Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, to the Front Bench to supplement the efforts of the indefatigable Home Office team on the Front Bench in the Lords.

I wish to speak about Clause 191, which decriminalises abortions for women ending their pregnancy at any stage to birth. The clause does not change the existing time limit of 24 weeks, after which an abortion will be a criminal offence, except under special circumstances, for medical professionals and for those who provide an abortion or assist a woman to procure one for herself. What will change is that the woman herself, who takes the steps to end her pregnancy at any stage up to birth, will not face criminal charges.

I am against such a change on three grounds—one procedural and two substantive. First, a private Member’s conscience amendment has been used to amend a government Bill, bringing the weight of the Executive to a matter of conscience. Moreover, by this procedure, a matter of great significance may be allowed to slip through, tagged on to the Crime and Policing Bill, avoiding the full national and parliamentary scrutiny that such major changes in a law require.

Secondly, it is selective in the application of the law in a way that goes against the very principle of law. It is bad in principle and practice to count some action as a crime for some people but not for others. In Clause 191, it is accepted that aborting a baby over 24 weeks old is normally a crime and that those involved should be punished, except for one—the pregnant woman who is the instigator of the action. Part of the very principle of what it is to be a law is that it is applied universally. There can be special factors, such as coercion, which relieve someone of criminal responsibility in particular circumstances, but not a blanket exception.

Moreover, there could be no greater denigration of pregnant women, and indeed all women, than to deny them the most basic right of all: to be judged morally and, when they have committed a crime, judged criminally. Abortion over 28 weeks is accepted as a crime by all. To say that pregnant women can commit it so long as they do so against their own children or own child—but nevertheless they are not criminals—is to treat them as less than fully human adults.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry not to get in before the noble Lord, and I am grateful for the tolerance of the House. I will be as brief as I can. I support Amendment 203I in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray. He has explained the reasons for his amendment, which seeks to restore the initial intention behind the refugee convention, on which Section 31 of the 1999 Act is based. This is an important amendment because as we have seen, even today, there is a lack of clarity on and a great deal of debate about the refugee convention, its status and its very meaning. I will touch on two of the problems I see, which my noble friend’s amendment would overcome.

The first is the problem of the convention itself. It does not oblige the refugees themselves to seek refuge in the first country; it is an agreement between states, and therefore it is for the states, not the individuals. That has given rise to a lot of the discussion we have heard about whether they have to make a claim in the first safe country. The second problem is the guidance, updated by the Home Office on 27 June this year, which explains the inadmissibility rules in respect of safe third countries and where asylum should be claimed if asylum has been claimed, should be claimed or could reasonably have been expected to be claimed,

“(or, for claims made before 28 June 2022, where exceptional circumstances didn’t prevent such a claim), provided there is a reasonable prospect of removing”

the claimant—which I understand is to reflect the case law. Therefore, we have all kinds of obstacles and not very much agreement on the problem.

I recognise how far the Government have gone to tackle the problems of historically high levels of not only immigration but asylum claims, and the small boat arrivals pose a particular problem, with people crossing the channel from the French coast, having travelled through France and probably a number of other safe countries in the EU, as has been stated. We paid France £476 million to deal with this problem and try to control their coastal departures but, sadly, it has not worked. This year we added the one-in, one-out agreement, but so far that has not paid many dividends: as of last Thursday, we have seen 26 people sent to France and nine people come in from France, which is a drop in the ocean of the 32,000 recorded in September.

We have a problem, and so do the French. Their immigration figures are higher than ours: last year, 1.6 million people came in from outside Europe—that is, non-EU citizens—and they had 157,000 asylum claims compared to our 110,000. They have a much less stable regime at the moment, with President Macron unable to command a majority in Parliament and losing Prime Ministers regularly. So, I cannot blame the French, either. Migration is top: the party with the majority is Madame Le Pen’s.

Good though the Government’s intentions are—and they are good intentions—returns agreements will not work as well as a proper legal amendment, such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Murray, which would control the problem at source, in the law, of whether or not we admit claims from people who have passed through a safe country. That is why I support it.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this group is certainly a tale of two halves. We on these Benches are unable to support the first two amendments. The United Kingdom’s problems with the current migration crisis stem not necessarily from the refugee convention itself. Rather, the problems lie with the metaphorical scaffolding which has been built around the convention. First, the Government are unable to carry out the will of the British people and turn away those who arrive here unlawfully. To all intents and purposes, the convention already has primacy in United Kingdom law. Those who qualify as asylum seekers have their subsistence paid for by the British state. They have an army of lawyers to hand.

Secondly, the problem lies with processing. Because this Government have continued to expand the incentives for people to come here, asylum processing remains severely backlogged. Removing legal safeguards against illegal migration will only make this problem worse. We already know the impact the Human Rights Act is having on our ability to control our borders and end this crisis. We will debate that Act further in a later group, so I will not go further now. Suffice to say that further incorporating treaties and conventions into domestic law is not the right way to reduce crossings by small boat.

Amendment 185 is another attempt to promote a world view divorced from reality. It is a measure that would allow people claiming to be asylum seekers to face no penalty for illegally entering this country regardless of the country they directly came from. It would open the door to even wider and more egregious exploitation of our already generous system. Let us consider what the effects of this amendment would mean. Asylum seekers, having arrived in France or a similarly safe third country, would have no disincentive to make the dangerous crossing over the channel. Not only would they be enticed by free board and lodging which we provide, alongside many other amenities on offer, but they would face no recourse to justice should they be forging their identity or embellishing their story.

What is the result? More money on the taxpayers’ bottom line, more stigmatisation and scepticism of actual and true asylum seekers, and more casualties among those crossing the channel. Our legal system, so long as we are part of this convention, should be practical and prudent. We cannot decriminalise all illegal migration so that we may feel virtuous when discussing refugees. We should reject this amendment.

Amendment 203I tabled by my noble friends Lord Murray of Blidworth, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor is very pertinent. It seeks both to clarify and vindicate the rights of the United Kingdom under Article 31 of the refugee convention. It does so at a time when, as we have heard, its provisions are under increased scrutiny. While other Members of this House—those on the Benches opposite—attempt to dilute our sovereign right to control our borders, I am grateful to those on this side who have the resolve to prioritise Britain’s interests while keeping us in line with our international obligations.

This is a moderate and necessary amendment. As it makes clear, only asylum seekers fleeing genuinely dangerous and war-torn countries will be able to enter the United Kingdom without fear of persecution. Those who pass through or stop in another country where their freedoms were not so threatened will not be able to claim in a court of law that they were fleeing persecution, for the evident reason that they will have chosen not to stop in a prior safe country. This should be our starting point.

The refugee convention exists to provide respite for those fleeing persecution and violence; it is a measure that was born not out of necessity but from pragmatism and benevolence. However, unending benevolence, which gives every person who enters our country the benefit of the doubt and allows everyone the same defences in court regardless of their last country of departure, will undermine confidence in the asylum system. It damages the national interest and endangers national security.

This amendment is in the national interest. We have seen for too long the effects of an over-lenient legal system that has not adequately dealt with those who arrive here illegally, those who seek not true refuge but our generosity. By articulating and vindicating the United Kingdom’s rights under Article 31 of the convention, we do a service not only to people of this country but to those who are genuine refugees who flee persecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is not obvious how there could be any sensible objection to this group of amendments. They are all concerned with open justice. There are many well-known judicial utterances about the importance of this, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, quoting the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I like a recent one from a Scottish judge, Lord Carloway, who said this:

“Open justice has two key elements. The first is that proceedings are heard and determined in public. The second is that the public should have access to judicial decisions, including any reasons given for them and the identity of the parties. As a proxy for the wider public, the media have an important role. Reporting on court and tribunal cases is vital to ensuring public confidence in the justice system and the rule of law. The public would lose confidence in the courts if they could not understand what decision had been reached and why it had been reached”.


The 188-page report from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has already been mentioned on more than one occasion. Referring to these decisions, in paragraph 48 he said this:

“A further difficulty in this area is that many of these decisions are not reported, making accountability difficult, and often these only come to light on appeal to the Upper Tribunal”.


There, he is referring to the First-tier Tribunal. In paragraph 50 of the same report, he said

“there may well be low-quality decision making going on in the initial stages, much of which is never corrected”.

In whose interests can it be to keep these decisions out of the public domain? For those who defend the decisions, they can illustrate the point; for those who attack them, they will have much better evidence. It cannot seriously be doubted that the decisions at the moment are of particular importance. Please can the public know what is being decided and why?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have a short intervention. If the First-tier Tribunal is open, as I understand from my noble friend Lord Murray it is, I see no reason for not allowing publication in the interests of confidence in our tribunal system.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group raise a serious and important issue. As we have heard, tens of thousands of decisions of real importance to both the individuals and the wider public go unreported every year. We on this side are most grateful to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing these amendments and to the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Alton, who unfortunately is not well at the moment, for their support for them.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

203L: After Clause 48, Insert the following new Clause—
“Refusal of certain asylum claims (2)(1) The Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim or a human rights claim made by any person to whom this section applies inadmissible.(2) Subsection (1) applies to a person who—(a) entered the country on a student visa, and(b) made the asylum claim more than two days after entering.(3) A claim declared inadmissible under subsection (2) cannot be considered under the immigration rules.(4) A declaration under subsection (3) that a claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and as such no right of appeal under section 82(1) (right of appeal to the Tribunal) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 arises.(5) For the purposes of this section, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply.(6) A declaration under subsection (3) is final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Amendment 203L, on the refusal of certain asylum claims, seeks to exclude asylum claims made after two days from those who entered the country on a student visa. The aim is to prevent the abuse of the system, whereby those entering on the student visa to study on a course in the UK—perhaps, or perhaps not, in good faith—subsequently make an asylum claim.

The figures are significant. Of the 111,000 claims made in the year ending June 2025, the highest figures since comparable records began in 1979, apart from the 43,600 which came on small boats, 41,000 came from those who entered the UK on a visa or other leave with relevant documentation, including an electronic travel authorisation to visit from 2024 onwards. Of those, 14,800 were on a study visa, so well over one-third of the 41,000 claimants were on a visa or entered on another type of permission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for Amendment 203L. I am also grateful for the latter point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because it is very possible that someone arrives as a student and finds that the situation in their home country has changed since their arrival. I remember that, when I was at university, which is an awfully long time ago now, there were students who arrived when there was one regime in Iran and left when there was another regime. The flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred is very important, and this is one of the particular holes—dare I say it?—in the proposal brought forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. However, I have to say that there are several more holes in the argument that she put forward. If I point those out to her as part of this debate, I hope she will accept them in good faith.

The amendment seeks to widen the scope of existing inadmissibility powers, so that any claim made by a holder of a student visa that was lodged more than two days after they arrived in the UK must be declared inadmissible. We had a large debate on inadmissibility on day 4 of the Committee, and we considered five amendments then. This is a very late amendment to this discussion, so we have had limited time to consider it. However, it is not an approach the Government consider appropriate.

The likely consequence of the amendment, as well as that pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would be to refuse to admit claims to the UK’s asylum system, but without any obvious way in which to return individuals who make those claims. It would leave affected individuals in a state of limbo, with no certainty as to whether they qualify for refugee status or whether they should be returned to their home country. On the basis of that contention, it could prove both costly and ineffective.

Furthermore, in affording a more favourable position to those students who claim asylum within two days of first arriving in the UK, the amendment also risks benefiting those students who are more likely to have deliberately used the visa system as a way to access the UK’s asylum system.

The Government cannot support the amendment. I respectfully suggest that it does not achieve the objective that the noble Baroness proposed, and it is certainly open to the wide hole which the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out to the Committee today. So I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on what the noble Lord said and, in general terms, to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in the debate and particularly to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for spotting this. I had thought about it in respect of other amendments, but I did not include it in this one, and that is indeed a gap—I agree with the Minister. Certainly, if I am to bring it back on Report, I will take account of that.

But my overall position remains that, with provision for the problems pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, I really cannot see that we can tackle the problem of visa switching by those who enter in, or not in, good faith. There are indeed reports of students who came here and fraudulently deceived the university authorities, saying they would take a course when they subsequently admitted that they had no intention of doing so. This is a problem, and we have no way of dealing with it. Unless we crack down quite strictly on people claiming asylum when they have no reason to other than a desire to stay in this country, and when they have made this clear subsequently—it is clear from the evidence—then we will not tackle this problem. It is very grave for our universities, student communities and taxpayers. So I will consider this. Perhaps I can work something out with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I hope to bring this back again on Report.

Amendment 203L withdrawn.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for trying to get in before sponsors of amendments. I apologise to the Committee that my other public commitments have not allowed me to participate in this Bill to date.

I could not let this opportunity pass to pay tribute to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of family reunification and who, together with my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has authored a number of Private Members’ Bills with content similar to that in Amendment 165, which I support. In my opinion, this amendment that has been revised, refined and honed to perfection as a result of the extensive previous debates in this House.

I wish to make only two points. First, if there are issues with excessive immigration, asylum seekers are only a very small proportion of that problem. Secondly, the so-called push factors prompting people to seek asylum are far greater than any hypothetical pull factor—something that the Minister may say. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness in her comments about a lack of evidence to support this suggestion of pull factors.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, makes general comments about small boat crossings and foreign criminals trying to illegally enter the country. Amendment 165 is not about undocumented migrants; it is about children who have already been given refugee status, who should be allowed to be reunited with their family members. Perhaps in the absence of documentation, something the noble Lord mentions, family links could be established by DNA test, if necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has comprehensively and convincingly made the arguments in favour of this amendment, which I wholeheartedly support.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 166 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would not only oblige the Secretary of State to change the rules under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to accommodate her proposed new clause but would extend the type of relatives who could enter. As well as those allowed under Appendix F—dependent children under 18 and partners and civil partners—which was, as noble Lords will know, suspended in September 2024 pending review, it would mean that others would be added to the list of those who could enter and remain in the UK: parents, adoptive parents, unmarried partners and children as old as 25. This is in relation to persons, not the amendments on children. Because the people of this country have no appetite for increasing the scale of immigration but want the numbers cut—and have made this increasingly clear—I support my noble friend Lord Jackson’s amendments to Amendment 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I have added my name to Amendments 167 to 171.

I would like to disassociate myself from comments which suggest that the majority of people in this country who want immigration cut and controlled are of some extreme disposition. Time and again I hear references to the “far right” or the “extreme right” or something else. Most of these people are ordinary people who have seen their communities torn apart very often, and they explain it on television perfectly clearly and lucidly. They are not put up to anything. They are worried about their children and what is going on in their local hotels. They are not extreme people. If any of your Lordships had young children going to school near an asylum hotel in which problems arose with people in that hotel, I do not think they would be considered extreme for raising the concern at Questions, as we can. We have a voice, but the people of our country will not have any voice until the next general election. I am sorry for slightly digressing.

I support these amendments not just because Amendment 168 would be a deterrent to foreign criminals coming in nor just because Amendment 171 would ensure that the aim of securing the border is inserted into the Bill, but because they would curb the numbers coming in rather than escalate them. In the year ending this June, 108,138 people claimed asylum. This is an 18% increase on the previous year and a fivefold increase on the numbers since 2022. Of this total, 84,231 were main applicants but 23,907 were dependants—the highest annual number of applications ever recorded, except for one other year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I did refer to the Conservatives as having carried on the very good practice.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and the noble and learned Baroness for their interventions. What I was saying is that the country has always been sympathetic and fair and accommodated people fleeing here when their lives or liberties have been in danger. However, mass global movement now poses a threat to stability in western democracies, not just Britain’s but that of other western European countries, particularly Italy, Germany and France—the founder countries of the European Union. If we are to continue to give a sympathetic hearing to those who have a real claim, we must avoid extending the potential numbers so that in addition to children under 18 and a spouse, a whole extended family plus anyone judged to matter to the person’s psychological or other well-being can come in.

We do not have a right to defy the clear wishes of the people of this country, who pay the bills for housing and for the Home Office, asylum and Border Force officials. My noble friend has referred to some of these costs, but the policing, the courts—which are clogged—the appeals system, the housing and subsistence of large family groups all cost money. Many individuals or families, when they leave Home Office accommodation, must be supported from the benefit system.

In the first quarter of 2025, more than 4,000 refugee households in England were recorded as homeless, meaning that either a single person or a family unit had applied for support after leaving Home Office accommodation—figures similar to the previous quarter. With the sort of expanding family as proposed in Amendment 166, what would the housing, accommodation and benefit bill then be?

I conclude by proposing that, even if the Government are tempted by Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, my noble friend’s Amendments 167 to 171 should be accepted in order that the Government can help bring the numbers down and stop them escalating.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to agree and disagree with a variety of noble Lords. I am sad to say that I often do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, but on one particular thing he said, I strongly do, which is that since this Bill was introduced into Parliament, the Government’s policy on this area has evolved—with is probably the politest way of putting it—and it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House, if not today then certainly before we have the two and a half days of Report, if the Minister could set out clearly what the Government’s current position is and what we are amending or changing. That is a very sensible point, and it is difficult to have this debate with an ever-changing legal undercurrent, particularly since many of these laws are not in primary legislation but in secondary legislation, which is therefore more capable of changing. I always think it is useful, where there is agreement, to put that on the record.

It is also worth saying that, in this group, two different things are being talked about. I have more sympathy with the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on unaccompanied children currently outside the United Kingdom looking to come to the United Kingdom to be reunited with family members. That is a completely different proposition from that in Amendments 165 and 166, which is about taking children already in the United Kingdom and widening the scope of those who can come here to join them.

This is an area of policy, as the Minister knows very well, which is incredibly litigious, and it therefore matters what words we agree, the scope and breadth of them and the clarity of them. I therefore wanted to draw your Lordships’ attention to a number of concerns that I have about the specific words in the amendments.

In Amendment 165, on the reference no recourse to public funds, it is worth pointing out to the House, because it is repeated on a number of occasions, that that does not include the National Health Service, which does not count as a public fund.

One of the areas that this amendment seeks to expand, according to the explanatory statement, is bringing in grandparents to accompany family members and a whole bunch of dependants. That is important because, generally, the consumption of health resources is not equal across somebody’s life. People consume more resources as they get older. When I was Immigration Minister, I saw a number of cases in which somebody was trying to bring an elderly relative to the United Kingdom, being willing to support them in the normal sense of that word, to accommodate them and put them up. What they would not accept is that we, the taxpayer, would be liable for their health costs, which in some cases are very significant indeed.

People do not mind paying for very significant health costs for elderly people who have spent their life in the United Kingdom and have made a lifetime’s contribution, but bringing someone elderly to the United Kingdom and the NHS and the taxpayer potentially having to pay for their health costs, when they have made no contribution over their lifetime, has to be borne into account. There is no recognition of that in this amendment. I did not want the Committee to miss the fact that although it says

“no recourse to public funds”,

which is of course an accurate characterisation, it is worth reminding people that

“no recourse to public funds”

does not exclude provision of healthcare, which does not count as a public fund in the legal definition, and the NHS generally does not deny health treatment to somebody because they cannot pay for it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does my noble friend consider that the fee of £700 that we now charge those on student visas for access to the NHS is too low, given that the average spending of the NHS per patient is around £3,000?

[Lord Harper (Con)]

On that point, briefly, it is good that we have the surcharge. It was brought in under one of the pieces of legislation I was responsible for in a former life. We can argue about the amount. For younger people in their late teens and early 20s, it is probably a reasonable amount of money. We looked at the costs at the time, and that cohort of people do not bear a huge weight on the health service—but they have some cost, and it is right that they meet some of it.

The second definitional point I want to touch on is in Amendment 166, about the use of the language “unmarried partner”, where I strongly agree with my noble friends Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor. In my experience, that would be a massive red flag to anybody who wishes to come to the United Kingdom and make a definition. There is no way of proving or disproving somebody’s connection with such loose language. Spouse and civil partner are very clear. They can be evidenced, and documents can be produced to do that. As soon as you say “unmarried partner”, almost anybody can be said to fit into that category and there will be almost no chance of the Home Office making refusals on that basis—it will just be a large chasm.

I also support my noble friend Lord Jackson in Amendment 171, adding into the list

“the importance of maintaining a secure border”.

There is a very long list in Amendment 166, but they are all—in one way—things that the Secretary of State should consider, which would mean that the Secretary of State would have to let in more people. If the Secretary of State is making a judgment, it is very helpful to have a balanced list to weigh up.

I hesitate to say this in your Lordships’ Committee—there are so many lawyers here—but the problem with having the catch-all at the end, saying “any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate”, is that, certainly when we were drafting things, as soon as there is a list and things are not in it, weight is put on the fact that they are not in the list. If there is a very long list all in one direction, it is very helpful to put in that the Secretary of State also has duties to protect the border, because that enables the Secretary of State to put proper weight on that consideration in a way that is capable of withstanding legal challenge.

I will pick up another issue on language: the reference to adoptive parents and adoptive siblings in Amendment 166, which clarifies that it also includes “de facto adoption”. I have no objection to people bringing in adoptive members of their family, where that has gone through some legal process, but if it is de facto and there has been no legal process, it again becomes very difficult for decisions made by the Secretary of State to be upheld in the courts. If we do not have some kind of process, this becomes an open door.

Finally, reasonable-sounding language has been snuck into Amendment 165 with the reference to “any dependants”. If a child is in the UK, we define someone who can come and join them. That sounds very reasonable, but that person can then bring any number of dependants with them. Although it says that there would be no recourse to public funds, which we might discuss in relation to housing costs, there are a number of things that I think most people would consider were public funds, such as the NHS and universal credit, but that are not counted as public funds in that definition.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this is a difficult and controversial Bill, not only because of the substantial amount of delegated legislation, the problem of skeleton legislation and the lack of adequate pre-legislative scrutiny, as committees of this House have pointed out and as the evidence presented by lawyers and academics, including at the think tank where I am research director, also points out; and not only because of the magnitude of the proposed change and the potential impact to which your Lordships have drawn attention—even though this has no electoral mandate, which would have allowed for pre-legislative consultation and debate nationally, which is not guaranteed by opinion polls. Most important of all, the Bill fails to recognise the nature of and basis for the law in the fundamental matter of life and death.

Once assisting suicide is allowed, it becomes impossible to detect cases where more than assistance is provided and someone is in effect induced to kill themselves. This is a criminal act, but under this Bill it becomes impossible to police. As the Chief Coroner has recently pointed out, the Bill removes any realistic prospect of an effective inquest. The Bill also ignores the moral and religious underpinning of a historic tradition based on the principle that the life of each person is sacred, irrespective of how much or how little value may be put on it by others, or the state, or whether that life has a cost to others. Without such a premise we risk a descent into barbarism, where human lives may be done away with as fast as battery chickens: by category, by age, by disability, or on account of mental and psychiatric condition. Indeed, the mask proposed by the dramatic change in the law in the Bill—the veneer of strict conditionality and the obligation for the person himself or herself to want to commit suicide and prove consent—reveals an ignorance of the very nature of our society.

Society is based on kinship, on interdependency, on networks of support, both in the private and the public sphere, and ultimately on trust. It is underwritten by tradition and conventions which for centuries have been given the protections of the law. At the basis of this whole structure, though it is unfashionable to say so, is the conviction that human life is sacred. Despite the Bill’s conditions, its alleged limitations and restrictions, it strikes a hammer blow at a civilisation supported until now by law, custom, kinship and trust throughout the centuries, whether in peace or war, but now struggling to keep afloat.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will just intervene on this interesting exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friends on Amendment 203A. The question this raises—I say this really as a question—is: is it not the case that people in this country who want our borders strengthened and immigration controlled may perhaps consider that convicted offenders from overseas who are not British citizens should not enjoy the same rights, privileges and protections after a conviction as a UK citizen should?

I understand that we are bound by international regulations and international law. None the less, as my noble friend has said, there have been derogations from the law, not least by Germany, which has in fact withdrawn legal aid from those appealing. The French Government, in defiance of their own courts, very often deport overseas offenders. Therefore, although it is a very persuasive intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there is a wider context in which this group of amendments is being spoken to.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and shall give one example as to why automatic removal regardless of the circumstances is so wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Harper—whom I was lucky to work with many years ago in the coalition Government and am glad to see here—raised a point that a number of other Lords have also mentioned: people who have come to this country and have been afforded protection by it should understand the consequences if they breach the law. That is an understandable point to make.

However, I will give one example. Take a small child who came to the UK, whose parents became British citizens and who had assumed that they were in fact a British citizen, who had committed a crime and was sentenced to prison—and, under this amendment, was therefore subject to automatic removal—but the national referral mechanism competent authority later found that they were a victim of modern slavery for the purpose of forced criminality. That person would have no right of appeal, none of the circumstances of the case would be considered and they would be deported automatically to a country that they have never been to and where people speak a language that they do not understand. It would be wholly wrong for that to happen without any mechanism for a court or tribunal to consider it. I very strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and oppose these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships’ House too long with this amendment because it is straightforward. It relates to the piece of the jigsaw that is missing in respect of foreign national students with visas to study in the United Kingdom. The background of my amendment is the very serious occasions on which public disorder has occurred, in London and other parts of the country, arising from the Israel-Gaza conflict, which dates from October 2023.

This has obviously been a phenomenon across the world of student bodies, whether it is Harvard, Columbia in New York, in Australia or across Europe, protesting against what they perceive as wrong policy pursued by a particular country—not just the Israel-Gaza situation but other contentious political issues. Other jurisdictions have co-ordinated their response to public disorder which has occurred with student bodies in a better way. In other words, they have monitored whether those students have properly abided by the restrictions and obligations put on them when they apply for and are successfully granted a visa.

Students and those with educational visas in higher education are not in any sense sui generis. They do not have carve-outs and are not given a free pass. Indeed, for the purposes of any transgression of criminal law, public disorder and other issues, they are as much subject to statute as anyone else: the Immigration Act 1971, the UK Borders Act 2007 and the Immigration Act 2016. As I referenced in the earlier group, if they are from the European Union, they are also subject to restrictions in their conduct, essentially around visa breaches and immigration law violations, but for our purposes today, I am focusing on criminal activity. That is quite a high bar for those students, in that it is deemed to pose a threat “to the public good”, which is the wording used in primary and secondary legislation—statutory instruments.

It is unusual that I am praising the Government slightly today, but I know that they are mindful of the concerns that the general public have on this issue and that they are seeking, as did the previous Government, to address and ameliorate abuses of the student visa system. We accept in good faith that they are seeking to tackle those egregious abuses, but, to my mind, the piece of the puzzle that is missing is that there is not proper co-ordination in respect of student visas. Therefore, it is important to collect the data on those student visas which are applied for by students who are subject to criminal sanction, not just being arrested but charged and, perhaps, subject to criminal penalty, including, of course, incarceration in the prison estate.

It is for that reason that I think my amendment fits well with this Bill. I am not saying that every foreign student is a criminal—far from it. We welcome the many thousands of students who come to our country to study, some of whom stay here to further their careers and add to our economy and our civic life, et cetera. But there will be some who come here and commit criminal offences. To my mind—I echo the astute comments of my noble friend Lord Harper—you have an obligation, if you apply for a visa and come here, to behave yourself, to behave in a civilized manner, to abide by the law, to work hard and to abide by the conditions of your visa and wider obligations. If you fail to discharge that, particularly, for instance, by shouting antisemitic abuse on a hate march in London or anywhere else, that is unacceptable. If you are subject to criminal sanction and penalty, there is a strong case that your visa should be revoked and you should be removed from this country.

However, the first step should be that that information should be collected and collated in a way which is transparent and open, so that the state and the criminal justice system has an opportunity to make a value judgment on your behaviour, as someone who is not a British citizen and who has been invited here in good faith to behave as a decent, honest, law-abiding citizen. For those reasons, I commend the amendment in my name, support Amendment 141A from my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and look forward to the Minister’s answer in due course.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments proposes the means to make transparent one of the constituent parts of the high immigration levels that the Government aim to reduce. The amendments propose making transparent the data on the numbers granted student visas and the numbers of dependents, capping the numbers—in the case of the amendments that will follow, Amendments 198 and 199—and dealing with those who offend and the home countries of offenders.

I shall focus on my Amendment 141A, which proposes an annual statement on the number of visas given to overseas students and their dependents, because they contribute significantly to the overall immigration numbers, on which this Government and the previous one have concentrated in order to get them down. The evidence that we have is piecemeal. It covers a range of periods and categories and comes from the Home Office, the ONS and the Higher Education Statistics Authority, but all of the evidence indicates that overseas students’ visas and those issued for dependents constitute a large cohort of the immigration numbers.

In the previous academic year ending September 2024, there were 732,285 overseas students at higher education institutions in the UK. That is almost 25% of the total student population. Around one in 10 came from the EU, while 90% of them came from further across the world. Although the total was down from the very high period of 2022-23—a record high, as it happens—these figures from 2023-24 are still the second-highest ever for overseas students and their dependents.

We want to find out what the top countries are. India was top of the list, sending 107,500—almost nine times the number from India in 2017-18. China, which sent the most students for 10 years, is now in second place; it sent 98,400. There have been rapid increases from Nigeria, which is in third place. The figures for Nigeria will come up in my notes in a moment, so I will come back to them, but it is in third place.

Now we have another set of figures, though, from the Home Office. I want to talk about them. They give an indication of the numbers for the year ending in June this year—the year in which the Labour Government have been in power. From them, we discovered that the number of student visas granted for the year ending June 2025 was 436,000; that was higher than the average from 2012-21, which was an average of 305,000, although it was much smaller than in the peak year of 2023, which was the year when 650,000 student visas were granted. During that time, there were 18,000 dependents—a far lower figure than the 154,000 who came in before that. That is, I think, due to the previous Government’s attempts to curb the figures.

What we see from this is that student visas for overseas students still run at a very high rate. If we take the figures for the year ending June and multiply them, say, by three, we are looking at well over a million people in the country on overseas student visas. For these reasons, it would be very helpful for Parliament, and indeed the public, to know on an annual basis the number of overseas student visas granted, and the numbers granted to dependents, and whether that is increasing or falling. That kind of information in an accessible and consistent form will help identify the nature and scale of the question, whether it is indeed a serious problem and, if so, how we can deal with it.

--- Later in debate ---

As noble Lords will know, the Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

On welcoming overseas students, I accept that good students who come here lawfully can be a great bonus. Indeed, I have had the benefit of teaching such students, and I had a great time with bright students. But does the Minister agree that many UK universities are now dependent on overseas applications and overseas student fees, and that this can have a detrimental effect on the cultural life of the university and perhaps on its overall quality? In some institutions, it seems that the courses offered and their quality have changed as universities race to increase their fee income through a higher overseas student ratio. I am not saying that this is true of all universities, and there are other ways of obtaining income. It requires more work by universities, but many have pioneered other ways of getting that income by setting up overseas campuses.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

It is not really within my brief to comment on the financing of universities, so the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not go too deeply into that. However, I can be clear about the grounds on which a student’s permission to stay may be cancelled, and this relates to some of the points the noble Baroness has made: where the person’s sponsorship or endorsement has been withdrawn, for example because they do not have the required knowledge level of the English language; where the person does not start their course with their sponsor—that is important because, as universities know, people sign up but do not turn up; where the person ceases to study, which can include no longer attending their course, completing it at an earlier date or the start date of their course being delayed for more than 28 days; where the sponsor loses their licence—this is important too—or transfers the business, so if they are not a serious higher education institution and are not sustainable; or where the business for which the person studies is transferred to another business or institution and that business or institution, for example, fails to apply for a sponsor’s licence.

If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I do not feel I can comment on higher education funding, but we think we have robust arrangements for removing people and cancelling student visas where there are the sort of problems I have set out, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, referred in relation to crime and disorder.

Foreign nationals—including students, of course—who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation. Before coming to your Lordships’ House, I was deeply involved for many years with the Prison Service, and I saw at first hand the problems of not deporting foreign national offenders and what that was doing to not just immigration policy but the prison capacity crisis. I spent several years working on that policy with the Ministry of Justice, so I understand that problem very well and take very seriously the need to get better at it.

On the specifics of the amendments about publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes a vast amount of migration statistics, as your Lordships know, including information on visas, returns and detentions. If I may say so, too much of that information does not play a large enough role in an often fevered public debate which is often based on rumours rather than detailed facts. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. This ensures that we identify changing needs for new statistics to support public understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, have made suggestions, and they may want to continue to press that case.

The Government recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public about the numbers and types of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK, what happens to foreign national offenders after they have been convicted—I have already stressed my interest in this subject—and what happens to them after they have completed their sentences. We understand the importance of this information. The department is assessing what more can be done to improve the processes for collecting and verifying relevant data on foreign national offenders and their offences and to establish a more regular means of placing that data in the public domain. By the end of 2025—so, again, not far away—if this work progresses as planned, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on foreign national offenders subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK.

Before I sit down, I shall make one other comment in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, about the agreement between the UK and France. It remains firmly in place, and we shall continue to work with the French Government in all their various forms. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

I regret having to take so much time, but I wanted to explain why the other Members who support these amendments could not speak today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 154A seeks to extend the conditions for someone subject to immigration controls by adding a proposed new paragraph (c) to Section 15(1) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. I am not a lawyer and apologise for my slowness in working out how you refer to a subsection of a section. It deals with the rules for employers or businesses using delivery riders covered by this Act. It aims to ensure that all who deliver and make their living from transporting goods, meals and other matters, whatever the vehicle they drive, have a full driving licence, and that the businesses which employ, contract or otherwise with the bikers will be held accountable if they do not have the necessary driving licence.

I tabled the amendment because, as they stand, the regulations governing e-bikes are complex and difficult to operate. They involve a level of commitment and time by the police forces of the UK which, under the stringencies, operational priorities and finances of today, they are unlikely to be able to afford. A report from the Guardian of 4 September illustrates some of these difficulties, referring to two police constables from the City of London cycle response unit. It reveals that, for e-cycles, particularly those used for delivery, there is often a breach of the conditions for using them. The report highlighted that changes are made to an e-bike to empower it to travel at speeds of up to 60 miles an hour. They are finding these and impounding them.

This is certainly a problem, but so are the routine offences committed daily by delivery bikes, which make life for people using the pavement and public spaces—whether parks, gardens, commons, greens, pieces or streets in the towns and cities of this country—dangerous. These bikes career at speed on pavements and cycleways, with no front or rear lights at night. Whether on the streets or the pavement, they continue to break the Highway Code. I have had a very instructive weekend on the Highway Code, which I recommend to your Lordships. Many, but not all, delivery riders are from overseas. We must presume that they have the right to work under Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006.

That also applies to self-employed contractors, because it makes it unlawful to employ an individual who does not have the right to work in the UK, and engaging a contractor falls under the definition of employing for the purposes of the Act. The section prohibits someone employing an adult subject to immigration control if the person has not been given leave to enter or remain, the leave is invalid or out of date or the subject has been prevented from accepting employment.

My amendment specifically adds the prohibition on employing or contracting with drivers or bikers without a full driving licence, whether delivery is made by a motorbike or an e-cycle or the normal motorised ways of doing so. The aim is to ensure that they have a full driving licence and are covered by licence rules. The law already obliges deliverers who drive a car, a lorry or a motorcycle to have a valid licence, as well as registering, insuring and taxing the vehicle and getting an MoT, and some, indeed, have the courier addition, but this amendment extends to those who ride or drive an e-bicycle to do so—to deliver goods, groceries, meals, whatever—whether the vehicle is powered by combustion engine, electric battery or hybrid.

As matters stand, the rules are that anyone over 14 can ride an electric bike without a driving licence and without the bike being registered, taxed or insured, provided it is an electrically assisted pedal bike—an EAPC. To qualify as such a bike, it must have pedals that can be used to propel. It can have more than two wheels, but its electric motor must have a continuous rated output of no more than 250 watts, and it must not be able to propel the bike when it is travelling at more than 15.5 miles per hour. That is, the battery must not be such that it can power the bike at more than 15.5 miles per hour, although, if you are a speedy cyclist, you are allowed to do so by pedalling. The bike must show the continuous rate of power output of the manufacturer.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I simply want to ask the noble Baroness whether she can explain what the very detailed description she is giving has to do with border security, immigration or asylum.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I will come to that point, if I may. Anyway, there are very stringent rules governing these bikes, and they are all available. If your bike does not meet them, you have to register for a full scooter licence.

To answer the noble Lord’s intervention, for which I am very grateful, many delivery bikers come from overseas. I said at the start that we presume that they are covered by the rules under the 2006 Act. What I want to do is to add, for those people who are specifically covered by these immigration controls who drive these delivery bikes, that their employers will face an additional requirement if they come from overseas, which I think is germane to the debate we are having on borders, because many delivery bikers come from overseas and are subject to immigration controls.

If I may conclude and explain why I think it is perhaps necessary for the Home Office to consider this and take it on board, I go back to the police constable who says that illegal bikes are, in effect, motorbikes.

“These people have passed no test, have no road training and don’t have the road skills. They … ride around without insurance, tax, the bike not conforming to lights and everything else it should conform to, it’s not registered with the DVLA, all these things”.


One of the instances he dealt with was indeed an overseas biker who came from Bangladesh and had had his engine changed. The PC said that the problem was mainly to do with delivery bikes, but it could be with other bikes.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord German, for mentioning the very unfortunate accident that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, suffered. I was not aware of that. Many noble Lords will be well aware of the fearless campaigning on humanitarian issues over many years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, often in very dangerous situations in various countries, so it is somewhat ironic that he suffered an injury at Victoria station, I think. I hope that it was not serious, and I very much look forward to seeing him back in his place as quickly as possible.

I want to speak to my Amendment 154, and I am also happy to support every other amendment in the group apart from Amendment 154A. I do so because last year, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was fortunate enough to serve on the committee on modern slavery to which the noble Baroness referred, which was chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord will know that we will examine the issues following the debate today; that is the purpose of Committee. I will reflect on what has been said by all noble Lords and examine how we can meet individuals’ desire to collect further information to assess the situation, at the same time as not putting undue burdens on the system as a whole. I hope that is of assistance to the noble Lord and indeed to my noble friend Lord Rees.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I seek clarification on something the Minister said. He told the Committee that they were seeking to address some of the problems that my amendment raised through other ways, including through the DVLA, the Home Office and certain measures. But will they include drawing in to those other measures those categories of delivery bike that do not now require any papers or licence and may have been changed to empower them to go far beyond the permitted 15.5 miles per hour? We have no way of knowing that unless our police forces are out on the streets as a response unit, like those police in the City of London, and impounding them—which is very heavy on police time.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. I start with the question of illegal employment and working. The Government are very exercised to ensure that, both in the Bill and in regular enforcement now being undertaken, we crack down on illegal employment, which effectively undercuts legitimate businesses, exploits individuals in that illegal employment and is not a good use for society as a whole, as a contributory factor. We are very focused on that, and the Bill focuses on a large amount of those elements.

Separately, the noble Baroness raises areas outside my direct responsibility, which are Department for Transport-related issues about enforcement and regulations. I will draw those remarks to the attention of the Transport Minister, who will be able to reflect on them and who is also exercised about the very issues she mentions.

The noble Baroness will also know, I hope, that in the Crime and Policing Bill, which will come before this House shortly, there are also measures to improve police powers on seizure of bikes, rather than prosecution of individuals, where there are digressions from the law. That means going through traffic lights, going on pavements, speeding and all those things where the police, rather than having to give a warning, will potentially now be able to seize an electric vehicle used in those ways under the Crime and Policing Bill. So the three different elements are all there.

In this current piece of legislation, the amendment the noble Baroness has put forward does not meet the requirements I am seeking to achieve. With that, I hope noble Lords will withdraw or not move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in favour of the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It seems to me that this is a perfectly proportionate amendment, in that it seeks to build on the Government’s own Clause 48, to amend Article 33(2) of the refugee convention, by including there offenders against the Sexual Offences Act 2003, explaining further how this would operate and be extended.

My noble friend Lord Murray’s amendment develops that further by proposing that those who commit immigration offences as now defined in the 1971 Act will be deemed to have committed a serious offence and will therefore fall under the provisions of this measure. It is a perfectly proportionate amendment and, although noble Lords may be concerned that there are loopholes which mean that some applicants will rightly be here because of their claims, they can take comfort in the refugee convention saying that they need to come directly to the UK from a country where their life or liberty is in danger. So that part of their immigration—entering the country without leave to remain—would also be deemed an offence. Therefore I support the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness and say again to the Minister, who will probably curse me for it, that there is no data and we need that data to understand the size of the problem. It must be not just pure data about age. It must also be about the response when children or young people are placed in the wrong one, and what support they need. I will leave it there.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Murray. They are interesting amendments because they seek to tackle the same problem by different means. The aim is to have accurate information about age and to require that it be secured.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

We cannot accept a situation that may have existed 80 years ago and assume that it is applicable to today. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, said, things can change pretty quickly, at the snap of a finger—and things are changing. Our world is dominated by authoritarian leaders, corruption and other forces. We cannot simply stick to the ground as it was after the Second World War, which is what we are doing. We have to move. We do not want to destroy the fundamental benefits of a lot of these treaties, but we must make sure that they have credibility with the public. I can assure noble Lords that, if they go out on to the streets and tell people that we have to support the 1951 refugee convention, they will find that it means nothing to the lives of ordinary people. That is the mistake that Parliament and the Government have been making for the last 20 years.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 203J, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which has been so ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I was glad of the response from other noble Lords in the Chamber to my noble friend’s very constructive suggestion. Across the Committee, there is recognition that we have a problem. I know that in the House of Commons this is now recognised across the Benches, and I have heard it discussed on these Benches with a great sense of a constructive approach to try to deal with things as they are. That is the approach of my noble friend.

We are looking at figures and costs which, as other noble Lords have said, are really very high. We know that 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. That is 14% more than in the year ending June 2024 and 8% more than the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002. Of asylum claims, 55,700 come from people arriving on small boats or through other illegal routes. Of these, 43,000 arrive on small boat crossings and 12,100 through such routes as the back of a lorry, shipping containers or without relevant documentation. The overall figures include around 41,000 people who have come to the UK on a visa or other leave—an authorised route—and who seek asylum.

We are dealing with two broad categories of claimant: people who are coming through irregular routes and those who are coming through legal routes, all of whom claim asylum, or did so in these numbers in 2025. The people who come by small boats or in other ways—lorries or shipping containers—normally come directly from France, from where they make dreadfully dangerous crossings across the high seas, where after arrival, for the year ending in June, we see the figures for those claiming asylum.

Why do they come to the UK? Noble Lords have spoken about the many reasons why they come here. One of the legal answers is that, under the UK’s immigration law, they would be deemed to have committed an offence for not having the necessary authorisation to enter as stipulated under the Immigration Act 1971 and would therefore be deemed to have committed an offence. But the arrangements in Section 31 of the Immigration Act 1999, as my noble friend Lord Murray already explained, are based on Article 31 of the refugee convention. That convention suggests that, where their life or freedom is threatened and they present themselves to the authorities and show good cause for the illegal entry, as has been stated, or if the person stopped in a safe country before coming to the UK—this is in subsection 2—they must show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the refugee convention.

We know that just under half of claims—48%—which received an initial decision in the year ending June 2025 were granted. Although that figure is a smaller proportion in comparison to the year ending June 2024, when it was 58%, or below the peak of 77% in September 2022, it is still around half of all people claiming asylum. In France, 27% of claims are granted—this may be one other reason why they could travel on; it will be for the courts to decide under present law whether it is a good reason. Of course, these figures will change when there are appeals or reviews.

My noble friend Lord Murray has spoken about the legal context and the initial meaning of the refugee convention and the relevant Article 31. I will just say a word about the historical convention. It was in the post-Second World War era. This was another time and another world; we were dealing with different problems during the post-war settlement of Europe, when many of the borders had been redrawn and people had suffered terribly under the occupation by Germany, and many millions had died in the Soviet Union. We are dealing in the refugee convention with questions arising from a war in which Britain played a leading part. She had been to the forefront to defend her own sovereignty and, as Churchill always said and all parties agreed, to restore the liberty of European countries threatened, or indeed subjugated, by Germany before 1945. We can understand the historical context, and I accept fully the legal context which my noble friend Lord Murray outlined. However, because of the changed interpretation, the law as we now have it is applied to facilitate global migration in an era of mass travel, much of it with economic aims.

As I mentioned, noble Lords on other Benches have drawn attention to the legacy which we are dealing with and how we tackle it. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is offered. It is in line with government policy not to abandon international conventions, but it restores a meaning and, to my mind, is a lifeline towards saving the constitutional democracy of this country, which we see, night after night on our screens, under threat because people in this country who are law-abiding and who have welcomed refugees over centuries—far more than other countries—really cannot bear the brunt of it any more. I beg the Minister to accept Amendment 203J.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

On this side of the House, we have always taken the view believed, as my noble friend and others have said—and I know that we have previously debated trade union activity, right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs—that it is important for workers to be able to organise in their own interests to improve their working conditions, and pay in particular. But it seems odd that, in its haste to support the demands of the trade unions, this provision will remove proper, well-organised trade union supervision of industrial disputes. So, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, because the case has not been made, it will backfire, and you will have disorder and an acrimonious relationship in some of these industrial disputes. The Minister should think very carefully about whether, with regard to Clause 72, this is a sensible way forward to remove the provision for the proper, orderly, well-organised supervision of industrial disputes and strike action.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I will say a word in particular about some of the amendments. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, people in the country will ask, “How can it be that, in a democracy, a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund?” That is a question about democracy in the workplace. How is it that it can go—if it does go—to one political party? I take the point about affiliated unions and the different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked as a Parliament to pass legislation that has a direct impact on the party opposite: the Government. I cannot think that there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party, but I am willing to be put wise. So, it is a sectional problem that we are dealing with.

All the amendments in this group seek to tackle workplace democracy under the Bill, which would use the law to promote the powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. Some 11% of them are in private sector businesses and command practically the whole productive economy of this country, and 30% are in the public sector—so 20% overall. Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes. I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass.

In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. That undermines any claim the Government make that the Bill is good for workers. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but, in this context, unless it omits Clause 59, it brings disrepute on the unions, the Government and this Parliament. Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour Government of July 2024 has in the matter of so-called rights used the Bill, and other measures, to pivot one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and work- force. That will not be regarded as a fair position in this country.

I also, for the same reasons, support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to omit Clauses 77 and 78 because, in the interests of transparency, working people and trade union members need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on. The noble Lord referred to some of the political purposes that they are used for. Of course there are others, and they may be very good purposes, but surely it is in everybody’s interest that we have transparency, just as I think the certification officer should have enforcement powers.

In the same vein, the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggest that the 50% threshold in a ballot for strike action should be retained. Without these safeguards, we make a laughing stock of the idea of democracy in the workplace, our economy and the whole country if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent.

I do not like the totalitarian thread of the Bill. Times have moved on since the days of Herbert Henry Asquith and the time when trade unions represented working people and the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain’s economy. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed. Today we see a service economy of roughly 80% and a productive economy of goods of roughly 20%. All the amendments in this group matter, and I particularly support those to omit Clauses 59, 77 and 78 and reverse the attempt by the Government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action in a ballot.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that that is the point of this House, and that is what we do. Well, we could have just put the tape recording from Committee on and then gone to the Tea Room for a tea and played it for the same amount of time. Almost the same number of exponents were expressing the same views again and again.

I will try to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. We support his amendment. The reason for that is that the opt-in system is the best because it maximises choice and transparency for individuals and retains political funds. They need to understand what their funds are being used for.

Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would retain the 50% ballot threshold required for trade unions undertaking industrial action. The Bill would remove this threshold entirely, meaning that a trade union could vote for strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We tabled similar amendments in Committee, and we have concerns about the democracy and democratic integrity of strike action ballots, which this Bill could potentially harm. We also believe that the current threshold for being able to undertake strike action is suitable and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. If a Division is called on this amendment, we will also support it.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, a central arbitration commission might not be Orwellian but I feel that a Central Arbitration “Committee” is. We can agree to disagree on that, but the word “committee” is in the actual name.

Imagine how all this will be taken by the neck on which this regulatory boot is going to be placed by the Bill. All my amendment does is suggest some small limit to when a trade union might announce the date on which it wishes to meet its members. That would provide a proper, proportionate and fair way of giving both sides, company and union, what they need. Indeed, the delay would actually help the union, by allowing it to find a time when more staff were present for the mooted meeting.

The Bill gives the union three months in which to complain if management refuse the proposed time to meet. Surely if three months can be given to the union, two days is not too much to ask for the employer to consider any such request.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.

We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I may not agree with some of the sentiments of some noble Lords, but I have listened to all the arguments in the last few years, such as when minimum wage was debated. The scaremongering that businesses will go bust does not hold water with me.

We are not anti-business; you cannot find someone more pro-business than me. I have started businesses and been a small business person myself. I strongly believe that this Bill works for workers and for business.

Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, let me say this: the Government are committed to supporting SMEs. We accept that they have been subject to a challenging operating environment and global uncertainty. That is why the Government have set up the new business growth service, to streamline access to support, and why the new strategy will span key areas, including access to finance, market expansion, business capability development, entrepreneurship, and the creation of a strong and stable business environment. In combination with our industrial strategy, trade strategy and, I hope, our SME strategy, which will be published shortly, it is a key part of this Government’s plan for change to encourage growth and put more money in people’s pockets.

Let me turn first to Amendments 132, 133, and 134. We introduced a streamlined route through the Central Arbitration Committee, which was established in 1975. It is a decision-making process for model access proposals to ensure that genuine and reasonable requests for access are not subject to unnecessary delay, while maintaining appropriate safeguards where complexity or dispute remains.

Regarding Amendments 129, 131 and 145, we believe that strong trade unions are central to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. Right of access is key to this. The access framework allows for flexibility for SMEs. Unions and employers can negotiate an access agreement and employers may challenge proposals they consider unsuitable. Where an access agreement cannot be agreed, the CAC determines whether access should be granted, and this decision will be guided by matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.

On Amendment 128, the intention behind this measure is to ensure that all workers are informed of their legal rights at work without imposing undue burden on employers. Making it a requirement for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is about fundamental fairness and transparency. Too many people, especially in low-paid or insecure jobs, do not know that they have this right. We are not telling anyone to join a union; we are simply making sure that they know it is an option. Just as employers are expected to inform staff about health and safety rules or their right to paid leave, they should also be clear about the right to union representation.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will the Minister agree that it is a bit heavy-handed to require an employer to furnish a new employee, at the same time as giving them the agreed terms and conditions of employment letter, with a statement on their right to join a trade union? I cannot see that that is proportionate.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is just like any other right that employees expect, such as health and safety, annual leave and all that. The right to join a union does not mean that they have to join a union; it is still their choice. It is a small step that empowers workers and supports a fairer and more balanced workplace.

The statement of trade union rights will be provided at the start of employment, alongside an existing written statement of particulars already required under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and at other prescribed times. Given that it builds on an established process, we believe that this measure places minimal burden on employers, including many small businesses. We will consult on the practical details of Clause 55 before this is set out in secondary legislation.

On Amendment 130, the right to access is a complex policy and will involve detailed practical consideration. We will therefore provide for the operational details of a responsible and regulated access framework in secondary legislation. Ahead of doing so, we will publicly consult on the operational details this autumn, including on model access terms that the CAC must consider reasonable for both employers and unions to comply with, and the appropriate amount of notice a union must give before access takes place. Consulting before setting out these operational details will ensure that we cater for a variety of scenarios and workplaces and will ensure that these measures are fair and workable in practice. We believe that providing for this operational detail now, ahead of consultation, would be premature. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 128.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.

The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.

Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.

Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.

I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.

Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.

We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.

Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.

I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.

Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.

The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.

Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.

However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:

“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.


As I explained in Committee, we are

“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”

for learners and employers

“aligned with the industrial strategy”.

This will include

“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]

We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.

Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.

Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.

In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but that is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between the current arrangements and some of the proposals we have before us today.