Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally and briefly, I will speak about Amendment 153, on migrant domestic workers. This is an issue on which I have been working for a very long time. As this change was being put forward, I spoke to a motion at the Green Party’s spring conference in 2012, calling for Britain to sign up to ILO Convention 189 on decent work for domestic workers. This amendment would head us in that direction. I heard then from Kalayaan, from the Voice of Domestic Workers, from campaign groups and from the workers themselves about the terrible position that change in the law in 2012 would put them in. Now, 13 years down the track, all their predictions have come true. It is absolutely indefensible.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to reiterate what has just been said on Amendment 153. Like the previous speaker, I too have had experience of dealing with domestic servitude. I chaired an inquiry for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland which was dealing with trafficking more generally. It came as a great surprise to me, because my own experiences as a younger barrister had been dealing with domestic workers inside embassies and diplomatic circles. People would often be brought from countries other than the Emirates or Saudi; they would be Filipino, or from parts of Pakistan or India. They were collected on entry into the country, their passports were taken from them, and they were deeply exploited. I remember being involved in a number of such cases when I was a young lawyer.

As a much more senior person chairing an inquiry, it came as a great surprise to me to find that many successful business people who were running chains of Indian restaurants and all manner of businesses brought people from villages where their ancestors were from. They would say to the workers that they would be paying their parents for their services. They would be paid at the sorts of rate that people would be getting back in those countries, whether it be Bangladesh, Pakistan, or wherever. The workers often received no money—maybe just meagre pocket money. They often slept on mats in the kitchen rather than in a proper bed. They were expected to work all hours of the day and night and were not able to complain anywhere. The idea of someone with a specific visa ending up being tied, like indentured labour, to a family, and not having it made clear to them that there were other options, was quite scandalous. It was rather shocking that we made those changes to those arrangements some years back, as has already been described. Since we have this Bill before us, now is the time to put that right; we have the opportunity to do so.

Kalayaan has been doing incredible work on this front. It has done deep research into what is a form of modern slavery—a smokescreen used to deflect the transparency and accountability there should be for what is experienced by many migrant workers. The evidence that Kalayaan has compiled reports very serious abuse. I ask the Committee to take seriously the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which I strongly support.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 151 and 152 and endorse and support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, will know that there have been a number of reports in local and national media about people without settled status who are seeking determination of their asylum-seeker status who have been alleged to be working as delivery drivers for food-delivery companies. Clearly, it is a potential loophole, and it is responsible for us to respond to that sensibly by an amendment that seeks to close that loophole.

On the other two amendments, the noble Lord, Lord German, will be aware that we debated this issue in Grand Committee a year or so ago, when we had quite a good debate. I always think it is a good rule of thumb that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge speaks good sense. I do not always agree with everything he says, but I was determined to agree with something he said in his remarks. We laboured in the Whips’ Office in the other place many moons ago, and he took a pastoral interest in my short-lived career in the Whips’ Office. I agree with him more than I disagree in that this is a point of principle about whether you should give asylum seekers the right to work. I think the challenge is that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord German, says, there is a pull factor. People come to the UK, which is a unique economy, because it is in the right time zone, we speak English and we have a dynamic, service-based economy. They travel over many countries mainly, in my view, as economic migrants—clearly, there are a number of genuine asylum seekers—and it is not possible comprehensively to disprove the idea that they are coming for work.

The problem with the proposal is that the most disadvantaged group of people in this country is poor white British boys. A situation where you encourage an economic model that brings in more people to drive down wages, keep conditions not much better than was hitherto the case, cut back on training and keep this addiction to cheap foreign labour is not a model for a successful, happy and contented country. That does not, in any sense, second-guess the merits of individual people who want to come to the country to make a better life.

That brings me on to the point that the challenge we have here, and the thing that the Government can take away from this debate, is that there is much more to be done along the lines that my noble friend Lord Randall outlined in terms of civic education around British values—an educative or didactic process for these new asylum seekers to understand what Britain is about and how they can contribute as decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens without working. If you cross the Rubicon and say that, if you arrive and claim asylum, you can automatically work and enter the employment market, that is a step too far. However, the Government have a duty and a responsibility, for the sake of the taxpayer and for the welfare of those people and their families, to give them the opportunity to volunteer, train and assimilate but not to work. That is the challenge for the Minister.

In many respects, I support my noble friend Lord Randall—and even, maybe, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord German, and others—but on a point of principle I cannot support this amendment. I hope that the Minister will set his face against it, but the Government, as the previous Government did, could do a lot more in terms of the training and development of people who aspire to be British citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

By proactively creating and expanding safe routes, we can deter dangerous, irregular migration, enhance our ability to tackle criminal networks, and ensure a more humane and orderly system for all. These amendments are not merely about mitigating harm; they are about offering a positive and effective framework for migration.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.

This amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.

When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.

Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent White Paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.

Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.

BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.

Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.

This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the Front Bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.

There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.

More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.

Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.

This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.

I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.

This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.

In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I was fascinated by what sounded to me like illogical statements. Can I be absolutely clear? My question was whether, under the UK resettlement scheme, the quota offered to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this year—2025—is zero. I asked how many, and no answer was given to that. If the answer is zero, it is wrong to claim that the UK resettlement scheme is open, because there is no vacancy for anybody to be coming under that scheme.

It is also incorrect, surely, to say that the UK resettlement scheme is one where people can choose to get in the queue. It is UNHCR system that will choose the people who come into that settlement scheme, in discussion with the UK Government. If I am incorrect and a quota has been issued to the UNHCR for 2025, I am happy to withdraw what I have just said, but if I am correct and there is not quota yet issued, it is wrong to say that that scheme is open until a quota has been issued, because that is the way it works.

The other thing I would like to follow through in logical terms is the agreement with France—the Hillmore treaty. The Hillmore treaty, as I understand it, requires triaging of people in France who will then come to the United Kingdom. Under our law, as the Minister said, you can come to the United Kingdom only in order to make an official claim; in other words, it is a triaging point. There will be people in France, who will triaged to find the most suitable candidates to come. They then have to come to the United Kingdom and when they do they get the final asylum claim determined. If it operates in a different way from that, I am happy to be told, but everything that has been said by the UK Government indicates triaging of the sort I have described.

The humanitarian visa scheme I have described is only an expansion of that: it is one where we would determine whether someone has a really good case to make and then they are permitted to come to the United Kingdom to make that case—for a short period. If the period is too long, that is fine. The reason it is there at the moment is because that is the time span that the UK Government set for determining an application.

With those questions deeply in my mind, I realise that we will perhaps have to rephrase how we approach this and come back to it later in the course of the Bill. If, however, I have wrongly asserted what the Minister said to me, I would be happy to receive a note saying that there is a quota and that the Hillmore treaty will not triage people in France. If I am right in those two things, I would be happy to proceed. If I am wrong, I would be happy to receive a note to say that I am incorrect. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, if I may, I first thank the new Minister for his response to the amendments that I placed before the Committee. All I can say is that one man’s flexibility is another man’s uncertainty. I raised the uncertainty for people who have disrupted their lives and are resettling their lives by coming to another place to rebuild. It is very disruptive to have no certainty, so I urge the Government to think again about this business of flexibility.

Certainly the position going forward should at least be to give security to those who have already arrived—the security of knowing that they can make plans for their children, their education and so on, and have some knowledge of what the limits are. They have always expected, after five years, to have that security of tenure.

From my contact with Ukrainian refugees here, there is absolutely no doubt that they want to return to their country. They want to see peace and justice in the settlement that reaches the end of this war, and that is the encouragement that all of us would give, but that is not what they are seeking. They are seeking the confidence of knowing that the Government will continue their commitment. I was very reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who indicated that his Government were very much there at the beginning in supporting Ukraine and were then followed by Labour in government. We are providing that strong commitment to the people and nation of Ukraine that really gives some confidence to those who are here, living in uncertainty but wanting to return, to know that they can be here for as long as it takes.

Amendment 164 withdrawn.