves at risk by not having it. My Lord, I shall only speak briefly on this amendment to say

18:38

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

briefly on this amendment to say that the intention which lies behind it is obviously a very welcome one, and we need to make sure that those going through this process are able to understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is, of course, the duty of the government to make sure that this can happen. And to that end, I hope the noble Lord, the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the House how the government is already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services in how they plan to manage services in how they plan to manage for any increase in demand.

18:38

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I thank the noble Lady Baroness cousins and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also supported by a number of members, the noble Lords House Baroness Ludford Lord Hogan. How? To Baroness Ludford Lord Hogan. How? To an extent I'd say Lord Lords Harper. Certainly all German for her for a Certainly all German for her for a supporter in the on on this matter of both practical importance and human dignity, which is the provision of translation provision of translation interpretation services within the Home Office. My Lords, the government's Immigration White Paper rightly underscores the importance rightly underscores the importance of English language proficiency as a cornerstone of successful integration into British society.

We integration into British society. We believe, and I'm sure not the noble Baroness, but all noble Lords will agree, that the ability to speak agree, that the ability to speak English empowers individuals to participate fully in our communities, to contribute economically, and to build economically, and to build meaningful lives in the United Kingdom. But obviously, there are Kingdom. But obviously, there are circumstances where both needs of protection and expediency trumps proposal, and there are individuals proposal, and there are individuals for whom translation interpretation services, as we've heard already from noble Lords particularly, I'd say from noble Baroness cousins, for say from noble Baroness cousins, for whom translation interpretation services are essential to enable them to access care and to bring them to access care and to bring begin the long journey of recovery and justice.

For example, dealing with young women who have been trafficked into the UK against their trafficked into the UK against their will, suffering abuse and exploitation. The no. The Home Office has a duty to uphold the highest standards of delivery of these services. It's not merely a matter of administrative efficiency my Lords, but a moral and legal obligation. I can tell the noble law Lordships House that paragraph three three, nine and of the immigration rules already makes it clear the Home Secretary must provide at public public expense, and in terms of wherever necessary, to allow an applicant to submit their case.

This includes the substance of an asylum interview, a moment that can determine the course of a person's life. Now, noble Lords may be aware that in the other place, an MP elected on the reform ticket asked her, a number of Her Majesty's Government departments not to provide such translation services. I for one, I think the government regret that approach, both natural justice and respect for the rule of law are essential characteristics of our system and indeed of our society, and will not undermine these principles.

More so, as I say, we understand the importance of providing proper interpretation services. So not simply so that the asylum asylum seekers can access the system adequately. But indeed, as has been pointed out, that the I think, as Baroness Ludford pointed this out, that actually the system makes the right call first time round. Moreover, in the context of criminal investigations undertaken by immigration enforcement, the principle of common law and the European Convention of Human Rights both affirm that defendant must understand the charges against them, the charges against them, and must be able to mount a proper defence.

This is not an optional extra. We do not treat it as such. As. As I said, the current immigration rules make it clear of the need to provide interpretation services. For instances where we do not provide translation services in the asylum process, claimants can utilise legal representatives to support them. Furthermore, Migrant Help Asylum service is available 24 hours a day, offer free independent advice, guidance and information including full interpretation services. Now we've had some discussion of funding and obviously Noble Lordships will appreciate that value for money remains a guiding principle for this government in public service delivery.

So we must ensure that language services are cost effective and the Home Office is committed to assessing language services needs and spent to ensure we deliver both fiscal responsibility as well as a compassionate, practical approach to translation. And I think it's fair to say we understand well the point made by Baroness Ludford about penny pinching, undermining the integrity of the system. Lord Harper asked about the cost gap. I suppose, being sense, kind of a counterfactual situation. I'm not sure that any assessment assessment has has been made of that of the of that additional cost.

But I will go go back and ask officials if that if that has been the case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You will tell him. So what I was driving out there and I'm having listened to him, I'm not sure there listened to him, I'm not sure there would be much of a gap. I was basically saying based on what what rights would be put into place by rights would be put into place by this amendment compared to what's already delivered, what what the gap would be listening carefully to the would be listening carefully to the noble Lord the minister, he seems to be saying that certainly in the immigration enforcement pieces of immigration enforcement pieces of that list, the services are already delivered.

And so it may be just an argument about the quality of that argument about the quality of that service, which I think honourable there you Baroness Cousins was pushing out. But it may be useful if pushing out. But it may be useful if there are areas on here which are not specifically about immigration enforcement where there may be a gap. And that, I think, is what the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

gap. And that, I think, is what the your Lordships' House might need to understand. I think the noble Lord and indeed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord and indeed that was what I was, what I was getting at. I'm not entirely sure getting at. I'm not entirely sure that it's the how easy or practical is to make the assessment of that upgrade to professional services and what that additional cost would be. But as I say, I will go back and talk to officials to see if there talk to officials to see if there has been an assessment made on that similar vein. I'm afraid to say to the noble Baroness Baroness Council is that I don't have to hand any, any, I would say, sufficiently watertight.

Briefing on the EU retained law aspect. The question that that she asked. But I will I will go back and talk to officials and write to her with a fuller explanation, rather than risking some background noise. Lordship on my feet this evening. In conclusion, though, I'd like to thank the noble Baroness for raising her amendment and giving us the opportunity to discuss the importance of high quality services in the Home Office, but also in terms of the importance of high quality translation services for people who who are rightly seeking asylum and wish to and need that support to access our system adequately.

The points raised today my Lords reflect our values as a nation. Our commitment to upholding the rights of dignity of every individual have a given the point of that line, in particularly the fact that the fact that our immigration rules already do make clear the importance and the obligation of the Home Office to provide translation and interpretation services where necessary, I'd ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

18:45

Baroness Coussins (Crossbench)

- -

My Lords, I'd like to start by thanking the noble Lord, the Minister, for his reply, and in particular for his very clear statement that the government agrees it has a moral and legal obligation to make sure that people in these situations clearly understand what is happening, and perhaps, rather than just writing to me, he will agree to have a meeting with me between now and the next stage of the bill going forward so that we can both understand better what the can both understand better what the EU.

Bill act of 2023 said, and so that I can understand more about paragraph three, three nine of the immigration rules which he referred to. And if between those two things, it does hit the spot of what I'm after, then that will be very good. But the points that other people made, I think, are absolutely correct that the issue about costs, it's a question of weighing up the balance between not providing these services and facing the costs of potential appeals and challenges later on.

And I think it would be really useful for the Home Office to speak to your colleagues in the Moj about their work on the independent review they did, of the qualifications and experience for qualifications and experience for court interpreters and the cost that adjourned cases needing to be re heard because of the lack of an interpreter or the correct interpreter with the correct language has been absent. So I think that might be useful for building the case here.

On the question of artificial intelligence that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper. All I can do very briefly and at this point in. The evening is just to recap very briefly on what I've said before in this House, which is that not against machine translation or AI in principle, but we've got to be really careful about it at the moment, because AI training data up to this point means that although machine translation works very well indeed for the standard romance languages like French, Spanish, Italian, and also for German, it's much less reliable for languages with many dialects like Arabic, and at the moment it's almost useless for tonal languages like Mandarin, and also for many African languages.

And those may well be the languages that are needed in the circumstances we're talking about today. So don't rush to rely on it. Let's wait till AI training data has brought it up to standard. So with that, may I say that I look forward? I hope to be able to the opportunity of meeting with the noble Lord, Lord cats to discuss this in more detail and with that note of cautious optimism, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure? This amendment we have withdrawn amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. amendment is by leave. Withdrawn. Amendment 182. Baroness Hamwee not moved. Amendment 183. Baroness Chakrabarti not moved. That was an amendment in the name of Baroness amendment in the name of Baroness May of Maidenhead. Right. Not moved. We now come to Group four in clause

18:48

AMDT: 184 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to Group four in clause 48, amendment 184. Baroness Chakrabarti. My Lords, I'm introducing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm introducing amendments 184 and 185 in my name, and I'm grateful for the support of the Right Reverend Prelate, the the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Morecambe. Both amendments are inspired by the commitment of the government in last year's election manifesto that we will once again be a defender of the international rule of law. The late noble and learned Lord Lord Bingham of Cornhill. Eighth principle on the rule of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Law was that it requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, as obligations in international law, as in national law, the rule of law is, of course, a fundamental of course, a fundamental constitutional principle that safeguards against arbitrary power. safeguards against arbitrary power. And my Lords, what are we here for if not to protect the Constitution? if not to protect the Constitution? Throughout debates on this bill and other annual asylum bills of recent other annual asylum bills of recent years, noble Lords have raised concerns about compliance with concerns about compliance with international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention.

More than 1951 Refugee Convention. More than 20 years ago, in 1993, a bill passed 20 years ago, in 1993, a bill passed through Parliament with the noble Lord, Lord of Nottingham as Home Lord, Lord of Nottingham as Home Secretary. It was implemented by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lynn. It noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lynn. It contains a section titled Primacy of contains a section titled Primacy of Convention. This section, still in force, provides that nothing in force, provides that nothing in immigration rule shall lay down any practice contrary to the Refugee Convention.

My amendment 184 is in the spirit of this provision, but addresses the relationship between the convention and our domestic legal system more holistically, drawing from the hallmark constitutional balance agreed by Parliament in the Human Rights Act 1998, it ensures harmony between primary legislation, subordinate legislation, immigration rules, executive guidance and the Refugee Convention, so far as is possible to do. It gives effect to Parliament's intention to legislate in compliance with human rights. As with the Human Rights Act, courts would only interpret laws with the grain of the legislation and do no more than necessary to ensure compliance with human rights standards.

This helps realise Parliament's overarching intention and rectify drafting errors or factual circumstances not foreseen by legislators. Just as our courts have exercised judicial restraint in using section three of the Human Rights Act, our independent judiciary can be trusted to exercise restraint in using this clause. Where primary legislation can't be compatible. Interpreted then, as with section four of the Human Rights Act, a declaration of incompatibility could be made which would not affect, I repeat, not affect the validity or continued operation of that law.

When, as those who rail against judicial human rights decisions with which they disagree should be reminded of this relationship between sections three and four of the Human Rights Act, it explicitly protects parliamentary sovereignty and in contrast with, say, the US Bill of rights, prevents our Supreme Court from reinterpreting, let alone striking down, explicitly incompatible primary legislation. And of course, for the sake of completeness, the injunction in section two of the act is to take into account, take into account, not be bound by decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Amendment 184, so far as is possible, would ensure, for example, that our criminal penalties do not violate the immunity provided by the Refugee Convention and that our guidance on nationality does not treat refugees forevermore as not of good character. If so, to do it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would breach the refugee convention. And that refugees would not face being sent to places called safe where they will in fact face persecution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

persecution. Amendment 185. Is specific to the question of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is specific to the question of immunity from criminal penalties. I mean. As you've heard time and again.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As you've heard time and again. Article 31, one of the Refugee Convention protects refugees from penalties on account of their penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence if they come directly from a country come directly from a country persecuting them, present themselves to the authorities without delay, and show good cause for their and show good cause for their unlawful entry or presence. The reason for this immunity is simple reason for this immunity is simple people fleeing persecution and seeking sanctuary are often seeking sanctuary are often compelled to arrive, enter, and be present in a state irregularly.

It present in a state irregularly. It is clear that section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is intended to cover this defence. Indeed, it is titled defences based Indeed, it is titled defences based on article 31, one of the Refugee Convention. However, it's insufficient and does not reflect the full scope of that article. It provides only a narrow defence to an insufficient list of offences, including forgery and connected offences, possession of false identity documents, deception and falsification of documents.

Therefore, while there is a statutory defence for arriving with false documents, there is no statutory defence for arriving without requisite documents. Someone who uses a fake passport to get on a boat or plane directly from where they face persecution, is provided with a narrow defence. But as we know, with our ever tightening visa regime, with airlines afraid of penalties, refugees can't board safe planes. If they could, they might not risk crossing Europe on foot or dinghies in the channel.

However, if they had instead walked barefoot or been trafficked and arrived in Libya, Turkey or France having lost or had stolen any papers they had along the way, they would have no statutory defence against prosecution for irregular arrival or entry in the UK, or indeed the new facilitation offences in this Bill and indeed in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 before it. This isn't a mere hypothetical. The best available data shows that 556 people arriving by small boat were charged with illegal arrival, and 455 were convicted, a number of them young people who are treated and prosecuted as adults with insufficient initial age assessments.

The vast majority of those charged and convicted had ongoing claims for asylum, as well as experiences of trafficking and or torture, but had to share prison cells with adults before being released into the care of local authorities. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, in its recent report on this bill, stated article 31 is partially incorporated into domestic law by way of section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, 1999. However, the Committee agrees with its predecessor that this provision is not fully compliant with the Refugee Convention.

Therefore, my amendment is one endeavour to ensure compliance, and I appreciate that there are other such attempts, committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord. Lord Alton of Liverpool, his amendment 203, and I'm sure that we amendment 203, and I'm sure that we all wish him a full and speedy recovery from his recent injuries in amendment 203, I and another amendment, the noble Lord, Lord amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Bloodworth, has proposed a restrictive interpretation of article 31, one of the Refugee Convention. Our courts have interpreted the term directly as in coming directly. Broadly and purposefully to ensure that refugees purposefully to ensure that refugees who have crossed through and had mere short term transitory stops in other countries, such as while other countries, such as while crossing deserts and seas, may still be exempt from penalties if they be exempt from penalties if they were en route to their place of intended sanctuary.

The late and intended sanctuary. The late and much lamented noble and learned Lord Lord Brown of Heaton under Hayward Lord Brown of Heaton under Hayward in a Adeyemi, provided a clear test for interpreting whether someone has come directly looking at the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reason for the delay, and whether or not the refugee sought or whether or not the refugee sought or found protection in that immediate intermediate country, we must return to and uphold that common law position as the late noble Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill did in the House of Lords Judicial Committee in Asghar.

As we've repeatedly discussed, my Lords, the entire system of international refugee protection would collapse if this were not the case, if every person would be subject to penalties if Tunisia would say Libya and Libya, I would say Sudan. Thus, immediately neighbouring countries would bear all of the responsibility of which they already bear a great share. Or.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Refugees would be pushed back into their countries of persecution. into their countries of persecution. Well, this was never the intention and could never logically have been and could never logically have been the intention of a refugee convention. With this approach. And convention. With this approach. And like dominoes, our system of post-war legal protection and the international rule of law would fall. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the following new clause. Insert the words as printed in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the words as printed in the Marshall List. My Lords, I.

19:00

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

19:04

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

19:09

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

policy is. Yeah. My Lords, and I. Really support the comments made by the noble Lord Lord Vaux very articulately and legally adept at explaining some of my reservations. I just want to raise a few of the points I am opposed to, particularly amendment 184, because I do think it institutionalised this further, and it's even got the title of the primacy of the Refugee Convention. And I think that by emphasising that primacy, it undermines democracy. I listened very carefully to the very expansive debate on the first group on Refugee Family Reunion, and I thought one of the most insightful comments was made by a very moving contribution by Baroness Neuberger about her own family's experience of refugees fleeing Nazi anti-Semitism.

And it was a reminder of that particular historic period. But it was also a reminder of the importance of historic specificity, which I think matters today, because today, such a joyous day, by the way, in relation to the return of the hostages coming home, I spent most of the morning crying, but with joy. In this instance, yes, Jew hatred is alive. Today is still happening. But it's not the Nazis. It's not the Second World War. This is a completely different version.

Something else happening. And it's that issue of history is one of the reasons why I wanted to speak in this group. I've actually long been argued that the refugee Convention is long past its historic sell by date, and that it is time for us to consider leaving it, or maybe amending it in some way as it was being discussed. So I am glad that the noble Baroness Baroness Chakrabarti has given us a chance to consider the issue. Of course, when the Refugee Convention was established in 1951, it had noble aims.

It was designed for a world coming to terms with the aftermath of a world war and mass displacement. But if you think about even the way the term refugee is used today, it has become so expansive and flexible that it has been used recently to describe a transition. A trans identifying burglar from Algeria, a Zimbabwean paedophile, he says. And both of them say that they're entitled to the same protection as women and children fleeing a war zone. Earlier today, the noble Baroness Lady Hamwee said that language and words, words matter and I agree.

And in this instance I think the word refugee has become completely corrupted and confused. So I think we urgently need to review terms like refugee, as interpreted by today's reading of the refugee Convention, because I think it stokes resentment amongst the public, and it actually harms the interests of those who might be legitimately refugees fleeing protection and bundled up a whole lot of things. The history of the convention means that it's something that we can see is not, as has been described, the rule of law, an act of God that cannot be challenged at any time.

Because actually, it's got an interesting history, as I say, established in 1951, it was a practical solution to the existence of hundreds of thousands of people in Europe who still not being resettled after the Second World War. It's interesting that when it was introduced, the convention only applied to refugees in Europe and only in respect of those who had acquired that status due to the events that happened before 1951. The convention therefore has changed because it did not assist with refugees who fled Hungary in 1956.

That didn't mean that people weren't humane in 1956, but the convention was not something that could just be used, as is regularly done, to say, where's you humanity? Don't you care about refugees? It was very specific. It was only in 1967 that the regional and temporal limits of the Refugee Convention were lifted to give refugees, to give rights to refugees around the world. And that was motivated, as many historians have noted, about who of noted was motivated by the Cold War.

Actually, it was used to say all refugees are welcome in the West, and to show the superiority of democracy over communism. And there was actually rather a small number of refugees who came on that basis. With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the Refugee Convention seemed to lose its raison d'etre. And it's interesting that in 2004, Tony Bland, no less, noted how the convention quote first introduced in 1951 at a time when the Cold War and lack of cheap air travel made long range migration far more difficult than it has become, today has started to show its age.

Blair's lead, the Conservative Party in 2005 general election had a manifesto commitment to withdraw from the convention. The has, in other words, been discussions about whether it's showing its age. I'd say the refugee convention is not just showing its age, but it's outlived its usefulness, and it does shackle democracy. And so my concern about this amendment is it tries to do what I think is already a problem, which is that we spend all of our time in this chamber scrutinising pieces of law.

And if we then told, no, you can't do that because of the refugee convention, or if in fact we pass laws and in fact they are usurped by the refugee Convention through the laws, through the courts. What is the point of democracy? What is the point of the decision making here? If they are so undermined by international treaties? I think, therefore the Refugee Convention betrays democracy and it betrays the public. If I get if one gets frustrated in this place that laws have made and conventions are then used to undermine those laws, can you imagine what it's like being a voter? I know it's been a while for a lot of us, but I think it's worth remembering their frustration is even more palpable.

This does not help refugees. It is a way of bypassing democratic accountability and actually is a hindrance and not a help to refugees

**** Possible New Speaker ****

or the British problem. Yeah, yeah. I know it sounds.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know it sounds. Conscious that a number of. Noble Lords have. Arrived here now for the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The buses bill ping pong was not idea. I do actually think we. Maybe need to break, regroup. And actually.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Come back to this very important amendment. After the ping pong. OK. Which case? I like now to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through the House to now resume. The question. Is that that. That the House. To now assume as many of that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To now assume as many of that opinion will say content. The country not content. The contents have it. My Lords. We now come to

19:16

Legislation: Bus Services (No.2) Bill – consideration of Commons amendments (around 7.30pm)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. To the bus services. Number two, Phil Lord Hendy of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Richmond Hill. Simply my noble friend just popped out for two seconds. Which popped out for two seconds. Which would be just just pledges for. Oh yeah, keep talking. OK, well it's I if I can just keep talking while we get on my noble friend Lord Hindi in there. Who's here to do the buses, bill? But he'll be here shortly. We can I obviously particularly thank all noble Lords for our for the exit rates today a question time which is much appreciated.

What everybody here and we'll bring up my noble friend in shortly which is hopefully here now. Our key's here now. No he is not.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah I just interrupt my noble friend, the Minister, for a moment to say that that I understand the reasons for breaking mid group. But reasons for breaking mid group. But but actually that that that period of the break will give me a little of the break will give me a little longer to, to reflect on the, the many, the many positive contributions that precede my other

19:18

Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble friends return to the chamber. Because I must vote for my local friend for sister me there. And with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

friend for sister me there. And with that then I now sit down. My notes. I, for the convenience of the House, our staffs again that

19:18

Legislation: Bus Services (No.2) Bill – consideration of Commons amendments (around 7.30pm)

of the House, our staffs again that we take in consideration of Commons amendments to the bus services.

19:18

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

19:24

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

19:31

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As an amendment to the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As an amendment to the Minister's motion be agreed to. I've, I was really pleased to hear what the noble Lord the Minister had to say about my amendment. I would like to thank all those who voted for it at report stage and including my new Tory party best friends who are very kind to vote for it, and the Lib Dems. You know that it was all a novelty and it was wonderful. So thank you to the noble Lord Lord Moylan for arranging that.

Now, personally, I think this bill is actually doing quite a good job of bringing back a quality bus services service to urban areas. But we also need to bring these, these good services back to rural areas and villages. And that's that's really obvious because rural areas and villages should have just as much love and attention as urban areas. And so I would see this review as a first step in reducing isolation for those who experience poverty and deprivation, age or ill health, and who are stuck and can't go out for a for a greening.

It's also about reducing car dependency, reducing the number of cars on the road, reducing pollution and road deaths and injuries. So it pays off in every way. Now, I'm glad the government are accepting the idea of review. I had hoped they would accept my amendment and put it into their bill, so that I could say that I'd actually changed government legislation. Now, noble Lord, the Minister has told me that what he's done is a paper in heart. I've got no idea what that means, but presumably some of the older members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of this House. Oh, oh, the noble Lady, the opposition Chief Whip is saying she. Knows what it is. That's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Knows what it is. That's absolutely wonderful. But I. Even

**** Possible New Speaker ****

absolutely wonderful. But I. Even when the Minister was telling me that the government was going. To do the review. I was a bit worried about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was a bit worried about the length of time, because five years puts the end of. This review into the next Parliament, and who knows what the Parliament, and who knows what the next Parliament is going to look next Parliament is going to look like. So if we have a lot of other types of MPs and perhaps peers, am I going to be able to hold them to account for the bus review? I'm not account for the bus review? I'm not sure.

I am so. I'm glad the government's going this way, but I government's going this way, but I really do regret that it's not a really do regret that it's not a more powerful signal. No, it's. I'd like to thank the noble Lord, the

19:34

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

like to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his work on this bill and for meeting with me to discuss any concerns which may remain. We on these benches are pleased to hear from the government a commitment to a comprehensive review, which will cover many of the issues which we discussed at earlier stages of this bill and indeed were the subject of many amendments to the bill earlier in the year. And these, we would hope, would include the impact on some SME bus services, the £3 bus fare cap, and the impact on villages and rural areas.

And the government has already mentioned its published review of the £2 bus fare cap. But within this group, for our benches, the one key area remains the affordability of bus fares. We think the overall package of legislation in this bill will really help to transform bus services across the country and equip local transport authorities with a wide range of powers to deliver the right services to their local communities in the right way. But this needs to go hand in hand with affordable bus fares.

The increase in the bus fare cap from £2 to £3 has created real barriers for passengers, particularly those on low incomes, who rely on buses to go about their everyday lives. Budgets are tight for many families, forcing difficult choices between transport and other essentials, and bus fares outside of cities such as London are very expensive. So without addressing fares in this bill, we think it risks deepening existing inequalities and leaving many people isolated. So this legislation, whilst it's about improving bus services and enabling local authorities to have the choice about how local services are provided unless there are affordable bus fares, we think there is a hole in the plan.

So our amendment in this group, which well the amendment earlier, sorry, that passed in this House at report stage was about a review. It was not about providing for a £2 bus fare scheme to support bus routes, particularly socially necessary routes, which are an absolute lifeline for many villages and rural areas. So the motion which we will get to in my name would insert amendment 80 into the bill and would ensure that the legislation contains a statutory commitment to the £2 bus fare scheme for socially necessary routes.

It requires the Secretary of State to take all necessary steps to ensure that the £2 bus fare cap is maintained for passengers using socially necessary local services. We believe this is a far clearer amendment to the legislation, putting into action what we are committed to, and ensures a focus on the £2 bus fare cap by the Secretary of State, and I hope members on all sides of the House will see the merit in this provision to enhance further this bus legislation.

I look forward to hearing further the Minister's response to this, and we look forward to testing the opinion of the House later on. This.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my Lords, I just want to say a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In my Lords, I just want to say a few words on this issue as the introducer of the £2 at bus fare cap introducer of the £2 at bus fare cap and the person that that the relevant sections of our manifesto which committed to keep it for the which committed to keep it for the duration of the Parliament and fund it importantly from savings that we it importantly from savings that we were going to make in rail services. And the reason I make that is, of course, we do not spend enough time actually in the country talking about buses, twice as many a two and a half times.

More journeys are made a half times. More journeys are made by bus than by the national rail network. You wouldn't know that from the national press often, which is very London centric on this subject. But in most parts of the country, buses are absolutely critical. So I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Let me say a word or two about my Noble say a word or two about my Noble friend Lord Maryland's purpose clause and the remarks that he made clause and the remarks that he made on that.

He talked about the government trying to help its friends in local authorities. I think actually, what's interesting about this legislation is if you look at what's happened to the bus services, the real challenge, and one of the problems is what happened during the pandemic is a very significant number of people stopped using buses for rather obvious reasons and never returned. And that's actually caused a huge financial problem for the bus network and has caused lots of routes which were previously profitable, to not be profitable.

And the thing of course, that's missing in the legislation is you can offer to local authorities the powers to franchise services all you like. But unless the Treasury is going to give those local authorities the money to pay for

19:39

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

those bus services, all you actually do is take loss making services that do is take loss making services that are being reduced by private sector operators or by local authorities. You can't pay for them, and it's You can't pay for them, and it's just the local authority that ends up having to take them away because it has no ability to pay for them. it has no ability to pay for them. So. So actually, the I would be interested to see whether when the government this legislation gets onto the statute or whether the onto the statute or whether the government funds the powers to the level that you would have to in level that you would have to in order to deliver an improvement to bus services that I suspect, given the dog's breakfast, the the dog's breakfast, the Chancellor's making of the economy, and the fact that there's less money available for public services rather than more money available for public services, that isn't going to happen, but we'll we'll see how that develops in the future.

So I think develops in the future. So I think my friend Lord Moylan doesn't have to worry in one sense, because I don't think this cunning plan that the government's implemented to help local authorities is actually going to help them at all, specifically on to help them at all, specifically on the cap, the minister talked about the review into the £2 bus fare and the review into the £2 bus fare and said that it wasn't good value for money. Of course, what he missed out, of course, was that the out, of course, was that the government decided, without having concluded the review of the £2 bus fare cap, to have a £3 bus fare cap, which kind of suggests that they like the principle but introduced that picked a number without having had done the review on the £2 bus fare cap in the first place.

So I think that demonstrates not a sensible, evidence based piece of policy making, but a Treasury driven. Let's just reduce the cost of the policy and not look at the impact it was having. When I talked to bus companies, there were two things from the bus fare cap, which were very important in terms of driving up bus ridership. One was the obvious one, which is it reduced the cost. And particularly and it's been mentioned by a number of noble Lords the in those in rural areas where you often have to take a number of parts of the journey and the number of fares, it meant that for rural users particularly, you drove down the cost of those journeys.

Really important for people going to work, accessing education. So that had a big impact. The other thing was the clarity and the consistency it made in communicating the level of bus fare to people, which had a, I have to confess, rather surprising impact. Having talked to bus companies, I asked them the question, if we were to take this away, what would you do to your pricing structure? And what was interesting was they all said having a round number bus fare had a surprisingly powerful effect on their ability to market those bus services to consumers, rather than people not knowing what a bus fare was going to be, and a whole range of complexity.

So I think actually it needed a bit, a bit more time to bed in. And I think actually that's why I support a proper review having been carried out. The final thing that I would say is going back to the point I made about funding, I do think what we suggested, which was to take savings from the reforms that we were going to put in place for rail services and use some of that to fund the bus services, I think, rebalanced, where people actually choose to take their journeys.

And I think more people depend on bus services for really important local journeys, whether it's to education, whether it's to access the health service or whether it's to access employment, far more people across the whole of the country used bus services to do that, then use the rail network. The government have done the reverse. The first thing they did was come in and give railway drivers some of the best paid public servants, a pay rise and ask for nothing in return.

No productivity improvements. They got nothing in return for the rail user, that money could have been spent in improving the quality of bus services across the country. I think that would have been the right decision. It was the decision we were going to make. And I think when we don't see increases to funding for bus services and we simply give local authorities the powers to franchise, but with no money to deliver that, I think more people on both, on all sides of your Lordships' House will think that making savings in the rail network and putting the money into buses would have been the right decision, and I'm sorry the government chose not to do so.

19:44

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

19:46

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

19:47

Division

20:10

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House, I beg to move formally that the House to agree with the. Commons in their amendments 9 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

27 En bloc. The question is that the House to agree with the Commons in their agree with the Commons in their amendments, 9 to 27 En bloc as many as are of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content the contents have it. Amendment 28. Lord Hendy of Richmond.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hill. My Lords, I beg to move that the House to agree with the Commons in their amendment 28 with Commons in their amendment 28 with the leave of the House, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group, and to motions 30 A and this group, and to motions 30 A and 31 I. On group two. I thank the noble Lord Hampton for his amendment 30 a in efforts to raise the important issue of bus safety throughout the Bill's passage, noble throughout the Bill's passage, noble Lord is pursuing a Vision Zero programme for this bus sector, which would aim to eliminate serious would aim to eliminate serious injuries in the course of bus operations.

My Lords, as I said at the report stage, the government is the report stage, the government is sympathetic to the aims of this motion and we take safety incidents very seriously, both in the bus very seriously, both in the bus sector and indeed on any mode of transport. The government is committed to reducing the number of committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads, and will publish a road safety strategy in due course. road safety strategy in due course.

The first such strategy since 2011. The noble Lord has been an excellent The noble Lord has been an excellent advocate of the issue of bus safety, and I am pleased to confirm to him that buses will be included in the that buses will be included in the strategy. This will be an opportunity to highlight existing good work in the sector, including good work in the sector, including that of transport for London and the Bus Centre of Excellence. Taking the Bus Centre of Excellence example, where I have convened the Bus Knowledge Sharing and Incident Network, bringing together industry experts, safety specialists and bus professionals to share knowledge, develop best practices and shape policy and regulatory improvements in bus safety.

Of course, road safety is inherently multi multimodal. It's important that we consider all road users and the environment they operate in, be that on foot, by bicycle, in a car, or indeed in a bus to protect people as much as possible. That's why my department has been looking closely at the safe system principles. This is an internationally accepted, evidence based approach to road safety, underpinned by five pillars safe roads, safe vehicles, safe road users, safe speed and post-crash care.

These principles are a core component of Vision Zero programmes that have been adopted both internationally, including in Australia and New Zealand, following early adopters Sweden in the Netherlands and locally by authorities such as West Midlands and West Yorkshire. The government will use to look to utilise these principles in its delivery of the forthcoming Road Safety strategy. This strategy will lay the foundation for government leadership whilst providing flexibility for local authorities to determine the most appropriate approach for their local circumstances. This means that local areas can adopt Vision Zero programmes if they deem it suitable.

Increasingly, local areas are doing just that. London's Vision Zero programme is underpinned by a dedicated bus safety action plan and bus vehicle standards. It provides an exemplar best practice for other local local areas to aspire towards. This is already happening. The noble Lord will know that Greater Manchester and Oxfordshire, amongst others, have recently adopted Vision Zero strategies of their own and the government welcomes other local areas considering bus safety programmes or even Vision Zero strategies for their areas. But it must be right for them.

My Lords, I now turn to amendment 31 A, which was previously brought brought by the local Lord Woodley and is now tabled by the noble Lord Moynihan on the recording and publication of data on assaults. This government wholeheartedly wants to make the bus network safer for everyone, and this includes combating violence against women and girls. In considering whether to increase the level of reporting, it's important to be also conscious of the privacy of those who report incidents and whether individuals are comfortable with sensitive data being recorded and shared with external organisations.

I hope noble Lords will take comfort that the government is already taking action to address the matter of violence against women and girls. We are due to publish a new Violence Against Women and Girls strategy shortly. We have also developed an evidence and evidence based programme to tackle violence against women and girls and transport, working across government and with partners such as the British Transport Police. My Lords. I would also like to stress the importance of considering what is already captured by the police and avoiding any duplication.

Statistics captured by the police include all incidents that have been reported to them, meaning that incidents of serious assaults and violence that occur on buses are already recorded. This is the case irrespective of whether incidents have been reported by victims, witnesses or third parties. These statistics also include incidents where the crime related or not for, for instance, incidents not immediately recorded as a crime are still captured in the registration of an auditable incident report by the police. And bearing in mind, sadly, inevitably, the sensitivity of some of the details reports from individual women and girls, it is surely much preferable for these details to be held by the police than by local transport authorities or bus companies.

Therefore, I hope that noble Lords feel reassured that the government has and will continue to take action and that the motions do not need to be pursued. I also hope noble Lords will accept the other changes in this group that were made in the Lords, and haven't

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been debated today. I beg to move. The question is the House to agree with the Commons in their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agree with the Commons in their amendment 28? Rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Speak to motion 30? Aye in my name, and I'd like to thank the Minister and his team very. Much for the engagement during this.

20:16

Lord Hampton (Crossbench)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this. Part, including an email at centre. Of the league last night. My Lord, since we last.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, since we last. Discussed the bus bill, about. injured. In bus accidents and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In bus accidents and. One person is killed. Per month. In London alone, according to. TfL's own.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

TfL's own. Figures. And TfL has a Vision Zero policy for.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Zero policy for. Bus accidents. I'm I'm sure the House will join. Me in sending best wishes for a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Me in sending best wishes for a full recovery to those 16 people hospitalised in the recent Victoria hospitalised in the recent Victoria bus crash, including my friend Lord Alton. As he said to me you don't expect to pick up a broken back on your oyster card. On the 815 journey to Westminster. I'm greatly heartened, though, with the Minister's response. I'm glad that the government is sympathetic to the motion. The road safety strategy sounds like a good it's going to be a good thing as long as it is looking at this idea of zero tolerance towards accidents and of vision zero.

So I think having seen how much it has been successfully adopted elsewhere, I look forward to the road safety white paper.

20:18

Lord Snape (Labour)

- -

20:23

Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)

- -

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

follow the noble. Lord or snake. And 300.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And 300. Can I ask the minister? We had long. And extensive. Debate around.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

long. And extensive. Debate around. Floating bus stops and their accessibility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

accessibility. In terms of inclusion, and indeed as a noble Lord rightly points out, in terms of safety.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in terms of safety. For all. Prospective bus users, not least

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prospective bus users, not least those blind and sight impaired, does the Minister believe that current the Minister believe that current floating bus stops comply with these 8300? Does the Minister believe they should? Does he believe that local authorities should comply with these 8300? What does the Minister see as the role for British standard the role for British standard clearly set out? And there's much in this standard, but the key phrase is this to be able to access the bus this to be able to access the bus without having to cross a life cycle This is the lived experience, the This is the lived experience, the blind sight impaired, and indeed for all prospective bus passengers in so many.

And an increasing number of these floating bus stops being tragically laid out and commissioned up and down the country to have to cross a life cycle lane, or worse still, to stop going out, to be effectively planned out of their local communities, their public realm, previously accessible before the layout of these so-called floating bus stops. So I ask the minister, when he comes to sum up, what's his view on RBS 8300? Does he believe the government should be very supportive of the work that British standards do? And shouldn't it be that all local authorities, and indeed all those in planning any public realm when it comes to bus stops, should be fully compliant with this very well thought through, 8300.

20:25

Lord Moynihan (Conservative)

- -

20:33

Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Conservative)

- -

20:34

Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House tonight. Due to. My Lords. Lord Hampton's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Lord Hampton's amendment on Vision Zero rightly put safety on buses at the heart of this bill. And who can argue with the aim bill. And who can argue with the aim of zero fatalities on our roads and our culture in the bus industry, which has safety throughout? But I think the government's clear response taking this forward, including best practice internationally and the new road safety strategy, the first, I think the minister said since 2011, really does show action is taking place in this safety space, and it's a great assurance to our benches the issue of collecting data on violence on the bus network.

You know, we're absolutely no doubt about the government's commitment. And with the awaited Borg strategy. But given the clear acknowledgement that this data is already collected by the police across this country, and with this new strategy, do we are satisfied that this concern is being properly addressed and the amendment is therefore not needed? What is needed is more resources for our police. But that is a debate for another day. And as this bill seeks to improve bus services across the country, safety in every aspect will be key and we are pleased to hear the way forward to address safety outlined by the Minister.

outlined by the Minister. remarks.

20:35

Lord Moylan (Conservative)

- -

20:40

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)

- -

20:44

Division

20:56

Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill - committee stage (day 6) - part two

The The debate The debate was The debate was adjourned The debate was adjourned during The debate was adjourned during The debate was adjourned during the discussion on amendment 184. So that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debate is now resumed. I wonder if I. Could. Just continue where others left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just continue where others left off. Particularly commend the words

20:56

Lord Garnier (Conservative)

- -

off. Particularly commend the words of the. The Labour law Lord folks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

who. Since. Who gave.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Who gave. A very perceptive analysis of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A very perceptive analysis of the problems that. The noble Ladies. Amendment revealed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment revealed. As he said the amendment is, is legally coherent, and I would add legally coherent, and I would add that it's well motivated. I would only add this. The convention was only add this. The convention was passed, we adhered to it. We haven't had to it since 1951 or thereabouts. And it has not been like the European Convention on Human Rights, domesticated into our own law, like domesticated into our own law, like the Human Rights Convention, through the Human Rights Convention, through the Human Rights Act of 1998, I recall when I was on the opposition frontbench.

In the other place, when discussing the human rights bill discussing the human rights bill that then was and the then government's proposals to government's proposals to domesticate that convention into our jurisdiction, that one of the points I made was that one could be entirely in favour of our membership of the European Convention, and I remain in favour of it, but without necessarily supporting it's. Bringing within the British domestic legal system. And so I say, in relation to the 1951 convention, that one can be entirely in favour of our remaining a member of it, without introducing the problems that are caused when these international treaties become part of domestic law.

I said in 1998 that by bringing the European Convention into our own law and permitting British courts to adjudicate on cases which had to do with disputes under the convention that it would introduce a dangerous political element into the deliberations of our courts. And I don't think I was wrong to say that. And certainly the last 30 years or so, 25 years or so, have demonstrated that there have been a number of highly political cases which have found their way through the courts, both at the lower court level, but also right the way up to the Supreme Court.

Now, whether that has been to the advantage of the litigants or to the development of justice policy, and to the development of the law in this country, is a matter of debate. But it has created inconveniences and it has created clashes between Parliament and the courts, and that is not to be wished for. And so I, I gently urge the noble Lady when she comes to consider the good sense of her amendment and whether to push it that she might find it better to leave things as they are.

We have faithfully, I think it's fair to say, adhered to the 1951 convention since we ratified it, and there have been immigration and asylum statutes passed by governments from both parties, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party since then, which have not, in my view, been unfaithful to the convention, both in its spirit and in its implementation. So I leave it there. I urge her to think carefully about what my what the noble Lord Lord said and others have said, and perhaps to allow the convention to exist as a convention and to allow Parliament and this government in any future government to make up its own or their own mind about the way in which it should be implemented on the local stage.

Yeah, yeah.

21:01

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

21:08

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

21:17

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. My Lords, I'm perhaps not as warm to all this amendment as as the noble Lady Baroness Ludford just noble Lady Baroness Ludford just was. It seems to me that it does give away its intention in the title, which is the primacy of the convention, which fundamentally is a is an assault on whether we think Parliament has primacy in supremacy in our in our views. Of course I'll give well, though I haven't got very far in my argument. Really is a point of information.

Does the noble Lord realise that that title primacy of the convention is directly adopted from the Conservative legislation of 1993, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act, as brought forward by the noble Lord. Clerk of Nottingham and implemented by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord Howard of Lynn. I wasn't aware of that, but I'm not sure it changes my argument at not sure it changes my argument at all. As we've just discovered by listening to the debates about listening to the debates about article 31 of the convention. Part of the issue here is the of the issue here is the interpretation of the words are contested, as we heard from from the points. My Noble friend Lord Murray set out where he talked about restoring what he felt was the restoring what he felt was the original definition.

And indeed that's already been done in the Nationality and Borders Act, which I think has about half a dozen interpretation sections interpreting parts of the convention and what the parts of the convention and what the noble lady said, where she disagreed that that was the original intention. Now, the whole point is, intention. Now, the whole point is, if there are disputes about what the convention means, somebody has to convention means, somebody has to decide what they are, and it can either be courts and judges, or it either be courts and judges, or it can be Parliament setting out what we think we've signed up to and, and we think we've signed up to and, and being clear about that.

And Parliament has been in a number of Parliament has been in a number of cases. And if, if you put this into statute, it would effectively say that judges could assert the what Parliament said wasn't actually the interpretation of the convention, and a judge would decide what to do. Now, it is perfectly true at what the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti said that she's been careful to word this, that the courts could not strike down primary legislation, if I may say so.

I don't think that is a terribly good safeguard, because, of course, an enormous amount of our immigration legislation is not primary legislation at all. It's secondary legislation. All of the immigration rules are secondary legislation made by ministers using primary legislative powers. So actually, unless there was something explicitly in the primary legislation which give ministers the powers to make those immigration rules that specifically forbids a court being able to do this, a court could strike down if this amendment was carried, could strike down our immigration rules, and that effectively means judges making the decision and not ministers.

And of course, those immigration rules are not just made by ministers, they're made by ministers. Ministers draft them, but they're put before both houses of Parliament, approved by Parliament. And in the end, my contention is if you want to have an immigration system that carries the support of the public, in the end, decisions have to be made by people accountable to the public. And the noble Lady Baroness Ludford talked about the convention being chipped away. Part of the issue is that a large number of members of the public don't think it works for them.

They think that people can come to this country as economic migrants, put their hands up and say they're asylum seekers, and that somehow gives them a free pass. And I argue, when I was immigration minister, if we don't have a tough system, which, yes, lets people stay with a good claim, but it's clear that where people don't have a good claim, we kick them out and all those charities end up supporting them. All they're doing is damaging the public's support for an asylum system.

If people think this is a way of getting around the system and being an economic migrant and getting here, and courts will then interpret the legislation in a way not intended by ministers who are accountable or by Parliament. What you do is damage public support for the very principle that the noble Lady is setting out. And I think that is actually incredibly damaging. Of course I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A second time and on, not on the big stuff about public opinion, but on these specific points about on these specific points about immigration rules and the danger of courts striking down immigration courts striking down immigration rules. Does the just the noble Lord realise that the 93 act that he said realise that the 93 act that he said a moment ago doesn't really matter, is still in force, and that the is still in force, and that the provision I cited already prohibits immigration rules breaching the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

immigration rules breaching the refugee convention. There. It is obviously still all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There. It is obviously still all the parts of it are still in force. But if what she says is true, then But if what she says is true, then there would be no need to have her amendment. But the fact is you you. amendment. But the fact is you you. If you say that the courts can decide that the convention, as they decide that the convention, as they interpret it, can override legislation, then I think that is legislation, then I think that is very damaging.

The world is a very different place than it was in 1951 different place than it was in 1951 when the convention was adopted. And the way you have to reflect that is for democratically accountable ministers and legislators to make decisions about how we interpret it in the modern era. And that, I think, is actually how you strengthen the principles underpinning it, but in a way that works in the modern world. If you don't do that, what you will do is actually just have more people think that the whole thing is nonsense and we should pull out of it.

And actually, I don't think we should pull out of it, but I do think it does need work and it needs to be amended. But we also need to interpret it correctly. And my noble friend, Lord Murray's amendment, which sets out, I think, a very sensible definition relevant in the modern world about people who pass through safe countries, a number of safe countries, and then choose to come to the United Kingdom. I think it's a very sensible amendment, and I think it would have the support of a large number of people in the United Kingdom.

But in the end, the decision about whether that is the correct interpretation of the convention, in my humble opinion, should be taken by ministers and by Parliament. It shouldn't be taken by judges being able to insert their interpretation of the 51 convention, as it was drafted for a very different world, and how they think it should be interpreted now. And I think that would be a retrograde step. And I think it wouldn't do what the, the noble Lady and the noble Lady Lady Ludford are trying to do, which is they're very frustrated.

I think that the public does not support provisions of the convention and they're being chipped away at. But I think what they're proposing, what the noble Lady is proposing, is supported by the noble Lady opposition. It's actually going to make things worse, not better, in their terms. If the public think that the asylum system is a system that's not under any democratic control, and decisions are taken by courts, not by people who are accountable, then the system will become less supported by the public, not more, and the whole thing will unravel.

I think if you believe in an asylum system, which I do, and you want to strengthen me, you have got to allow democratic institutions to reflect the world in which we now live, not the world in which the convention was drafted. And I think if you do that and you make it a convention that's able to be interpreted in the modern world, you you strengthen it and make it more likely to succeed than doing the opposite. So I think for all of those reasons, I think it would strike at the primacy of Parliament to put this into law.

But I think also it would do something which I think fundamentally both noble Ladies would actually not support. It'll weaken public support for the asylum system, which I think in the end they will come to regret.

21:26

Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I know. won't linger too long over that. All I would say is that I've got absolutely nothing at all against, for instance, either if this government would want to go to Strasbourg and try and seek to change the wording of article eight

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the European Convention on Human Rights, well, good luck. With that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With that. But but also it is open to it to, to analyse which I think it's doing to analyse which I think it's doing to analyse whether article eight on the importance of family considerations is being wrongly interpreted or implemented in the, interpreted or implemented in the, in the British tribunals and, and courts will then it's completely courts will then it's completely able and I don't I don't oppose that being done to issue guidance to the being done to issue guidance to the court on on the analysis and interpretation and application of interpretation and application of article eight.

And I'm sure there are similar articles of the, of the are similar articles of the, of the convention where that that could be done. What I think the noble Lord Lord Murray is doing in his amendment is rewriting the refugee convention, which is, I think, a different matter. So I'm not up for different matter. So I'm not up for rewriting things, but I'm perfectly prepared to see guidance issued to prepared to see guidance issued to the court if they are over overgenerous or wrong wrong in in overgenerous or wrong wrong in in their interpretation.

I'm I certainly want precision and integrity in the law. And if he's trying to imply that, I doubt, well,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then I reject. I mean, I had sat down, but given

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I had sat down, but given that she intervened on me, I think I'll I'll do a very brief response since we've gone over the time, although that was largely, I think,

21:28

Lord Harper (Conservative)

- -

although that was largely, I think, to do with her rather than me. No, I wasn't saying she was in favour of imprecision. I was saying it's about who decides what things mean, and I think it should be Parliament that decides what they mean and can keep the convention updated with the modern world. I think, rather than courts doing that in a way that's not compatible with what the views of the public are. That's all I'm saying, I think and I think that fundamentally strengthens the convention that we've signed up to, and is likely to keep it in force for longer with the support of the public.

That is the thrust of my argument, and I'm content to leave it there. it there.

21:28

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

Quite briefly, through my quick summing up of what I've heard, it seems to me that there are those who wish to leave things as they are, those who wish to have a more relaxed regime about getting further from the from the convention and those in the name of Chakrabarti who want to lock them together. Now, those are three different positions, which we've just heard, but I have never heard, except for my noble friend Baroness Ludford behind me.

The view that what you can do, of course, is to seek to change, alter, amend, seek definitions of internationally. After all, this is an international document which we conflict should be signed up to. And if we believe that we are on our own in this world, that there's nobody else who will support us in making any changes, then surely to goodness, we are not going to be stuck and everybody else is out of step except us. That is not an argument which I think I can accept, and I think that the crucial issue here is how we make the best use of the convention and the best use of our laws with it together.

Now, whether or not we, we, we change from the position that has from where we are now to a more fundamental change to in wrapping the two together is an is an issue that requires a lot of debate and a lot of discussion and by wise heads as well who are in in this area. But it does seem to me that what we have is a suspicion that I can hear from those on my right here that this we need to slacken our application of the convention on on refugee convention.

And that to me means that we have not in the sense that we've not tried to seek accommodation with others who might feel the same way, does strike me as being an incorrect way of dealing with something which has been integral to all or integral to the way we operate for such a long period of time.

21:31

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

Yeah, yeah. For the. brief.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I can, but I wanted to support the amendment by my noble friend Lord Murray, amendment 23I he has explained the reasons for his amendment, which seeks to restore amendment, which seeks to restore the initial intention behind the Refugee Convention, on which section Refugee Convention, on which section 31 of the 1999 act is based. And I 31 of the 1999 act is based. And I think this is an important amendment because, as we've seen even today, because, as we've seen even today, the report, there is a great deal of a lack of clarity and indeed a great a lack of clarity and indeed a great deal of debate about the refugee Convention, its status and its very Convention, its status and its very meaning.

And here I'd like to touch meaning. And here I'd like to touch on two of the problems I see which the noble Lords amendment would overcome. The first is the problem overcome. The first is the problem of the convention itself. It does not obliged the refugees themselves not obliged the refugees themselves to seek refuge in the first case, a first country. But it's an agreement first country. But it's an agreement between states, and therefore it's appropriate for the states to it's appropriate for the states to it's for the states, not the individuals.

And that has given, I think, rise to a lot of the discussion we've heard about whether or not, as we see they they have to seek and first save country, make a claim in the first safe country. The second is the guidance which we now have up to date from the Home Office, which from I think it was 27th of June this year, which explains the inadmissibility rules in respect of safe third countries. Where where asylum should be claimed and or is if asylum has been claimed or should be claimed or could reasonably be expected to claim, or for claims made before 20 June 22nd were exceptional.

Circumstances didn't prevent such a claim, provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing them, which I understand is to reflect the case law. So therefore we have all kinds of obstacles and not very much agreement on the problem. I recognise how much, how far the government has gone to tackle the problems of historically high levels, not only of immigration, but asylum claims and the small boats arrivals pose a particular problem with people crossing the channel from French. The French coast, having travelled through France and probably a number of other safe countries as the in the EU, as has been stated now, we paid France 476 million to deal with this problem and to try and control the coast departures.

And sadly, it hasn't really worked. And this year we added the one in, one out and agreement, but that and so far hasn't paid many dividends because we've seen, I think, 20 as of last Thursday, 26 people sent to France and nine in from France. And that is a drop in the ocean of the 32,000 recorded in September. So we have a problem and the French have a problem too. Their immigration figures are higher than ours at one point.

6 million people came in from outside of Europe, i.e. Non EU citizens last year, and they had 157,000 asylum claims to our 110, and they have a much less stable regime at the moment, with President Macron unable to command a majority in Parliament and losing prime ministers regularly. So I can't blame the French either. Migration is top. The party with the majority is Madame Le Pen's party, so I, I would say that we're good enough is the intentions of the government are and they are good intentions returns agreement won't work as well as as a proper legal amendment, such as that proposed by my Noble friend Lord Murray, which will control the problem at source in the law, in whether we admit a claim or not from people who have passed through a safe country.

And that's why I'm supporting it.

21:36

Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)

- -

21:41

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

21:52

Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)

- -

My Lords, I'm so grateful to all noble Lords for their engagement in this group, even though some engagement was with a rather broader brush than ideally, one would like. A committee. The noble Lady Baroness Jones didn't need to be self-deprecating about not being a lawyer, nor did other noble Lords need to my amendments with faint praise for being surprisingly, quote unquote, legally coherent, even though they they disagreed and disagreed with the substance. Of course, some noble Lords were going to use these amendments for the big the big debate that raged in in our countries at the moment around the refugee convention.

But to go to the detail of the amendments, neither of my amendments affected the big debate about whether we should be in or out of the refugee convention or whether we should be in it, but that periodically ignore it. What they were about was attempting to achieve some coherence to our statute book, which I think is what committee stage on a on a borders bill should be about. There are anomalies. There are anomalies about the way that that we have pregnant with the refugee convention at the moment.

Noble Lord Harper didn't quite believe me. I think, when I said that section two of the 93 act already provides that the immigration rules may not conflict with the Refugee Convention, and therefore courts may decide on that, on that matter. Well, I'd like him to believe me. Or if he doesn't believe me, to maybe look at the statute, because section two of the 93 act is still in force. He then said, well, if what the noble Lady says is correct, then we wouldn't need her amendment.

But of course, the rules are just the rules. Underneath immigration rules, there are executive decisions and guidance, and above the rules there is legislation. The noble Lady and Baroness Fox rightly, understandably brought up the question of democracy and other other noble Lords engaged in this debate, this age old debate about what is democracy and the relationship between elected parts of the Constitution and the courts. But there has to be a relationship between the two, because there is no democracy.

Without the rule of law, arbitrary decisions could be made. And the moment you legislate at all, you are passing some some role to the judiciary. And some of us are happy with that, and some of us don't want quite so much of that. But my amendments expressly preserve. Parliamentary sovereignty is the overriding principle in our legislation, and that is as it is, even under the Human Rights Act on Amendment 185. I'm grateful to my Noble friend and Minister for identifying the point that I make about the anomaly in the current position.

And I'm sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Santos, because clearly I didn't make myself clear enough in my opening remarks because he talked about this would be my amendment, would be licensed to people to come with forged papers. The anomaly I'm referring to is that you get protection as a refugee with forged papers. Now, you don't get protection if you're a refugee with no papers from from prosecution. So that was the sort of the detail of what I was trying to achieve in very specific amendments, not notwithstanding the very general debate, but I am I am grateful, and for the moment at least, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw. Your. Lordships pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is broadly withdrawn. Amendment 285 Baroness Chakrabarti.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chakrabarti. Not moved. Amendment 186.

21:57

AMDT: 186 Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

22:10

Lord German (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

following clause as printed in. The Marshall List. My Lords, I don't want to repeat

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I don't want to repeat all that Baroness Lister has said, but I agree with every word. You but I agree with every word. You know, it's if you wish people to become full citizens of your country, or to integrate in your country, to look back at the way in which they came into the country actually damages that process. People who could have been working here for years, but families up together are being denied that opportunity.

You know, the one step forward, one step back that was quite clear. And, you know, we the ban on the in the Illegal Migration Act in clauses 38 and 39, this bill was absolutely the right thing to do. But then to overturn what you've overturned by simply stating, and this is the Secretary of State, that from 10th to February 2025, individuals applying for citizenship who arrived by dangerous journey or entered the UK irregularly will normally be refused British citizenship, with no carve out for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children.

And it's retrospective as well to people already in the United Kingdom. And that's why it is such an important issue that that's been brought up, that I managed to ask whether Britain was standing alone in this matter. I have arranged through the a system which I didn't know about in this Parliament, but of asking the parliaments of the Council of Europe, all 46 of them, this question when considering a citizen citizenship application from an individual who is legally recognised as a refugee.

To what extent does the method by which they entered the country impacts their eligibility for citizenship? For example, does entering national territory without permission normally make an applicant's illegible, ineligible for citizenship, including, if they are later recognised as a refugee? That was dealt with by the parliaments of the Council of Europe, and we received 31 responses from 31 countries of the Council of Europe, not one of them. Not one of them has this rule, which the Secretary of State has just applied to this system.

And I am going to read the names because I think they ought to be on record. Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Canada, which is an associate of the Council of Europe, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the Ukraine. None of them carry out this policy. Why are we standing alone? Why are we the ones who are marching at a step with everybody else? Why is it that we don't want these people who are coming here and Spain, their lifespan here, to be integrated fully and be granted citizenship, who have worked and worked away through our society? It is absolutely shameful, and I think the government ought to rescind the statement by the Secretary of State and fall back on what is done in this bill.

In this bill, we've done the right thing. The statement by the Secretary of State needs to be Re Re Re Re dealt with, and so that we can fall in line with every other country in Europe who have decided that they are going to respond to this. Incidentally, the only the small ones that didn't respond, you know, the San Marino's and the and the Andorra's, the big ones are all in there. All the big countries of Europe. Europe.

22:14

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

Although I shall speak briefly about the First Amendment in this group, in the name of the Right Reverend Prelate official, Chelmsford has moved by the noble Lady Baroness Lister before moving on to those in the name of myself and my friends. The good character assessment may, in the view of some noble Lords, have a slightly antiquated name. But let me take a moment to perhaps just go into some more detail. The person will not normally be considered to be of good character if there if there is information to suggest that any of the following apply if they are a criminal.

If they are a terrorist, if they have failed to pay tax, if they are dishonest, or if they have breached immigration laws. And it's not an exhaustive list, but those are the main points set out by the government. I know that the amendment is well intentioned, but we on these benches believe that the requirements currently set out to be considered a person of good character, not only valid, but important for maintaining national security, safety, and the well-being of our citizens. For us to say that a person should not be a threat to national security, that they should be honest, that they should seek to nurture our community rather than harm it as a prerequisite, is, I'm sure all noble Lords will agree and entirely valid principle, so I therefore cannot support any measures which threaten the watering down of this principle, and I therefore cannot back this amendment.

Turning to the amendments in this group in my name and that of the noble Lord Lord Cameron and noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough, my Lords, we need to acknowledge in this debate that despite our various disagreements on the Bill and to some extent on how we approach the issue of migration widely, we do share the same fundamental ambition to see our country succeed. We all want a country in which everyone contributes, in which communities thrive and work together, and in which our economy and public services are properly supported.

But, my Lords, if we are to get closer to achieving this ambition, we must face up to the reality that our social security and welfare systems are not limitless. They exist to protect the vulnerable here at home, and to support those who fall on hard times. That is why these amendments are so vital. Amendment 192 sets out clear restrictions on visas and the grant of granting of indefinite leave to remain. It requires the applicants, including those on spousal visas, must not draw upon social protection, including housing and benefits as defined in the Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis.

It also requires that an applicant's annual income must not fall below £38,700 for six months or more during the qualification period. These conditions are great. The visa is void. We want to. We want those who come here to be self-sufficient and economically independent, and to contribute to the society they wish to join. We are, of course, a benevolent country, and we are rightly proud of the extraordinary generosity the British people have shown to those fleeing genuine persecution and war. That is why within these amendments, we have specifically exempted those arriving under the Ukraine visa schemes.

The African Citizens Resettlement Resettlement Scheme, the African Relocations and Assistance Policy and the British Nationals Overseas visa route. We recognise, my Lords, where our support is both necessary and right, but our support must not come at such a cost that the system itself is weakened and left unable to help anyone, neither those from abroad. Know indeed British citizens in need. So amendment 193 extends the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain to ten years for the principled, skilled, talented and partner visa routes, talent and partner based routes.

This is a measured step to ensure that permanent residency is granted only once. There is a proven record of long term self-sufficiency. Contribution and integration. It rightly abolishes the so-called long residence route, which allows indefinite leave simply by virtue of having lived in the UK for ten years, irrespective of one's ability to contribute. Finally, amendment 195 ensures that indefinite leave to remain is not untouchable. If a person is found to be a foreign criminal under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, they breach the new qualification rules if they or their dependents rely upon social protection, or if their income falls below the required threshold for a sustained period, then the indefinite leave is revoked.

Again, exemptions remain in place for those coming from Ukraine, Afghanistan or Hong Kong under the special schemes. This ensures that our compassion is safeguarded and our system is not undermined. My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is straightforward. They are about responsibility. They are about making sure that our migration system works for the long term, that it has the capacity to help those who truly need it, and that it does not collapse under its own weight unless we are clear that indefinite leave to remain is a right earned through contribution and self-sufficiency, not an entitlement, then we will create a system that fails everyone.

These amendments strike the right balance. Firm, fair, compassionate but responsible. They reaffirm the Britain remains open to those who will contribute and share in our national life, while ensuring that our generosity is not abused.

22:19

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

22:30

Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)

- -

are becoming increasingly anxious. Points. And I was going to say, we've been asking this question for many months, and we are still waiting for an answer to it. But anyway, first of all, I thank my the noble Lord Lord German for his very strong support for the amendment and in particular for that really, really helpful research that he's done in the Council of Europe. And, you know, I it's not still not clear to me why we are out of step and why we're the only ones doing this.

I thank my Noble friend, the Minister for, you know, his kind of his response. There was one particular thing I did ask, and I won't ask him to pursue it now because it's late, but perhaps he could write to me. And that was the question about the guidance. That doesn't actually make clear with the position of children. And perhaps he could look at in Hansard and then write to me and to the Right Reverend prelate about that. Just really the point about the good character test is compliant within our international obligations.

We're not arguing about the good character test generally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean, I know. There are some issues with it, but that's not the point here. The point is that we have now added to the good character test, the way one enters the country, and that is in contravention. According to the contravention. According to the UNHCR of article 31 of the Refugee Convention. And I could just remind Convention. And I could just remind the noble Lord what he himself said on the 3rd of September. When I'm on the 3rd of September.

When I'm afraid I wasn't here, that I have read the Hansard. And he made very good points. He said. He talked good points. He said. He talked about real funnel of pressures that are coming, which are driven by terrorism, starvation, war and poverty. People who make that journey and claimed asylum have very journey and claimed asylum have very often faced challenges that I could never imagine. And yet.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

never imagine. And yet. The noble. Lord is now trying to justify taking away the right to claim taking away the right to claim citizenship for those people. I'll leave it at that. The Right Reverend Prelate may very well want to come Prelate may very well want to come back on this, not least to. So there can be such an important issue can be such an important issue should not be discussed at this ridiculous hour past 10:00. So she may well want to come back to what it was fought.

But for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's. Pleasure this amendment. Be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 187. Baroness Jones not. Moved, but amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moved, but amendment. 188. Lord Davis already debated,

22:33

AMDT: 189 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. We now come to Group six. After clause 48. Amendment 189.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Davis again. My Lords, we now turn in my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we now turn in my submission to one of the probably one of the most important groups of amendments from the bill, which I'm sure will promote some discussion sure will promote some discussion and likely much disagreement. This is something, perhaps, to be welcomed. The stated aim of the Human Rights Act, when it was introduced, was to bring rights home. The Human Rights Act incorporates 16 rights derived from the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, and was itself enacted to satisfy the obligations placed on the British government by article one of the Echr.

This was all to satisfy noble purpose, to make sure that human rights in the United Kingdom were protected and upheld. But, my Lords, we have seen the corruption of this noble purpose no more keenly than when we see how it has been applied to matters of immigration and deportation. And let me give an example. Noble Lords. Well, I am no doubt be familiar with the horrific abuses inflicted upon girls by the Rochdale grooming gangs. Two of the Rochdale grooming gang ringleaders, Adeel Khan and Corrie Abdul Rauf, fought deportation by claiming their right to a family life under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is also articulate to the Human Rights Act.

Rauf even gave up his Pakistani citizenship just to make sure we couldn't deport him. He lost his appeals and yet he is still here, still in Rochdale, still living among the people whose lives he destroyed my laws. It is clear that under the straitjacket imposed on us by the Human Rights Act, our country has lost control of the asylum system. Hundreds of thousands of people have come here claiming to be refugees, far more than politicians before ever imagined. Almost all passing through neighbouring countries, which are perfectly safe.

Tens of thousands of them will receive taxpayer funded legal aid, which is spent on lawyers competing to devise evermore ingenious legal arguments to keep them in the country. And let me give you a Lordships some more examples. One woman who has refused leave to remain deliberately joined a terrorist organisation to manufacture a claim that she risked imprisonment back home. A convicted paedophile evaded deportation by claiming he was gay and his life would be at risk in his home country. And let us not forget the Albanian criminal who in February of this year claimed that he could not be deported because of his son's sensitivity around food, the sole example given in court being his aversion to foreign chicken nuggets.

The immigration tribunal ruled that his deportation would breach his articulate rights, as it would apparently have an unduly harsh impact on his son. Every day we see these kind of cases reported and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants, mainly adult men, take the risk of crossing the channel in small boats because they know we can't even remove criminals and terrorists. Indeed, we pay their legal fees to help them stay. We have seen this unjust situation unfold further, with the government's return returns being with France.

The week before, Parliament broke for recess for the first two flights leave with no migrants on board, those who are due to be deported on those flights had their deportation orders halted by the High Court due to concerns about human trafficking and torture. The new Home Secretary herself admonished those trying to use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR to prevent the deportation. As, and I quote, making a mockery of our laws. Oh Lords, how can this situation be a reflection of the laudable aims which heralded the incorporation of the ECR onto our statute books in 1998? The simple answer is that it is not.

The dream has become a nightmare. The time has come for us to do something about it. That is why I, my noble friends in these benches, have tabled this amendment. There is a point I wish to clarify here. After the excellent and thorough report of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Conservative Party has committed itself to repealing the Human Rights Act and leaving the ECR. Whilst it is no longer the policy of the Official Opposition to simply supply the Human Rights Act for immigration cases, this bill does not present us with the opportunity to repeal the HRA.

To do so would require a bill of its own. This amendment is therefore the avenue in which we are able, at this stage, to facilitate discussion on the impact of our continued membership of the ECHR. No. I know that there will be some noble Lords in your Lordships' House today who disagree with me. As I have already said, the debate is welcome, but what I would ask of those noble Lords who disagree is our situation now, this minute, one in which the Human Rights Act is to working improve.

Has the Human Rights Act protected the victims, their families and communities in Rochdale? Has it protected our people from the paedophiles that continue to languish in the United Kingdom because we cannot deport them? And does it help or hinder our people smugglers who use it to reassure the people they are transporting that they won't be removed? My Lords the answer is clear. The Human Rights Act in this context does not uphold human rights. It aids and abets abusers in their abuse. Trauma is continued and renewed because of the act.

The rights of our people come second to the rights of child abusers and terrorists who hide behind the act to remain on our shores, to remain a threat to our people, and to remain a source of terror and pain for the people. They have already been harmed, but have already they have already harmed. We are prevented from deporting those who saw flagrant disrespect or show this flagrant disrespect to the laws passed by our sovereign Parliament. But even more fundamentally, it prevents us from enacting the wishes of the British people.

This is an untenable situation, and it is one that we must swiftly seek to remedy. I further welcome the amendments to amendment 109, tabled by Noble friend Lord Murray Bloodworth. I believe they perform an important function in strengthening the purpose of amendment 189. While that amendment applies the Human Rights Act from immigration legislation, my noble friends additions ensure that the mechanisms contained in section four and ten of the Human Rights Act are also expressly excluded. In practice, this means that the courts will not be able to issue declarations of incompatibility in relation to immigration law, nor will ministers be able to use remedial orders to alter such legislation on human rights grounds.

That closes off any back to a reintroduction of Human Rights Act challenges into this field, and provides the clarity and certainty that are essential if this policy is to be delivered effectively. I therefore strongly support these amendments, and as a logical and necessary reinforcement of the central principle of amendment 189, my Lords, as has been said in the other place, now is the time for radical decisions. This is one. This is one the government should welcome. If we are to stand up for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the rights and the wellbeing of the British people. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here. So I assume you wish to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank you indeed. Amendment proposed. After clause 48. Insert the following new clause as printed.

22:40

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

22:45

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

22:49

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

22:59

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

23:04

AMDT: 203F Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

23:12

Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)

- -

23:14

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

from Lord Murray, it is my new friend, then I can't see any reason for not allowing publication in the interests of confidence in our interests of confidence in our tribunal system. tribunal system.

23:15

Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)

- -

23:20

Lord Katz (Labour)

- -

23:27

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

talk about legislation that I that frankly, I haven't seen. Well, I think the, you know,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I think the, you know, Lord, the Minister, obviously, I'm familiar with how difficult life can familiar with how difficult life can be at that despatch box. And, and I obviously have a great deal of respect for the Liberal minister, who is, of course, deputising for my honourable for the noble Lord, Lord Hanson. However, I'm afraid his answers were not very satisfactory. In fact, if you don't. First a tribunal judge whether they would accept submissions made on the basis that, well, we like it how it is, I suspect you might get short shrift.

And I therefore, although of course, I am content to withdraw the amendments for now, I would anticipate that we will bring them back on report, and I would be intrigued to know. I mean, I would anticipate that this House would pass these amendments. Obviously, this House was very interested in open justice and in the in the publication of judgements. So the world can see how our human rights decisions are made in immigration claims. Would the government really try to overturn this in the House of Commons on the basis that that this is how we this is how this is how it's been done.

So we'll leave it. I find that difficult to believe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It to be a request to do all the amendments. Your pleasure. amendments. Your pleasure. Withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 203G not. Moved to 03H.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to 03H. Not moved. To oh three. I. Not moved to oh three.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Not moved to oh three. J not moved. 203K Baroness Lister of Burtersett.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Burtersett. Not moved. 203L Baroness Lawlor.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not moved. 203L Baroness Lawlor. Lords I wish to move an amendment

23:29

AMDT: 203L Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

203L on the refusal of certain asylum claims. It seeks to exclude asylum claims made after two days from those who entered the country on a student visa. The aim is to prevent the abuse of the system, whereby those entering on the student visa to study on a course in the UK, perhaps, or perhaps not in good faith, subsequently make an asylum claim. The figures are significant. Of the 111,000 claims made in the year ending June 2025, the highest figure since comparable records began in 1979.

Apart from the 43,600 which came on small boats, 41,000 came from those who entered the UK on a visa or other leave, with relevant documentation, including an electronic Travel authorisation to visit from 2024 onwards, of whom 14,800 were on a study visa, so well over a third of the 41,000 claimants who were on a visa or entered on another type of permission, now, the problem to which visa swapping gives rise are many and I will touch here on those arising from that which is prompted by a person who switches from a student visa to an asylum claim.

First, there are problems for the academic institutions, universities, higher education institutions and some colleges or schools. Indeed, who lose out when places become empty, when of course is abandoned after it starts and it is too late to fill a place with another students and it it has a number of costs. First, it is demoralising to have half full classes for students and staff. Indeed, the very dynamic of interactive teaching often depends on having a good number of students present, and these are prepared for and.

But there is a significant overhead lost. Not only is it costly to organise classes and timetables to suit the different demands, but seeing is lost and it's on fee income that a university's fees may depend. Though not part of the debate, the impact of an abandoned place ultimately places strain on the ability of universities to keep going, and will apply significant overhead in juggling the type of courses offered, with the numbers taking up a course and likely to stay the course.

This may affect the wider communities of local and not so local students, who now travel daily from home to attend and may find courses cut, institutions closing because of default. And here I speak of only of those universities just for the purpose of an example where as student, many students now compete daily because it is cheaper for them not to have to afford accommodation costs. And it is a great way for students who have never gone to whose family come from a family background, who have no experience of a university education, being the first in their families able to afford fees, go to and go to classes, finish their degrees and they travel as I've seen them, and many miles sometimes on the train commuting daily, they may lose their courses because the planning has been such that ultimately the course must close.

Second, the asylum system itself suffered its ability to focus on those fleeing for their lives and liberty, and others, some of whom come on safe and legal routes, including those we've already discussed and the committee. Now, with 111,000 asylum claims in the year ending June 2025, the UK's asylum system is overstretched. Despite all the great efforts the government is making to try and clear it and deal with asylum claims, not just the processing of processing of claims and the investigation.

Each claim needs the administrative overhead, the appeal system dealing with or otherwise deporting those whose appeal fails and the additional headache of trying to get home countries to take them back. There are other costs those incurred in asylum support in respect of housing, for instance, the escalation of numbers has meant that the government has not been able to close asylum hotels as it intended. There are just too many asylum seekers to be housed, while other accommodation, such as rented flats and houses, some in multiple occupancy, are also overstretched and local councils and police forces have their work cut out for them.

And on straitened finances, as we now know to our costs, meeting the demands of an influx of asylum seekers dispersed across the country as a result of government policy, but many of whom are made up of whom of former entrants on student visas, who then claim asylum, and finally the taxpayer who pays the bill and is facing rising taxes with a significant proportion of public funds diverted from the services for which they pay to fund the overhead. And just to refresh our memories here, £27.9 million spent by the Home Office in 20 2425 for asylum, support and resettlement and accommodation costs of 4.53 billion, another 1.2 billion for the Migration and Borders group and others, 0.3 6 billion on immigration enforcement and so on.

So we are talking now about a significant cohort of asylum claimants who cost this country in many ways, who place a cost on this country, on its universities, on on the system itself and on the and on on the taxpayer. Given the significance of the costs to these groups, really, universities, asylum, the system and taxpayers, there are strong reasons to disallow claims from people who entered on a student visa. My amendment would nonetheless allow those desperate to escape imprisonment or worse, for their political or religious views, to make an asylum claim within, provided it was made within two days of arrival, as, for instance, might happen with a Hong Kong person.

Had there not been that scheme for safe and legal entry. So in all, it gives a workable solution to a serious problem which has a wide impact on universities, communities and the taxpayer. I understand that the government recognises this problem and hopes to tackle it, but I hope this amendment will be helpful towards a solution and I vaguely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need to move. Further. 48 insert. The new clause. Set.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Out on the Marshall List. Forgive me. If I may. I just add one big

23:37

Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)

- -

23:40

Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)

- -

23:42

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

the noble Lord Sandhurst has made, because it is very possible that someone can arrive as a student and indeed find the situation in their home country has changed since their arrival. I remember when I was at university, which is now an awful long time ago, but I had students at university with me who arrived with one regime in Iran and left university with another regime in Iran. And I think it's very important that the flexibility that the noble Lord Sandhurst has made is one of the particular holes there.

I said in the proposal brought forward by the noble Baroness Lawlor. But I have to say there are several more holes in the argument that she's put forward, and I hope she will accept it in good faith when I try and point those out to her as part of this debate. Now, the motion the amendment tabled seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa, which was lodged more than two days after they arrived from the UK, must be declared inadmissible.

We did have a large debate on inadmissibility on day four of the committee. We considered 12345 amendments at that stage. This is a very late amendment to the discussion today, so we've had a limited time to consider it. But I would say that having considered it, it's not an approach the government would consider to be appropriate. The likely consequence of the amendments, as well as the one pointed out by the noble Lord Sandhurst, would be to refuse to make claims to the UK's asylum system, but without any obvious way in which to return.

Those individuals who make those claims. It would leave affected individuals in a state of limbo, with no certainty as to whether they qualify for refugee status, or whether they should be returned to their home country. And it could indeed, on the basis of that contention, prove both costly and ineffective. Furthermore, in affording a more favourable position to those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, the UK sorry, the amendments also risks benefiting those students who, it may be said, are more likely to have deliberately used the visa system as a way to access the UK's asylum system, and that the government can't support the amendment.

It doesn't. I respectfully suggest that of the objective of the noble Lady proposed, and it certainly is open to the wide hole that the noble Lord scientist has pointed out to the committee today. So I'd ask you to certainly reflect on what the noble Lord Sandhurst has said, but in general terms, to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. To noble Lords, who spoke in the debate. And I'm grateful, particularly to Lord Sandhurst for his for spotting this. It was his for spotting this. It was something I had thought about in respect of other amendments, but I respect of other amendments, but I didn't include it in this one. And I think that is indeed a gap. And I agree with the noble Lord, the Minister, and certainly if I am to bring it back at report, I will take bring it back at report, I will take account of that.

But my overall account of that. But my overall position remains that with provision for the problems which have been

23:45

Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)

- -

pointed out by Lord Sandhurst, I really can't see that we can tackle the problem of visa switching by those who enter in or not in good faith, and there are indeed reports of students who are people who came here and fraudulently deceived the authorities in the university that they were taking a course, but have subsequently admitted they had no intention of doing so. And this this is a problem. We have no way of dealing with it.

And unless we crack down quite strictly on people claiming asylum who have no reason other than a desire to stay in this country, and have made it clear subsequently, from the evidence, it's clear then we not going to tackle this problem, which is very grave for our universities, very great for our student communities and very grave for our taxpayers. And so I will consider it, and perhaps I can work out something with my friend Lord Sandhurst, and I'd hope to bring it back again at the board.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I understand. That noble Baronesses withdraw. He need to withdraw the amendments. He Lordships pleasure that. The amendment.

23:47

ADMT: 204 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment. Be withdrawn. The amendment. Is by lever. Drawn and 204 Lord Davies and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

God. My Lords, this is a simple group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this is a simple group with some simple amendments, and as we are close to reaching end of six we are close to reaching end of six rather long days of committee on this bill, I will be brief. Amendment 204204 seeks to standardise the punishment for offences relating to articles used in serious crime and clause 49, with the punishment for offences relating to articles, use and immigration, crime and clauses 13 and 14. Firstly, can I say that it is slightly strange that part three has found its way into this bill? The provisions around serious crime prevention orders and articles for use in serious crime were part of the previous governments Criminal Justice Bill that fell, unfortunately due to the election.

Whilst it is welcome that this government are taking these provisions forward, I would have thought it perhaps made more sense to have included them in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, which we will be considering later this week, rather than in an immigration and border security bill. But since these clauses have found their way into this bill, there is good reason to consider them holistically. As part of the general measures aimed at deterring immigration offences. And that is what these amendments in this group aim to achieve.

Them. 204 therefore changes the maximum period of imprisonment for possession of an article for use in a serious crime from five years to 14 years. This would be the same as the maximum imprisonment for the new offences of supplying or handling an article for use in immigration crime. Similarly, amendments 204 A and 204 B would expand the class of applicants for Serious Crime Prevention Order to include the Director General of Border Force and Immigration enforcement, as well as the Border Security Commander.

This would permit those senior officials to apply for these prevention orders as part of their duties in protecting a border security and enforcing immigration laws, and in 1208A would expand the definition of a serious crime for the purposes of the Serious Crime Act 2007. Currently, the only crime under any of the immigration acts considered to be of a serious crime is the offence of assisting unlawful immigration and helping an asylum seeker enter the United Kingdom. If is, if a serious crime prevention order can be given for these offences, then I ask why not all offences under sections 24 and 24 A of the Immigration Act 1971, and certainly why not under the new immigration offences in clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill, these amendments taken together, are intended to strengthen the ability of the authorities to tackle immigration crimes by giving them the necessary legal tools.

And I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. 49, page. 47 and 14.

23:50

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

47 and 14. Leave out five and insert 14. Amendment to a certain in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment to a certain in this group. I agree with the level of group. I agree with the level of Lord Davis of GA with regards to it being the odd that the serious crime provisions, crime prevention provisions are in this bill. I wondered whether it was because the Crime of policing bill is overloaded. Would that be. A term to use? But that is the extent to which I agree with him. I and I am not alone on these benches.

Lord Patrick and I have raised the issue, these issues, a number of times over the years with our concern about a about civil orders morphing into crime without any feeling finding of guilt. This bill. Extends serious crime prevention orders with the inclusion of electronic monitoring, the creation of interim orders, extending the list of parties who can apply for an order. Under the noble Lord would extend further. And giving the Crown Court jurisdiction in this area.

So it would be no surprise to anyone who's heard us before to see this amendment on our part. It's not only the extensions, but the those. Of course, make the need for review and review all the more important. There's very little evidence or data, if any, to show that they work. The. They overlap with other orders. So there's some confusion. There's an inconsistency of their use. And this is something which I've become very aware in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where it became clear that at some police forces were not even aware that they could pursue.

Equivalent orders. There's a lack of resourcing and infrastructure to monitor and enforce the orders. And breaches are common, which is not surprising because individuals don't have adequate support to comply with the restrictions and requirements that orders can contain. So, as has been put to us, they are set up to fail. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made recommendations with regard to these provisions that, given the severe infringement on the right to privacy posed by the imposition of electronic monitoring, the threshold test should be one of necessity and proportionality, not whether it's appropriate.

And to ensure respect for convention rights, the prosecuting authorities and the courts must be careful only to seek and impose interim orders where risks are imminent. Rather than proposing those provisions specifically on these benchers, we feel that it would be helpful, really important for there to be a review of prevention orders in the round before making piecemeal additions to them, and a review would certainly extend to the issues of necessity and proportionality.

00:00

Lord Lemos (Labour)

- -

00:07

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues of the seriousness. Of the offences. Which Lord Davis and no Cameron have raised, and the proportionality

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question. What else matters? To some extent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What else matters? To some extent answered the point I was going to make. But the noble Lord has made me realise that we missed a trick in not seeking to leave out the power to. Extend these provisions, as he's just mentioned. He said that the use will be monitored and there will be data. I take it, that that will be published. Will the evaluation of the monitoring, because monitoring, without assessing what's going on is terribly helpful.

Will that be published? Does that fall within the reporting to the House? He may not be in a position to answer that this evening. This morning. But but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point. But speaking as a practitioner of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But speaking as a practitioner of the dark arts of evaluation myself, I'm generally in favour of its

00:08

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

00:10

AMDT: 208 Lord Berkeley (Labour)

00:18

Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)

- -

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the. Marshall List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. My Lords, dealing with amendments 208 and 2088 taken by the noble Lord 208 and 2088 taken by the noble Lord Lord Barclay and the noble Lord Lord dubs on amendments 208. I want to begin by saying that we in these benches agree very much with the principle that lies behind it, namely, the importance of taking action against those who endanger lives at sea. And we appreciate the passion behind this amendment. Indeed, I fully appreciated having been the previous, previously been a maritime minister, and that is a principle that we have strongly supported, and indeed one already reflected in the amendments that we ourselves have tabled in this bill.

There can be no doubt that the small boat crossings in the channel are dangerous. The reckless and exploitative. Time and again we have seen the devastating consequences of criminal gangs putting men, women and children into overcrowded and unworthy boats, knowing full well the risks to life that this involves. However, my Lords, this amendment as drafted, we believe, is flawed. It appears to the rest it appears to rest on an assumption that some of the vessels are safe and some are not.

And that is the task of enforcement authorities to distinguish between the two. That is not a distinction that exists in reality. The simple truth is that one endangers is that one endangers lives at sea purely in the act of getting into one of these boats in the first place, every single vessel making an illegal crossing of the channel is, by definition, dangerously unsafe. Everyone involved in launching or building those vessels, from the organisers to the passengers, is participating in an inherently inherently perilous act, which should be treated as such under the law.

We cannot afford a situation in which authorities must first determine whether a vessel is dangerously unsafe before intervening. We cannot wait for tragedy to occur before action can be taken. The legal position must be absolutely clear. All such crossings are unsafe and lawful and unacceptable. That is the principle that underpins the approach we have advocated throughout this bill, and the one we believe the government must continue to uphold. Turning to amendment to await a, I appreciate the noble Lords intention to ensure effective cooperation between the Border Force Maritime Command and His Majesty's Coastguard.

However, it is not clear that the creation of an additional coordinating body, as this amendment proposes, would make any practical difference on the ground. The Border Force and the Coast Guard already operate under well-established protocols for joint working through the Joint Maritime Security Centre. We must trust the professionals on the front line, the experts in the Border Force and Coast Guard to exercise the powers granted to them safely, responsibly and in the national interest. The answer to the challenges in the channel lies not in expanding bureaucracy or creating new administrative structures, but ensuring that the powers and resources we have already legislated for are used effectively.

My Lords. Both of these amendments proceed from understandable and serious concerns, but in our view, the right way forward is not to introduce new uncertainty into the law, nor to create additional layers of oversight, but to became clear, firm principles that all small boat crossings are inherently unsafe and that those charged with policing them must be trusted to act decisively and professionally, to prevent loss of life and secure our borders.

00:22

Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)

- -

I was intrigued to know what the noble Lord Lord Barclay was going to raise. Listening to him. It occurs to me to ask the Minister whether a nation coastguard is a partner authority under clause three of the Bill and authority is public authority with functions in relation to threats to border security. Whether exercisable in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. And of course, partner authorities have a duty to cooperate with the Border Force commander.

So I think I'm asking about context.

00:23

Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)

- -

I'm grateful to my Noble friend, Lord Barclay, for bringing forward his amendment and for taking the care to put on the record in the committee the concern that he has on behalf of those people who are sadly dying or being put at risk at sea, and I can give him assurance that if he wants to pass me the report at some point, then I will make sure that it is put into the system so that we can examine the detail of Captain Shanks report, and if there are issues to which I can respond post that, then I would certainly do so.

I would first of all say to my noble friend that the purpose of this bill is, is several fold. But there are two particular examples in the bill that are of importance in relation to what he has put on the table today before the committee. The first is the role of the border security commander. And I'll come on to that in a moment. So that will hopefully answer again the points that the noble Baroness family has raised as well. But I also draw his attention to clause 18 of the bill, which we considered earlier, endangering another during sea crossings to the United Kingdom and a specific new offence within the bill of endangering another during Sea Crosses in the United Kingdom.

His amendment 208 seeks to introduce a duty to take all reasonable steps to enforce provisions of maritime law related to the safety of vessels, to small boat migrant vessels, and to introduce guidance on maritime powers. As the noble Lord Davis said, I don't think it's responsible for us to regulate the use of small boats across the channel. Our job is to smash the gangs and the business model that is driving people to use those small boats. But there is also, I would say to my noble friend, which I hope is helpful to him, existing maritime law in force, and that we should use all tools available, legislative or otherwise, to address unsafe vehicles, and particularly to deal with the protection of crew, passengers and other water users for whom small boats can also provide some concern and danger for life at sea.

The strengthening of the Border Command. And this is when I turn to amendment 208, is important because the new border command. And again, this goes to the point that the noble Baroness Hamwee has mentioned the new border command established by the bill is responsible for coordinating Border Forces Maritime Command, His Majesty's Coast Guard, for the purposes of border security, and the Border Security Command established by the Bill, does provide strategic cross system leadership across current and future threats, not just the Border Force, but for all agencies playing a vital role in protecting our borders and going after the people smuggling gangs.

And that is certainly, I think, the spirit of what is amendment is seeking, and that is what Border Security Command is trying to do. In addition, he will be aware that there is the Joint Maritime Security Centre, established in 2019, which is designed to coordinate and consolidate maritime security activity and information under the sponsorship of the Home Office Border Security Command, but also involving the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence. The GMC is the UK Centre of excellence for Maritime Security.

I've met them at their headquarters in the past 12 months myself. They provide 24 over seven monitoring and reporting in global waters. They plan the response to maritime events. They look at UK global maritime threats and sanctions related understanding. And to achieve this, the James Sea engages across a range of national and international maritime security partners, including military and law enforcement partners, and also will be discussing with voluntary organisations such as the RNLI what is happening on the sea in the channel.

So I would argue, and again, I understand the reason why my Noble friend has brought this forward, but I would argue that the new body would be essentially duplication is not required and that the Border Security Command would be drawing together the expertise across the border security system to ensure effective collaboration and a strong response to border security threats. Building on the. Expertise and collaboration of relevant local agencies. And just again, to say to the noble. Baroness Hamwee in relation to clause three, DfT is on the board of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency as a as a whole.

So there is that link and assumption that there will be a close cooperation. I'm grateful to my Noble friend for bringing this forward. I'll certainly make sure that the Policy Ministry and the Home Office for this area of work, particularly get cited the report that he has. But I hope with those assurances that he's able to withdraw the amendments that he's proposed.

00:28

Lord Berkeley (Labour)

- -

This debate has concluded

Return to start of debate - Return to top of page