Lords Chamber

Wednesday 5th November 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:07
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.
11:07
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
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
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:22
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
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
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
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
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:49
11:52
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:59
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
12:04
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
12:13
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
12:19
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.
12:21
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.
12:30
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
13:28
13:29
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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All All right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content, content not content. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very Very good. Very good. Sorry. I. content. Yes, content. Yes, sir. content. Yes, sir. Thank content. Yes, sir. Thank you. I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents There have voted contents 157 not contents 200. So the not not contents 200. So the not contents habit. Amendment 35 see contents habit. Amendment 35 see Baroness Lawlor not moved in clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lawlor not moved in clause 42, amendment 36 Baroness Ludford. My Lords, I wish to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to speak to amendment 36. In my name and that of my noble friend Lord oats, my noble friend. Expertly presented in noble friend. Expertly presented in committee on September the 8th, are several amendments on clause 42, explaining that overall, we welcome
13:50
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
explaining that overall, we welcome this clause because of its intention to end the distinction that was created between the so-called true and extra cohorts. I won't explain that for those not in the know, as it is a little bit nerdish. Anyway, we welcome the clause because it fulfils the government's commitment that they would not treat the cohorts differently by granting a separate route to withdrawal agreement rights for the extra cohort. Its intention is therefore extremely welcome, as these benches have consistently said.

But the problem I want to focus on now is that the government has, in debates and in correspondence, both with members of this House and with the NGOs, the 3 million and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, whom I thank for their consistent support and briefing, maintained that clause 42, namely the enjoyment of Brexit withdrawal agreement rights cannot apply to those whose leave was allegedly granted in error. So clause 42 two OSC gives the Home Office the power to remove EU settled status or pre-settled status without affording state status holders those procedural safeguards or proportionality tests which the Withdrawal Agreement mandates.

Where it is contended that settled status was granted in error. What they really mean is when the Home Office has come to believe that the status was granted in error, because obviously they don't always know. The first problem is that withdrawal agreement safeguards are denied, even if the error was by the Home Office, not by the individual. The second problem is that the government is creating a chicken and egg situation. The Home Office does not know if the withdrawal agreement applies, and yet they won't extend the safeguards in that agreement because they think the withdrawal agreement does not apply.

And that is a slightly head banging situation. But that is it. While it is true that someone genuinely granted status in error is not a withdrawal agreement beneficiary, those of us supporting amendment 36 contend that the process of establishing that the status was granted in error and then removing status must be compliant with the withdrawal agreement. Let us think of the comparison with fraud. Status can be removed where someone obtained that status under the EU Settlement Status Settlement Scheme by fraud, with the result that they are not a withdrawal agreement beneficiary, but they need to have a withdrawal agreement compliant process before their status is removed.

So article 21 of withdrawal withdrawal agreement has to apply for those who are alleged to have committed fraud when applying for status, and in those cases, it is also ultimately a after due process. Agreed that the person was not in scope of the withdrawal agreement. So it's unacceptable. It seems to us that article 21 won't apply for cases where the individual doesn't commit fraud, but instead, the Home Office alleges that they made a mistake several years ago that the Home Office or the person made a mistake.

So by contrast with the fraud situation, the withdrawal agreement actually says nothing about removing status granted in error, which is one of the reasons why this sort of space exists. The Home Office objection to removing subsection two from clause 42 is that it would result in that person being treated as being a withdrawal agreement beneficiary, and they appear to think to think for reasons which are not entirely clear, that this would mean the Home Office could not remove their status at all.

So the Home Office policy and practice is that when they think someone's status is granted in error, they will simply let it expire to fall off a cliff rather than to cancel, curtail or revoke the status via a decision which would entail procedural rights, including a proportionality assessment and a right of appeal. So when it falls off a cliff, there is no rights, there's no due process. So this letting status expire is a workaround to avoid due process.

And we think of not one that doesn't carry a huge amount of integrity with it, frankly. Because if leave was indeed cancelled, curtailed or revoked instead of left to expire, safeguards would apply. But it's the Home Office's word against the individual when they say that someone's status was granted in error. The Home Office can make mistakes. They can be wrong in thinking someone's status was granted an error. We're only asking for due process. In all cases. Where the Home Office says status was granted in error, those entitled to withdrawal agreements, procedural safeguards must receive them so as to ensure that those safeguards apply to the situation.

When the Home Office thinks a person did not meet the requirements, when in fact they did, that's the sort of chicken and egg we just don't know in advance. The Home Office response suggests infallibility in Home Office decision making, which we know does not exist, and the Home Office does not provide any due process safeguards should there be error on its part. This fails to reflect the realities of Home Office decision making. The Home Office position incorrectly regards as due process those opportunities opportunities for what it calls engagement with the Home Office to prove that status was correctly granted.

This is insufficient. It doesn't amount to due process, and it's not what the withdrawal agreement requires. In fact, due process demands a right of appeal against the decision to let leave expire and proportionality assessment in case the Home Office is in fact wrong to think someone was granted status in error. If the Home Office's belief is right, they'll win the appeal and status can be taken away. This is not about people granted status in error indefinitely keeping it and all the rest of the withdrawal agreement rights.

It's just about not infringing infringing procedural rights potentially secured by the withdrawal agreement. But the government's approach means that by the time the Home Office is proved wrong, it's too late and the withdrawal agreement has been breached. So our amendment 36 says by removing subsection two, see that everyone, including those granted status in error, should be deemed to be a beneficiary of the withdrawal agreement, so they get the protection of article 21 procedural rights. But so far, we face an impasse insofar as the government has refused to allow these procedural safeguards to apply to the alleged error scenario.

They seem to be saying, we can't do that because if you deem these cases in law to be full and proper beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, then we can't we can't take their status away at all because the withdrawal agreement doesn't provide for status being lost in the case of status granted in error, this can be regarded as some as a somewhat unhelpful argument, and I happen to think that it's rather full of flaws. But the 3 million and ilpa have suggested a compromise, which I hereby submit, whereby if subsection two C is left in clause 42, so that those granted status in error are refused treatment as full withdrawal agreement beneficiaries, then a new paragraph dealing with the precise situation could be added.

This would provide that the law at least confers a minimum set of Withdrawal agreement compliant procedural safeguards, so as to ensure that Home Office action to to permit status to expire when it contends that that was granted in error is procedurally safe. So a new paragraph could be inspired by article 15 and chapter six of directive 2004 stroke 38, which, as you will all know, is the Free Movement directive. These are the the articles and and the provisions of that directive, which are the ones cited in article 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

Knowing the genius of Parliamentary Counsel, it should be possible to do something along these lines, something which is sui generis. Inspired by article 21 and designed for this specific situation. So I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can tell me he accepts to try and do at least something along these lines in the interests of fairness, justice and respect for the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement and our relationship with EU citizens. Even if he still declines to accept amendment 36, though obviously prize number one would be the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister telling me he accepts amendment 36, oppose. Clause 42.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 42. Page 38, line one leave out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

paragraph C. Oh my. Lords, I. Won't repeat all the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Won't repeat all the comprehensive arguments that my noble friend has so eloquently set
14:00
Lord Oates Portrait Lord Oates (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
noble friend has so eloquently set out in support of this amendment. But I do want to focus briefly on the points. She's highlighted that by allowing settled status to expire, rather than revoking or cancelling it, the Home Office is sidestepping a proportionality assessment and denying the status holder a right of appeal. The Home Office says this is a generous thing to do. To give people a bit more time before their status is lost. But as my noble friend has set out, it's in fact letting status holders slide off a cliff without the withdrawal agreement safeguards.

And this should not be allowed to happen fundamentally because the Home Office, extraordinary though it may seem, may well be wrong in its assessments. That status was granted in error. Regrettably, the Home Office has been made has been known to make mistakes in the past. In fact, frequent mistakes, often with catastrophic human consequences. This amendment would ensure that where such errors are made, the victims of those errors are afforded the procedural safeguards that they should be at Committee stage.

The noble Lord Lord Hanson, said in reply to me that those who settled status was lapsed by the Home Office would be informed that they can reapply to the EU settled status scheme. If such an application is made and refused, it will give rise to a right of appeal. Any family member application that is refused because the sponsor was granted EU settled status in error also attracts a right of appeal safeguards that the Minister said. I hope the noble Lord will find adequate in both these cases.

I regret that we do not believe they're adequate because this is not a right of appeal against the decision to allow status to lapse. It's a right of appeal against the refusal of a new application, which means that if the person concerned chooses to appeal, they are challenging a different decision, and the tribunal may well not allow the same arguments to be presented. Pre-settled status could also expire. In the meantime, while awaiting appeal on the new application. My Lords, in closing, I thank the Minister for his engagement with my noble friend and myself on this issue.

But as he will appreciate from what my noble friend has said, we do not accept that the safeguards he referred to in committee are sufficient. Therefore, we ask him, first of all, obviously to accept this amendment. But if he's not willing to do so to to get the government to reflect again and come back with a proposal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that would meet these concerns. My Lords, as indicated at committee, we have little issue committee, we have little issue with clause 42 of the Bill if the government believes it is also in line with the withdrawal agreement. line with the withdrawal agreement. We do not have concerns about its ending part of the bill. I listen to the noble Lady Baroness Ludford argument and while I do understand her concerns, we are satisfied that her concerns, we are satisfied that clause 42 does not undermine the protections for EU European Union.

protections for EU European Union. The European Economic Area and Swiss nationals and their family members who have leave to enter or members who have leave to enter or remain in the UK, granted under the EU Settlement Scheme, the
14:04
14:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lady, Baroness Ludford, for her amendment? Can I assure her that there's nothing nerdy about putting amendments down in this field? And as a fellow nerd on many other topics, I welcome her contribution to the debate today. The amendments, as she said, provide an important issue for discussion around the safeguards of loss of status under the EU SS scheme settlement scheme. And I do welcome the fact that both the noble Lord Oates and the noble Lady Baroness Ludford.

We've had some meetings and I think we have got to a position whereby clause 42 is welcome, and I welcome the fact that they welcome the addition of clause 42, because it does provide the legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU SS status who are in scope of the withdrawal Agreement, and it is the source of their rights in the UK. And I hope, therefore, that they welcome the amendments 81 and 83, which I beg to move also, which will mean that clause 42 comes into force on the day of any Royal assent, rather than, as was originally planned two months later, so that those rights are guaranteed from any Royal assent that is given to this Bill in due course.

And I beg to move those amendments as part of the discussions now. Now, the nub of the question goes to the nub of some of the nerdery that we discussed from the noble Baroness when she introduced her amendments. The EU scheme is more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires. There are therefore, as we know, two cohorts of EU citizens with USS status the true cohort who are in scope of the agreement because they were economically active in the UK at the end of the transition period on December 31st, 2020, and the cohort who were resident in the UK at the end of the transition period, but did not meet the technical requirements of free movement law.

Clause 42 ensures that both cohorts will be treated equally in UK law, by providing that all EU citizens and family members with EU SS status will be treated as being withdrawal agreement beneficiaries. I think that's a significant measure, and I think it's an important measure for the UK's approach. Since the start of the USS scheme. Now, amendment 36 removes subsection two C, which in effect it would mean that to confer withdrawal rights in the UK on those who do not qualify for them because they do not qualify for USS status.

Worse, it would mean the Pre-settled status granted in error could not be curtailed or allowed to expire because the withdrawal agreement does not permit rights to be lost on that basis. Now, I think it would give unwarranted preferential treatment over those whose EU SS application was correctly refused. It would also undermine the integrity of the USS system by giving them the same rights in the UK as a pre-settled status holder who complied with the requirements for that status. Now, my Lords, there outcomes that we cannot accept a person whose EU status has been granted in error will not be in the true or extra cohort, and should not benefit from clause 42.

But I say to her as well that nonetheless, none of this detracts from the proper safeguards for the loss of USS status. Now, the noble Lady is right to emphasise the importance on that issue. So to our stakeholders who've been engaging with the Home Office on this point, nothing in clause 42 affects the Withdrawal Agreement compliant appeal rights, which are in place in UK law for refusal or removal of USS statement status. And there is nothing disproportionate about allowing a pre-settled status granted in error to expire after its five year term, given that the person had no entitlement to that limited leave in the first place.

Now again, I know that the noble Lady, and indeed the noble Lord talked about Home Office errors, but I would argue that the person would have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and will have failed to do so, as with grants of limited leave in error in other immigration routes, our approach allows them to stay in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of that leave, and it is also open, which is an important point for the person to reapply to the USS status and if refused, they will have the right of appeal.

Now, the noble Lord Oates mentioned this. I said that to him in committee. I think I've written to him about that. I've also said it in our meetings outside of the chamber, but it also applies to any family member whose application is refused because their sponsors, USS status was granted in error. Now, my Lords, I'm grateful for the noble Baroness for returning to this matter, but I hope I've set down that there is, under clause 42, the settled rights. In the event of those errors, there are rights of appeal, and there are existing allowance to continue work in that particular period.

Now, the noble Baroness is also, you know, helpfully. Well, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clarity on this, but my understanding is there is no right of appeal against the decision of the Home Office that an error was made. What there is, is the right to make another application and then appeal. If that's refused, that's as I set out a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different thing. The argument I've put again is that the person will have been that the person will have been given every opportunity to show that their pre-settled status was granted correctly, and if there was granted correctly, and if there was an error from the Home Office, there's an argument in that period of time where they can make that of time where they can make that argument. But if we get to a position whereby the staying in the UK with the right to work for the remaining period of leave happens, it is also then open after that.

Yes, for the noble Lords. Oates's Yes, for the noble Lords. Oates's suggestion for people to reapply for EU ss status to happen and to have that considered now I think have that considered now I think that is a reasonable proposal. We may disagree, but I think that's a reasonable way forward and it gives reasonable way forward and it gives fairness to the system as a whole. And may I just say on the compromise that the noble Lady has compromise that the noble Lady has suggested, the compromise suggests a number of things.

And my argument a number of things. And my argument is that it's not necessary. Procedural safeguards are not dealt with in clause 42. They are contained in the citizen's Right of Appeal regulations. They implement the position in article 21 and they stand irrespective of this clause. So the compromise that she's offered is effectively available under the rights that are available under the Citizens Rights Appeal regulations. Now, I may not have satisfied the the noble Lady and indeed the noble Lord, the noble Lord Davies of Gower asked if there's any administrative costs and burdens on this if he'll let me.

I haven't got an assessment in front of me today, but I will take that question away, and I will examine it, and I realise that we will have passed this clause by the time he gets the the letter. But I hope that he can hold us to account on that issue, and I give him further detail at a later stage. So with the moving of amendments 81 and 83, I would really hope that the House can agree to our amendments in due course and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lady will withdraw hers. My Lord. Yes, I should have said

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Yes, I should have said I was remiss. I do welcome amendments 81 and 83. And thank you amendments 81 and 83. And thank you to the Minister for for moving those. But I'm afraid I, I am those. But I'm afraid I, I am disappointed with what he said. First of all, to be clear, what my First of all, to be clear, what my noble friend Lord Oates in his noble friend Lord Oates in his intervention said is surely right that I think the Minister made a slip of the tongue and suggested there was an appeal.

Right. If status was left to expire. Now, if the if the Home Office took a decision to cancel or revoke or decision to cancel or revoke or curtail the status, there would be a right of appeal under article 21 a right of appeal under article 21 of the Withdrawal Agreement. Our objection is that the Home Office and I called it earlier a and I called it earlier a workaround. I could think of a much ruder term to use as to what the Home Office is doing.

One could say Home Office is doing. One could say sneaky. Frankly, it is saying we're not going to give you any right to appeal or or or apply a proportionality assessment. We're just going to let it fade out. And if you don't like that scenario, well then you can make a whole new
14:13
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
application and go through all the hassle and expense and trouble of that. And then if we turn you down, that. And then if we turn you down, then you can go through an appeal. Right? What we're saying is by Right? What we're saying is by letting the status just expire when, when. And you're saying that the, when. And you're saying that the, the, the person concerned, the individual concerned should have known that the Home Office had known that the Home Office had perhaps granted it in error.

How are they supposed to know that that are they supposed to know that that knowledge is within the, the, the, the bowels of the Home Office, the the bowels of the Home Office, the the applicant, the individual doesn't necessarily know that. So doesn't necessarily know that. So the Home Office is holding all the power in this situation. It it is saying, oh, we, we, we think we saying, oh, we, we, we think we grant well may not even say we granted this in error.

We think we granted this in error. They just granted this in error. They just let it expire and leave the person stranded. And and and that doesn't stranded. And and and that doesn't seem very honourable thing to do. I'm not I'm not saying that about the Minister because I like the Minister very much, but but I don't Minister very much, but but I don't think it's a very reputable thing think it's a very reputable thing for the Home Office to do. And it's a great pity that the withdrawal agreement, of course, didn't actually cover the situation.

It covers fraud, but it doesn't cover where the status is alleged for being granted in error. And no, let's forget we're talking about people here. We're talking about EU citizens who ought to be having a clear right of appeal and to, to to make their case under an appeal procedure rather than just having it, you know, slide away from them because the Home Office thinks. But it you know, it may only think that it granted it in error or that the applicant made an error.

So that's left hanging there. And it's never, ever going to be established whether that is true or not. Because the Home Office says, oh, well, you can just make another application. I'm afraid I still think that that is an unsatisfactory situation. And it's a pity that this impasse continues. I had hoped there might be some flexibility to provide some, as I say, creative wording that the Home Office could maintain its position. The withdrawal agreement in article 21 did not apply, but it finds some workarounds and in favour of EU citizens who might be subject to this kind of black hole treatment.

And I am disappointed that the Minister is not able to provide that that that offer. But he doesn't. So there we are, as I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn after clause 42,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave withdrawn after clause 42, Stirrup. I will speak to amendment 37, and I'm grateful to.
14:16
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I'm grateful to. noble Lords who have added their names and to the Refugee Council. I also declare and am grateful for also declare and am grateful for the help received from Ramp as an associate. The new clause would ensure that newly recognised refugees have at least 56 days to move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support, commonly called the move on period. I've tabled it because, having introduced in December last year a pilot to extend the move on period from 28 to 56 days to great acclaim, the government, with minimal warning, reverted to 28 days in September for most childless adults of working age.

Yet the pilot, together with the independent evaluation of it, had only recently been extended from its original end date in June. The Home Affairs Select Committee was speaking for very many when it recently said it found the decision extremely disappointing. My Lords, I and other noble Lords made the case for the extension to 56 days in the debates on my private member's bill on the subject, 28 days simply isn't long enough to sort out the practicalities involved in the move from asylum support, and the result is all too often homelessness and destitution, with devastating psychological effects.

What should be a time of joy is turned into a nightmare. Young people in particular, according to Young Lords, are thrown into crisis in which they may be unsafe and at risk of harm just when they hope to get on with rebuilding their lives. We're not just talking about those officially considered vulnerable groups who will continue with a 56 day period, because all those affected are potentially vulnerable. As Boas trust have shown at the PMS Committee stage, I presented evidence from a range of NGOs on how well the pilot was working.

In the words of Nasscom, the UK wide no accommodation network, the extension to 56 days had proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and organisations that support them. Similarly, London Council's called it a vital support and pointed to a number of positive effects. In a recent letter to the Minister, they state that extensive evidence shared by partners shows that this was a successful policy initiative in reducing risks of rough sleeping and leading to better and more joined up responses across the system.

British Red cross reports similar findings from a range of local authorities. My Lords, this is not surprising given an earlier LGA survey found that the extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen by its members as a single most effective change that could be made to the move on period. It is also therefore not surprising that the response to the reversion to 28 days for most refugees has been overwhelmingly negative. London Council warns that it will put the progress we have made so far at risk, and is particularly concerning as we approach the winter period.

In a letter to the relevant Secretaries of State on behalf of over 60 organisations, Homeless Link and Nasscom made clear that they believe the change to be harmful, fearing that it would increase homelessness and rough sleeping, cause individual harm, put pressure on local statutory and voluntary sector organisations and undermine the government's commitment to ending homelessness through a cross-departmental strategy. The letter continued. The emerging evidence we have, including testimony from our respective organisations and from a survey conducted of its members, indicates that the 56 day pilot has helped reduce rates of homelessness and enabled more people to successfully move on from home office accommodation and begin to integrate and participate in their communities.

Surely, my Lords, this is exactly what the government wants to happen. Young roots, who are very kindly sent me evidence about the impact of the change report that 56 days works. It was very clear during the 56 day pilot that the longer move on period was beneficial for everyone. Their front line staff report that it helped with claiming Universal Credit, opening a bank account and finding accommodation and importantly, their safeguarding data showed a 50% reduction in safeguarding incidents during the six months of the pilot.

Previously, the most common reason for safeguarding incident raised was homelessness. Young refugees themselves are clear that they can't manage the transition in 28 days, one said. 28 days are not enough to apply for Universal Credit and Open bank account, so we need at least 56 days. Caseworkers have commented how the young people have been calmer. There isn't such a sense of desperation and that a longer move on period has helped them to begin planning their futures with greater stability and dignity.

The longer move on period may not be a silver bullet, but it has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect. I appreciate the pressure to reduce the use of asylum hotels, but it should not be vulnerable refugees who have to pay the price. When questioned on Panorama about why the unexpected change, Minister Norris answered that artificially inflating the period that someone stays in a hotel is not doing them a favour, and that it's in a refugee's interest for the period to be as short as possible in their interest to be turfed out onto the streets and made destitute, I think not, my Lords, and there is nothing artificial about increasing the period to that already operative in homelessness legislation.

If anything, it was the original 28 days that was artificial or arbitrary, in the words of the Home Secretary, who had said something very similar earlier in answer to an oral question, which is worrying, as it suggests that the new team in the Home Office is simply out of touch with the evidence. Yet surely this government believes in evidence based policy making. Young roots tells us that since the pilot was suddenly ended, we are already seeing the devastating impact on young refugees, with a 50% increase in the number of young people experiencing street homelessness.

Referrals to supported accommodation are being rejected because they don't yet have the necessary universal Credit documentation. The organisation is really worried about the health and wellbeing of young refugees as winter approaches. Similarly, Islington Council reports that far more people have been referred to our local crisis homeless shelter and more are sleeping rough. They argue that this is a clear indication that the shortening of the move on period has shunted costs from central to local government and the voluntary sector as well.

As I've already said, onto refugees themselves in response to a topical oral question from the Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Sheffield, my noble friend, the Minister repeatedly talked about tweaking rather than ending the pilot, but I hope he will accept that what he calls tweaking is causing real harm. My noble friend also responded more than once that the vast majority of newly recognised refugees are not affected. But given we're constantly being told that most are single young men and that in a written answer, the Home Office was not able to provide the data on the proportion of newly recognised refugees who are exempt.

I can't see how he can say that. In conclusion, my Lords, in a helpful letter to me, my noble friend, the Minister said that the outcomes of the evaluation of the pilot will be used to inform longer term policy proposals. With winter approaching, I make a plea on behalf of organisations on the ground and the refugees they work with, as well as local authorities, to revert to 56 days immediately. But at the very least, will the Minister give us an assurance that if the evaluation reflects a positive evidence I have received of the pilots impact, the government will, in the name of evidence based policy making, make the pilot permanent for all newly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognised refugees. I beg to move. Proposed after clause 42. Insert
14:25
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed after clause 42. Insert the new clause as printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the new clause as printed. I rise to support Baroness Lister in virtually absolutely every single word that she said in every single word that she said in her introduction about move on, period. It always struck me as very strange that you create a pilot scheme and you know you want to evaluate it, and then halfway through the pilot scheme, you take half of the pilot out or part of the pilot out simply to address a problem which is occurring in the community at that time.

I accept that this obviously is was a tough time for the government when they all these protests outside hotels in the summer and our amendment 37 which follows this is is helpful, I think, to the government in a way which would reduce the numbers on the waiting lists. But of course, as soon as you get your status to have 14, the smaller number of days is just impossible. 28 days creates a cliff edge between destitution and homelessness, which is a point Baroness Lister made the the.

The pilot was due to come to an end sometime during the autumn, and I know that in government terms, the the session, the parts of a year are flexible. So autumn, I think in this case is now going to be somewhere closer to Christmas or you might call it late autumn, but those few weeks that we've had since the announcement in in September has meant that there are a significant cohort of people who are being put into homelessness category. That's been confirmed to me by local authorities whom I met last weekend, who who were just couldn't understand having the success of the pilot on their doorstep.

See, seeing it working and making it work, of course, failed to understand why it was that they were going to have to face up to the problem of homelessness on their doorstep. There is a stronger point about this too, in that if you have the the longer period, which was, you know, 56 days was very important because it enabled asylum seekers to get crucial support for the longer period over the past, over, over the time that they were being looking after themselves, it assisted with their integration into society and allow them to stand on their own two feet much quicker.

And also, of course, it reduced hardship and homelessness. We reduced the burden of homelessness on local authorities, prevent newly recognised refugees from becoming destitute, and we enable them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. So I have a question for the for the noble Lord, the Minister, and that is what consultation was had with local authorities prior to reverting to the 28 days, because clearly dumping the problem onto local authorities dealing with homelessness would be something which they would expect to have had some consultation and time on it.

Turning now to amendment 37 about what we might call Nightingale Centres. This is a means by which we seek to improve and speed up the approval system. It calls for the establishing of processing centres to clear the asylum backlog for initial decisions within six months. The primary objective is to speed up the process. Successive governments have promised greater efficiency and promptly created their own backlogs, demonstrating that efficiency and fairness must go hand in hand. A functioning asylum system is one where people's claims are assessed swiftly and accurately, and secondly, the benefit will be a reduction in costly hotel accommodation.

The enormous backlogs have put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, forcing the use of expensive hotels at scale, costing the taxpayer significant sums around about £8 million per day on hotel accommodation alone, and by enabling the creation of temporary facilities for expedited assessment closer to where people are, rather than bringing people at some distance to have their assessment, we can move people out of costly, temporary accommodation and thereby reduce the asylum support budget. There are more than 90,000 people stuck in the Home Office's asylum backlog, and these are cases awaiting an initial decision.

Of these, over half have been waiting more than six months and over a quarter more than a year. So this is a humanitarian crisis. Of course, it was created by the conservative government, who just put people into limbo and limbo went on, and people just queued up without any potential for decision. And I know that the government has had to pick up a very tricky issue here, but we do need to move this on as fast as possible. And the policy of housing asylum seekers is disastrous for asylum seekers and communities.

We all know that putting them in hotels isn't good for them. It's not good for local communities and the situation needs to be addressed urgently as an emergency. So at the current rate of people claiming asylum and the Home Office deciding cases, it's an estimate that we've heard from experts that it will take five years to clear the backlog. So perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister, would say currently, what would his expectation be of clearing that backlog? As of June 2025, there were 2057 asylum caseworkers in the Home Office, 2057 we, I believe, would move them out of the Home Office and set up these dedicated processing units and and put in 4000 caseworkers working in these processing centres in order to clear the backlog within six months, in other words, putting more energy into it to do it.

These centres and extra caseworkers would entirely be funded through the savings from getting asylum seekers out of hotels. On that basis, I hope noble Lords and the noble Lord, the Minister, will comment favourably about this scheme, which is meant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to be helpful in order to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. Thank you.
14:32
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. No, they're grateful to noble Lords for their comments on this group. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we cannot, unfortunately, support her amendment this past year has seen the largest number of boat crossings since records began. We believe that the current government is buckling under the numbers, and it is a situation, in our view, that calls for measures that disincentivize those considering making the dangerous crossing across the channel. It is not an answer to strengthen the incentives to come here, and then wonder when there is more inflow and more of a public backlash in.

In our view, that would be the outcome of amendment 37 if we were to increase the periods of financial and accommodation eligibility, we would be giving migrants a significantly greater reason to come here, and the taxpayer would be burdened with an even greater bill. In fact, we know from reports last week, the asylum seeker deported from France under the government's one in, one out policy, returned because he could not get housing in France. The only group of people that the amendment would benefit, in our view, would be people smugglers who make a living off trafficking humans and breaking our laws.

And instead we should be taking the opposite approach if we want to stop those tragic deaths in the channel and ease public sentiment towards the asylum system, we should disincentivize those illegally arriving here in relation to amendment 73, in the name of the noble Lord Lord German and Nightingale processing units, we understand and acknowledge the sentiment behind it, but at present we cannot support that either.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A word in support of amendment 37. The amendment, which would allow 56 days before someone who allow 56 days before someone who has been given asylum is is thrown has been given asylum is is thrown out. The six month experiment which the government tried of moving to 56 days from 28, seemed to me to be very successful. I was therefore very successful. I was therefore puzzled that its extension in July
14:35
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
puzzled that its extension in July was rescinded in August. I don't know why we're heading back to 28, and I'm sure we should be at 56. Why? Because it takes some time for the documentation to be made available to the person who has just been granted asylum. It then takes some time for that person to obtain accommodation. For that, he will need a bank account. He may need to go on Universal credit, universal credit applications take longer than 28 days to come through.

So he's in a catch 22. He can't rent accommodation because he hasn't got a bank account and he hasn't got access to Universal Credit. So he's homeless. And cases of homelessness declined by, sorry, safeguarding incidents, the main cause of which is homelessness declined by 50% during the six month period in which 56 days were allowed. As I understand, the government's position now is they they're not going back all the way to 28 for everybody. They are allowing families or the disabled or the pregnant or the over 65 to stay a bit longer while they look for somewhere to live.

But actually, most of the asylum seekers are young men who are will be put onto a a 28 day regime, which creates a very high risk of their becoming homeless. To integrate these people properly into society, we need to be generous on the timing of their being thrown out and thrown on the streets and in many cases now, for now, to become rough sleepers. So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm I strongly support amendment 37. I'm grateful to my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my noble friend Baroness Lister for amendment 37, and for at least listening again to and for at least listening again to the noble Lord German and the noble Lord Kerr of Kinlochard in support
14:37
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
of that amendment 37. Amendment 37 does seek to increase the period for financial and accommodation support for newly recognised refugees from 28 to 56 days, and to allow the Secretary of State discretion to set a longer period following a grant of refugee status. Now the amendment is clear and the amendments, if I may say so, for my noble friend, is really seeking to formalise what we are currently assessing as part of a pilot because the pilot scheme is ongoing. There have been changes, I recognise to that pilot in Mid-flow, but essentially the pilot is ongoing.

The government recognises the importance of a smooth transition. For all the reasons that have been mentioned by my noble friend and indeed my noble Lords who have spoken. I give the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel the benefit of the doubt, in the sense that he didn't support the general thrust of what's been said. And I understand his position, but I think there is benefit in examining these issues, which is why, despite the fact we've inherited significant pressures in the asylum system, and our strategy has been to provide the very targeted conditional support to restore credibility to the system and to ensure value for money for the taxpayer.

That's why we're undertaking, particularly at the moment, the position of the pilot. Now, extending the period by four weeks, will put an additional strain on the accommodation estate, currently exacerbating pressures by the government commitment to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament. Now, noble Lords, and indeed my noble friend, has referred to the pilot that was introduced to extend the move on period to 56 days from the point an individual had been notified of their grant of leave.

The pilot has been put in place to support local authorities. During a period when we anticipated an increased volume of asylum decisions being made, as well as coinciding with the transition to EVs. As for newly recognised refugees, now the pilot, as my noble friend knows, is in place to the end of the year and I agree, and I understand that the government has taken the difficult decision to pause the pilot for single adults only in early September due to pressures on the accommodation estate, but the pilot continues for those who were in the system prior to September, and it applies now for families and the most vulnerable.

And the key point is there is an independent evaluation which is currently ongoing, regarding the impact of the pilot. And I just want to say to my noble friend that we want to actually look at the pilot, look at the lessons, and make some judgements on this issue before deciding the longer term policy. And I give everybody in the House the firm commitment that the intention is that the pilots findings, when produced, will be shared with Parliament. So we'll be transparent on what that says.

And members who are today arguing that the pilot is of assistance, we'll be able to scrutinise what the impact of that assessment is. Any of those, like the noble Lord Cameron, who believes that the length of the period is too long, we'll be able to judge whatever the pilot says and either revise or keep his opinions in due course. But it's important at the moment that we examine the outcome of the pilot. There has been a wide range of stakeholders who've taken part in the evaluation, including, as has been requested of me, local authorities, voluntary organisations, the community sector, and indeed we are involving in the pilot individuals with the lived experience of going through the system.

And I think it's important that we don't see the extension of the move on period to 56 days as a straightforward solution to the complex problem. That's why we're looking at a wider range of support measures initiatives in place, including improved communications and support. And we're working with migrant help and Asylum Move on liaison officers. So I would say to my noble friend that the government remains committed to offering support, improving the process that underpins transition from Home Office asylum support and ensuring that any changes to the system are informed by robust evidence, which is the very point that the pilot is in place.

And I think I've mentioned that to my noble friend, both in terms of when I've dealt with her bill earlier in this session and in my noble friend Lord Katz has dealt with this bill in a later part of the session. We've emphasised that point, so I hope that will help her that the pilot, I think, needs to run its course. Amendment 70. Well, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister could say when is the pilot due to end and when will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the pilot due to end and when will it prevent its report? Yeah. I've said I've even said in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've said I've even said in the last few moments, as I'm sure the noble Lord will remember when I tell him again that the pilot runs tell him again that the pilot runs to the end of this year, at the end of this year is about sort of seven of this year is about sort of seven weeks away. We have to evaluate the pilot. I haven't got a date for him as to when the pilot evaluation as to when the pilot evaluation will be produced, but the circumstances of where we are now remain in place, that the pause on single individuals from September single individuals from September is in place, but people before September will still have been dealt with under the old system and dealt with under the old system and individual families and others are being dealt with still under the terms of the pilot.

So I will terms of the pilot. So I will report to the House as soon as possible. But the actual period of the pilot finishes at the end of this year.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this year. I'm grateful for that answer, but so there will be a gap between but so there will be a gap between the end of December and whenever the pilot evaluation takes place. Is it therefore expected that when Is it therefore expected that when the pilot ends, that all people will be going back to the 28 days

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than just some? Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The noble Lord again tempt me. We are. We are examining a whole range of issues, and I will range of issues, and I will announce and report to this House when decisions are taken. But as I've said to him to date, the I've said to him to date, the evaluation is ongoing. Local authorities and others are looking at that. We will make decisions in at that. We will make decisions in due course and report them to this House. But that gives me a great House.

But that gives me a great segue into his own amendment 73, supported by the noble Baroness, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seeks to provide inverted commas, Nightingale inverted commas, Nightingale accommodation to clear the backlog of asylum cases. Now, again, I welcome the interest and support welcome the interest and support for dealing with that backlog. We want to ensure, as a home office that we invest in a programme of transformation and business improvement to speed up decision making, reduce the time people making, reduce the time people spend in asylum system, decrease the number of people in that asylum system and maximise our capacity.

system and maximise our capacity. And the noble Lord German is absolutely right to say that we've inherited a massive backlog from the previous government, which in part is due to the fact that they did effectively pause asylum application assessments because they wanted to find a mechanism to find to put people to Rwanda, which failed miserably. But that backlog built up before we took office in July last year. At the end of June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision.

By December 23rd, the Home Office had completed processing the majority of backlogs. However, everything was put on hold by the Illegal Migration Act. That meant a number of decisions being made by the Home Office in 2024 led to an emergency backlog being developed. And as my Lords will be aware, the then Home Secretary laid a Statutory Instrument on July the 22nd, 2024, not 19 days after the general election, to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act, and as a result, we've been able to take decisions on claims being resumed, we've been able to make decisions and the number of people waiting for decision has fallen again.

And we have seen in the past 12 months. So this goes to the point that the noble Lord chairman has mentioned, despite the record number of people claiming asylum, we've now got 28,000 fewer people awaiting an initial decision than in the month before the general election, 24% reduction, the backlog inheritance left by the previous government has now been cut by 18%. The percentage of cases processed within six months has increased from 7% to 41%. So we're in the process of actually taking action to deal with the backlog that the noble Lord mentions.

And if I if I say to to her the the question of she hasn't spoken to today, but amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to impose a statutory duty to publish information on deaths of asylum seekers, the government recognises the transparency on that system and the Home Office will produce data in due course. So I would say to my noble friend Baroness Lister that I hope she can give us the breathing space to try to deal with this issue.

She may be unhappy and I accept that, but I hope she can give us the breathing space. I say to the noble Lord German that his amendment is helpful, but I think we're trying to deal with this, and I wouldn't wish to start Rush to Nightingale centres when we can in fact, continue the good work we've been done to continue to reduce that backlog. So for both of those reasons, I would urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to noble Lord Trees spoken just to start with the formal position, the opposition, which was on the grounds of Disincentivising. I mean, how many Disincentivising. I mean, how many of those who risk their lives, who are willing to risk their lives are willing to risk their lives coming over the channel, no even know about such a thing as a move on, period? And how many are aware
14:48
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
on, period? And how many are aware how many days they get? I mean, it's just ridiculous. I'm sorry. It's a ridiculous argument and I don't accept it. But anyway, it doesn't really matter. I'm very grateful to noble Lord Lord German and noble Lord Lord Kerr for their support. I note that the noble Lord Lord German asked a question which wasn't answered about what consultation there was with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days. I suspect I know I I well, I'm pretty sure the answer was none, so perhaps I can answer it on behalf of my noble friend.

Because they were taken by surprise. They were given very little, little warning. The noble Lord Lord Kerr rightly emphasised the question of integration and how we we are undermining the integration of newly recognised refugees that have come to me. I appreciate my noble Lords, my my noble friends. The Minister's response in some ways I would just like to quote back to him when he says the pilot needs to run its course. Yes, exactly. That's our case. The pilot should have run its course before reverting to 28 days.

For some members who are part of the pilot, we haven't. I mean, I do understand the pressures that are being placed on the government in terms of accommodation. But there is a pilot, there's an evaluation, and in the name of evidence based policy making that should have been allowed to run its course. And if I may also quote back at him the concept of breathing space. To be honest, I'm a bit more concerned about the breathing space we give to newly recognised refugees to find be able to get their lives in order, which need 56 days at least, not 28.

Then I am about the breathing space the government have, but the government have us breathing space. I, I didn't accept I expect the government to accept this amendment. I only tabled it because of the reversion. I mean, if the pilot was running its course, I would have been very happy to wait and see what the outcome was. My private member's bill is currently suspended waiting for that. I did ask, and I realised I'm probably not going to get an assurance that if, as we expect the evaluation, the independent evaluation, which I've got I think is very, a very good independent evaluation, which is my noble friend said is including voices of lived experience and so forth.

So I've got a lot of faith in the evaluation, but I find it difficult to believe it's not going to show what all the various organisations have said to me, that the 56 days. Yes, it's not, as I said, a silver bullet. It doesn't solve all the problems, but it eases a lot of the problems faced by refugees, by local authorities, by voluntary organisations. So I hope that underlying what my noble friend said is an acceptance that if the evaluation shows that, that the government will accept 56 days in future.

But in the in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn in clause 43, amendment 38. Lord Hanson Lord Katz.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hanson Lord Katz. My Lords, before we move on, I just wanted to remind noble Lords again of the companions guidance at paragraph 8.82 that members paragraph 8.82 that members pressing or withdrawing amendments should normally be brief, and shouldn't seek to respond to all the points made during the debate, nor revisit points made when moving or pressing amendment. I just say this because speeches appear to be this because speeches appear to be getting longer. At this point. I'd urge the noble Lords to be brief so we continue to make progress and we continue to make progress and get to the votes.

And I'd also add as well, there's been a couple of occasions where we've had backbenchers intervening when in backbenchers intervening when in the middle of the process of of frontbenchers winding up, and that's not the usual practice of the House either.
14:52
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House either. Well, on that note, I beg to move amendment 38, and I'll try and move amendment 38, and I'll try and do it as quickly as possible to help support my noble friend. I just want to address this group, which consists of three government amendments to clause 43 and if I can say so, on this occasion, the government has listened to debates that have taken place in the House. And during the consideration, we've carefully considered recommendations in the JCHR report, and I've also listened to representations from the noble Lord Jackson, the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, the noble Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.

And in this light, the government amendment 40 does not alter the original purpose of clause 43, but instead sets out on the face of the bill the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electric monitoring and curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers the person poses a threat of national security, public safety, or indeed has been convicted of a serious crime or offence. The powers in clause 43 are therefore in place to protect the public and to meet our obligations under domestic and international law.

The clause will end the disparity of powers available to protect the public in respect of immigration bail and conditions on leave to enter or remain, but I hope that they have listened to points made in the chamber during the Committee stage, and therefore I beg to move those amendments on behalf of the government. I notice my noble friend Lord Bach has tabled amendment 41, and I will, of course, respond to any points he raises once he has had an opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Back to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 43, page 39, line 26. Leave out from section to the end

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Leave out from section to the end of line 27 and insert the words as printed. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The noble Lord the Minister has is quite right. I have an amendment
14:54
Lord Bach Portrait Lord Bach (Labour)
-
-
in this group which is very fittingly in this group. I would argue this is a short but important amendment. It's unusual in that both those who lawyers who act in immigration cases and the Home Office itself are at one on the issue. Both immigration cases and the Home Office are at one. Both sides agree that in paragraph 91A of section of schedule ten of the Immigration Act 2016, the words and I quote specified in the condition end quote should be interpreted widely to mean that is known at the time of the grant or variation of immigration bail or.

And this is the important point, or an address that is yet to be specified. This has been the Home Office interpretation of that paragraph, as evidenced in 2018, that that's the Home Office view. It's occurred in cases that have happened and guidelines guidance was issued as a as, as recently as this summer. So that's how the Home Office interprets the paragraph and has for a number of years. And in my submission, it's a practical and sensible way of doing so.

Why then, does this amendment, with its change of words, proposed change of words in paragraph nine one need to be laid and discussed in your Lordships' House at all. The reason is that there is a Court of Appeal case in Northern Ireland called Bunner, decided a few years ago, not many years ago, where their lordships in that court took a different view and decided on a much stricter interpretability of the words of the schedule that for a person to be given bail by the Secretary of State, they must already have been granted immigration bail.

And here the words that matters with a condition words that matters with a condition to reside at a specific address. So one has on the one hand the decision of the court in Northern Ireland and the other on the other, I submit a practical, sensible way of dealing with the situation which arises more often than the House might think. A sensible, practical way of dealing with it that the Home Office have dealt with it in that way, as as the lawyers on the other side.

Why does it matter that there are these two conflicting decisions, really, and ways of looking at this particular section, this schedule? It matters firstly, because it is unsatisfactory in principle to have a piece of legislation which has been interpreted quite differently in the courts and in its practice in government dealing with these issues. And secondly, who knows what situations may arise now and in the future where a court, for example, would prefer the Northern Ireland precedent and thus a bail claimant, someone whom the Home Office want to give bail to, might lose his or her bail merely because, for good, practical reasons.

And this is what happens in a number of cases. The actual specific address is not finally yet known. There are already, my Lords, significant delays between grant of bail in principle and people being released to Home Office sourced accommodation. 21 people in recent months have faced a delay of more than three months, whom the Home Office want to bail and are happy to bail. But there isn't a specified address at that precise moment, so everything has to start all over again without amending the statutory provision relied on.

In the case of Bernard, every individual would need an address provided by the Secretary of State prior to applying for bail in the first place, resulting in wasted places and longer delays. My invitation to my noble friend. I'm very grateful to him for having taken the trouble to speak to meet with me on this issue is to invite him to accept the amendment that's in amendment 41, the amendment to the schedule to Amendment 41 that I'm moving.

And I very much hope that he feels that he may be able

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to do that today. I beg to move. My Lords, I'd simply like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd simply like to address the issue that the noble Lord Barker just made. Having Lord Barker just made. Having visited Harmondsworth and EHRC and seen people and met them who are seen people and met them who are ready for bail, and then seeing them held back because of the bureaucracy, does seem to me that this is what is being described is a bit of bureaucracy which ought a bit of bureaucracy which ought not to be there. And I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to say that he can deal with this matter.

Unfortunately, it appears that it has to be in statute rather than simply a ministerial decision. And perhaps the noble Lord, the Minister could
15:00
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
tell us how best this matter can be dealt with swiftly, because it is in no one's interest for people who are who have the right to bail, to immigration, bail, to be kept at the taxpayer's expense in in immigration detention for that period when they needn't be there. I welcome the amendments which the government has moved today in response to the issues which were raised at Committee stage. I, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, is unfortunately ill today and not able to take her place.

So I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I try to interpret what she would have said about this matter, which should be in her place. And I think it was a question I think is really simply, is it correct that we should rely on the Secretary of State's subjective consideration, rather than having the change of statute, which is before us today? But that's a matter, I think, which apart from that, I welcome the fact that the government has moved on.

This matter may not have moved as far as most people wanted in the people who were talked to the Minister. But we recognise that that change has taken place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I understand that the government amendments in this group would place limits on the circumstances in which conditions referred to in section three, one, C 6 to 10 of the Immigration Act 1971, as inserted by clause 43 brackets 2nd May be attached to a brackets 2nd May be attached to a persons limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. This does not require too much comment does not require too much comment from me, and this is, in my view, effectively a tidying up amendment which would clarify the circumstances in which these circumstances in which these conditions can be imposed.

Clarity on this point is welcome. Although I would ask the noble Lord, the Minister, if he could explain how the circumstances could be altered to either augment or narrow the to either augment or narrow the scope of the circumstances which would come under this section. As would come under this section. As we all know, the nature of the threats we face can change, and it is important that we do not have an unwieldy and prescriptive list to which these conditions can only be applied.

Although, that being said, applied. Although, that being said, it is imperative that this does not undermine the role of Parliament in scrutinising what comes under this section. If the Minister can please update the House on how this will balance, on how this balance will be achieved with respect to his be achieved with respect to his amendments, then I would be very grateful. On amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. My Lords, whilst I appreciate some of the intention behind this amendment, I cannot support it.

If we want to maintain the integrity of the immigration system, we simply must ensure that those awaiting removal or further decision remain within the reach of the authorities. In short, while I understand the desire to make the system more flexible, this amendment would do so at the expense of the very oversight and accountability that make immigration bail credible and enforceable. For those reasons, I do not believe it would be wise to support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. The amendments that I moved were in response to requests moved were in response to requests from the Committee stage, and not just the noble Baroness Hamwee, who I hope to see back in the place as I hope to see back in the place as soon as possible, but also, as I've said, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and indeed, Lord Anderson of Rights and indeed, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and others, including members from the opposition, members from the opposition, backbenches and front bench.

And I hope that in his contribution, I just hope I can reassure the noble
15:04
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
just hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we've taken all those matters into account in bringing forward the amendment today. The amendment 41, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bach. I welcome the opportunity to have discussion with him outside the chamber on this issue and to get clarification as to the points about which he is pressing me to examine. I hope that the explanation I give him now will meet his points of concern, but I will go to that to say if that is in fact the case, because we do believe that the amendment while testing the government is ultimately dealt with in other ways, and that the amendment would make no material difference to the operation of the legislation.

Now, if I can explain to my noble friend the in our case, which he has mentioned, pre-dated changes to our bail accommodation guidance, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decision was handed down in December 2024, and the Home Office guidance was republished in January on the 31st of January 2025. Now there's a key extract I want to read to my noble friend, which I hope the house can bear with me. But the key extract in our guidance says as follows.

And this is the a direct lift from the guidance. And the guidance says where an individual is not subject to a residence condition, but they are applying for accommodation under schedule ten, they may request for their bail conditions to be varied, to include a residence condition on the bail 409 application form. Bail conditions can be varied to include a residence condition as an address yet to be specified. Where the individual does not have a residence condition imposed, and a refusal of accommodation would be in breach of their article three rights.

Now, the key point for me in reading that extract to my noble friend is to say that in the case of the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal found the person could not be given bail accommodation because they did not have a bail residence condition. And although technically correct, our guidance, I believe and hope, and I hope this satisfies my noble friend now makes clear that bail can be varied to impose a residence condition which will enable the person to be granted bail conditions.

Where to refuse to do so would breach the person's human rights. Under article three. The key thing that I want to emphasise to my noble friend, is that our guidance is now clear that the situation in Buna should not arise if the person requires a bail condition in order to prevent an article three breach, we will create one rather than refuse the application, and the courts can now apply this as our guidance makes that clear. Now I'm really grateful. Genuinely grateful for the discussions I've had with my noble friend outside of the both the committee and now the Report stage.

He has raised these issues with me regarding the Buna case. Even as late as today, prior to the Report stage commencing outside of the chamber, I've tried to give him an answer based on our legal interpretation of the understanding of that case in relation to our guidance, and I hope with that clarification, that he's able to, if not today, reflect on that at Hansard. I'm happy to have further discussions with him about the application outside of the chamber at a later date, but I hope that that explanation I'm giving him meets his objectives in his amendment, and I beg leave for him to withdraw that amendment in due course.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, as
15:07
15:09
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
moved. Thank you. After clause 45, amendment 42 Lord German.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I sit down to move amendment 42 and speak to amendments 43 and 44, and speak to amendments 43 and 44, in my name and those of my noble friends Baroness Hamwee who is friends Baroness Hamwee who is unfortunately unwell and Baroness Brinton. This group of amendments addresses the systemic failure to addresses the systemic failure to allow people seeking safety and justice in the United Kingdom. The fundamental dignity and opportunity fundamental dignity and opportunity to work. These proposals are not simply matters of compassion.

They are pragmatic steps that align with economic self-interest and are essential for fixing a broken immigration system. The current restrictions on employment impose restrictions on employment impose unnecessary costs on the taxpayer, cause misery, and exacerbate the vulnerability of those fleeing persecution and exploitation. These three amendments provide a future where efficiency, financial prudence and human dignity go hand prudence and human dignity go hand in hand. Amendment 42 seeks to require the Secretary of State to require the Secretary of State to grant asylum applicants the right to work if their application is not has been pending for more than has been pending for more than three months.

This measure offers immediate, tangible benefits. Firstly, tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working, remaining forcibly dependent on state support. This dependency contributes significantly to the enormous expenditure on hotel accommodation alone, costing around £8 million per day, enabling a sale. Asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget and the use of hotels, whilst simultaneously increasing revenue from both income tax and National Insurance contributions, allowing applicants to work ensures that successful refugees, who historically represent a majority of applicants, can stand on their own two feet much quicker.

This helps to reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities and reduces state benefits. Claims. Following the move on period work is integral to integration, cohesion and restoring human dignity. The government's ambition to clear the backlog is welcome, but we must be realistic. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the last decade, reaching 59% at the end of 2024. The UK currently operates one of the most restrictive working policies compared to OECD member states like France, Spain, Italy and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier.

It's interesting that often a defence from the government here is that the French government says that we are too open to people to come to work, yet they themselves have a scheme which is more flexible and more liberal than the one which is in this country. And the argument that granting the right to work serves as a full pachter, a full factor is unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in destination choice, whereas factors like language and family networks have far more influence, far more influential in Committee stage, the Minister set out concerns that granting permission to work to asylum seekers would create a pull factor, and that it would undermine the work visa route.

This is disputed by the Migration Advisory Committee, the government's own advisory committee. And logically, if it were a pull factor, then the working rights in the United Kingdom would be more generous than in the country in Europe from which they leave. This is not the case with the UK having one of the most restrictive working policies compared to some of our European neighbours in countries like France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier, after six months, three months and in some countries even less, lifting the ban on work would bring the UK in line with other OECD member states.

So I would ask the Minister for evidence that granting work rights would undermine the work visa route. If he is saying that people will claim asylum with no case for protection in order to obtain working rights, then an effective system would refuse that case speedily before three months and return the individual. An effective system would deter people from doing this. Amendment 43 gives the right to work for potential victims of human trafficking and modern slavery in the national referral mechanism, who have received a positive, reasonable grounds decision and have been waiting for their conclusive Crown's decision for more than three months.

The median waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2023 was 526 days, which caused prolonged, enforced unemployment. Those who rely only on the national referral mechanism for financial support soon become destitute, especially if they are trying to support families back home, which in many cases is the reason they came to the UK. This destitution forces some victims into irregular work, putting them at risk of exploitation. While they are meant to be recovering in a protective system, the stated purpose of the National, the NRM, is recovery from exploitation.

Long term unemployment is known to deteriorate mental health due to a lack of purpose and agency. Granting the right to work is a significant component of recovery, restoring agency and dignity to survivors, and there is no risk of this right creating a pull factor for the national referral mechanism, as individuals cannot self-refer, they must be identified through a mandatory two step process involving a first responder and a home Office competent authority. This amendment enables people who are in the national referral mechanism to be able to work.

Amendment 44 seeks amendments to the immigration rules to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers held under the original overseas domestic Worker visa from 1998 to 2012. This includes the crucial right to change employers and gain indefinite leave to remain the previous visa regime, in place from 1998 to 2012, permitted workers the right to change employers, registering any such change with the Home Office, and the right to renew their visa if they could demonstrate their labour as a domestic worker was still required.

Such rights also acted as safeguards and were instrumental in preventing abuse, as well as stopping exploitation from escalating, and enabled workers to access reporting mechanisms to hold employers accountable whilst in the safety of alternative employment. There are three reasons. Two reasons why this amendment is so important. Changes made in 2012, which tied workers to specific employers on non-renewable short term visas, removed essential protections facilitating extreme abuse and exploitation of migrant domestic workers.

These abusive employers rely on the workers fear of becoming undocumented and the inability to renew their visa. Secondly, reinstating the right to renew the visa, along with the right to change employers, provides the necessary escape route from abusive employment. This measure is the humane and appropriate response to the appalling situations some domestic workers endure. My Lords, these amendments offer a package of reforms based on self-interest. They demonstrate our commitment to fairness and common sense by transforming asylum seekers and trafficking victims from costly dependence into contributing members of society.

And I urge the House to support these three amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 45, insert the following clause as printed on the Marshall List.
15:17
Lord Bishop of Manchester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Manchester (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall List. My Lords, as well as amendment 45, in my name and that of the noble Lords Alton of Liverpool and noble Lords Alton of Liverpool and Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I also strongly support the other amendments in this group, to which the noble Lord has just spoken. In fact, I've added my name to two of them. Lords. The current lengthy ban on asylum seekers working waste talent lifting it would let an incredibly talented, resilient group of people. Those are the qualities they've needed to even get them here, to support themselves and to support their families.

It would allow them to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence at the same time as they would be filling vital UK labour shortages. Lifting the ban, as the Liberal Lord has just said, makes financial sense. It could save the Treasury 4.4 billion a year in expenditure, generate 880 million a year in tax revenues and boost GDP by over 1 billion. It would, it's a noble order, said. Cut the hotel and asylum support bill. My Lords, 91% of people seeking asylum struggle to afford food.

Against that background, the present work ban is actually driving people into exploitation and forced labour and often means that they're paying exploiters for the so-called privilege of 14 hour plus delivery shifts, earning less than the minimum wage. And there are even more harmful forms of work. Surveys have shown that some 10% of women seeking asylum have felt forced into sex work to support themselves and their children. My Lords, more raids, more enforcement won't stop this. It will only drive people into more hidden and more dangerous situations to try to support themselves.

Lifting the ban is the only way to protect people from exploitative and irregular work, and it saves the money that we spend currently enforcing that ban. If we look at the background of the stoking division that was exemplified by the riots last summer, the community cohesion that's offered, by letting people work side by side with those who are seeking asylum is invaluable. When we let people share their skills with their new communities, it helps them settle, improve their language skills, make friends.

It leads to better integration outcomes. These are things we're already seeing in the many churches in my diocese where asylum seekers worship whilst their claims are being processed. If they can also build those connections, meet people, become known and respected and loved sisters and brothers in the world of work that can only help community cohesion. I accept that alongside those humanitarian considerations and the economic ones to which I've referred, politics does understandably matter. So let me briefly address any concerns that lifting the ban would be an unpopular act in the country.

YouGov polling shows 81% of voters support giving people seeking asylum the right to work after six months. That includes 87% of Labour voters and 81% of conservative voters. On top of that, a Survation poll was found that lifting the ban is backed by a two thirds majority of business leaders. It's backed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of Labour Providers, the Entrepreneurs Network, the Federation of Small Businesses. My Lords, that's a pretty widespread alliance. And it's not the sort of people who are normally associated with a weeping heart left wing causes.

My Lords, we've all heard the mantra from all sides of this House and over many years, the UK needs to get people off dependence on benefits and into work. Well, my amendment would seek to encourage us to do that. It's not the sort of amendment I believe should be taken to division, and I'm not going to be doing that. But I do hope that in responding to this debate, the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to offer some assurances that we can make progress on this matter, and not least so that His Majesty's Government can achieve that target of closing the asylum hotels.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 42 seems to me to be
15:21
15:23
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Thank you, my Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Okay, go. Ahead. My Lords. I think across the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. Most of us are not. Supportive of illegal migration and. Would want.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Those who shouldn't be here to be removed equally. Therefore, we tend to be supportive of deportation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deportation. But we do need to. Look at those who are here, who are going through the various processes. I support all these amendments, and I support in particular the speeches of each of those who have been. Supporting those who have been. Supporting them. If one takes amendment 42, as indeed the noble. Lord Lord Kerr indeed the noble. Lord Lord Kerr has just said, it does really seem to be a no brainer. Why on earth don't we let people work so we don't have to pay for them? It seems to me a very simple point.

It would save, as has already been said, but it does seem necessary to said, but it does seem necessary to say it again, because currently the government doesn't seem to be recognising it as indeed the previous government didn't recognise it, that to save money, to save having to provide accommodation, particularly to save the problems of immigrants in hotels, seems a sensible thing to do. I find it very, very difficult to understand, together with the fact, as already has been said, by the Right Reverend prelate, that it's a waste of talent.

There are no shortage of people who escaped to this country who have qualifications. We do have gaps in our work places. Many of these people would actually be very valuable and very useful to the economy. But if you take amendment 43, that's rather different. I declare an interest as co-chair of the parliamentary group of modern slavery, anti modern slavery, and also vice chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. And these people are exploited. They very largely haven't come to this country as illegal migrants.

They've come in order to be exploited or have already been exploited. It is a particular group of people. The as indeed has already been pointed out. It takes a very long time to get through the. Why on earth can't they be useful again? They are the similar sort of people, many of them with qualifications. And again, as the Right Reverend prelate said, it is a waste of talent if you take migrant workers, domestic workers. There are the most appalling stories of the way in which they come to this country.

They work seven days a week, they sleep on the kitchen floor, they eat the what remains from the plates of their employers. And these are facts which various local, you know, local organisations can prove. Kalayaan is a very good example of looking after people who have been appallingly exploited as domestic workers. And there at the moment don't have the rights that they did actually have under the Modern Slavery Act of 2015. And it really is about time that that group of people, badly treated, are given the opportunity to have another job in the same sector that they came in.

And I therefore, for the various reasons that I've just said and for the reasons that have already been given strongly support these amendments.
15:27
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I also strongly support these amendments and I entirely agree. I agree with all the speakers, and particularly led by my noble friend Lord Lord German, and we on these benches have consistently supported the right to work. And indeed I did so as a member of the European Parliament and my as my noble friend no doubt knows the the reason that so many European countries have a provision on right to work is because it's in an EU directive, one of the asylum directives.

That's one of the ones that the UK opted out of. Or rather, I think technically it was didn't opt into, not least because it included a right to work provision. And that's a that's a shame. But it, it it doesn't make sense because we're in the worst of all worlds at the moment. Everybody knows that there's considerable working in the black economy. Indeed. I think I caught on the radio this morning. There was a new BBC investigation into a criminal network, which is recruiting people to work in mini marts.

They called them. I suppose that's local small supermarkets. And, you know, the journalists can find these people were I don't know, we don't seem to have much labour market enforcement or inspection. Forgive me if that. If the government doesn't agree with that. But it's amazing how the journalist can can find it. But it's going on seemingly largely unchecked. And so we get we get the reputation for being a country where asylum seekers and irregular migrants can work, which is which has a considerable amount of truth in it, but they're open to exploitation and and they're not paying tax and national insurance.

And so we get the bad reputation without the benefits either to the state and the taxpayer, or to the individuals concerned of doing above the board, working in the regular economy. So I think successive governments have dug themselves into a hole on this, which is completely unnecessary. So I think it was the Right Reverend prelate who quoted the statistics from polling. Was it? Yes. And, you know, I think the, the, the public is ahead of the of, of government on this.

They can see the perfect sense in allowing people to support themselves and therefore try and reduce the burden on the public purse, whether through asylum hotels or through the miserable, frankly, amount that they they get to sustain themselves and the just the last point I would make reinforces what others have said. I mean, some people wait for years for their asylum claim to be determined. I remember one case I had when I was an MEP dealing with a A.

Doctor from. I think he was from Syria. It could be some been somewhere else in the Middle East, but it had been nearly four years that he'd been waiting for his claim to be determined. And in the meantime, his, his, his, his personal resources and and his whole professional standing, his status within his family, coming from quite a patriarchal system, had utterly deteriorated. And so even if he was granted asylum, the very next day would have been a great deal of effort by him personally, and with support from training organisations, the NHS, to get him actually usefully into working as, as a doctor.

So it really doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And if the government, if the barrier to this is the government thinks that, well, people shouldn't work, they already work. But in working within a regular system, and when we've already got a great public perception that there is very little enforcement of the law, whether it's street crime or other things or fly tipping or whatever, I think people just have a sense that that that criminals are getting away with it. Here, you have a chance to actually crack down on the criminals by allowing people to be regularised into the mainstream economy, to support themselves and and to for their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

dignity and their humanity to be recognised. Well done sir. That's good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's good. Well done. My Lords. I rise. To support amendment 44
15:31
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise. To support amendment 44 on migrant domestic workers standing in the name of Baroness standing in the name of Baroness Hamwee, to which I've added my name, and I also send my best wishes to the Baroness, and also to place on record my thanks to Kelly-anne focus on labour exploitation, work

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights Centre. The TUC and trade unions and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The TUC and trade unions and many other frontline organisations which are pressing for this change. which are pressing for this change. All workers, regardless of immigration status and all decent immigration status and all decent employers, share an interest in everyone having the power to speak everyone having the power to speak up and secure justice at work. But here is the problem the UK's visa here is the problem the UK's visa system means that too often it's workers, not bad employers, who end workers, not bad employers, who end up punished.

As one migrant worker told researchers at the University of Birmingham, I was left with nothing no job, no house, no papers, nothing no job, no house, no papers, because the sponsor broke the law, not me. As we have heard, this not me. As we have heard, this amendment 44 seeks to restore the rights and protections of overseas domestic workers, which shamefully domestic workers, which shamefully were stripped away in 2012. It's were stripped away in 2012. It's true that in 2016, domestic workers were afforded the right to change employers, but only while their six month visa remains valid.

So with no right to renew their visa, the worker has no meaningful right to challenge their conditions of employment. And as we know, domestic workers are uniquely vulnerable to exploitation. According to Kelly-anne, many don't have access to their own passport or to their own private space, let alone a bedroom. Many are not paid regularly and may face threats of deportation if they don't comply with employer demands. This imbalance of power is stark in his response.

My noble friend, the Minister may be tempted to talk about rights under the Modern Slavery Act. Now, these rights are vitally important, but they don't help with the more everyday cases of exploitation or poor treatment of domestic workers, such as overlong hours and underpayment of wages or sex and race discrimination. Now, I strongly welcome the government's plans to raise labour standards and to enforce them through a new Fair Work agency. But perhaps the Minister can tell us so far how many overseas domestic workers have been able to enforce their rights to fair pay and working conditions through an employment tribunal over the last decade? How many times has a labour inspector visited residences where domestic workers are employed? And critically, what difference will the new Fair Work Agency make to those domestic workers? Now, I know this government is committed to strengthening rights at work for all working people, and I know from his track record that my noble friend, the Minister, is sympathetic to the plight of domestic workers.

Would my noble friend agree to a summit, including frontline organisations, to determine how the government can make good on the intent of this amendment, which is simply to ensure that migrant domestic workers get the same real rights to dignity at work as everyone else.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good sir. My Lords, I. Wasn't going to speak in this particular bit of the Report stage of this bill, but I do want to add to what the noble Lady, Baroness to what the noble Lady, Baroness Ludford, has said, and I speak as chair of both University College London Hospitals and indeed of the London Hospitals and indeed of the Whittington Hospital. It's a real issue for health workers. We have a issue for health workers. We have a large number of asylum seekers coming to this country who have coming to this country who have already got health qualifications, and we are desperately short of workers within our health system.

workers within our health system. The fact that we don't allow them to work when we need them, and actually our population would actually our population would benefit from their services is an absolute disgrace. And I really absolute disgrace. And I really would ask the Minister to think about what the public reaction
15:36
15:37
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak also to support these amendments on the right of asylum seekers to to work right of asylum seekers to to work and in particular, amendment 45, which makes the eminently reasonable proposal for there to be opportunities to really review the evidence, if necessary, year on year, on the impact of this current policy and the case for an alternative approach. There is, as we've heard from the Right Reverend prelate, enormously wide support for this proposal.

Employers, trade unions, local authorities who have to deal with the consequences of the current policy, asylum seekers waiting many months, sometimes years, for their application to be determined. They want the dignity of work. They want the opportunity to provide for their families and to visibly make their contribution to their communities, and, yes, to use their skills in the health service. But in so many other areas too, rather than being stigmatised as a drain on public resources, this would be good for them.

It would be good for their integration in the community, and it would be good for the Exchequer too. In the tax revenues. They would contribute in place of the benefits they would otherwise be reliant on. Now. It would also be bad for the informal, exploitative part of the labour market to which they might otherwise feel the need to turn. Now, my noble friend, the Minister, I suspect, may make a reference to the argument about a pull factor.

But there is, of course, deeply contested evidence on whether the opportunity to work is really a key motivating factor in those making the desperate decisions to cross illegally into our country. So let's have a real opportunity to look at that evidence, and I hope the noble, my noble friend, the Minister, will be able to indicate a recognition of the value that might be able to contribute to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

determining our future policy. Lord Randall briefly, I support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Randall briefly, I support amendment 44 is simply reinstates the rights that the last Labour
15:39
15:41
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It's been a very stimulating debate It's been a very stimulating debate and it is one of the most difficult areas in the bill. In my view, the group of amendments concerns the right to work, and of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is still pending, asylum seekers should not be working, nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work.

That is a clear and fair principle, and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system. But turning to the specific amendments, amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work. After three months. My Lords, reducing the current 12 month waiting period to three months months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally. And quite frankly, I do think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, and such a change would incentivise further illegal entry.

And here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with what the noble Lord Lord German amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain. After five years. And again, my Lords, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market. But while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely undermines the integrity of the immigration rules and creates gaps at risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

On the Final Amendment amendment 45, we made our position clear and we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.
15:43
15:44
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
decision making system so that we get individuals who either have asylum claims accepted and are asylum claims accepted and are therefore integrated into society on the basis of their asylum claim being accepted, or those individuals have that asylum claim turned down, and they are therefore then removed from the United then removed from the United Kingdom as a failed asylum seeker. That's the key to all of this, ultimately, and what the government ultimately, and what the government is trying to do, and I've tried to explain this in previous amendments, is speed up that process very, very is speed up that process very, very significantly.

So the question then remains, what do we do with those individuals in the system at the individuals in the system at the moment? And the amendments really seek, first of all, to find waiting seek, first of all, to find waiting period reduced for asylum seekers to apply for permission to work from 12 months to three one, which from 12 months to three one, which doesn't find favour with all of the members who have spoken today, and also issues on the domestic workers and modern slavery.

I'll come to in a moment. Now I am going to say a moment. Now I am going to say what individual members, no, I will probably say which is the government's current policy must strike a careful balance between maintaining the integrity of the asylum system and the speeding up of those claims, and supporting of those claims, and supporting those with genuine protection needs. Our principal concern in the reducing the waiting period to three months could act as a pull factor. Now we can debate that, but I think it's one that the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel has mentioned, and I share those concerns with him.

This will be a pull factor because after three months you would be able to gain work in the United Kingdom. Now that I think would place additional strain on a stretched asylum system, it would divert resources away from those in genuine need of protection. And ultimately, as well. I just put to noble Lords what will happen when a decision is reached on someone who's in work for three months and maybe then finds that they are not eligible for asylum claims? I think that's a real issue now.

What's up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord? I was afraid that the pull factor would rear its ugly head. I factor would rear its ugly head. I think there is a pull factor and it comes from the black economy. The comes from the black economy. The smugglers have their friends in the in the black economy. The smugglers in the black economy. The smugglers often are in the Black Empire economy. They are the employers. So economy. They are the employers. So the pull factor exists. Now, if we permitted people to work legally in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

permitted people to work legally in the not in the black economy, the pull factor would be reduced. Yeah. Well, let.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, let. Me turn to that in a moment, because I have spent my entire life making sure that people are not making sure that people are not exploited at work, making sure people have protections at work, and making sure that unscrupulous and making sure that unscrupulous employers are weeded out, tackled and dealt with according to law. That's why we've introduced just as That's why we've introduced just as much as in the previous Labour government on things like the minimum wage. That's why we spent hours in this House with members from the opposition benches opposing us, trying to put an employment rights at work bill through this House.

Now, that's why through this House. Now, that's why we have fought long and hard. And indeed, I can reference trying to argue against some of the changes the then government made on overseas domestic workers in private properties, where they didn't have the rights that were later restored to them in this house. So, you know, I accept fully that there are going to be exploitative, unscrupulous businesses that are trying to employ people who have a very difficult situation of arriving here.

While their asylum claim is processed. And that's why I go back to the point we need to speed up those asylum claims. But I'm afraid that a legal requirement to work would still be a pull factor, because we need to deal with unscrupulous employers and we will do that, as the noble Lord Kerr has mentioned. But ultimately, any policy change must carefully balance between allowing asylum seekers to work and protecting fair job opportunities for British citizens and lawful residents. And therefore, I can't support that amendment now.

Amendment 43 looks at individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales. This is currently delivered through the Modern Slavery Victim Care. Contract support is tailored to each victim according to their individual circumstances. Those with permission to work are helped to access employment and there is, through the modern slavery victim care contract, support for recovery and integration victims without immigration status who receive positive conclusive decisions may be granted temporary permission to stay, and that will include the right to work.

And there is no time limit on how long a victim can remain in support after receiving a positive, conclusive grounds decision. So there are several reasons why the government cannot support this amendment, because expanding access to employment at an early stage would incentivise, in my view, the misuse of that national referral mechanism. The current framework maintains a clear distinction between protection and economic migration routes, and this is essential to uphold the integrity of our immigration system. Now, again, I wish the Earl Peel Baroness Hamwee well again.

But her amendment 44 moved ably by the noble Lord German today remains concerns for me on the links between visa arrangements to private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. And as the noble Baroness will know, the Immigration White Paper has already set out our intention to reconsider how this route operates. Lady Leicester, my noble friend Lady Lister, suggested the amendment is one that she would welcome, and I understand that. But I think the amendment tries to combine visas for two different groups of workers, and it would not be appropriate to do so.

Those on the overseas domestic work route are, who are accompanied with private households visiting the UK for a short period, and domestic workers in diplomatic households who are served by a temporary work international agreement visa and are required to stay longer. The conditions for each route reflect important differences. Now, for overseas domestic workers, it's not the purpose of the route to establish them in the labour market full time. The visa grants permission for up to six months and cannot be extended, as this aligns with that of the overseas domestic Workers employer, who as a visitor, cannot intend to stay in the UK for longer than six months.

They can also now change their employer during their stay. That's something I argue for when a member of Parliament in opposition and we press for and the government have listened, for, they should be able to change their employer because they are not tied slaves to an individual. My noble friend Baroness O'Grady made some very valid points, and they've been echoed today by the noble Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I would say to my noble friend, and I know she is fully aware of this, both from her professional background and for her championing of these issues in this House.

The Fair Work Agency currently going to be established will strengthen the ability to identify and respond to labour exploitation. And quite rightly, I celebrate the fact that does that and we'll be able to share intelligence more effectively between enforcement partners, making it easier to spot patterns of abuse to pursue the very unscrupulous employers that the noble Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has mentioned. And indeed, it will provide protection to vulnerable workers, including those. And this goes to the point my noble friend made who are employed in private households.

That was beyond the remit before this. Labour government is going to make those changes in that Bill to allow people in working in private households those rights at work. But I can't accept the amendment in its current form. But I hope that she will know that this is not something that we're shying away from, because people have a right to not be exploited at work. In summary, amendment 44 would significantly alter the purpose of the route, a route we are already committed to reviewing.

And I welcome indeed from the noble Lord German any views he wants to put through this. And we can also have some expert stakeholders who are already currently looking at how we can improve that route. And the Immigration White Paper is looking at that. And I will be bringing forward, on behalf of the department, changes in that area in due course. Now, my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and the Right Reverend, the Lord Bishop of Manchester, spoke to amendment 45, looking to produce an annual report on the issues which place restrictions on asylum seekers seeking to engage in employment.

Let me say to both my noble friend and to the right Reverend that that's a noble and valuable point to make. But I would say to them both that the Home Office engages already in policy reviews, stakeholder consultations. Ministers are accountable to both houses and Ministers directly responsible for this issue, such as my noble friend, my right hon. Friend Alex Norris, the Minister for immigration. And in the Home Office. They meet regularly and review those matters, and I hope that information will be examined without the legal necessity of that being put on the face of the bill today.

And again, I just want to remind noble Lords that the government will shortly announce reforms to modernise the asylum system later this year, in an asylum policy statement we're going to make, which I touched on in the statement I gave to the House on the 2nd of September this year. Reforms are underway and forthcoming, and we will bring that forward in relatively again. I always use this phrase and people always ask what it means, but in relatively short order that will be brought forward, and I expect that to be done.

Dare I say it, before Christmas. So I hope that that that gives noble Lords some reassurance on that. The government remains committed to reviewing the improving the asylum system, including permission to work policy, but this must be done through a greater detail evidence based reform, not through statutory reporting obligations. Now, I recognise that I will not have satisfied noble Lords in who feel very passionately and strongly about this. But I want to say from this Dispatch Box that I'm not in the business of supporting poor employers, exploiting people, or providing work opportunities that are undercutting British workers who deserve our full support.

That's why we've supported as a Labour government through the whole of our existence, improvements in rights at work. But I feel this would be in the framing of this discussion today, a pull factor, and it would add additional burdens for issues that we are looking at and will bring proposals back to this House in due course. So I would urge noble Lords to withdraw the amendment and to again give the government an opportunity to look at these issues in in a new way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

over the next few weeks and months. My Lords, I have listened very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said. But of course, I just
15:56
15:56
None Portrait Division
-

when opening of the division itself. My Lords, opening the division is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So So I'm So I'm happy So I'm happy to So I'm happy to take So I'm happy to take that. Order, Order, order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as amendment be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content contrary. Not content, not content. The contents will go to the right The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not content to The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 42 My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have voted contents 66, not contents 151.

The not contents have it. Amendment 43. Lord German not moved. Amendment 44 Baroness Hamwee. My name is attached to this amendment, and I wish to see that the safeguards which were instrumental in preventing abuse for domestic workers have reinstated. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. Not content. Not content. Have it not. The question will be decided by division.

I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I don't I don't know I don't know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The second, The second, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. I Yes. I think. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did Did you Did you get Did you get. We. We. See. That That you. That you. Just That you. Just want That you. Just want to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

44

**** Possible New Speaker ****

44 44 be 44 be agreed 44 be agreed to 44 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The same.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The same. The same. Finally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The same. Finally. The same. Finally. Thank The same. Finally. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 61, not contents 140. The contents 61, not contents 140. The not contents have it. Amendment 45. The Lord Bishop of Manchester not moved after clause 47, amendment 46.
16:18
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
moved after clause 47, amendment 46. Lord Davies of Gower. My Lords, before the Immigration Appeals Act of 1969 passed by the Labour government of Harold Wilson, there was no general right of appeal against Home Office immigration decisions. Even after the establishment, by that act, of the System of Adjudicators and the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, we have had several revisions of the system of appeals. We had the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal established in 2005, and then the current Asylum and Immigration Chamber of the first tier and upper tribunals, created just five years later.

All of these revisions and the litany of law that has grown out of immigration and asylum matters, we have ended up in a situation whereby the entire system is held in perpetual limbo. The system as it stands incentivises endless appeals, procedural delays, and the recycling of unfounded claims, all at the expense of the British taxpayer. We know the appeals and judicial review system surrounding asylum and immigration cases has become a tool used by illegal migrants, who should be deported to prevent their removal.

To prevent their removal. There are cases where people have made repeated claims over time, covering human rights, modern slavery and asylum. These claims are often made at the last minute to prevent removal, and are sometimes completely contradictory grounds. For example, one man made a claim as an Iraqi and when that was rejected, then made a further claim, saying he was in fact Iranian. He took eight years to deport a Somali man, Yakub Ahmed, who gang raped a 16 year old girl in 2008.

Following his release from prison, he used multiple modern slavery, human rights and asylum claims, costing taxpayers huge sums before eventually being deported in 2023. Amendment 46 would abolish the immigration and asylum chambers of the first tier and upper tribunals. This would prevent any person from bringing a judicial appeal to a court or tribunal. Amendment 47 removes the ability of any person to make an appeal to a court or tribunal in respect of an initial decision for an immigration or asylum matter.

The decisions that cannot be appealed include any deportation order or removal directions, a decision to decline immigration bail, a decision to refuse asylum support, or a decision to refuse an asylum or protection claim. So the amendment does include a right of administrative review to a review board in the Home Office. They would consider initial decisions where there is an error in application of the law or rules, but could not reconsider the substantive material of the decision. They would be able to overturn the initial decision if and only if they were satisfied that the decision was in fact made in error.

The Secretary of State would have to make provisions about the review board by way of regulations subject to the negative procedure. The underlying principle here is that the judicial system should not have any role in the immigration and asylum process. And my Lords, as I have already stated, this used to be the norm. Instead, all reviews of any immigration decision will be decided by the review board in the Home Office. Amendment 68 takes us to the logical conclusion the removal of the ability to judicially review immigration decisions.

The only exception here would be where the Home Secretary has acted outside their powers under the Immigration Act. Importantly, it would not include review on the grounds of unreasonableness, the merits of a pa The current system diverts in genuine need. Every pound spent on repeat litigation is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. True comparison to compassion is helping the genuine and determining abuse of the system and deterring abuse of the system. And I beg to move.

Amendment proposed after clause 47. Insert the new clause as printed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the Martin Hewitt list.
16:22
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

There can't be any doubt that the system which has been working, if that's the right word for some if that's the right word for some considerable time, is very unsatisfactory. I think that's probably recognised by the government, and it was certainly recognised by the previous government. The noble Lord, Lord Davis, summarised the complex system which currently prevails, whereby applications are made and there are appeals and the like. I should perhaps add to that, which was that until relatively recently, it was possible to judicially review the decision of the Upper Tribunal, the Supreme Court, in a case called CART CRT, had decided that.

So there was yet another avenue which was available to those who wished to use the full possibilities that were inherent in the system. Parliament decided that that Supreme Court ought to decision ought to be reversed, and I declare an interest as having been chair of the Independent Review of Administrative Law. We recommended that, and it was in fact supported by a number of judges who had indeed sat on the very decision itself. And it became law. So these things are not sacrosanct as far as judicial review generally is concerned.

I would simply ask the Minister this question. The ouster clause, as they are tended, tend to be described, which is at the moment an amendment 68 is not a complete ouster, but it's a substantial ouster, I think, from remarks that the noble Lord, the Minister, made earlier, there was an indication that any sort of ouster might be considered to violate the rule of law. I would like to know what the government's view on this is generally because although there have been various obiter dicta of judges, and I'm thinking in particular of the well-known case of Privacy International suggesting that ultimately the courts could refuse to recognise an ouster clause, we took the view that the independent review of administrative law that Parliament ultimately was sovereign.

It may or may not be a good idea to oust the courts, and that's a matter that Parliament will have to consider on the specific facts. But I would very much like to know what the government's general view on that is. But really what I want to address the, the, your Lordships at this particular moment is in relation to the amendment, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, Lord Jackson, and Lord Lily, which is in relation to the Human Rights Act.

Now, this bill, entitled Border Security, was the government's first response to the various attempts by the previous governments to cope with illegal migration. The opposition to the various bills that went through this House was firm, but I was never quite clear what the policy was on the part of the Labour Party. It came down to this ultimately, which was that the government would crack down on the smugglers gangs. The word crackdown came often into the debates, and the future Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was held out as being just the man to crack down because of his experience as the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Now I yield to no one in my admiration for his discharge of that role. But I was always somewhat confused by the fact that someone who was in charge of macro decision making, the Director of Public Prosecutions, was in some way fitted to crack down on smugglers gangs. But of course, the crackdown apparently was starting straight away when the government came into power some 15 months ago. It hasn't, I think it's fair to say, been a success. We can see the figures and I don't wish to weary the house, but what those figures are, this bill, which in some ways is uncontroversial, gives a little extra power to allow this crackdown to take place.

But what we really have here is a complete vacuum of policy on the part of the government. We know they didn't like Rwanda, but what is to replace Rwanda? The position of those who opposed the the previous government was, well, we can't do anything to in any way amend the or the Human Rights Act, both of which obviously play a very significant part in the whole process of gaining asylum. And anybody who suggested as much was considered almost to be in the headbanger category.

Things have moved on a bit, and a number of senior Labour figures are saying that we really need to think again about the OECD. And indeed, I think 17 nations members of the Council of Europe are considering trying to do something about the Echr in view of the fact that so many European countries do not find it to be working satisfactorily. When the Attorney general, the noble and learned Lord Lord Hermer, gave evidence before a committee, he said that that might take as much as ten years.

This is an emergency, and I'm sure the government will acknowledge that. As to the amendment of the Human Rights Act, when I asked the Minister at Committee stage, he confirmed that there was absolutely no way in which there would be any amendment of the Human Rights Act. And I have what he said in Hansard, nor would there be any deviation from the. Which then begs the question as to what is going to happen, what is going to fill the policy vacuum now, the previous Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, made some noises to the effect that there was a situation was far from satisfactory and something needed to be done.

And then her successor, Shabana mahmood, has said that nothing is off the table. We know that nothing is off the table. We're entirely unclear as to what is on the table, and it really is time that we knew. And perhaps I can remind the noble Lord what he said. On the 13th of October in committee, he said, I hope to assure the noble Lord Lord Faulks, that we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of article eight in the immigration system so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional.

We will set out how and when someone can make a claim. We are also reviewing the application of article three. I asked the noble Lord question how is this going to happen? Because apparently there's going to be no amendment of the the HRA. Any changes to the in the far distant future. And yet he said to the House that there is going to be legislation now, the only form of legislation that seems to be at all possible is some form of legislation which says, well, these decisions are not satisfactory.

You've got to change your approach. In other words, guidance to judges. I'm concerned about that. That is an interference with judicial independence. The government would ought to have the courage if it thinks the law is wrong, to change the law. The Human Rights Act is a domestic statute. It can be amended. And I come with with help. I hope, because the amendment that is in the names of Lord Murray, Lord Jackson and Lord Lily provides the suspension of the Human Rights Act in the face of this emergency.

That is a domestic statute. The powers of the government enable them to do that if necessary. And it may be that that will at least help. I don't pretend that changes to the Human Rights Act are the complete answer to this almost intractable problem we face, but it is a very real suggestion. It's contained in the amendment, and I do suggest that the government should take it seriously. But finally, may I repeat my request that it is very important to the House, to the British public to know what the policy is.

In this vacuum, we have nothing but increasing numbers of illegal migrants and a chaotic border security system, which is what nobody wants. If we do not have changes from this government, we know what will happen. Another government will come into force, a government that probably nobody in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this House wishes to hear. My Lords. I have sat with increasing
16:31
16:33
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I wish to address amendment 79 in my name, the Disapplication of the Human Rights Act for immigration legislation. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his support for this amendment and for the support expressed to the principle by the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss. As as Lord Faulks has identified, there is presently an uncomfortable vacuum at the heart of the Home Office's policy. We know that the smash the gangs mantra, which is at the heart of this somewhat performative bill, has failed.

Again. I don't wish to bore the House with these statistics. We all know them. But the reality is taking the step identified by my noble friend on the front bench of abolishing the tribunals is certainly one course and one which I would endorse, but I wouldn't expect the government frontbench to accept that in the interim. As the noble Lord Lord Faulks very reasonably identifies, there is an alternative, and the alternative is that set out in amendment 79 a this would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration cases.

And as a consequence, as we know, the vast bulk of immigration cases are derived from or directly apply human rights provisions in their construction and in so doing prevent the effective use of border control. So it is open to the government to accept this amendment. And I simply add this, the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Home Secretary, the new Home Secretary, asking for an explanation as to what they propose to do in relation to article eight.

And in the letter to Lord Alton dated the 23rd of October, the Home Secretary said this. My officials are currently reviewing the application of article eight within the immigration cases as set out in the Immigration White Paper 24th of May, 2025. We will legislate to reform our approach to the application of article eight in the immigration system to ensure that the right balance is struck between individual and public interest in controlling migration. My officials are continuing to develop these proposals, and the government will publish more detail in due course.

And then in the following paragraph, she provides a mantra that says the government is fully committed to complying with international law and the protection of human rights. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR or Disapply the HRA to create meaningful reform. Well, I'm afraid, my Lords, that is just inconsistent and plainly wrong. If the government want an effective border control policy, they will have to take a measure such as that identified in this proposal. Or, I'm afraid the current state of chaos will continue.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak to the two amendments that I have tabled in my amendments that I have tabled in my name in this group, and before doing so, I want to strongly support the comments made by my support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murray and the Lord Foulkes as well. So my
16:36
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
amendments just seek to amend amendment 47 and 68, just to make sure that modern slavery claims and appeals can't be singled out in some, in some way, still be used as a loophole for the merry go round of asylum claims that we've seen. The Home Secretary herself highlighted the vexatious, last minute modern slavery claim that was put in in the case of the one in, one out asylum seeker. And we've heard other examples as well. Last year, noble Lords would wish to know we saw 65% of last year's referrals to the NRM were found to have no reasonable grounds, and that was compared to only 16% four years ago.

So there is evidence this is increasingly being used as a route for last minute spurious claims. And I would like to make sure that these amendments are as bullet-proof as possible. We should seek to restore public confidence to the modern slavery system, to make sure that it's doing what it was designed to do, what this Parliament designed it to do, which is a lifeline for victims of horrific abuse. Not as it's increasingly become a route for Albanian men arriving on small boats.

The British citizens that are referred into the system are overwhelmingly children, and I'm sure most people would agree that that's the right thing for the state to be doing. But foreign citizens referred in tell a different story. These are mostly adult men from Vietnam, Albania, Eritrea and Sudan, and that is not the right priority for the taxpayers of this country to be supporting them. My amendment, therefore, ensures that only genuine victims can make use of our generous support, and that these vexatious claims can definitively be thrown out.

I beg to move. be thrown out. I beg to move.
16:38
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise very briefly to speak to. The amendment in my name, but.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Only in passing, because I can't better the excellent remarks of the better the excellent remarks of the Lord folks and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth a very strong case they made, but I would also associate myself with amendment 68. associate myself with amendment 68. But I really want to talk about amendment 46, which is the First amendment 46, which is the First Amendment in this group. We all have a vested interest, my Lords, have a vested interest, my Lords, in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system and the faith and the trust that our citizens have in that system.

And I fear that at the present time, people are losing faith in that system. They're losing faith in the system. They're losing faith in the capacity of that judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it's perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those modicum of compassion for those people driven to to seek asylum in this country by poverty, by famine, by war, by despotic dictatorships. by war, by despotic dictatorships.

But I think a system which is intrinsically designed, it would seem to be gained for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in a wealthy one of the wealthiest countries in the world is no longer a situation which we can tolerate, and that's why we need to take some really, what would appear immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis, even Labour MPs. I don't often quote Labour members of Parliament in the other place.

But Mike tap, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, has been criticised for quite rightly, I think he's the minister's colleague, quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there's effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this government set its face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. And yet it goes scrambling around parts of Eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.

And I think the noble Lord Faulks, the noble and learned Lord Faulks is absolutely correct. It is incumbent upon this government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. And with all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave on Monday to the to the chamber was exactly the same speech verbatim, that he gave on the 8th of September on undertakings to bring forward legislation on undertakings with regard to review again the review of article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights and Lord Faulks is quite right.

We're in a we're now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things because the system is broken. And if the system breaks, then Lord Foulkes is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme, who will scapegoat, scapegoat, honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. And it's incumbent upon us to come up with solutions.

And I do think that if one looks at some of the egregious cases we've seen in recent years from the lower tier and upper tier tribunal, Egyptian migrant is a danger to the community but can stay in Britain. Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was a one off asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair. Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts.

Solicitor sorry migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone. Now we may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. And that's why amendment 46 is so important. The if the government truly is of the view that nothing is off the table, it has to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they're reviewing.

They're looking at the European Convention on Human Rights. They'll bring forward legislation. They've had 16 months. They they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. And on that basis, I strongly support the amendment. And my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including that other amendments, including that from the frontbench, amendment 46. lawyer's.
16:43
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Paradise debate where we normally have expressions of views. I'm going to be much simpler than that. I want to look at 79 a first because it is important, because I think I understand what's happening. I have the unfortunate position of being a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which enables me to have access, ask questions and find out far more than perhaps this House has been informed about at this stage. And I would encourage all members to talk to their party delegates in this matter to see what they've been doing about it.

My question really about 79 is, does it mean withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Lord Watts? Is that being suspended? Is that if that is the case, which I understand is Conservative Party policy, then quite clearly, of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course, what we're heading for is Brexit two. Is that the position? I'm very grateful for? No giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful for? No giving away. No. The amendment 79 seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act, so disapply the Human Rights Act, so it would revert the situation to that which pertained prior to the passage of that act. And of course, passage of that act. And of course, we were a member of the European Convention on Human Rights from 1951 until 1998, when the Human Rights Act was passed. And as you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will recall, the sky didn't fall in. I understand then that any anybody wanting to claim could use anybody wanting to claim could use the European Convention on Human Rights to do so. So in that sense, you might want to say, well, what's you might want to say, well, what's the sense of what what what what the proposal is. I think the the issue relating to this is quite issue relating to this is quite clear to me that the there are you somebody mentioned 17 countries.

I somebody mentioned 17 countries. I know that to be the fact I also know what is happening and the know what is happening and the Council of Ministers I know the the discussion that's going on. Part of the discussion, by the way, is about what they agree on in these about what they agree on in these countries and what they disagree on. Some people are going for different, different, different parts of the different, different parts of the Echr, but fundamentally it's it's about trying to find explanation rather than changing what is the fundamentals underneath it.

And I know that there's plenty of room for manoeuvre for the Secretary of State here before in order to be able to do that interpretation as well. I believe in the convention. It's called the margin of appreciation or and that is, as I am told, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm not expertise in this matter. I'm told that the gap is quite huge between where the European Court is, where the current convention is and where the British government is. And I could throw this back at the colleagues over here in that if they wanted to have done something about it, they could have done so in the past.

Now I understand, and I think I understand that's where it's happening in both places with two different sorts of changes in that sense. But however, it just turning to amendment 46 and seven and so on, I think we are all united in our commitment to border security and defeating criminal gangs, but we can't achieve control by sacrificing fundamental human rights and the rule of law, which is, of course, I think where we where we where we stand in opposition to those amendments, they, they, they introduce a level of absolute power without any sense of balance or proportionality.

Amendment 47 then seeks to replace the crude, the crucial judicial function, with a Home Office review board to review decisions made on an error of law. My Lords, replacing an independent judiciary with a review body within the very department that made the decision risk sacrificing impartiality for internal bureaucracy. And this approach removes the right to access to judges justice, rather, and undermines legal certainty. Previous fast track appeal schemes, though less draconian than this proposal, have been impugned by domestic courts for want of fairness, leading to great expenditure of resources and proving unworkable in practice.

Now, I think fundamentally, this package of amendments is a retreat from fairness, legal certainty and our commitment to justice. They risk creating a system that results in serious and potential irremediable injustice and harm. We cannot willingly sacrifice the fundamental principle of judicial independence and the essential scrutiny scrutiny provided by our tribunals simply to achieve a politically attractive yet practically unworkable position of vesting absolute power in the hands of the government. So I oppose we oppose those amendments, and we look forward to the interesting discussion on what's happening with the Irish government and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Human Rights.
16:48
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful. Again, we're having a discussion which I think again reflects some of the discussions that we had in committee. And I may dare I say it as a sort of aperitif for the house, say that I'm likely to say pretty much what I said in committee, but I hope members will bear with me because. The government do take these matters seriously, and welcomes the scrutiny and discussion that we've had today. I thank the noble Lords, Davies of Gower and Cameron of Lochiel for their amendments 46, 47, 68, 82 and 86, seeking to abolish the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First and Upper Tier Tribunal.

Create a review board in the Home Office and again limit the ability of an individual to challenge the way of a judicial review of the decision of the Secretary of State as proposed on Asylum or Immigration Review Board. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth was very. Correct in saying that I wouldn't be accepting those amendments, so I hope I haven't surprised him in that, but I will not be accepting those amendments. I've noticed also the further amendments tabled by the Baroness Maclean of Redditch on 47 and 68, which would further restrict the challenge for cases with modern slavery experience.

And again, I regret to tell the noble Lady that I won't be accepting those amendments either. And that doesn't mean that we're not denying that there's a real challenge in the asylum system. I could say that we've inherited a mess, and I think we have and publish statistics, shows appeals taking over a year to be determined on average is not a satisfactory place to be, but that's why the government is working hard to end these exceptional delays. Because yeah,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

yeah, I inherited a mess. I have scars from trying to promote the idea of a random bill, which might have have provided an an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which might have have provided an an were excoriated as being mad bad. We were told then that you had the answers. Well, where are the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the answers. Well, where are the answers now, 18 months later? Well. I could say to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I could say to the noble Lord that the deal with France, the deal with Iraq, the scheme we're taking upstream with the Germans to tackle various issues, the work of the Calais Group, the work of the Border Force security command that is being executed by this bill, the measures in this bill to tackle measures in this bill to tackle some of the illegal migration measures that are really important to do the measures that were taken to do the measures that were taken to speed up asylum claims, to get the asylum claims through very quickly.

The two new barracks that quickly. The two new barracks that we've opened announced for opening last week to speed up the asylum last week to speed up the asylum claims and to get a deterrent in place, the work on illegal migration, illegal working in migration, there's a whole range of things that we've done. And I must just say to the noble Lord that I just say to the noble Lord that I never crossed my fingers on these matters. But the last couple of weeks have seen no small boat crossings whatsoever.

So, you know, let let us, let us look at difficult challenge, but let us look at how we deal with these issues. We know that more must be done to address the backlog in the immigration and Asylum Appeals system. Clauses 46 and 47 of the bill set a statutory time frame on first tier tribunal decisions. We've put increase in place additional funding to increase sitting days in 2526 to speed up the processing of asylum claims, and I know that more needs to be done, which is why, again, we're introducing a new appeals body to deal with immigration and asylum appeals fully independent of government.

And we are committed to set out further details of our plans very shortly. So while the government shares the frustrations and inefficiencies and delays in the immigration and asylum system, there is still a need to ensure due process, which is a fundamental part of our legal system. And that sort of, again, touches on the points that the noble Lord Foulkes, as mentioned, because we do have to have due process as part of our legal system. And the proposed amendments would remove any judicial oversight of Home Office decisions and prevent an independent review of a decision other by other than by a Home Office board, effectively putting the department in charge of marking its own work.

That is not a good place to be, and judicial oversight is an important matter. There will inevitably be legal challenges against the government based on that lack of independence. It would also be contrary to important UK legal principles, notably the rule of law, the protection of rights, access to justice and more proposals, including those most vulnerable, including modern slavery cases. On the points that the noble Baroness McLean of Redditch has mentioned, without alternative ways of independent and impartial redress, these amendments would cause serious issues also with the Withdrawal Agreement, which again is in place the like it or lump it, not like it, it's in place.

It's a legal agreement with the government of the day. And it also impacts upon the Windsor framework and the impact on Northern Ireland and the relationship with Northern Ireland. So all of these points point me to say that I can't accept those amendments. Kosovo. Kosovo.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I might be wrong, and I hesitate to ask this question in the to ask this question in the presence of so many eminent lawyers. But my understanding is there is a precedent for this suggestion in that coronial verdicts are not traditionally appealable unless traditionally appealable unless there's been irrationality or the there's been irrationality or the coroners erred in law. So it's not the case that every single decision that's made in the criminal justice that's made in the criminal justice system or the justice system generally is necessary, traditionally appealable.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

traditionally appealable. I'll defer to those who have an expertise in the coronial decisions. That's a MoJ matter. But I'm just saying to the noble Lord, in this case, this is what we have, and this is what I'm not prepared to give up. So we can disagree with that. And there's a division lobby that. And there's a division lobby on the other side if we need to, to sort this out, but I'm not expecting to support those amendments on the basis of the amendments on the basis of the arguments that I've put forward today.

Amendment 79 from the noble Lord Murray of Blidworth requires the Home Secretary to disregard the Human Rights Act. Well, I'm not going to support that either. I'm going to support that either. I'm not going to support that either. It further limits when the UK can comply with interim measures and how they should be treated in domestic courts. The UK is fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad. In answer to the noble Lord, Foulkes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as the Prime Minister has made clear what. I'm very grateful to the noble Lord, the Minister, for giving way. Lord, the Minister, for giving way. The amendment, as he will have seen, doesn't require the Home Secretary to ignore human rights. What it to ignore human rights. What it does is it asks. It requires courts not to consider the Human Rights not to consider the Human Rights Act when considering applications in relation to immigration legislation, something that would legislation, something that would greatly help his department.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

His comments clarify from his perspective what he's seeking to achieve. I have to clarify again from my perspective that I still can't support them. I'm very sorry. We're not going to get an agreement

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on these matters. I'm grateful to the noble Lords Minister. I'm just wondering whether it's worthwhile, the whether it's worthwhile, the government, looking at what the noble Lord German said about the margin of appreciation in looking at an international document. In at an international document. In particular, if one looks at article eight, it may be the courts are eight, it may be the courts are applying article eight too narrowly, and it might be worth the government looking as to whether government looking as to whether they reconsider how article eight should be applied.

That would not be getting rid of Echr, it would not be getting rid of the Human Rights Act, but it would at this time look at how article eight is actually being applied.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble and learned Lady makes an extremely valid point and I'm coming on to that if she will allow me in a moment, because the me in a moment, because the commitment to the ECHR, in my view, does not mean complacency on behalf does not mean complacency on behalf of the government to retain public confidence in our policies on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice, ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. But I have to modern challenges.

But I have to say to both the noble and learned Lady and also the house as a whole, that the UK is safer and stronger that the UK is safer and stronger when we work with our international partners. Points made by the noble Lord German, which is why we need Lord German, which is why we need to cooperate with Europe again, in answer to the noble and learned Lady to look at a whole of roots Lady to look at a whole of roots approach to tackling these challenges.

Membership of the ECHR is essential for our ability to is essential for our ability to work with our European partners, including the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the sharing of Agreement, the sharing of intelligence and evidence, and practical agreements to stop people smuggling. But the government has smuggling. But the government has set out its plans to reform the immigration system. In the Immigration White Paper, we will reform the framework for family migration, including strengthening the public interest test to take back control and again to answer both the noble Lord Hanson, the noble Lord Foulkes, and again, points made by the noble and learned Lady herself.

We will legislate to reform our approach to the application of article eight ECHR in the immigration system. And we're also reviewing the application of article three in immigration and extradition cases. Now, I accept that. And again, I'm accepting to be pressed on this. The noble Lord Faulks pressed me on that in September. In Committee stage, I have repeated what I've said in now November in Report stage, but I hope that he will recognise that I've given a commitment that we're going to look at those issues, we're going to bring back things which this House can investigate, test, challenge and question to try to achieve the objective of giving greater flexibility on article three and article eight, in line with what the Prime Minister has said, in line with what the noble Lord German has suggested, in line with what the noble and learned Lady has just intervened on me to suggest, and I simply ask him for the patience to say that will be brought forward.

I've given commitments to this House on two occasions, but I can't do that in the way in which he wants us to have it today, laid out before the House. But the commitments are there to achieve that. And on the basis of, sadly, my of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords have to repeat himself. But he said earlier that himself. But he said earlier that there was going to be a statement in relation to the government's approach to asylum. But then he approach to asylum. But then he said to me that there was going to be legislation. Now, I understand that he hasn't yet got clear writing instructions. Is there to be a statement of intent or is there to be legislation? Which is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it? The government will examine?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The government will examine? Well, the government is going to the government will. Let me phrase it this way to the noble Lord. The government will always bring matters before the House that it intends to provide policy changes intends to provide policy changes on in, in the form of a statement. And when we are in a position to make further policy announcements make further policy announcements on this area, there will undoubtedly be a statement in the House of Commons and in this House House of Commons and in this House that members can question and examine in detail.

That statement examine in detail. That statement may include signalling for legislation. The two things are not incompatible, and I just say to the noble Lord that I know I've said this in September, and I know I've said it again today, but that is the direction of travel. And when we're in a position to make clear the policy direction that the government wishes to take for public scrutiny, we will make that statement and we will bring forward proposals accordingly. And I hope that will help satisfy him.

I can't agree to the amendments. I hope members will withdraw them, and I hope that at least, if nothing else, the case I've made is as clear as I can make it in the circumstances. Before the Report stage of this House today.
17:01
17:02
17:10
17:14
None Portrait Amendment:48 Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise, Apologise, my Apologise, my noble Apologise, my noble Lords. Apologise, my noble Lords. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise, my noble Lords. The issue was, as I say, raised at Committee stage by my noble friend Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Lochiel, regarding the reinsertion of the rebuttable presumption into section 72 of the presumption into section 72 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and as he explained then, section 72 of the 2002 act contained our domestic interpretation of article 33 of the interpretation of article 33 of the Refugee Convention, and the article relates to the refoulement of relates to the refoulement of refugees.

It states that a refugee can be returned to their home country if they are convicted by country if they are convicted by final judgement of a particularly serious crime, and constitute a danger to the community. Initially, danger to the community. Initially, section 72 contained two sets of presumptions that could be rebutted in court. Firstly, that the refugee in court. Firstly, that the refugee in question is presumed to have been convicted by final judgement of a particularly serious crime. of a particularly serious crime. Secondly, that they are presumed to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.

Now the National Borders Act 2002 removed the first rebuttable removed the first rebuttable presumption, owing to ambiguity surrounding which elements of that test an individual could rebut. That act clarified that the only rebuttable presumption is the presumption that a person constitutes a danger to the community of the United Kingdom. Clause 48 of the bill seeks to alter the definition of particularly serious crime for the purposes of article 33, subsection two. It includes an offence under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003.

However, the inserted subsections five, Za and ZB state that a person is presumed to have been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime if thereby reintroducing the rebuttable presumption that was removed by the 2022 act. I Lords, this will land us in a rather strange situation. It would mean that a person convicted of a sexual offence would be able to argue in court that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but a refugee found guilty of any other crime, punishable with more than 12 months in prison would not.

For example, a person convicted under section one of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 is liable for up to two years imprisonment, so refugee convicted of rape would argue that they have not been convicted of a particularly serious crime, but refugee convicted of sending an offensive message would not be able to do so. While this is an absurd situation, I hope the government will understand the bizarre situation and will create and will accept the clause 48, as it stands, will introduce further ambiguity into the law, not less.

And I beg to move.
17:16
17:17
17:18
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

including those set out in the Refugee Convention. A key principle of the Refugee Convention is non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk, there would be subject to persecution. But the convention itself, as we've just heard from the noble Lord Lord German, recognised that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33 two of the convention allows refugees to be resettled where they are a danger to the security of the UK, or have committed a particularly serious crime, and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.

Clause 38. Clause 48 apologies goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term particularly serious crime for exclusion purposes, to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including sexual three sex schedule, three of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the government recognises the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities, and is fully committed to tackling sexual offences and violence against women and girls in a decade.

Importantly, as it stands, clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Turning firstly to amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord Davis, this seeks to remove the particularly serious rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who received convictions for schedule three sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the Refugee Convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly. Similarly, the noble Lord Davis's Amendment 49 seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offences convicted outside of the United Kingdom, where that offence would have also constituted a schedule three sexual offence had it been committed in the UK. The noble Lords Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that where an individual is considered to have committed a particularly serious crime in relation to a schedule three sex offence, that they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.

As a result, while there is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the Refugee Convention, and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties, it's open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with clause 48. A good faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and to maintain respect to the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. And I would. I hope I'm not going too far when I say that.

I think the contribution Lord German reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with clause 48. My Lords, the rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. But at the same time, it's important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only those, not only have those who receive convictions for schedule three sex offences fail to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public.

But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumption must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach and contend, and we contend that the government, in proposing clause 48 in the Bill, has got the balance right here. So for that reason, I would urge the noble Lords to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I regret that the government have not listened to the argument advanced here, but clause
17:22
17:23
17:24
None Portrait Amendment:55 Lord Dubs (Labour)
-

supported me over a period of months the Safe coalition. I'm also grateful to the noble Lord Rooker,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Liberal Democrats, the Tory signatory, and indeed I've. In the past, I've had the support of. The support.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The support. Of the bishops as well. Now, the government announced the suspension of Family Reunion from September of Family Reunion from September until next year, and that has caused an even greater distress in caused an even greater distress in terms of opportunities for children to come here. Now, I don't know why

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to come here. Now, I don't know why the government are looking at this and why there has to be. Such. A delay. We're talking about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A delay. We're talking about something absolutely fundamental now. The group of children covered by this amendment is narrower than by this amendment is narrower than under the previous family reunion provisions, and I'm concerned with the most vulnerable of all. the most vulnerable of all. Children are separated by war and persecution, who are alone and persecution, who are alone and without family, hoping to join relatives in this country and find some safety. The numbers are some safety. The numbers are relatively small, but I would argue there is a serious point of principle here, and the benefits of principle here, and the benefits of this amendment are many.

They would lessen dangerous journeys across lessen dangerous journeys across the channel. They would help to break the business model of criminal gangs. They would reduce criminal gangs. They would reduce the number of cases in the appeals process. In short, they would save lives. Since 2018, almost the fifth of Small boat arrivals have been children aged 17 and under. Now the government has talked about an English language provision. I'm not quite sure how that comes in with with child refugees. All I know is that children in our schools can pick up English pretty quickly.

It's pretty hard when when people become adults, but children pick up a pick up English language very quickly in our schools. And indeed, it's a matter of survival in the school playground as well. So I would think that would never be a problem. Now, public opinion and this is a crucial point. I believe public opinion would support this measure. There was a survey done where two thirds of the public supported a controlled official route for children to travel here safely.

Now there are people who say, but the hard right on the warpath in this country, and therefore we mustn't go too far in giving them ammunition. Now, my Lords, I believe emphatically that the hard right in this country cannot be defeated by measures to appease them. They can only be defeated if we stand on certain points of principle, fundamental to what this country has long been about. There's a principle at stake here. It is a matter of morality. It's a matter of keeping, of staying in keeping with British citizens.

Over the years, I was a beneficiary myself of the Kindertransport, and we took 10,000 children from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia in under a year in 1938, 39. And that seemed to me to be a very positive step where we were ahead of other countries in providing safety to young people who were otherwise in danger of the Holocaust. There's a fundamental phrase in this amendment, which is it's got to be in the best interest of the child, and that is surely crucial.

We're talking about how we can best protect children who are vulnerable, who are alone and without family. Somewhere, mainly in Europe, but somewhere, somewhere in the world. Children who could be housed in this country by members of their own family, by by relatives. They shouldn't need that much extra support. Of course, there would be some extra support. I can't deny it. Children coming here wouldn't wouldn't need to go into education. They might have some health needs. But compared to other migrants coming in this country, their needs are relatively small.

And by having a safe and legal route for them, that would cut out the traffickers who would have no opportunity. And it surely the aim of government policy is precisely to deal with traffickers and to cut them out. And I can't help thinking this amendment is one means won't stop all the traffickers. We've got to have a range of policies, but certainly as far as children are concerned, this would help to cut out cut out the traffickers. In 2020, the Home Office did a report.

Their own analysis suggested that the presence of family. Family exerts a strong influence on decisions of the ultimate country of destination. In other words, that it's a powerful incentive for children to come to join their family members. And if we have this in our legislation, then of course, that's a very positive step forward. The Home Office have suggested in the past that being alone and separated from family in a third country, like Greece or France, is not enough of a serious and compelling circumstance to warrant family reunion.

Absolute tosh, absolute Typekit. How can the Home Office say that? But they said it in the past. Now they won't. They won't say it under the home office of my of my noble friend. But but but they said it in the past, my Lord, if I could quote an example of something which which I may have quoted before. But I was visiting a refugee camp in Jordan, and a Syrian boy of 16 came to me who had finished his education, couldn't find a job in the camp outside, didn't go back to Syria.

And he said to me, what hope is there for me? And I thought to myself, human beings can put up with a great deal where there is some hope for them. And I believe that this amendment would give hope to some of the most vulnerable child refugees. I believe, my Lords, in the end, it's a question of morality. It's the question of fundamental principles, fundamental ethics. And I very much

**** Possible New Speaker ****

hope that the House will be supportive of this. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the new clause on family reunion for asylum seeking children
17:30
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
outside the United Kingdom, the words of which are on page pages 15 and 16 of Margalef. The question is this amendment be agreed? It's our polite custom to say what a privilege it is to follow the previous speaker in this case, and on this subject. That is absolutely true. It is a it is to this subject that Lord Dubs has devoted a life of public service trying to do for others what was done for him in 1939.

It does him great credit. In 2016. His amendment, as he mentioned, was carried in this House and accepted by the end of the day by the then conservative government and some 480 unaccompanied children got here who otherwise would not. It does an enormous credit. Here he is again. This time it's he's concerned for the lone lost child left behind. He's concerned for the parent here who is a bona fide refugee, who is satisfied all the tests has been given leave to remain in this country, but knows that the child is lost.

The child is in a camp in Greece or a camp in Italy, or worse, on the streets of Calais. What is the father or the mother? What are they to do? They have a heartbreaking choice. They can stay separated. Forget the child or they can go to the smuggler. Pay up and hope that the child makes it and comes in. There has to be a third way that is not right. There has to be a way where the parent who has it has a right to be here, which has been established by our administrative systems and courts, can bring in the lost lone child.

There used to be ways before Brexit, but now there is only the option of the smuggler or of separation. I think we owe it to ourselves, to how we see our country to stand with Lord Dubs on this and pass amendment 55.
17:33
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. name to this amendment if I'd got there in time, because every slot was taken and I'm not surprised. I would like to add to what the noble Lord Lord Kerr has said in my admiration of Lord Dobbs. I have supported him on this proposal ever since he put it forward, and he raises, quite rightly, issues of the wellbeing welfare of children that I spent all my judicial life trying to help. But he also talks about it being a moral issue and an issue of principle, with which of course I agree.

But what might be more attractive to the Minister? What might be more attractive to the Minister is the fact it's very few children. We've heard that it's been 10,000 in the past, but currently we're talking about a few hundred. I don't think the public are going to mind very much about a few hundred children coming to this country. Some years ago, when Fiona mactaggart was an MP, she and I, with the help of Safe Passage, went to Calais to meet some of the children.

I have told your Lordships' House before, but I say it again, because among the children, mainly teenagers, were some quite young children who are seriously at risk, sleeping under the trees and waiting for the one meal a day. That very good, kind French people are offering these children anyone. And we are only talking about those under 18, for goodness sake. And we're talking about them. And I don't apologise for saying it again. We're talking about hundreds.

This is not something that's going to embarrass the government, like the crowds of people coming in that they don't seem terribly good at, and nor did the previous government seem terribly good at getting rid of. We're talking about a small number of children whose welfare is seriously at risk, and really, the government should do something about it. And the idea it's suspended for me as a mother and a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

grandmother, I think is tragic. I rise with great diffidence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise with great diffidence because I haven't and I apologise to your lordships spoken on this to your lordships spoken on this bill before, and I didn't speak in the Second Reading, and I do apologise for that. But this issue apologise for that. But this issue seems to me to be a relatively simple one. We in the Conservative Party had a rather odd ambition during the last government to stop during the last government to stop the boats. It was an odd ambition because we had no method of doing it.

But this is something, this is something and I pay such tribute to something and I pay such tribute to the noble Lord Lord Dubs. This is something which would help reduce something which would help reduce the number of children coming across on those boats. It's something we really, really ought

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something we really, really ought to do. Let's do it. Yeah.
17:36
17:37
17:38
17:39
17:39
17:39
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
this so far. I have the temerity and he knows privately I've said this to him that he probably ranks this to him that he probably ranks in this chamber as a national treasure. And that's because I know treasure. And that's because I know he won't like it. But if you've devoted if you if you've had his experiences and you've devoted your life to ensure that the chance that he has had in life is given to he has had in life is given to others, then you can't fail to support this amendment which is support this amendment which is before you.

It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it's absolutely parents, and it's absolutely fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. And denying them that opportunity. And this bill, this amendment is so tightly written, so tightly executed that it isn't going to take a large number of people. It isn't going to take huge numbers from all over the world. It's a from all over the world. It's a small number of people, a small number of children.

For those of us who've been on the beaches and in who've been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk, you we know that children sometimes find themselves there in sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. And what are you to do as a parent if you've got a child you know exists and and you can't get them to come to you? I mean, that is the most terrible personal thing that you could possibly imagine to impose upon parents.

So I have no doubt that the empathy of this house, not just to you, Lord Dobbs, but also to the causes which you have put forward and to this very tight amendment, deserve the support of all sides of this Parliament. And I do hope that you will put it to a vote, and we can all vote for you.
17:41
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border. It is that we continue to allow an unfettered and illegal entrance to the country, and offer the amenities that make separating from one's family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues. I do understand that in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lords intentions are indeed well-meaning, indeed magnanimous.

In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system. More families would be split up. Those considering illegally crossing the channel and illegally entering into our country would be even more emboldened to do so, if they were given the impression that having no having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure, there is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal crossing across the channel, their children left behind with a promise of future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people trafficking operations into this country, and to solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control.

It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk. Taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegally entering, and making it clear that should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state's responsibility to reunite. Reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and as such, I submit it is not well judged to.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord dubs for tabling the amendment Lord dubs for tabling the amendment and for bringing to it not just his passion on this issue, but also his passion on this issue, but also his personal experience. I can't imagine how my noble Lord faced imagine how my noble Lord faced these issues as a child himself, and I fully understand, and I hope, have empathy with the driving motivation that he's brought to the motivation that he's brought to the house today.

The noble Lord Kerr of Kinlochard noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss noble Lord Baroness Butler-Sloss noble Lord Arbuthnot, my noble friend Baroness Lister, noble Lord Wigley, the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and the noble Lord German have spoken in support, and I find have spoken in support, and I find myself being, along with the noble Lord Davies of Gower, a voice that will have to test my noble friend's aspersions in this amendment, and have to try to offer him a way have to try to offer him a way through that understands the issues that he's raised.

At the same time
17:44
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
that he's raised. At the same time as putting down the policy that the government seeks to have this House endorse in relation to this bill. The amendment, in effect, seeks to significantly expand the qualifying relationship eligibility for family reunion and make redundant the appendix Child Relative policy by removing all current financial requirements on accommodation maintenance, the immigration health surcharge and application fees, as well as the current exceptionally exceptionality test of that route. My noble friend's amendment, my friend's amendment will seek to ensure that the asylum seeking children include children under the age of 18, the child, sibling, half sibling, niece, nephew, grandchild or stepchild of the person granted protection status.

And can I make it clear, first of all, to the whole House that the government firmly upholds the principle of family unity, especially for vulnerable children? And it's self-evidently we have to recognise that families can become fragmented, fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and indeed the speed and manner in which those seeking asylum are often forced to flee their country. Now the government in the White Paper, which has been published already, has set out a clear approach in that Immigration White Paper, which describes reforms to ensure the UK can restore order, instil control and fairness to the system whilst bringing down net migration.

And, as members know, the current family rules are being reviewed and given the immediate pressures that result from family reunion, we did have to introduce a temporary suspension to the refugee family reunion route on the 4th of September, and we intend to implement reforms. Having looked at the issues over the next few weeks and months to bring reforms forward from the period of spring 2026. Now my noble friend's proposed amendment by expanding the scope and definition would, I'm afraid, cause difficulties for the government's consistent position on legal migration and for the purpose of those forthcoming reforms.

To be clear, despite the suspension of the family reunion route, those with protected status can still use other family routes to sponsor a partner and or child to come to the UK. The existing appendix child relative route allows for a close relative with protection status to sponsor a child, to stay with them or to join them, but only when there are serious and compelling circumstances. But this is precisely the situation where the child has no family other than the close relative that could reasonably be expected to support or care for them.

Now, I just argue to the House that to uphold the integrity of the route that we have in place at the moment, it is essential for this route to be only for children. The definition of close relative in the immigration rules also includes a wide range of family members such as siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles. Therefore, we also have an appropriate definition of sponsors. The removal of the financial requirements in the immigration rules place a real risk of putting very significant additional burdens on taxpayers.

Now, that might be something the House wants to disregard, but it's something I have to draw to the attention of the House. In responding to my noble friend's amendment. It would result in further pressures on local services and local authorities, who may have to accommodate and support those new arrivals. And it's our policy intention that these should be waived only in the most exceptional of circumstances. It's the intention of the appendix child relative route to require sponsors to demonstrate the suitable arrangements have been made for the child's care.

And it's our long standing position that under the family route policy, we do allow discretion in exceptional cases that might include where there are compelling, compassionate factors or where indeed, going back to that old favourite of today's discussion, article eight of the ECHR is a refusal would breach article eight. Our guidance also provides instruction on the extent to which the spirit of the section 55 duty, and the best interest should be applied to children overseas. Now, I fully understand and you know, I cannot be anything other than compelled by the passion my noble friend brings to this issue and the history of his own experience.

Every government will have that empathy to those objectives. But I have to say to my noble friend that there is no consensus on how people would use this route, but public statistics through the family reunion route have shown that the number of individuals using this route has significantly increased over the years, which has led to greater pressure on local services, but which has also meant that that route has worked. So to ignore the impact on numbers and also the associated financial and operational pressures would be to overlook significant areas of challenge for this government.

So for those reasons, the government cannot accept the amendment in the form that it has. But I you know, I don't want to find myself in a in a lobby opposing my noble friend. I don't want to find myself in that lobby. I don't want to find myself ignoring the issues that he has raised. So I have discussed this matter with my noble or my right hon. Friend, Minister Alex Norris, who is the Policy Minister in the Home Office responsible directly for this area, sits in the other House.

I answer for the department in this House, but I've discussed that issue with him. Minister Norris has said that he wants to meet with my noble friend, and before the 17th of this month, when we expect to have the Third Reading of this bill, my right hon. Friend Minister Norris wants to invite NGO partners that I know I've already met with my noble friend and NGO partners, wants to meet with them to discuss these issues and how we can work those issues through.

And again, that offer is there to both my noble friend and to NGO partners. Time permitting, he's also willing to meet not just in the Home Office, but actually to pay a visit to look at any particular sites my noble friend wishes to bring to his attention where problems and challenges are existing, and I think those are very fair offers from the Minister responsible in the House of Commons. I can relay them as the Minister here, accountable for the department in this House.

But their fair offers made by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for migration. And you know, I do hope that my, my, my noble friend can can look at that, can look at whether he can bring in some NGOs, bring in his own personal experience, as he has done with me to date. I have taken on board the points he's raised. I've discussed them with my right hon. Friend. He wants to hear them first at first hand, and I hope those those offers mean that my noble friend won't push his amendment to a division because we have the opportunity to discuss these issues before.

Third, I'm so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very grateful to noble Lords Minister, but I gather it's proposed to have a meeting. Would proposed to have a meeting. Would join?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

join? I offered the meeting to the noble Lord Dubs and my noble friend noble Lord Dubs and my noble friend Lord Dubs, and I'm very happy. And I'm submitting my right hon. Friend Alex Norris to the meeting. I'm Alex Norris to the meeting. I'm very happy for, let us say, a representative group of peers to representative group of peers to join my noble friend should he wish to have, sir. And by that I mean let's, let's let's make an offer. let's, let's let's make an offer.

We have the space for a member from the Liberal Democrat branch, from the Crossbenches, from the bishops, the Crossbenches, from the bishops, should they wish to do so, from His Majesty's loyal opposition. And my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that's a fair approach in what is a difficult issue for him to take the difficult issue for him to take the case into the Home Office, to bring with him a group of NGOs representative, and that could be representative, and that could be maybe a separate meeting.

If peers want to have a personal meeting with the Minister as well, I'll try with the Minister as well, I'll try and be present, given my commitments to take through the Police and Crime Bill, as well as this bill through this House. I this bill through this House. I think that's a reasonable offer. I don't want to find myself in the in an opposite lobby to my noble friend. But if he pushes the
17:53
Lord Dubs Portrait Lord Dubs (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first of all, I appreciate the Minister has gone out of his way. My noble friend. He'll always be my friend, even if we're in a different division lobby tonight. I appreciate he's done his best to to meet me, and I've had best to to meet me, and I've had discussions with him up to now. My Lords, I've listened to the debate. I've talked to many people outside. I still think we're faced with the position. We have a let's say we have a 14 year old in Calais, sleeping under the trees with a, sleeping under the trees with a, with a with an uncle or a family over here.

And that 14 year old wants to join them. And the answer wants to join them. And the answer is that unless we pass this amendment, he or she will not be able to do that. And that would surely encourage that 14 year old surely encourage that 14 year old to use the traffickers, which is the last thing we want. And I would rather see a legal and safe route rather see a legal and safe route for that child to come here. And and I don't want it to be so exceptional.

They would hardly ever happen. And can I just say, my Lords, I say this with a heavy heart. I don't want to be in a different lobby. I've never done different lobby. I've never done this before and never, never led. I'm not a rebel anyway. I've never. I've never done this before. But I honestly feel for the for the reasons that I've over years been committed, that the Labour Party in the past have been committed, the the past have been committed, the whole House has been committed.

The the Commons were committed, I say, with, with a heavy heart. My Lords, I think, suggests this is the right
17:55
17:55
18:06
None Portrait Amendment:56 Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

What?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What? What? Ministry What? Ministry of What? Ministry of Defence What? Ministry of Defence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There There have There have voted. There have voted. Contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. Contents There have voted. Contents 47, not contents 136. Therefore the not Are Are taken. Are taken. Are taken. My Are taken. My Lord. Are taken. My Lord. The Are taken. My Lord. The first Are taken. My Lord. The first tier tribunal. Open brackets. Immigration and asylum chamber close brackets is one of the close brackets is one of the largest of seven chambers of the first tier tribunal.

Of the other chambers of the tribunal, the Tax Chamber, the Property Chamber and the General Regulatory Chamber, which deals with Information commissioner matters, among other things. They also routinely publish all their decisions on the website. Furthermore, the Employment Tribunal also publishes all of its decisions on the Employment Tribunals website. These are all tribunals of the same parity of the same status as the first tier tribunal. Employment and immigration. Immigration and Asylum Chamber and accordingly, this amendment requires there to be a standard practice that the Immigration and Asylum Chamber also publishes its decisions.

It's no small number of cases. In 20 2223, there were 38,000 appeals. And in the last year, for which we have numbers 2324, there were 39,000 appeals. And there is plainly very significant public interest in the making of decisions, largely on human rights grounds in the first tier tribunal, Immigration and Asylum chamber. Presently, the decisions are not published. There is no good reason for this. It is open to litigants in the first tier tribunal to apply for an order of that.

The identity of everybody in the case is anonymised and the amendment allows, expressly allows that to continue. So there is no suggestion that this amendment would expose anyone to any risk of reprisal or any other problem that would be posed by their identity being revealed, because they can apply for anonymity and in the case of Campbell, in 2011, the Supreme Court made it clear that whilst anonymity needs to be justified in each case, there is now an expectation in asylum cases that there are frequently anonymity orders, so there is no argument that non-publication of first tier tribunal decisions can be based on a lack of, or a desire to achieve anonymity.

The reason why this is so important now is there is a very widespread amount of public interest in the decisions of the first tier tribunal, and one need only recall the excellent journalism of the Daily Telegraph in reporting cases which they say demonstrated flawed human rights decision making. But, my Lords, it cuts both ways. If if this amendment is carried by the House tonight, then we would see and this bill and then obviously becoming incorporated into, into the act when it's enacted, we would see the publication of the decisions which would have the effect of allowing the public to interrogate and to understand the basis upon which decisions are made in the Immigration and Asylum chamber.

And that cuts both ways. It would be a very significant myth busting tool, my Lords, because it would really show how these decisions are taken. And there can be no there can be no suggestion that it's partial to one side or the other. It is simply the application of the normal principle of open justice. Turning then, to the reason why it is not at present done, it's hard to identify an original reason as to why the practice was adopted of not publishing these decisions.

There is a practice direction in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, which allows for the president of the tribunal to allow the release of a judgement on an application by a researcher or by a journalist. The problem with that, and this is something that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, encountered when he gave his speech on this topic in committee, he said that this was in some way an answer to the point. But as the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst observed to him, the problem with that is you can't apply for the disclosure of a judgement you don't know about.

So that, I'm afraid, is no good answer. The other defence, as it were, or rather a flimsy stockade put up by the government to not accepting this amendment, was that it's a matter for the judges. Well, the answer is no, it isn't. It's actually a matter for this Parliament to decide that the judges, that these judgements should be published. And what's more, it's consistent with the common law as set out so clearly by lady Hale in her landmark decision in Cape and Dring.

And this, as I said at committee, is certainly an amendment whose time has come and I
18:12
18:12
18:14
18:14
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing this amendment 56, which would ensure judgements from the first tier tribunal, Immigration and Asylum Chamber are published by Lords. It is not enough that justice is done. It must be seen to be done. This amendment goes to the heart of that principle. Decisions taken in the immigration asylum chamber affect people's lives in the most profound way. It is therefore essential that those decisions are open to scrutiny, and that the reasoning behind them can be examined by the public, by Parliament and by the press.

Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system, where judgements are hidden, mistrust grows. There have been too many occasions where controversial or apparently inconsistent rulings have circulated in the media, without the full facts being available, that lack of visibility risks undermining both the independence of tribunals and the confidence of the public in their fairness. Publishing these judgements will help improve public understanding of how decisions are made and the principle that underpins them. Importantly, my Lords, this amendment is carefully drafted.

It includes clear safeguards to allow for anonymity where necessary. Personal details and sensitive information can and should be protected, particularly where disclosure might endanger an applicant or compromise ongoing proceedings. The amendment strikes the right balance between transparency and privacy. It is only right that the public should be able to see how the law is being applied in their name, especially in an area that attracts so much public attention and debate. By opening up this process to proper scrutiny, we strengthen both accountability and trust in the system.

My Lords, it is particularly notable that the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has signed this amendment. Clearly, that cross-party nature demonstrates the importance of this amendment, and I thank those who have supported it. It reflects the best traditions of British justice open, fair and subject to the light

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of public examination. My Lords, I'm.
18:16
18:17
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

would add, it is, although he may not be very pleased with what I'm about to say, I am indeed very about to say, I am indeed very pleased. I think we all are to see the noble Lord Alton back in his place following his accident. My Lords, I fully understand the noble Lord Lord Murray of Blidworth motivation for tabling this motivation for tabling this amendment. I hope to set out the government's position. Hopefully noble Lords will will appreciate noble Lords will will appreciate why we are taking the position that we do.

To be absolutely clear, the government places the highest priority on ensuring that openness and transparency are at the heart of our justice system. It is also of our justice system. It is also at the heart of the judiciary's work, demonstrated in particular by the establishment of the Judicial Transparency and Open Justice Board by the Lady Chief Justice Justice last year to lead and coordinate last year to lead and coordinate the promotion of transparency and open justice across the courts and tribunals in England and Wales.

To tribunals in England and Wales. To quote her words, understanding the clear public interest in this area, work to consider the publication of work to consider the publication of all immigration and asylum chamber decisions began some months ago. Discussions between the Ministry of Discussions between the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty, Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary are ongoing and would therefore, My Lords, not be appropriate to comment further at this time. I can confirm that in principle, the judiciary supports the publication of judgements.

However, at this point it is important to restate, for the sake of comity between different arms of the state, that this really is a matter for the judiciary and it is something that Parliament has very rarely legislated on. The noble Lord, Lord Murray asked mentioned as he did when we discussed this at Committee stage, the fact that other other chambers, lower lower tier tribunals will publish their their their judgements. And I in response to that, I can say that each chamber takes its own approach, some publish and some do not.

And generally, chambers that handle sensitive matters such as immigration, but also mental health, special educational needs have tended not to publish their decisions for what I'd hope to be might might be some obvious reasons. It's clear, however, the Upper Tribunal is a superior court of record, giving it a similar status to the High Court, which means its decisions can set binding precedents and are enforceable without further intervention. Because of this, transparency and accessibility are essential. So and so. A report reported determinations are routinely published, whereas first tier tribunal decisions will, on practice, be more closely tied to the facts of a specific case and therefore of a more limited utility to those, whether it's journalists or whether it's academics who wish to wish to examine their their decisions.

Putting aside, I would note, putting aside some of the technical deficiencies in the amendment for the first tier tribunal doesn't make judgements, but but gives decisions. Let me be clear. This is not a straightforward proposal. Any decision to publish all. FTT iacc decisions is not about operational cost and resource implications. From additional administrative resources to judicial training, substantial work would be involved in publishing decision notices and written reasons for all decisions of which the. The first tier tribunal currently delivers approximately 2500 per month.

There are. This includes thousands in every year of reasons of of reasons. Decisions of of decisions without reasons that are published, which would be fairly otiose really just replicating the outcome of that decision. It's important to note that publication requires judges to consider whether personal details need to be removed from edition, from a decision, or even if an anonymity order is in, is in place or not, and would expect an increase in applications for anonymity anonymization.

My apologies, my Lords. It's quite late to be received. We would expect additional judicial training, as I said, to be required. Also, decisions in the IAC can be delivered orally. Publishing these would involve administrative process and judicial oversight with an impact, as I said, on the capacity of the tribunal to conclude, the government maintains its view that primary legislation is not necessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, order! I do sympathise with the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do sympathise with the noble Lord, the Minister, because obviously the judiciary have reassured him or perhaps not reassured him or perhaps not reassured him, but told him that this will add to their burden. But this will add to their burden. But given the clear view across this House, that it is in the interests of strengthening confidence in our of strengthening confidence in our system. Might it be the case that he could have a word with the judiciary and point out to them judiciary and point out to them that this bleak House style obscurantism, on their part, does obscurantism, on their part, does not foster confidence in the judiciary in the way that every see.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Well, I thank the noble Lord for for his intervention, but I'm not for his intervention, but I'm not sure it's really my position to go around having words, as he put it, with any members of the judiciary, or indeed possibly, I would venture, any member of the government to go around having words with members of around having words with members of the judiciary because we like quite like their independence. However, I, I as I did say, there are I as I did say, there are discussions going on between HMCTS and the MoJ and the judiciary about about publishing and and in principle, the judiciary do support the publication of judgements, but it's in their hands and it's appropriate for this, that it's their decision to make.

And that's because we value in this country part of the rule of law and part of the rule of law is that we have an independent judiciary. As I was as as I was saying, we still believe, as we did in committee, as I stated in committee, primary legislation is not necessary to effect change in this area. And such a change indeed would be most appropriately delivered through non-legislative means or in procedural rules. In the meantime, members of the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of written written reasons in a specific case.

Decisions of the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Tribunal, which determines appeals against decisions on points of law, as I've said, are already routinely published online, and those are the ones that are of most interest. And saliency when it comes to understanding the evolution of immigration law in this country. Given that explanation, I hope also the understanding that there is a process to consider publication going on. I would ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Loomba to withdraw his amendment. Of course, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his his answers to the questions that we posed. And I also thank the noble posed. And I also thank the noble Lord Lord Faulks for his support for the amendment. And my noble friend Lord Davies, and particularly my the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I'm delighted to see back in the chamber and was delighted to see chairing the Joint
18:23
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
delighted to see chairing the Joint Committee on Human Rights earlier today, excellently as ever. I'm afraid I must let down the Minister gently, and say that the answers he gave were first, he said the use of the word judgements. I think this was the heart of the heart of his defence. The use of the word judgements in the amendment was wrong because they made findings in the employment tribunal. Well, I think if the noble Lord looks carefully, he might find that a court would construe judgement in this section of the act to include all findings and decisions of the tribunal, because that's exactly the word that's used in relation to the employment tribunal.

And the second reason was we're having discussions with the MoJ. The MoJ are having discussions with the judges. No timelines, no dates, no indication of what's going to be said. But the noble Lords should feel reassured by that. I'm afraid that is a warm bath of words, because the long and short is resource implications of publishing. These decisions are limited because we know that many of these, or all of these judgements are provided electronically, because that's the practice one needs to look at the immigration decision practice direction.

So I don't accept that amendment. It's very easy for them to publish them, and the cost of it would probably be less than we spend on asylum hotels in a day or two. So for those reasons I say, noble Lords, it's surely a right to get the facts about decision making on human rights grounds out there for the public to see, for the journalist to see and to adopt the phrase of the noble Lord. Lord Faulks, let's let the sunlight in.

House. House.
18:25
18:25
None Portrait Division: Amendment:56
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will inform the House a division. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Yes. Sorry,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Sorry, Yes. Sorry, I'm Yes. Sorry, I'm going Yes. Sorry, I'm going to Yes. Sorry, I'm going to go Yes. Sorry, I'm going to go. Yes. Sorry, I'm going to go. Yes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Sorry, I'm going to go. Yes, To To go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Page. Question is that this amendment be agreed to as many of that be agreed to as many of that opinion shall say content. Contrary, not content, the contents will go to the right by the throne. will go to the right by the throne. They're not contents to the left by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On On the On the right On the right side On the right side. On the right side. We On the right side. We sang On the right side. We sang Happy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

On the right side. We sang Happy Birthday to our country was there. Want Want to Want to I I am. I am. Baroness I am. Baroness I am. Baroness Prime Prime Minister. Prime Minister. One. Prime Minister. One.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that this amendment be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the. By the. Typekit By the. Typekit Lord By the. Typekit Lord Livingston By the. Typekit Lord Livingston.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

By the. Typekit Lord Livingston. You don't like. You don't like Lord Mountevans. Hate speech because in fact. Chief Scientific Adviser. fact. Chief Scientific Adviser. When they come to me. Straight line. When they come to me. Straight line. When they come to me. Straight line. And Lord Swire. When? And Lord Swire. When? Yes, And Lord Swire. When? Yes, yes, And Lord Swire. When? Yes, yes, the thing is.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. There have voted content 64, not content 116. Therefore the not The The next amendment is amendment 57, which amendment is amendment 57, which has already been debated. Therefore Baroness Lister of Burtersett not
18:36
18:36
None Portrait Amendment:58 Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

was the noble Lord Lord Katz, who the following week responded to a debate about the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, which I should have been moving, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, moved, who said that it was odd that someone who'd probably the most sanctioned member of Parliament, with four countries having sanctioned he should end up being silenced by a London bus. And but it did mean that I was not only unable to speak in that debate, I was unable to then speak on the amendments that are currently in this group before your Lordships' House.

I want to pay tribute first of all to the noble Baroness Brady Kennedy, who is overseas this week, but who moved these two amendments 58 and 61 at Committee stage. And I also want to thank particularly my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who kindly said that if it got too late this evening that I would be released so I could go and get a train, not a bus, in order to go back to the north of England. And I am grateful to her.

I'm particularly pleased to see the noble Lord. Lord Hanson of Flint sitting on the ministerial bench, who's been very, very kind to me over the intervening period in engaging with emails and the usual flurry of things that I tend to inflict on Ministers. So I'm grateful to him in moving amendment 58 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I should also mention that I'm vice chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, the patron of Hong Kong Watch.

And then in 2017, I was part of the team that monitored the last fair and free elections in Hong Kong. And as a result of that, I became sanctioned along with the noble Baroness Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, something that I regard as a great honour to have been sanctioned for something as important as the promotion of democracy in a place like Hong Kong. Going right back to my earliest days in the House of Commons, I visited Hong Kong in 1980 and have huge admiration for people who've been part of the pro-democracy movement.

I count Jemmy Lai as a friend. I know many of those who are currently languishing in prison in Hong Kong as pro-democracy activists, and I have nothing but huge admiration for those who have been allowed to be settled in this country. And I thank the previous government for opening the way for Hong Kongers to be able to come and settle and play their part here as they continue in their lives to defend democracy. So in moving this amendment, I do so in defence of a promise, one made not just by Ministers of this government, but by the United Kingdom itself.

It's a promise rooted in law, in honour, and in the moral fabric of our democracy. When Britain and China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, we pledged the Hong Kong people, our fellow citizens, that they would enjoy their rights and freedoms under the rule of law. When that pledge was broken by Beijing through the imposition of a national security law, we created the British National Overseas Visa route as a means of upholding our end of the bargain. That route is more than a bureaucratic mechanism.

It's a covenant, it says to the people of Hong Kong, if your freedoms are eroded, Britain will offer you sanctuary, stability and ultimately the chance to rebuild your lives in freedom. This amendment simply seeks to protect that covenant, to put the Bno route on a statutory footing, to ensure that the pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence cannot be changed by ministerial whim or administrative convenience. My Lords, this is about trust. Hundreds of thousands of Hong Kongers have sold homes, life, careers and uprooted their families on the strength of this promise that enrolled their children in British schools, invested in our economy and enriched our communities.

They've done so believing that this country stands by its word to allow that route to be weakened, extended or quietly repealed by regulation would be a betrayal not only of them, but of Britain's reputation as a nation of honour. We have seen the power of this route. More than 230,000 people have already come to the UK under it. They are starting businesses serving in the National Health Service, volunteering in our communities and contributing to civic life. They are an asset, not a burden.

But I've heard from many families who now fear uncertainty. Rumours unconfirmed but unsettling. And I do pay tribute to the Home Secretary. The right hon. Shabana Mahmood, for the statements that she has made to try and reassure people, which have been very constructive and helpful. But nevertheless, there are rumours about the possible tightening of eligibility or lengthening of the route to settlement and that has created anxiety. They worry that what was promised as a five year pathway could become ten, that the cost of visas and fees will rise beyond their reach, that the scheme might one day close to new applicants altogether.

My Lords, these families deserve better. They deserve certainty. That's why amendment 58 provides that the scheme may not be repealed except by Act of Parliament. If there's ever to be a change, it should be done transparently through primary legislation debated and decided by both houses, not slipped through secondary regulations or quietly allowed to lapse. My Lords, the government have argued that flexibility is necessary to respond to changing global circumstances. But flexibility must not come at the expense of integrity.

The Home Secretary should not be able, by regulation, to undo what was solemnly promised by, in the name of the United Kingdom. Now, this isn't an abstract issue. It goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. We stand at a time when the international rules based order is under strain from Ukraine to Taiwan, from Hong Kong to Tehran, where authoritarian regimes test the world's resolve. Britain's word our credibility matters more than ever. Baroness Kennedy spoke powerfully in committee about the need for certainty for those who have built their lives here under this route.

She reminded us that what we are offering is not a new privilege, that the honouring of a promise. And I entirely agree we are not creating new rights. We are keeping faith with those who relied on our word. Let us recall what these families have fled in Hong Kong today. People are imprisoned for peaceful protest, for journalism, for simply lighting a candle in memory of Tiananmen Square. Civil society has been dismantled. The free press has been silenced. The rule of law has been subverted by decree.

The Bno route has been one of the few lifelines available to those who refused to live under tyranny. It's been a quiet act of defiance, an assertion that Britain still believes in liberty to dilute or imperil that route now would send a message not only to Hong Kong, but to the world that Britain's promises can be adjusted when convenient. I hope, my Lords, that we will not do that. There are those who argue that the route creates pressure on public services, and I acknowledge that concern.

But we should also recognise the contribution of these new arrivals, which I've alluded to when I meet Hong Kongers who have come under this scheme. I'm struck by their gratitude and their determination to give back. They see this country not as a temporary refuge, but as a home, and they want to serve it. My Lords, by supporting this amendment, we reaffirm a simple truth. The promises made by Parliament should be changed only by Parliament. We would not tolerate a Chancellor quietly revoking a pension guarantee by regulation.

Nor should we tolerate the quiet dismantling of a visa promise made to hundreds of thousands of lawful residents. Some may ask why the amendment is necessary. Now. I would answer because the trust of the people affected is not theoretical. It is real, it is personal and it is fragile. Many of these families have known only broken promises from colonial powers, from authoritarian regimes, from political leaders who said one thing and did another. Let's not add Britain's name to that list. In 1984, we gave our word.

In 2021. We offered a route to keep it in 2025. We must protect that route in law, and if we fail to do so, we risk signalling to the world that Britain's undertakings are conditional, its assurances reversible, its word negotiable. My Lords, this House has often been at its best when standing up for principle over expedience, from the abolition of slavery to the defence of refugees, from Magna Carta to modern human rights. The thread that binds us is the belief that law should protect the vulnerable and restrain the powerful, and that is what amendment 58 seeks to do.

It places a shield of legality around a promise of hope. So I ask noble Lords right across the House, whatever parties or groups we may be members of. Whatever your view on broader migration policy, please do join me in supporting this amendment. I will not detain the House by speaking at length on amendment 61, but I am a signatory to it and the noble Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton, for good reasons, is unable to be here tonight. I would commend to the House what he said at Committee stage, and urged the Minister to look again at the position of people who have come from Ukraine and who have no immediate prospect of returning, especially those who are from areas where which have been occupied by Putin and may never return to Ukraine.

Women and children primarily are involved in that. And I tabled this amendment at Committee stage at the request of women and children from Ukraine, and I was grateful to know Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton for his
18:46
18:46
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert the new clauses printed on the Marshalled List. Signed both amendment 58 and amendment 80. Which is consequential to 58.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Which is consequential to 58. And we've just heard very eloquently from Lord Alton about why it is important. I wanted just to highlight a couple of very brief points. First of all, I lived in Hong Kong till 1960, and my family knew Anthony Grey, who was the Reuters journalist who was imprisoned by Mao Tse tung in 1967. And as a teen young teenager, I wrote to him at his home in Peking, where he had been imprisoned. Anthony died last week.

His family have said that what China did to him, keeping him in solitary confinement with no charges or anything else for over two years, affected him for the rest of his life. We see an echo of that today in the treatment of people like Jemmy Lai in Hong Kong, in prison. China is. Hong Kong is not a safe place for some people to be. I just want to to add to it that two years ago, there were a number of incidents with border staff not understanding the the British National Overseas Route and treating Hong Kong or arrivals as if they were asylum seekers.

They were not. And I was grateful that after our intervention in your Lordships' House, Ministers ensured that this error was corrected. And last week in your Lordships' House, we discussed the changes to the extradition arrangements for Hong Kong. And again, I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussions then as well. The reason that both of these issues were important to Hong Kongers who had come here to safety as British nationals holding British national visas, is because their life here is very unsettled threats to their personal safety in the UK are bad enough, but their families are also threatened in Hong Kong as well.

And the whole point of the Bno visa was to keep our word to fellow British nationals after 1984, and we made that real in 2021. The tiny things that have been going wrong also adds to the unease that many Hong Kongers feel in this country, making sure that no decisions are changed on the Bno visa route other than by Parliament is exactly what needs to happen to give them the confidence that the UK still stands

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by them. Thank you.
18:49
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I rise to speak. To the two amendments in. My name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My name. And that of Baroness Hamwee. Who is not with us today. For reasons I explained earlier. reasons I explained earlier. Amendment amendments 70 and 85. We listened. To what was said at Committee stage, and this amendment mirrors what was placed on the agenda then. But what we've done in, in placing this amendment is to make some changes, one of which is that the need for biometrics to be taken prior to travel. And it also makes it clear that that that the amendment proposes a Cat scheme to control numbers and and an initial pilot of 12 months minimum in order to have the opportunity to evaluate it.

To try and explain this scheme, which is a basically about a legal route into the United Kingdom, I'm going to just refer to the United States, where a similar scheme that than the one we're proposing, not exactly the same, but similar was instituted and the US government were able to reduce illegal border crossings from Mexico across the US border by 77% between December 23rd and August 24th in nine months. And it was achieved through a three pronged approach, one of which was, of course, diplomatic efforts to make sure that there were strong ability to to to manage the system in the countries where people started, and also then making taking a tougher approach to the irregular border crossings, significantly reducing the chance of successfully claiming asylum for those arriving without permission.

And a substantial official scheme through which people could apply to come to the country. And that's the bit which, of course, the humanitarian travel permit relates to. And the result in the United States was that it simply wasn't worth the expense of paying the smugglers any more and undermined their business entirely. And that's because, of course, you can't just look at one side of the demand supply equation, the demand for, for, for is being met by the smugglers.

And we've got to touch both sides. And without a form of legal route, it won't get that that demand reduced. I try to explain it very straightforwardly. In United Kingdom we put up with cuz we may not like them, but we we follow. If there's a queue in a proper and orderly manner mostly. And if somebody pushes in, either they don't get served or they get to the front, or they get sent to the back of the queue.

And what this scheme is meant to do is exactly that. It's to provide a scheme by which there is a queue in which people can come to the United Kingdom. If you decide to jump the queue by taking the smuggler's route, you get put to the back of the queue again. And that means, of course, that you have to have a quota attached to the to to the scheme. And because the the law in this country says you can't make a claim for asylum unless you're here, you have to have a travel permit in order to come here.

But this would be controlled right back at the beginning of the journey. If you've paid a slab of money to a smuggler back in Egypt or Libya, and you're certainly not going to be put off when you get to the the end of the route. It is certainly the case that you need to tackle this right back at the beginning. So what this whole scheme is about is about trying to create a legal route and then being tough on anyone who tries to jump the route by coming in irregularly and moving them back to the back of the queue.

And it doesn't matter if the queue is not moving very fast. What matters is that it's moving. It's surprising, isn't it, that people will be prepared to wait, as they did in the United States, where in the case of I, Haiti, instead of 10,000 people turning up at the US border, it was just a handful every month. And that's because people said, well, it's not worth my while doing that. And they saw that the joining the queue meant that at some stage they would come to the front of that queue.

It works much better, of course, if you're doing it with other countries as well, because then you can collectively create these routes, which can be dealt with in a very efficient way. That way we control the borders. That's what this is about. And it's a different sort of approach to to what is what is suggested by keeping everybody, by putting your hands up and saying, you can't get in and we'll stop you in every way possible and all of that stuff, because that didn't work.

And it may be that it of course, in time, the, the, the pressures to try and deal with across the channel may, may well work in reducing the numbers. But what we're looking at is changing the whole model, and the only way we're doing that is changing the model so that the smugglers model doesn't work. It's been tried, it's been tested it and it is. That's why if we're going to use this in a European context, it is important that it's a it's done with a capped model with a one particular country perhaps, and certainly for 12 months, so that we can find out if we can make this work here in Europe as well.

But this system, this scheme is one which is designed to provide safe routes and to take away the business of smugglers. It won't solve it all, but it will solve it in. If it reduces it by 77%, as was the escape as the state in in United States of America, then it's certainly worth doing. So that's what this amendment is about. And the the other amendment with it, which is associated, which is simply to create a pilot scheme with a with a cap number of people on it.

So I do hope that we will consider this when we come back to it again. When we come back to it again later in this debate and later in this session of the of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'll always be grateful to the noble Lords who have brought noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. My Lords, we cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and to those fleeing war and persecution. But it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal providing such safe and legal routes, routes that have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs through the Hong Kong British National Overseas Hong Kong British National Overseas Visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those who whom we share deep historic ties.

More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation's immigration offers in our nation's history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family Scheme and Homes for Ukrainian programme have provided Ukrainian programme have provided sanctuary to over 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putins since 2022. Those fleeing Putins brutal invasion have found not just safety, but also welcome and support, and communities across our country.

In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the complex in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme, and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces. The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we were willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework, or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively.

And Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank all contributors to this debate and I am acutely conscious that I stand am acutely conscious that I stand between you and the recess. Rather a short recess as it happens, but nevertheless. But I do want to say nevertheless. But I do want to say before I before I make my remarks, that it really is a pleasure to see Lord Alton back in his the noble
18:57
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

Lord Alton back in his the noble Lord, Lord Alton back in his seat. I thought he sounded on pretty good form, but if you're not fully back to top form, you, my Lord, I hope you soon will be. Can I can I turn to amendment 61, which deals with the Ukrainian scheme first, the UK? I hope everyone in your Lordships' House knows that the UK remains unwavering in its support for the people of Ukraine, and this is a the scheme that we have in place and our the noble Lord Alton asked us to look again and we have done that with our commitment to the scheme is demonstrated by the government's recent 24 month extension to the Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme, providing clarity and reassurance to Ukraine's living in the UK under the visa scheme.

However, the government has maintained and I think everybody knows this, not just in your Lordships' House but in the country more widely, has maintained from the outset that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict, and they have been widely supported throughout the country. But the Ukrainian government shares with us a strong desire for its citizens to return and contribute to Ukraine's future recovery.

Turning now to amendment 70 and 85, tabled by Lord German and Baroness Hamwee. Let me reaffirm, as has been acknowledged by the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower, the United Kingdom's proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. We have a strong history of protecting those people in those situations, and the UK does operate global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK Resettlement Scheme in partnership with the UN Refugee agency, the UNHCR there.

However, there is no provision within our immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, we could not possibly consider a scheme that accepts applications from large numbers of individuals overseas. I hope the noble Lord Lord German will forgive me for not commenting on the situation in the United States. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

That is the fastest route to safety. Safe and legal routes are nevertheless an important part of the government's wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system and the immigration White paper, published in May 2025, announced a review of refugee sponsorship, sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out in due course. Amendment 70 includes a provision that requires biometric that relates to biometrics, biometrics in the form of fingerprints and facial images underpin the current immigration UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals.

Nationals who are subject to immigration controls. They enable us to comprehensive checks against immigration and criminality records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security and our public safety. Also, immigration controls or who are likely to breach our laws if they are allowed to come to the UK. There is, I should stress to the noble Lord Lord German there is already scope to waive or defer the requirement to enrol biometrics in compelling circumstances. It is for these reasons the importance of biometric checks that I cannot support any amendment which would undermine the steps the government is already taking and creating new pressures on our decision makers, which we all acknowledge, we all acknowledge are under considerable pressure already on accommodation available and support systems, as well as the justice system.

The number of people we can support through safe and legal routes depends on a variety of factors, including local authority capacity for supporting refugees and all encompassing humanitarian travel. Permit scheme. Permit scheme undermines our immigration system and we would need to redistribute considerable resources to support such a route. I trust that the House will be assured of the government's position in these areas. As we have set out before, and I assure the House that further details will be set out in due course.

Following the Immigration White Paper. Can I turn finally to amendments 58 and 80 D 18 and 19, which relate to the route in Hong Kong for people from Hong Kong, the government is firmly committed to supporting the Hong Kong community in the UK and to maintain the Bno route, which will continue to welcome Hong Kongers. Our position remains, however, that that the route is already implemented by the immigration rules, which are a long established and flexible mechanism, and the government's view, therefore, a better mechanism for managing immigration policy.

For example, should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further, the immigration rules would give us the opportunity to react quickly, implementing the route via regulations would reduce that flexibility, flexibility and we are concerned that it could constrain the government's ability to respond quickly to the sort of events I have described. The government recognises the concerns that the proposals for new settlement rules have raised, and the noble Lord Lord Alton referred to these. And I really do want to stress that we do take that very seriously and we have recognised it, and we do know how important the ability to settle is to people from Hong Kong.

But I can assure noble Lords that we are listening carefully to their views, which were relayed eloquently to members of the other place in the debate in Westminster Hall on on the 8th of September. We will continue to listen. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the Bno route will continue to apply. Given the unique circumstances of this cohort, the flexibility of the immigration rules is, in our view, the more appropriate way. So I would ask the noble Lord, the Lord Alton, to withdraw the amendment in his name.

I. I hope that your lordships will forgive me for rather rushing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

through that. But they were important issues, and I hope I've done them justice. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. Lord Morse has done the issues justice. I'm grateful to him, not least for the tone that he's least for the tone that he's adopted in reply that he's given to the points that noble Baroness Brinton and I made in our speeches Brinton and I made in our speeches about Hong Kong, particularly. I heard what he said about flexibility. That's one of the flexibility. That's one of the problems outside this place that people are worried about what flexibility might imply. But if they read carefully what the noble they read carefully what the noble Lord has just said, they they will, I think, be reassured at some level.

I think, be reassured at some level. I also heard what he said about continuing to listen. And if I may, I'll convey that message back to I'll convey that message back to the all party parliamentary group and to others who are interested in this. And we might well take him this. And we might well take him and the team at the Home Office up on what I think was an invitation to continue to engage on this to continue to engage on this question. But I think that the the way in which the noble Lord has dealt with this is exemplary.

I'm
19:05
10:30
None Portrait Oral questions: The economic and industrial impact in Scotland of the UKs recent defence agreement with Norway
-

19:12
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page