Lords Chamber

Wednesday 5th November 2025

(began 3 hours, 5 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
11:06
None Portrait Oral questions: The economic and industrial impact in Scotland of the UKs recent defence agreement with Norway
-

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first of My Lords, first of all, My Lords, first of all, question Baroness Curran.
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
I do absolutely agree with that point. The story of Barrow and Furness is really quite inspiring. Since 1901, Baron Furness has built 312 submarines and it's Renaissance now, as I say, reflects the importance of skills, innovation, R&D and the supply chain. But I would say, and I would emphasise that things had got to a very low ebb in Barrow in Furness before the turnaround. We are now discussing, sir, having worked previously in a plant in the Midlands which plant in the Midlands which supplied parts to frigates, may I echo the comments that the Minister echo the comments that the Minister made in relation to the importance for this contract to the whole of the United Kingdom? Can I therefore the United Kingdom? Can I therefore ask him, is he absolutely clear that the steel that will be used in all different parts of these all different parts of these frigates will actually be made in the United Kingdom? That's a very the United Kingdom? That's a very important point that the noble Lord raises.

And and as has been noted in this House before, the Department for business has slashed electricity costs for steel electricity costs for steel producers and is in the process of streamlining grid access for major investment projects, and reaffirmed investment projects, and reaffirmed this government's commitment to supporting Tata Steel through a 500 million grant to modernise its million grant to modernise its steel plant in Port Talbot. But we do, and I want to really emphasise this and reassure the noble Lord about this. We absolutely want to see much more use of UK made steel in public projects, including, and perhaps especially in defence.
11:17
None Portrait Oral questions: The insource of prison services
-

Second question Baroness Blower on behalf of Lord Woodley.
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
independent football regulator are taking steps to improve monitoring and reporting of online abuse, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prioritising action against it? Well, I thank my noble friend for the question and indeed the for the question and indeed the long held interest he's had in promoting not just promoting football, but helping tackle the football, but helping tackle the dark, the dark and ugly side of the beautiful game. I will repeat my whereas a robust legal framework in place to deal with the perpetrators place to deal with the perpetrators of racist and other forms of hate crime, and we expect the perpetrators of these abhorrent offences to be brought to justice.

offences to be brought to justice. The UK Football Policing Unit works closely with football authorities, local police forces and indeed kick local police forces and indeed kick it out to investigate and prosecute online football related hate crime, including seeking court imposed football banning orders. The football banning orders. The independent football regulator will take racism extremely seriously, and so if an individual has faced and so if an individual has faced legal, regulatory or disciplinary action related to racism, the regulator must consider it under regulator must consider it under the owners and directors test.

In addition, as I said, under the Online Safety Act, platforms now have a legal duty to safeguard all UK based users from illegal contact activity, including those around football. Platform platforms must football. Platform platforms must proactively tackle and remove illegal content, including abuse, threats and harassment. And given threats and harassment. And given the damaging impact that online hate crime has on its victims, those guilty of these offences
11:30
11:31
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

donation, measurement and impetus to ensure that the necessary action is taken? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for the question and making a very important point. This is a societal problem and it requires societal problem and it requires societal solutions. From a government perspective, this is something that reaches across government. And of course, whilst the the Online Safety Act is a DCMS instrument and is in for very much in force by Ofcom and Ofcom are responsible for enforcing the government's made it very, very clear our expectations of Ofcom in in producing that enforcement regime.

But at the same time, when we see a more traditional forms of hate, we won't be afraid to act. And that is why, in the wake of the the terrible attack, for instance, at the Heaton Park synagogue on Yom Kippur, the you know, the Prime Minister said that we must wrap as a, as a country, come together and wrap our arms around the Jewish community. Personally, I very much welcome that. It's very much the spirit that we as a whole society need to act.

And in tackling, in tackling hate and providing reassurance to frightened communities. And that's why we won't rest there. We are in the crime and policing and the Crime and Policing Bill, which starts Committee stage on on Monday after recess. I look forward to seeing noble Lords there. We are going to be introducing new public order measures that protect, that protect people and communities from, from from egregious protest. from from egregious protest.
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
11:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft updated code of practice for services, public functions and associations
-

So fourth question. Baroness Nicholson Westmoreland.
11:38
11:38
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:51
11:51
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendment in my name. This amendment, I believe, supports the main thrust of this bill. The bill seeks to help make our country safer and more secure, a goal which I share. It seeks to have a robust immigration system, and I commend the government for that. The first step in that process is having the information you require to give effect to efficacious public policy, an effective immigration system which protects the UK and allows it to flourish, needs to understand the people coming into our country and whether they are acting like the good, law abiding citizens they ought.

It's as well to remember that at the heart of this amendment is the central fact that the Immigration Act 1971 was and has been a permissive legislative instrument, in that student visas are issued with conditions and impose obligations, and are in no sense an absolute civil or human right. 431,725 sponsored study visas were granted in the year ending June 2025. I want to make it clear that the vast majority of those individuals come study hard and contribute to our society and economy, but there is a minority who abuse that privilege, and it is a privilege.

We have some of the world's top universities in our country, and it is not an automatic right to be here in the 20 2223 academic year, less than a quarter of recent foreign students were on courses at the Department for education, deemed strategically important, unquote, for the UK, such as in engineering, science, technology or healthcare. Contrary to the hopes of Ministers in the previous government when they launched the graduate visa route in 2019 and enacted it in 2021.

Indeed, 69% had been on a course only one year's duration. The number of international students remaining in the UK after graduation climbed from 20 to 56% between 2021 and 24, with only a minority of 23%. For instance, studying a strategically important postgraduate course. Others studied, for instance, anarchism, television studies, recreation and leisure studies, hair and makeup, computer games, beauty therapy and alternative medicines and therapy. This may be linked to the fact that 1.9 million foreign nationals are now claiming benefits.

In the UK, 30% of those benefits were paid to non-working dependants and family members, which adds up, for instance, to £10.1 billion in Universal Credit payments in 2024. My Lords, if you come to this country as a student, if you get a visa and the opportunity to come to the UK, you have responsibilities in our society and responsibilities under the law. And if you take the freedoms we allow here and you abuse those and break the law, you will be punished and the legitimacy of your stay in the country should be questioned.

I brought this amendment forward in the context of the serious public disorder linked to the Israel-Gaza conflict, and the not unreasonable accusations of two tier policing by the Metropolitan Police and others, in the way that public disorder and rampant antisemitism was treated and policed. I made the point that other jurisdictions defend the integrity of their student visa regime and take a robust stance regarding individuals who flout or disregard their obligations to be good, law abiding citizens. Whilst guests in our country and the relevance of this amendment has been recently brought to further attention.

For instance, with the jailing of two Chinese students who fraudulently claimed more than £140,000 in train refunds. Once again, most students come here and work hard and I have nothing but respect for them. But the information should be collected so that those who do commit offences here face the consequences. And my Lords your Lordships' House will want to know the context of why I brought this specific amendment and is not, regrettably, a good story, because for the last six months I've been met in my questions to Ministers with obfuscation, ignorance, stonewalling, and answers to questions I didn't ask.

I first asked the noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint a written question in March as to whether the Home Office did collect this information. He responded that they did not. Fair enough. So I asked again on the 7th of April to ask His Majesty's Government further to the written answer why? Information about the removal of foreign nationals following the revocation of student visas is not collected and published, he said. Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, in line with the Code of Practice for statistics.

ET cetera, et cetera. But he didn't answer the question. On the 30th of April, I asked again. I asked him what specific factors that they have taken into account in deciding not to collect and publish data on the revocation of foreign student visas, he said, rather unhelpfully, I refer the right hon. Lord to the answer he received on the 26th of March. Then I asked on the 22nd of May, tried a different tack. Further to the written answer. By the Lord Hanson of Flint on 30th of April and 25th of March.

What plans they have, if any, to collect data on the revocation of student visas, he said obtaining the specific information requested would involve collating and verifying information from multiple systems owned by multiple teams across the Home Office, and therefore could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. On the 9th of June, I tried again. I asked him what discussions he had had with representatives of the higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for those foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the UK.

He said apropos of nothing, any foreign national who commits serious crimes in the UK would expect to be removed from our country, regardless of the visa on which they travelled here. So he didn't answer that question either. So on the 25th of June, I asked another question whether they wouldn't, and this was a bit more upfront whether they will now answer the question put, namely what discussions they have had with representatives of higher education sector on the revocation of student visas for foreign nationals convicted of serious criminal offences in the UK, to which the noble Lord, the Minister said The Home Office keeps all aspects of the immigration system under review, including compliance and enforcement issues within the education sector, in consultation with a wide range of experts and other stakeholders.

So he didn't answer that question either. Okay, we have clearly not had clear and concise answers on this issue, and I have to say, the noble Minister, for whom I have inordinate respect from our time in the other place, really should understand that this is not acceptable. And it is a gross discourtesy to this House that he will not and his department will not, answer straightforward questions in a timely way. For the avoidance of doubt, you cannot abdicate the responsibility of maintaining an immigration regime for students only to higher education institutions which have a vested interest and indeed a conflict of interest.

The government have a proper responsibility to police our borders and protect the system from criminality and abuse. My Lords, you cannot design an immigration system. You cannot make an effect, make effective and wise decisions, and you cannot serve the British people as well as you want to without the right information. If a disproportionately high percentage of students come from certain countries and are more predisposed to criminality, that must be known and addressed at committee. The noble Lords, the Minister of Dispatch Box Lord Lemos, reassured us of the fact that immigration rules are in place for the cancellation of entry clearance and stays, and that he was committed to reviewing the collection of statistics in order that, quote, we identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding, unquote.

Indeed, this is the time to make that real, that undertaking and that commitment to transparency. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure that the government can make better informed choices in our national interest. And for that reasons, my Lords, I commend it to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House and hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting it. Yeah. I assume the noble Lord is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I assume the noble Lord is moving his amendment. Amendment proposed after clause 41. Insert
12:12
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed after clause 41. Insert the new clause as printed. Lord. My amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My amendment. 35 aims to stop people who come to the UK on a student visa, to the UK on a student visa, abandoning that route for an asylum claim. Today I'll explain why such an amendment is needed. Then I respond to the objections made by the noble Lord, the Minister, and explain, respond to them and take account of them, and explain why this amendment meets the most substantive one. First, why is this amendment needed? Well, around 435,000 people were granted student visas in the 12 months to June 2025.

In the same period, 111,000 people claimed asylum, of whom 14,800 had entered the UK on a student visa, so 13% of claims for asylum were made by student visa switches. The consequences, as I explained in, won't Run Through Them Again in detail, are serious universities, the finances, their ability to plan courses and places suffer if students accept and are allocated a place but drop out mid-course or never show up leaving empty places and damaging the finances and creating black holes for the university, they are not, except in a few cases, innocence overtaken by dangerous political changes at home for which my amendment 35 now covers.

Rather, they are people who abuse the student visa route, exploit the laxity of our rules and by the by now reluctant generosity of our taxpayers. I mentioned, I may have mentioned a recent report of a couple from India who candidly spoke anonymously on camera to a reporter. The wife had got her student visa but had no intention, she said, of taking up her place. An agency had been engaged to see to the paperwork and fake the financial and other eligibility documents.

That couple are now living on benefit, and they hope they will be given asylum because one of their children is has a bad medical condition. At Committee stage, the noble Lord, the Minister, made three sorts of objections to my amendment, designed to include claims from student visa holders after two days after arrival. The first was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I therefore take account of this. The substantive objection in both the Minister and my own frontbenchers point a two day time limit does not cover unfortunate students who dutifully pursue their courses, their degree courses, but discover some time into it that the political circumstances have changed and they could face imprisonment, torture, or even execution when if they go home.

Today's amendment allows for these changed circumstances. The minister's second objection was a bit puzzling. Those affected by my amendment would be left, he said, in a limbo, in a state of limbo, because there would be no obvious way to return them to their own countries. He left it unclear whether the difficulty would be on the UK side or that of their own countries. There is no reason to suppose that the countries where such students come from to the UK would refuse to take them back, or that they would be unsafe.

Home office data reveals that in the first six months of this year, the of the student visas claiming asylum, quote, a significant number unquote came from Nigeria, Bangladesh and Pakistan, each a member of the Commonwealth with whom the UK has strong ties, whether of trade, investment or research, or due to cultural and historic links, as well as our noble Lords, will remember a mutual deportation or returns agreement with Nigeria. And I know that Sudan and Afghanistan, the other two countries on the Home Office list, are more difficult.

If the difficulty is on the UK side, then such claimants are in the position of having a visa that entitles them to be in the country subject to certain conditions and when that visa expires, they must leave and if they do not do so of their own volition, they must be deported. If they give up their course and cease to be in full time education, they cannot remain here by virtue of the student visa. The third objection the Minister, the noble Lord, the Minister mentioned, was that the two day deadline would still leave it open for people to come on student visas under false pretences and claim asylum.

And I left that in the two day deadline because those genuinely fleeing persecution who flew to this country and had no option but the student visa route, and I had left that two day. But if the Minister prepared, I would not object to removing and substituting it for a blanket ban. I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for explaining his objections, and I have responded. I hope to his objections uncovered. The substantive 1 in 35 C and I therefore hope that today's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 35 C will be accepted. Okay. My Lords, my amendment 71 A is
12:18
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, my amendment 71 A is an addition to amendment 71 tabled in the names of my noble friends on the front bench. And it should be seen in the context of my comments about modern slavery that I made in the debate on Monday. This modern slavery system now supports more foreign citizens than it does British citizens, something the public, I am sure are not aware of and would rightly be concerned about if they did. Modern slavery victim support is a multi-million pound cost to the public purse, as well as the untold cost of the human misery.

And in fact, between 2016 and 2023, the Home Office has spent over £40 million through the Modern Slavery Fund to combat modern slavery overseas and reduce the threat of human trafficking to the UK, including from Albania and Vietnam. British taxpayers are funding these projects, but they evidently have not worked. So it is time for a different policy. My Lords. The top nationalities referred to the NRM now are Albania, Vietnam, Eritrea, Sudan, India, Iran, Romania, Nigeria and Ethiopia. But my Lords, anyone who has been a victim of crime in this country would commonly feel that their support by the British state is inadequate.

And I am sure the general public would agree that our own citizens should come first before we distribute generous welfare to people from those countries that I've just mentioned. Therefore, my amendment adds an additional visa penalty to those that are set out in my Noble Friends amendment and would ensure that those countries who do not do enough to tackle upstream causes of modern slavery and therefore export their victims onto our shores, feel the pain of not doing enough by having their visa access restricted.

It is simple. If we are providing the carrot of visa access, we should ensure we have a good strong stick. I beg to move. Yes my.
12:20
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I rise just briefly to support my noble friend Lord Jackson's Amendment 35. And also just to pose a few questions to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, the Minister. I won't said. He set.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He set. compellingly. point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Having looked at his one of the. Written answers I note from one of the written answers, the Minister said the information requested is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said the information requested is not available from published statistics. That I'm sure is true. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That I'm sure is true. The Minister will have given a truthful answer. What I want to ask is what information does the department collect that it doesn't publish? When I was immigration Minister in When I was immigration Minister in between 2012 and 2014, we were very clear about the importance of overseas students and we wanted overseas students and we wanted them to come here, but we also wanted to make sure there was no abuse. And the department at that abuse.

And the department at that point collected a lot of information about the risk of students coming from a variety of countries, for example, the risk that they would overstay their student visa. And we use that risk student visa. And we use that risk information to focus our checks. When those students were applying When those students were applying for visas, I presume that work still exists. So what I would like to know is whether the department to know is whether the department has any work in looking at the behaviour of overseas students in the United Kingdom, for example, criminality and the sort of offences information that it collects, that it doesn't put in, that isn't in existing published statistics.

If it does collect that information, could it make that information available? And if that information is used by the department in decision making, then it's of presumably good enough quality, even if not perfect, and even if it doesn't meet the criteria for being a published statistic, if they're using it for decision making purposes in assessing risk, then they should share it with members of your Lordships' House. So some detailed questions there. I'm sure if the Minister either isn't able to answer them today or doesn't answer them, I'm sure either myself or my noble friend Lord Jackson will table some written questions in a typically assiduous way, but he has already done to follow those points

**** Possible New Speaker ****

up. And with that, I strongly support his amendment. My Lords, I'd like very briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like very briefly to support my amendment 35. We really.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really. Need to have the data in order. To. Understand the problem and to understand how efficacious our to understand how efficacious our measures to control it is. You need the data.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend has asked a number of different questions and a number of different ways. And he hasn't been he hasn't been given hasn't been he hasn't been given the information the House requires. So I think we do need to really
12:23
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
So I think we do need to really understand why why that is. And I'm sorry that noble Lord Lord Hanson of Flint, I don't think is in his place right at the moment because I was about to pay him a compliment of I managed to extract a truly startling statistic from him. When I asked what the proportion of of people in these circumstances who've arrived through what is now termed irregular routes are removed from the country against their will.

And the answer was 4%, zero, 4%, rather than 96% chance of of success in remaining in the Lords. In order to understand what are the reasons that people want to come to the UK particularly, I think one needs to understand how strong the regime is in order to deal deal with those applications and the chances of of staying versus being being deported or being removed from the country through one means or another. So, my Lords, unless the government can really come forward and answer my noble friends question or indeed agree to his amendment, then it's very difficult to take the actions that the government is taking seriously.

We know that the government doesn't actually know who is in the country at any one time. Are systems do not record exits from the country as they do people coming into the country. And I think it probably will lead us to a very much wider discussion about how we can get to a position where we do have the data. We do know who's here, we do know who's overstayed their the terms of their visas. So I think it's entirely reasonable for my noble friend to answer, to ask those questions.

And I think duty of the government to respond in detail. detail.
12:25
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord, I particularly am interested in the student visa amendments, and I think they're both very helpful. There is certainly an informal assessment. There is an informal assumption now that there is a problem of some overseas students playing the system and potentially using their student visas as a mechanism for seeking asylum. But I think that the noble Lady Baroness Lawlor presented a balanced and sensitive case for us all understanding, first of all, the importance of overseas students in the UK, and secondly, the legitimate use of asylum seeking if circumstances change.

But whilst at the same time understanding that there is a potential abuse of the system that we should be aware of. And the problem is, of course, that whereas there is a kind of focus on something like small boats, maybe a focus on universities doesn't feel as though that's quite as newsworthy, or headlines won't be generated by it, or it seems somehow more legitimate. If you've come to do even a media studies course. I mean, you know, it feels like as though that can't be.

They can't be criminals. But nonetheless, there is a problem. If the system is abused and the the other one of the things that I think we two of the additional points to make that maybe you've not been referred to is that I do feel fear that UK universities themselves have missold universities to overseas students. I mean, treating university courses as and, you know, as cash cows for overseas students. And one of my first more militant acts at university many decades ago was a week long sitting in defence of overseas students from increased fees.

And I've always thought that was an important part of our education system to defend overseas students. But when in fact universities simply form money, sell courses often to students, inappropriate courses, often to students, by the way, who are not not able to speak English in any way that would be adequate for a degree. And that's not criticising them. I'm criticising the university managements who see universities their own courses and sell them in that way. That kind of cynicism is likely to rub off then on students who not necessarily come here and think I must take seriously my duties and responsibilities to higher education in the pursuit of knowledge, because the universities that have recruited them have done in an entirely instrumental business like fashion, sold them a course that's maybe not very good and not take any notice of their educational facility.

Why wouldn't you become cynical in those circumstances? And then that finally gets me to that last point, which is I would hope that the government would take the opportunity of these both of these amendments, indeed, to think about universities and overseas students, because this is very much in the news when we consider the issues and the context of Sheffield Hallam University, where we now know that Sheffield Hallam University management betrayed one of its own academics, compromised academic freedom in order to guarantee a continued flow of Chinese overseas students, and therefore stopped the research of an academic.

Because the Chinese state found it inconvenient. It is not in any of our interests to allow universities to become politicised instruments of overseas students in a political way, whether that's the states using them in a particular way, or indeed those people who recommend to students. And I. I know that this happens if you go and study in the UK on one of these courses in one of these universities, you'll easily get asylum. It's a form of people trafficking that's just not hitting the headlines.

But I can assure you it's what's happening. So I support both amendments and I was very pleased to see them.
12:29
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
Here. and never stood up to speak. But I feel compelled. I must actually speak today. First of all, I want to declare an interest that I was Chancellor of two universities, York Saint John and University of Carlisle, for well over 12 years, and we had a lot of overseas students, and I'm not sure or I'm not actually persuaded. But what I'm hearing, it is very easy to cast aspersions when you're not within the actual university itself.

I think most of our universities do a fantastic job in. You know, registering employment, registering people who really want to study here. I mean, in York, Saint John, as well as Carlisle University. They had training centres in China. So people before they got here, they they had a good command of English and all. I know that all those students in those years actually did go back unless they remained to do some research, which was again allowed.

So please let us not have this generalised statements about universities that they are all of the same. You really are.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would just want to clarify, in case there was any confusion that I case there was any confusion that I have worked with and have great admiration for many Chinese students in this country, it was students in this country, it was not an attempt at in any way smearing them. That is not to say smearing them. That is not to say that the there is not an abuse of the system in some instances, and the system in some instances, and this was a query that we should be attentive to that because it betrays the students when they're not given a proper education in this country and are used in a particular way for political ends, it doesn't mean all Chinese

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it doesn't mean all Chinese students are doing that at all. Well, my experience is quite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my experience is quite different when you've been a Chancellor of two universities that actually have recruited for actually have recruited for education, not for any other purpose. Students from all over the world, and they've also been world, and they've also been wonderful universities for us, students within our own country. students within our own country. Before the funding of Universal Carlisle, all the students used to Carlisle, all the students used to leave Carlisle and go to different universities in our country, and they never went back there.

The they never went back there. The creation of University of Carlisle, actually for the local business, we've been talking about that. Wonderful manufacturing of, you know. In borough. It's been quite wonderful at working and seeing our own local students actually rising up to the possibility that they could be very good engineers, good manufacturers, jobs, nurses, doctors being trained. And I could sit at the podium giving out degrees from all over the place. New York, Saint John, they always for ceremonies and each about 400 at a time.

And so that is really was what I know what I experienced. And I've got to be possibility of saying this. The second interest, I must say, is because I came here on a student visa in 1974, and this was renewed every 12 months until I was ordained in 1979. Then later on, when I became Bishop of Stepney, I was given indefinite leave to remain and and I never applied for naturalisation in this country, which was a possibility. And I did that in 2001.

So I actually want to say I have been a faithful student who came here on a student visa, and it is no good anybody telling me that if some Ugandans came here, let's say four of them, and involved themselves in criminal acts, so you're going to use those four as a test case to actually look that that country probably should not get visas because of all that. I know students from Uganda, actually, most of them went back. My circumstances were quite of a different thing.

Please, may we not have this sense of guilt by association that if people from Nigeria do this, so all of them must be so. We must always gather the figures, gather the numbers. This has been a very free country for me. That has actually helped quite a lot of people. In great, great difficulty. I came here because of a means trouble. I had to give up my little job and I my staying has to do with continuing to study, continuing to do all kinds of things, and then being invited to become a chaplain of a prison in Richmond, which I did for some four years, and then indefinitely, as I said, became quite a very different thing.

And also I always resisted this naturalisation to become a British citizen. I thought I was natural that there was no need to be naturalised. That's what I thought at the time. And I still occasionally, whenever I've got a British passport, I say to get this, I have to be naturalised. And I actually think again, that time for me is quite pretty offensive because there's nothing unnatural about me, which needed to be naturalised. And so, my dear friends, for these amendments, yes, there is now concern about people who are either student visas or who just came here on asylum and and have actually committed offences.

We must make Britain look as if its previous history can't have anything to teach us. And for that reason. Secondly, should these amendments be brought about, I'll be moving in the direction of not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I just. actual. Amendments which are before us.
12:36
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments which are before us. And amendment 35 requires the Secretary. Of State. To collate and Secretary. Of State. To collate and publish detailed data on overseas students whose visas are revoked due to criminal offences, and raises several important questions concerning data collection, accuracy, resource allocation and the practical application of policy. But the intent of the amendment is clear to provide essential data to evaluate risks and ensure individuals who commit crimes are removed. I have almost some sympathy with the the noble Lord Jackson for not getting the answers.

He he. Time and time again he has asked for. He asked the questions. But of course, what remains is we have to look at what is the necessity of the answers to those questions and their implementation. If the object of the amendment is to provide data necessary to divide design efficient public policy, the first question must address the existing statutory landscape. So the answers which the noble Lord Jackson got suggested. Home office did not collect that data relating specifically to student visas and criminality.

What specific new infrastructure or operational commitment would be necessary to reliably collate this information, particularly as the Minister implied that the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on immigration in regular publications that covers these themes. Secondly, the amendment requires publishing figures related to visa revocation, detention and deportation following a criminal offence. Given that 14,000 people who originally entered on a student visa claimed asylum in the latest year reported, and considering that subsequent detention or deportation is often tied to the outcome of complex asylum or human rights claims rather than solely the original criminal conviction or visa revocation, how will the published data accurately distinguish between detention related directly to government removal actions versus detention protracted by pending asylum claims or other legal challenges? The immigration rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay when conditions are breached.

Does a statutory duty to publish retrospective data fully address the underlying problem or the resources, be better focussed on proactive enforcement and timely application of the existing immigration rules? Thirdly, the amendment mandates that the published data be broken down by nationality and this is intended to highlight countries associated with a high risk of abuse of the visa system, allowing the Home Office and University to take risk into account when making decisions. What specific safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the publication of criminality data, broken down by nationality, does not lead to profiling or unfair discriminatory practices against students from those nations who are law abiding citizens, especially given the clear parliamentary intention to use the data to identify countries of particular risk.

I now turn to amendment 35 C yet to be proposed by the frontbench of the conservative Group, that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum or human rights claim inadmissible if the claimant entered on a student visa applied for asylum more than two days later, and there is no evidence of materially changed political circumstances endangering their life or liberty. This measure is flawed both practically and legally, and we must oppose it for three key reasons. The proposed new clause establishes a near-automatic system of inadmissibility for a specific cohort of asylum seekers.

The approach is inherently problematic because it fails to process cases based upon individual merits and lived experiences. There is no substantive consideration of the asylum or human rights claim, even if the primary motivation for the amendment is to counter visa abuse. Refusing a person's asylum claim without consideration of the merits and or risks, placing the UK in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention, specifically the prohibition on refoulement the is a matter of serious concern, and this amendment conflates asylum and human rights claims.

Many human rights claims are founded not on a country's general safety, that on an individual's personal connection to the UK, such as family ties, automatically barring these claims, simply because a person arrived on a student visa is an anonymous anomaly. Anomalous and unjustifiable. Imposition of a blanket ban. The clause explicitly states that the inadmissible declaration is not a refusal of the claim, and as such no right of appeal arises. Furthermore, it declares that the decision is final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.

Such provisions which seek to exclude judicial review. Are we going to have plenty of those today of of immigration decisions and remove the right to appeal, are repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional and contrary to the ECA, which is, of course, part of our domestic law. The intention behind the amendment may be to clamp down on those abusing the student visa route, especially concerning the 14,000 who claimed asylum after entering on a student visa in the last reported year. However, this absolute inadmissibility straitjacket would be functionally unworkable, echoing the failures of previous legislation, this amendment is neither effective, humane nor legally sound.

Amendment 71 seeks to fundamentally alter the established visa penalty mechanisms contained within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The stated intent of this amendment is clear to force the government to impose visa penalties immediately if a country fails to cooperate on removals or the verification of identity of their nationals. While we share the desire to see prompt and effective removal of those who have no right to be here, this amendment risks undermining that very objective by destroying the necessary operational discretion essential for effective diplomacy and returns policy.

A mandatory penalty system removes the ability to use engagement, diplomacy, and other means to successfully unblock cooperation with other countries. We simply cannot tie the hands of a Secretary of State with a rigid system that risks damaging international relations without guaranteeing an increase in removals. Or Lord Freud.
12:43
12:45
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I will speak to amendment 35 from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Amendment 71, in my name and that of my noble friend, Lord Cameron of Lochiel. We have seen disturbing instances of very serious offending by non-UK nationals and student visas. For example, the case of Xeno Zhu, a Chinese national and PhD student at University College London who was convicted in March 2025 of multiple rapes of women in the UK, in China and who is now serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 24 years.

The existence of such a case shows that the student route is not free of risk, and yet we currently have no published data on how many overseas students commit crimes, have their visas revoked, or are deported. Without that transparency, Parliament and the public are effectively working in the dark. My noble friend Lord Jackson has on multiple occasions, as he's already detailed, sought to press the government to release the data on the number of foreign students who have had their student visas revoked and been deported as a result of criminal offences.

To date, he has had no luck. The Home Office simply seemed to bat away his questions by saying they do not keep the data, and it would be too costly for them to collect. If the Home Office does hold such information, they should publish it. But if they do not currently hold such information, then they should be required to do so. It is slightly concerning that the Home Office has stated they do not collect such data. Given the importance of transparency for creating trust in government, it also demonstrates a hole in the Home Office's understanding of patterns of offences and the prevalence of offending by those on student visas.

Not only is this a transparency problem, but it is also a solutions problem. The Home Office cannot know if it has a problem, if it is not in possession of all the relevant information, and given the importance of this data collection, my noble friend decides to divide on this amendment today. He will have my full support. My amendment 71 would amend existing provisions in the Nationality Borders Act, 2022 to remove nationality in respect of countries that refuse to cooperate with the UK on removals.

It would require not merely permit the Secretary of State to consider imposing visa penalties on those uncooperative countries in particular, where they refuse to verify the identity or status of individuals likely to be nationals or citizens of that country. My Lords, we know from the work of the Migration Observatory that some countries have seen a very large decline in returns of their nationals from the UK. For example, returns of people from Bangladesh have fallen 98% from Sri Lanka, 97%, Pakistan 84% over the decade to 2024.

In fact, Pakistan has refused to accept the deportation of two ringleaders of the Rochdale grooming gang. When a country refuses or delays verification of identity or status, removal becomes virtually impossible and the existing provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 gives the Secretary of State discretion to act. Amendment 71 would convert that into a duty. This is something that the government has itself recently announced its support for. The Home Secretary has even said for countries that do not play ball, we have been talking about, we have been taking much more coordinated action between the Five Eyes countries.

And for us, that means the possibility of cutting visas in the future to say we do not expect countries to play ball, play by the rules, and we do expect countries to play ball, play by the rules. And if one of your citizens has no right to be in our country, you have to take them back. If the Home Secretary supports using visa penalties for uncooperative states, then I ask the government why they do not accept this amendment today. Thank you.
12:49
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
I thank.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I think I'm right to say, but I'm think I'm right to say, but I'm sure the noble Lords will opposite. Will also recall this. We we discussed these amendments at Committee at midnight, and this debate is rather better attended with rather more contributors than with rather more contributors than that one was. But we weren't turned that one was. But we weren't turned into pumpkins anyway. But let me, let me see how I go.

And I, and I let me see how I go. And I, and I hear from from the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough the long list of his previous attempts. So list of his previous attempts. So let's let me have have a try. So starting with the noble Lord starting with the noble Lord Jackson, amendment 35 at the outset, I should say, and as many noble I should say, and as many noble Lords have acknowledged, including the right, the noble and and Reverend Lord Sentamu, and indeed Lord Jackson of Peterborough, as Lord Jackson of Peterborough, as well as Baroness Fox, there is a vital and Lord Berkeley.

Indeed, my vital and Lord Berkeley. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Berkeley, there is a vital economic and academic contribution that is made by contribution that is made by international students to this country. And I see Baroness Lawlor noble Lady Baroness Lawlor nodding to and I do very take very seriously the noble and Reverend Lord Sentamu challenge about. We should not taint everyone with guilt by association. So that is absolutely central to the argument we want to we want to make, as your lordships know, the immigration is already rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas, where students permission is cancelled as a person without entity, without leave to enter or remain, they are liable to removal from the UK and foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.

And I think I said at Committee stage, I know from my previous life as the lead non-executive director of His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service. What an important priority that is. But but on the specifics of the amendment about publishing data, as was set out at committee, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of data on migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detentions. And I might say, and I hope your lordships don't think this frivolous if if rather more attention was paid to the data that the home Home Office publishes already, we might have a better informed debate about some of these issues than we do.

I just want to respond both to Lord Jackson of Peterborough the noble Lord Lord Jackson of Peterborough question, and indeed to the noble Lord. Lord Harper's follow up on asylum claims. We do publish stats on the number of asylum claims from people who initially came to the UK on a visa by by the type of visa on which they entered in our quarterly immigration system statistics. And in relation to the Lord German question, we do also publish asylum data on routes and nationalities separately.

But we we don't publish a separate route, so it doesn't quite make sense. We published some data on routes and nationalities separately. I apologise, I do think it's very important before before the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough takes his decision about whether to divide the House, that we are clear about what is currently published. But but I would say, and I hope this is some reassurance to the Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that this government recognises that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, and about what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted and after they have completed their sentences.

We discussed it only the other day, and the Home Office is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data. On the topic of foreign national offenders and their and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside other Home Office statistics. And I do entirely accept the point that the noble Lord Jackson made, and indeed the noble Viscount Goschen made, that without proper information on this and a number of other matters, it's really very difficult to have an informed public debate.

The Home Office does propose to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders, subject to deportation, and those returned to countries outside of the UK. So I think I've gone a little bit further than I did at committee, but I can give the noble Lord that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. Moves on. Can I can I just press

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moves on. Can I can I just press him on my specific question, which wasn't just about the published data, but about the information that the department collects itself to make decisions about the risks to make decisions about the risks from people coming or people applying for student visas. Does it collect any information at all about the propensity of people from different nationalities to commit different nationalities to commit crimes and use that in its risk based approach when making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decisions about student visas? No. Lord Lord Hart for reminding me about that specific point. And me about that specific point. And as a former immigration Minister, he he's much more familiar with with the data than I am, or at with the data than I am, or at least what it was when he was there. I can't, I can't. I do take the general point about data for risk assessment very seriously. I do understand what the noble Lord is understand what the noble Lord is driving at, but I can't give you that information today.

But I'm very happy to write to you, and I, very happy to write to you, and I, I know, Lord Jackson a piece of my might raise a wry smile at yet another letter from my home Office another letter from my home Office Minister. But but on on your specific question about risk assessment and data that's collected for it, which is different to the specifics of some of the data that I've already discussed, I'll be very happy to write to you about that. Can I now turn to the noble Baroness Lawlor's, amendment 35, which seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers.

So they claim that any claim made by a holder of a student visa lodged more than two days after they arrive in the UK must be declared inadmissible unless there is evidence that political circumstances have changed in the person's home country, such as to endanger their life and or liberty. And I do want to acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, has recognised some of the the questions that were raised not just on our side, but also from her own frontbench in the way that the amendment is now presented to the House.

So I do recognise that there has been there has been a change there, but I'm afraid the other objections I raise at Committee stage, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, set out, I'm afraid they still remain. Let me let me try and explain a bit better. The likely consequence of the amendment. And I think the noble Lord Lord German referred to this, would still be to refuse to admit claims to the UK's asylum system, but without an obvious way in which to return those individuals who make them without potentially contravening the key principle of non-refoulement in the Refugee Convention, the noble Lord Low gentleman refer to that.

This would still, I'm afraid, leave any affected individuals in a state of limbo with no certainty. And this is the point which which makes for the difficulty that we would have no certainty as as to whether they qualified for refugee status. So it's not just a question where they would be returned to or and whether that would be safe. It is about whether they would be able to claim refugee status at all. And the government's view is that that it's sorting that out would prove potentially extremely costly and effective.

So I'm afraid the view of the government is it just wouldn't work in practice. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But may I press him if there are strong links between this country and the home country of a student who has blatantly failed to meet who has blatantly failed to meet conditions, and where we have perfectly amicable links, and it's a perfectly amicable country. What does the noble Lord say to those in does the noble Lord say to those in the country who would rightfully say, let that person go home? He's say, let that person go home? He's breached the the good faith arrangements under which a student visa was granted by breaking the conditions.

And if there is a case for asylum, letting him or her put for asylum, letting him or her put it in the usual way and not jump the queue for asylum over those who the queue for asylum over those who are making their claims through the normal processes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

normal processes. I do thank the noble Lady for that intervention. I do understand the point you're making. There is the point you're making. There is there is a sense in which which other students or indeed other people coming through the people coming through the immigration system might see this as unfair. But one of our worries, and this is the other point I want to make, is that we we the amendment that the noble Lady proposes might in fact create a more favourable position for those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, and therefore create an incentive, which would be the opposite.

I think of what she intends and the amendment might also benefiting those students who are more likely to have used the visa system as a way to access the UK's asylum system. So for the reasons that I've given, I'm afraid the government cannot support this amendment. But I'm I hope the noble Lady, the Lady Lawlor would, would agree that the reasons I've given are salient ones. Can I now turn to the noble Lord Lords Davis and Cameron's Amendment 71 and the attached amendment 71 a from the noble Baroness, lady McLean, on the use of visa penalties powers where countries are deemed to be uncooperative on the return of their nationals or citizens, or, as suggested by Baroness McLean, on the targeted use of powers with countries from which individuals making claims of modern slavery and trafficking typically originate, the latter of which, I would stress if we were to accept the amendment from the noble Lady, the Baroness McLean would amount to a significant departure from the original purpose of this section in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, to cooperation, and I think, as all noble Lords know, improving returns cooperation is a very high priority priority for this government.

I think the noble Lord Jackson of Peterborough, noted in a previous report that the previous government's performance was suboptimal. The government remains committed to the identification of victims of modern slavery. This is a very important commitment for this government, as it was for the last, but linking to the linking this to the visa penalties provisions to victim identification would not be effective. Use of the visa penalty powers and is not something the government would support. As noble Lords know, visa penalties are one of many important levers in the government's toolbox to incentivise international cooperation on returns.

And as the noble Lord Lord German noted, working with our international partners to improve returns has been an important priority for this government and indeed, we have improved the performance of the government of the government on returns, in part by improving our cooperation with international partners. However, where cooperation with countries falls below the level expected and where appropriate, we will use all the levers available to us and that will include visa penalties. The existing provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already gives the Home Secretary sufficient scope to impose visa penalties if deemed appropriate, including, in theory, in the sort of situations that the noble Baroness, the lady McLean, is talking about.

The previous government introduced these powers, but it's exercised its discretion not to use them. This government intends to retain that discretion to use the powers, and having that discretion is essential to making these powers effective. We will use them in the right way, at the right time, and when it can be the most effective way of unlocking returns. Cooperation which I have already stressed. This amendment aims to remove that discretion, which we think is the most effective way to achieve returns.

Cooperation the assessment of whether a government is cooperating sufficiently or not is a discretionary judgement, which Ministers must have the flexibilities to take. Visa penalties have not been used yet, but the existing provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 22 2022, in the government's view, remain sufficient for the primary aims of the powers and I urge the noble Lords to withdraw these amendments to.
13:03
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister and I thank also all noble Lords who took part in the debate, particularly my noble friends. And if I can just clear up an issue to the note for the noble Lords Centre new. This amendment is colour-blind. It's not about citizenship. And in that respect I hope I can reassure him, and I defer to no one in my admiration for his success. As someone who came here as a student from Uganda has made such an enormous contribution to our society and may also, in passing, thank Lord German for what I thought was a thoughtful and helpful contribution in putting the questions to the Minister.

I think what this debate has shown is that there's a very significant culture of secrecy and obfuscation around these figures. I've been trying for nine months to get these figures and have thus far failed. There seems to be a void at the centre of public policy on data management of these figures, particularly for student visas, and notwithstanding the the calming and insistent voice of the Minister at the despatch box, I think on the basis of what he said rather than the way he said it, I wish to test

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the opinion of the House. He the question is. That the amendment be. Agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content contrary. Not content. Not content. I think the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. I think the not content have it. The question will be decided by division. I will
13:05
13:15
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Don't be depressed. Depressive. We move now to amendment 35. A Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Gower. My Lords, I will begin this group of amendments by stating that group of amendments by stating that these two amendments in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, are directed at illegal entrance and not genuine refugees whose claim is upheld or who enter by legal routes. We began a Report stage with the discussion of the government's new border security commander, who I would like to quote the current commander, Martin Hewitt, during an evidence session to the Home Affairs Committee.

In the other place, he said, what we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing. There is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum seekers, our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else. The government's own border security commander, I would suggest himself, recognises that there needs to be changes to reduce the pull factors and to create a deterrent effect. This year alone, there have been 36,954 small boats arrivals.

We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The government has argued that their new one in, one out deal with France will take up that mantle. But all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working, it is not deterring illegal entry, and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally. These amendments would instead achieve that aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as the other amendments that we have tabled to this bill, which will be discussed in later groups.

The arguments in support of these amendments have been well ventilated at Committee stage. Argument. Amendment 35 proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under section 24 or 24 of the 71 act, is an excluded person under section eight of that act, or who has had their asylum, protection or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35 B is a corollary to that it contains the power of detention, and accordingly, it mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person.

That person would be detained in a removal centre, removals or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary's behalf, and then the person must be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention. My Lords, when persons cross the border, unlawfully claim asylum and then remain in limbo, this undermines the integrity of our system.

Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly questions whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat these amendments are not about genuine refugees, but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants, illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected, and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we also preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need.

My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 41. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall List.
13:19
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall List. My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose both amendment 35 and 35. B while we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals that they seek to achieve. It's rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last government, but without Rwanda.

Amendment 35 A requires the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by this bill, and we oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness. Firstly, breach of international obligations. Amendment 35 would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person's claim. Refusing a person's asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim, would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention, even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.

Secondly, punishing the victims and not assessing claims. The strength of a person's claim for protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrived irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised crime. Amendment 35 B requires the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence, or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds.

For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination where it's safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question to where they to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to safely remove them. Secondly, the detention powers in amendment 35 B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions like those proposed in 35 A, which the government is seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme.

Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes, introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy. Risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law. These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating. This approach into the bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts, and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system.

And in concluding, I just draw attention that I am supported by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Rank Organisation. That's great. Good.
13:23
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's great. Good. My Lords, as we've heard, the amendments in this group are, if they seem familiar, it's because they seem familiar, it's because we've seen their intention before, taken together, amendments 35 and 35 B from the noble Lords, Davies and Cameron can be seen to be an attempt to reinsert, reinsert certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and these points taking a more unworkable approach than what has come before. My Lords, this government has been clear on its approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions behind it.

This bill repeals the act, and aside from the six sections, we have identified proportional benefit for retention and this bill fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act, 2024. Amendment 35 effectively seeks to reintroduce, in a different form, the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing as Lord German so clearly articulated for us earlier, having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that's easy to say, but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous government's failure to implement that part of the immigration and migration through the Illegal Migration Act.

Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains risk of legal challenges, legal challenge of acting unreasonably in individual cases. For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination where it's safe to remove people to when their own country is not safe for them, or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal. And a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the Rwanda scheme, then that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK.

And my Lords, I make no apology for echoing very closely what the noble Lord Lord German said, because the facts are the facts. He was very clear in his analysis. My Lords, as I stated in committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK and have in fact now seen an increase under this government of more than 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed.

Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK, far from it, but it is about delivering long term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim. I now return my Lords to Amendment 35. Be. This amendment effectively seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the powers to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under section 24 and 24 A of the 1971 act should be detained in a removal centre with no recourse to bail until such a time that they have been deported.

My Lords, this is simply unworkable. There is simply no capacity to detain all of those within scope of this amendment. It leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable time frame, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable without wishing to press the point. My Lords, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention which cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers considers that to be the more appropriate option.

Lord German has already spread out the risks of the risks of retention, of retaining the approach set out under the failed Immigration Legal Migration Act. So I won't repeat those those comments, my Lords, these amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK's immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the Refugee Convention and the Echr. There would only serve to prevent asylum decision making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation with significant costs to taxpayers.

We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I would therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Davis and Cameron to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to both noble Lords Lord German and Lord noble Lords Lord German and Lord Katz for their comments. It will come as no surprise that I don't accept the criticism that they have
13:27
13:28
None Portrait Division
-

Now Now I'm Now I'm wishing Now I'm wishing Now I'm wishing you. All right. To Lord Marks. That Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. Content. Content, content, content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content, content, content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, but not contents to the left by the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. There have voted. Contents There have voted. Contents one five, nine, not contents 194. So five, nine, not contents 194. So five, nine, not contents 194. So the not contents have it. Not. Amendment 35 be Lord Davies of Gower.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gower. I beg to move formally. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say. Content. Content contrary. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content contrary. Not content. Not content. Content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. The voting is when voting is open. The voting is now open. Order, order I'm still on now open. Order, order I'm still on
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page