Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Murray of Blidworth

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 203E, to which the noble Lord has just referred. I certainly do not seek to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Browne.

I appreciate that we are in very topical territory, and I confess that I found it quite difficult to know how to approach this Bill following the Statement on Monday, because there is a lot to come—and I know that the Minister will tell us that we will have the opportunity to debate it, but of course we do not have that much detail and we are being asked to consider a Bill written before that Statement. We will have opportunities to consider the Home Office’s proposals, and today’s debates will give the Minister a flavour—if he needs it, because I do not think that he will be surprised by very much that is said today—of what is to come by way of our responses.

I, too, am grateful to the various organisations that have briefed us on Section 59. They have clearly spelled out the distinction between asylum and human rights claims and, as they say, human rights claims in many cases have nothing to do with a country’s general safety, or perceived safety. They are about someone’s connections to this country and their dependency and family ties here—as I said, this is topical—and are made by people seeking lawfully to enter or remain with their UK-based family. Among other things, this means that there is no right of appeal, because claims are not refused, they are just not considered. Of course—and it is “of course” to me, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said—a country may be safe generally, but not to particular groups or sections of the community. The Supreme Court has recognised that a serious risk of persecution can exist as a general feature of life that applies to a recognisable section of the community.

This amendment takes us back to the 2002 Act, which Section 59 amends. That Act allows for exceptional circumstances, and what they may include is a subject of my amendment, in what would be the proposed new Section 80A(5A), which would provide that they include where

“the claimant is at substantial risk of significant personal harm, either as a member of a minority group or as an individual”.

The amendment would also omit Albania, Georgia and India from the list of countries that are automatically “safe” for everyone.

Noah has been mentioned—and, in fact, he was my example for Georgia, where there is a lack of effective state protection for LBGTQI+ people in the face of considerable violence. To add to what has been said, he said:

“No one can know you are gay. If you are gay, your two options are either hospital or exorcism”.


This man was attacked by his own family, forced to stay in a hospital for people with mental illnesses and subjected to exorcism.

The Home Office country note for India refers to gender-based violence, with women and girls in rural areas or from certain castes and tribes especially vulnerable. Institutional prejudices—violence against Muslims, Christians and certain castes and tribes—go unpunished. Indeed, the country note describes the active involvement of the police. In Albania, trafficking is rife. It is one of the top three nationalities—whether you regard that as the top three or the bottom three—of people referred to the national referral mechanism and recognised to be victims of trafficking. It is internationally recognised that domestic and international trafficking, including trafficking to the UK, is rife, and the families of victims themselves are threatened.

I have been involved with the case of a young man —he was young when he came; his application has not been determined yet—where the threat to his family has been a major factor in his response to what has affected his life. Sexual and domestic violence is widespread in Albania. Wherever we are going in legislative terms with this, we have to recognise the situation that noble Lords have already described.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will address Amendment 203J. I declare my interest as a barrister practising in public law and in the immigration space.

As noble Lords will have noticed, Amendment 203J does not sit happily with the other amendments in this group. It is not directly about the inadmissibility of an asylum claim, but it is on a very important point. The refugee convention of 1951 says that, if an asylum seeker has entered the country illegally, he is not to be punished or penalised for doing so, provided he came directly from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened by persecution. Specifically, it says:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of Article 1”—


the persecution provision in the convention—

“enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.

As Professor John Finnis, professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at Oxford, and I pointed out in our paper published in 2021 by Policy Exchange entitled Immigration, Strasbourg, and Judicial Overreach, the drafting and proper meaning of Article 31(1) of the refugee convention were compellingly expanded by Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, dissenting in the case of the Crown v Asfaw 2008, UK House of Lords 31. In doing so, they demonstrated the error of the living instrument interpretation advanced by the majority in that case and by the Divisional Court in the case of the Crown v Uxbridge Magistrates’ Court, ex parte Adimi, 2001 Queen’s Bench 667. The erroneous but reigning interpretation in Adimi is predicated on the notion, plainly rejected by the draftsmen of Article 31 of the refugee convention, that refugees passing through safe country A en route to safe country B and/or C and/or D and/or E should have the option to choose to seek asylum in B, C, D or E.

This is plainly wrong and not what was intended by the state parties when they signed the refugee convention in 1951. It is time that we corrected the law in this regard. Amendment 203J, together with Amendment 203I in my name, which is to be debated in a later group, restores the proper meaning of “coming directly”. In doing so, it provides a solution to the nightmare of the dangerous channel crossings and uncontrolled entry. I suggest that the refugee convention purposefully distinguishes between those who enter directly from a country where they are in danger and those who do not. There is no immunity from immigration law for those not coming directly; this was entirely intentional.

This amendment aims to vindicate the distinction and seeks to bring an end to the practice of widening the refugee convention beyond the terms that the United Kingdom and the other states agreed. Let us look at the terms of Amendment 203J. The Secretary of State would have a duty to refuse a claim for asylum if a person meets the conditions set out. The first condition, in proposed new subsection (2), is that they require leave to enter the United Kingdom and they have done so without such leave, whether illegally or otherwise. The second condition, in proposed new subsection (3), is that

“in entering or arriving as mentioned in subsection (2), the person did not come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which the person’s life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

Those words are taken from the convention. Proposed new subsection (4), for clarity, specifies:

“For the purposes of subsection (3) a person is not to be taken to have come directly to the United Kingdom from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened as mentioned in that subsection if, in coming from such a country, they passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened”.


To make it absolutely crystal clear, proposed new subsection (5) says:

“For the removal of doubt but without limitation, for the purposes of subsection (3), a person has passed through or stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom if they depart in a boat, vessel or aircraft from France or any other European coastal state”.


If this provision were enforced, would you risk your life in the channel in a small boat if you knew that your asylum claim would be bound to be refused? You would not.

This amendment—to use the slogan so favoured by the Prime Minister—would smash the gangs by destroying the business model, and do so while we remain a member of the refugee convention. Unlike the timid tinkering around the edges we see in almost all of this rather performative Bill as presently proposed, this amendment proposes a real, beneficial solution and the Home Office should grab it with both hands.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Murray of Blidworth

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is of course right to remember those happy exchanges. I draw his attention to the fact that, obviously, there are many examples in the law of presumptions being made if people do not do things: for example, the breath test, as the noble Viscount sitting next to me has just observed. If you say “no comment” in a police interview, inferences will be drawn. It is the same presumption system. There is nothing unusual in terms of the drafting.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

There was discussion about consent, because a child cannot consent. I do not know whether the noble Lord recalls it, but we talked about that fairly extensively.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Murray of Blidworth

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I should start my speech with, “As I was saying,” given that this is the fifth such Private Member’s Bill from these Benches since 2017. My noble friend Lady Ludford introduced numbers 3 and 4.

I declare an interest as a trustee of a trust established by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, which has introduced me to a number of young asylum seekers applying for funding to attend university. Like so many young refugees I have met, they have impressed me by their resilience and their determination to contribute to the UK.

The first purpose of the Bill is to provide in primary legislation, not just in amendable rules that can be changed without Parliament’s involvement or scrutiny, the rights of people who seek safety in the UK to be joined by their family. It is not enough to hope that the Home Office will use its discretion. The second purpose is to define “family”. It is an unambitiously narrow definition, in the hope that the Government will see this extension to enable children to sponsor immediate family to join them as modest and doable—she says looking straight at the Minister. The right to sponsor applies to people with protection status—that is, refugees—and those with humanitarian protection who are at real risk of harm if returned to their country of origin but not for the specific reasons which bring them within the refugee convention. I shall refer to them all as refugees. The third purpose is legal aid.

Since 2017, when the first Bill was introduced, the plight of refugees has not changed, nor have the UK’s moral obligations or the importance of family, which politicians continue to emphasise. However, the political context has not stayed still: the areas affected—afflicted —by conflict; the greater politicisation of immigration; the conflation of asylum and immigration; and small boats have succeeded the lorries and trains used by desperate asylum seekers. Last year, 7% of asylum claims were from unaccompanied children. The academic think tank UK in a Changing Europe reports that 33% of the public think that the figure is not 7% but 40% or more. There is a huge leadership role for government to be clear here.

This Bill sits squarely within calls for safe routes for refugees; I acknowledge that we have some, mostly very specific. I acknowledge that, under the new Government, families separated during the evacuation from Kabul airport will benefit from an expansion of the ACRS and that a child evacuated without his parents will be able to make a referral to relocate them or—GOV.UK says “or”—his siblings. But there is so much more to do to put safe routes in place.

Today is Anti-Slavery Day. We know the dangers of being in the hands of traffickers—a very real risk for children alone—and of extreme exploitation. The organisation Missing People is clear that being missing very often means harm. I hope the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with her experience, will expand on this. Her report seven years ago found that closing off safe routes feeds the trafficking and smuggling networks.

Last year the Justice and Home Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, which I had the privilege of chairing, published a report on family migration. We were all affected by the evidence about children seeking asylum. A young Eritrean reached the UK alone after the sort of journey that is hard to imagine. His brother made it to Libya, which is not a good place to find yourself; he was picked up by traffickers. His sister was picked up at the border of Egypt and imprisoned there for two years. That committee is one of a number—in the Commons too—to have called for an extension to family reunification.

The Government’s response was:

“Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees away from their parents, but in considering any policy we must think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily into harm’s way”.


Well, they are in harm’s way at home. There are plenty of “push factors”, but that Government often deployed the “pull factor” argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has said, it is “inherently implausible”. That Government’s attempts at deterrence in other contexts were not notably successful. We cannot prove a negative, but various respected organisations have reported that they cannot find support for the contention. It does not seem to me a compelling argument; indeed, there is evidence of children not wanting the Red Cross to trace their family in their country of origin for fear of endangering them.

What is compelling is the importance of family. They may not always be perfect, but being separated from your parents in childhood tends to have a significant impact on your mental health and well-being, indeed your very development. I know that other noble Lords will refer to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. Siblings, too, are hugely significant; what a difference it must make in a strange country if you are with your brother or sister.

Our rules reflect a very westernised view of family. In many cultures, it is common for children of both sexes to live with their parents until marriage, and for three or four generations to stay together as a unit. Dependants are not as limited a cohort as we think of them. I have been urged to add more relatives to the list, and I well understand that; my own aunts were hugely important to me. I have said that the Bill is deliberately unambitious but, under it, the Secretary of State could add to the categories: criteria would include risk to physical, emotional or psychological well-being, and the interests of the child. I have heard the term “unexpressed grief” in connection with mental health, and “the freedom to be a child”.

There are benefits to society of supporting the integration of refugees. A moment’s thought will confirm what being settled means, in the non-technical sense, for refugees and for the rest of the population. It means stability; you can focus and achieve. If you are a child, you can focus on your education rather than being one of those described as “challenging” because you are always on edge, hoping your mother might be able to phone you.

Would there be a cost to the UK? Common sense tells me the contrary. Parents can take care of their children. We all know of the costs to local authorities of looking after children they are required to accommodate and support.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Will the noble Baroness give way?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am time limited, like others, but I give way.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Baroness could inform the House how many people she envisages, on an annual basis, would be granted refugee family reunion status under these measures.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I will not go into that now; I do not have it in my speech. I am time limited and conscious of other people’s need for that time. I will happily tell the noble Lord later. From the tone of that question, he obviously opposes what I am saying. I will go into that with him later, but he does not have his name down to speak.

In 2018 the UK Government requested information from EU member states about the impact of their family reunion policies. The UK is quite an outlier in Europe. There was little assessment about public services or the costs to Governments, but Italy reported that it had seen no financial effect on public resources. If the noble Lord who has just intervened is worried about numbers, he might think about costs, which are another factor. I can tell the noble Lord that the Refugee Council and Safe Passage estimate an additional 240 to 750 visa grants—not sponsorships—a year.

I turn lastly to legal aid. Yes, of course, there is a shortage of lawyers, but family reunion needs to be in scope. Exceptional case funding is so exceptional as to be well-nigh invisible. The current rules are a maze, almost impenetrable to applicants and to many lawyers.

I urge noble Lords to see this Bill all the way through, and the Government to accept what it provides. At the last iteration, the Labour Front Bench was very supportive. I will not name the spokesman for fear of embarrassing him, but he was very senior.

I have received a lot of support from outside the House. The International Rescue Committee says that it

“welcomes and strongly endorses this Bill which would see children and young people, who have fled conflict and persecution, finally reunited with their loved ones in the UK”.

In 2020, 14 children from a London primary school who had read the book The Boy at the Back of the Class—I commend it to noble Lords—told me how sad they were about the plight of lone refugee children. The boy at the back of the class was an unaccompanied asylum seeker. They were happy, though, that the book had a happy ending. In fact, the fiction involved the intervention of the late Queen Elizabeth. One child wrote:

“It must be very scary … to be in a big new country surrounded by new people. A strong country like ours can help”.


I beg to move.