Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 42 seems to me to be something of a no-brainer. It would relieve the public purse in two ways. Local authorities might no longer have to find the cost of accommodation, and central government would no longer have to provide the pittance it does as a weekly allowance to people held in asylum hotels. It would be good for these people. It would be good for their self-respect and it would make it more likely that they would successfully integrate if they were, in the end, granted asylum.

The only people it would be bad for are people in the black economy. We all know that people in the situation we are describing tend to go out and find work and that work is available for them, thus they are launched into a criminal level of British society straight away. That is the wrong way to integrate people who have done no harm—people who are here fleeing persecution, famine or war elsewhere. It seems paradoxical and extremely dangerous that we do not allow people to work. I strongly support Amendments 42 and 43.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I think that, across the House, most of us are not supportive of illegal migration and would want those who should not be here to be removed. Equally, therefore, we tend to be supportive of deportation. But we need to look at those who are here and going through the various processes. I support all these amendments, and in particular the speeches made by noble Lords in support of them.

Amendment 42, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, seems to be a no-brainer. Why on earth do we not let people work so that we do not have to pay for them? It seems a very simple point. It would, as has already been said—it seems necessary to say it again as the current Government do not seem to recognise it, as indeed the previous Government did not recognise it—save money, save having to provide accommodation, and solve the problem of immigrants in hotels. It seems a sensible thing to do. I find it very difficult to understand. Added to that, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate, it is a waste of talent. There is no shortage of people who escape to this country who have qualifications. We have gaps in our workplaces, and many of these people would be valuable and useful to the economy.

Amendment 43 is rather different. I declare an interest as co-chair of the anti-modern slavery APPG and vice chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. These people are exploited. They very largely have not come to this country as illegal migrants; they have come to be exploited or have already been exploited. It is a particular group of people. As has been pointed out, it takes a very long time to get through the NRM. Why on earth can they not be useful? Again, they are a similar sort of people, many of them with qualifications, and again, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a waste of talent.

Take migrant domestic workers. There are the most appalling stories about the way in which they come to this country, where they work seven days a week, sleep on the kitchen floor and eat what remains on the plates of their employers. These are facts that various local organisations can prove. Kalayaan is a good example of a charity that looks after people who have been appallingly exploited as domestic workers. Currently, these workers do not have the rights that they had under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is about time that this badly treated group of people were given the opportunity to have another job in the same sector that they came here for. Therefore, for the various reasons I have just said, and for those that have already been given, I strongly support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I repeat my request that it is very important to the House and 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 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 this House wishes to hear.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I have sat with increasing interest listening to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, finding that I agreed with every word he said. My view is that Amendment 46 goes too far. It is excessive that we should get rid of existing courts. Perhaps everybody would expect me to say that, although I never sat as an immigration tribunal judge. However, the Government need to listen with a great deal of care to the fact that what is going on at the moment is not satisfactory—that it is too easy to go through the system, one court after another. I can see the force of saying that something should be done, but I do not think Amendment 46 is the answer.

Moving to the very interesting suggestion of suspending the Human Rights Act, we need to bear in mind that it is a British piece of legislation and this Parliament can change it. It may be that either there should be a degree of suspension or, as the Minister said in Committee, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that some changes could be made, particularly to Article 8.

Although I would not want to support the amendments here, they raise an issue that the public are particularly concerned about—those who understand it—and the Government should be listening very carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s comments clarify, from his perspective, what he seeks to achieve. I have to clarify again from my perspective that I still cannot support the amendment. I am very sorry—we are not going to get an agreement on these matters.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am just wondering whether it would be worth the Government looking at what the noble Lord, Lord German, said about the margin of appreciation in looking at an international document. In particular, it may be that the courts are applying Article 8 too narrowly, and it might be worth the Government reconsidering how Article 8 should be applied. That would not be getting rid of the ECHR or the Human Rights Act, but it would look at how Article 8 is being applied.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes an extremely valid point, and I shall come on to that issue in a moment. The commitment to the ECHR does not mean complacency on the Government’s part. To retain public confidence in our policies on irregular migration, asylum and criminal justice, the ECHR and other instruments must evolve to face modern challenges. I must say to the noble and learned Baroness and the House as a whole that the UK is safer and stronger when we work with our international partners—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord German. That is why we need to co-operate with Europe, in answer to the noble and learned Baroness, to look at a whole-of-route approach to tackling these challenges. Membership of the ECHR is essential to our ability to work with our European partners, including on the trade and co-operation agreement, the sharing of intelligence and evidence, and practical agreements to stop people-smuggling.

The Government have set out their 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. To answer the noble Lords, Lord Jackson and Lord Faulks, as well as the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, we will legislate to reform our approach to the application of Article 8 of the ECHR in the immigration system, and we are also reviewing the application of Article 3 in immigration and extradition cases.

I accept that I may be pressed on this issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pressed me on it in September in Committee. I have repeated what I said in November, now, on Report, but I hope the noble Lord will recognise that I have given a commitment that we will look at those issues and bring back things that this House can investigate, test, challenge and question to try to achieve the objective of giving greater flexibility on Articles 3 and 8, in line with what the Prime Minister has said and what the noble Lord, Lord German, has suggested, as well as what the noble and learned Baroness has just intervened on me to suggest. I ask the noble Lord for patience, after saying that it will be brought forward. I have given commitments to this House on two occasions, but I cannot do it in the way he wants it to be laid before the House today—but the commitments are there to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is 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 to this subject that the noble Lord, 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, as the noble Lord mentioned, his amendment was carried in this House and accepted at the end of the day by the then Conservative Government, and some 480 unaccompanied children got here who otherwise would not. It does him enormous credit.

Here he is again. This time, the noble Lord is concerned for the lone lost child left behind. He is concerned for the parent here who is a bona fide refugee, who has satisfied all the tests and 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 Italy or, worse, on the streets of Calais. What is the father or mother to do? They have a heartbreaking choice. They can stay separated and forget the child, or they can go to the smuggler, pay up, and hope that the child makes it and comes in. That is not right. There has to be a third way.

There has to be a way in which a parent who 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 a smuggler or of separation. We owe it to ourselves, to how we see our country, to stand with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this and pass Amendment 55.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I would have put my name to this amendment if I had got there in time. Every slot was taken, and I am not surprised. I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said my admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have supported him on this proposal ever since he put it forward. He raises, quite rightly, issues about the well-being and welfare of children, who I spent all my judicial life trying to help. He also talks about it being a moral issue and an issue of principle, with which, of course, I agree.

However, what might be more attractive to the Minister is the fact that it is very few children. We have heard that it has been 10,000 in the past. But currently, we are talking about a few hundred. I do not 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 still 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 this before, but I say it again because among the children, mainly teenagers, were some quite young children who were seriously at risk, sleeping under the trees and waiting for the one meal a day that very good, kind French people were offering.

We are talking only about children under 18, for goodness’ sake, and I do not apologise for saying again that we are talking about hundreds. This is not something that will embarrass the Government like the crowds of people coming in who they do not seem terribly good at getting rid of—nor did the previous Government. We are talking about a small number of children whose welfare is seriously at risk. The Government really should do something about it. For me, as a mother and a grandmother, the idea that it is suspended is tragic.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

I rise with great diffidence—and apologise to noble Lords—because I have not spoken on this Bill, and I did not speak at Second Reading. This issue seems to me to be relatively simple. We in the Conservative Party had a rather odd ambition during the previous Government to stop the boats. It was an odd ambition because we had no method of doing it. However, this is something—and I pay such tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—that would help reduce the number of children coming across on those boats. It is something we really ought to do. Let us do it.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend can look at whether he can bring in some NGOs, as well as at his own personal experience, as he has done with me to date. I have taken on board the points he raised and discussed them with my honourable friend, who wants to hear them at first hand. I hope those offers mean that my noble friend will not push his amendment to a Division, because we have the opportunity to discuss—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I gather that it is proposed to have a meeting. Would it be possible for other Peers to join?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I offered the meeting to my noble friend Lord Dubs but I am very happy— I am committing my honourable friend Alex Norris to a meeting—for, let us say, a representative group of Peers to join my noble friend, should he wish them to. Let us make an offer: we have space for a Member from the Liberal Democrat Bench, from the Cross Benches, from the Bishops’ Bench, should they wish to do so, and from His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs. I think that it is a fair approach, on a difficult issue, for him to take the case to the Home Office and bring with him a representative group of NGOs. Maybe it could be a separate meeting, if Peers want to meet the Minister personally. I will try to be present, given my commitments to taking the Crime and Policing Bill, as well as this Bill, through this House.

I do not want to find myself in the opposite Lobby to my noble friend Lord Dubs but, if he pushes the amendment, I am afraid that I will have to. I hope he can accept the offer and look at exploring further with Ministers the appropriate points which he has rightly put in a passionate contribution today, supported by Members across this House.