Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is daunting to follow two such experts on the subject. I cannot match their eloquence, but, like them, I feel strongly that these rule changes are wrong. Some of them, we have to admit, we were warned of in the White Paper, which we discussed on 17 November. Even so, there are some surprises.

Refusing to issue visas to enable Sudanese and Afghan students to come here is new and startlingly insensitive, given that Afghan women aged 12 and over are barred from any form of education back home and that in Sudan there is the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis. It is catastrophic and heartbreaking, as the Leader of the House correctly described it earlier this afternoon. Refusing even skilled worker visas to Afghans looks very like washing our hands of a mess that is partly of our making.

In November, the Home Secretary said,

“we will create a new … visa route, solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement”.

Where is that new route? It is not there. It is not in today’s ragbag of changes. Instead, the door is slammed shut on students from Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Cameroon.

Undoubtably the most significant change—and it was foreshadowed—is the new requirement for reassessments of refugee status for all refugees every 30 months for up to 20 years. This will do huge damage. It will hurt the people concerned, making their integration much harder. It will make it harder for them to get accommodation, it will make their children’s education harder and it will be harder for them to look for a job, which we allow a refugee to do only if the asylum application has been outstanding for over 12 months through no fault of their own. It will make it harder for them to progress in work, because employers will not invest in training workers whose right to remain here is so temporary and transitory.

In another of today’s changes, we twist the knife by imposing a new ban on refugees taking low-paid jobs, precisely the jobs in construction, social care, farming and nursing where the real shortages are. Why do we have to be so cruel, and at such cost to ourselves? Apart from the Exchequer costs discussed by the noble Lord, Lord German, of putting refugees through up to eight or nine reassessments, think of the economic activity foregone and the taxes foregone. It is an own goal. It is bad for the country, as well as being bad for the refugees. I hope it is true that some in government are urging the Home Secretary to reconsider.

For me, the most striking feature of the Paisley debate among the Scottish party leaders the other night was the huge critical audience reaction to the anti-immigrant stance of the two right-wingers. The Scottish people clearly do not feel that immigrants are a threat. Of course, the population of Scotland would decline but for immigration. Immigrants seem to be welcomed in Scotland. I hope that the Labour Party will think very hard about whether the stance that has been taken by the Home Office now is a wise one. I do not think it is wise for the country and I suspect it may not be wise for the party—although that is not my business.

Finally, I will say a word about process. I am privileged to serve on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is skilfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, both referred to our report on the rule changes, which drew attention, in fairly scathing terms, to the undesirability of piecemeal changes, to the absence of impact assessments for all but two of these many changes, to the lack of any consultation with outside expertise and, most surprisingly to me, to the baffling inability of Home Office officials to explain how the new rules will work and to answer our questions. Some of the questions were quite basic but we got no answers. It would be very good if the Minister, who I greatly admire, or one of his Home Office colleagues, would go through the report that the committee has produced and let it have answers to the questions that officials ducked when we raised them, and which remain open. Some sort of response to our report would be very much welcomed.

We concluded, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, noted, that

“the Home Office has not fully thought through the implications of the policy”,

and that

“the lack of an assessment of the effects of, in particular, the reduction in the duration of refugees’ permission to stay and the changes to the occupations in which they may be permitted to work makes full scrutiny of these changes impossible”.

That is our conclusion. We concluded that we could not do our job and advise the House properly on these changes. We could not do our job and so Parliament cannot do its job. Therefore, I support both regret Motions, for reasons both substantive and procedural.

We know that primary legislation is pending. It would have been so much better to wait for the primary legislation. If these changes have to happen, we must be allowed the chance to debate them properly in primary legislation, to think it through and let Parliament think it through, or, better still, to let the Home Office think again.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I too declare an interest as a RAMP associate.

The changes to asylum law, triggered by the statement of changes, was heralded by the Home Secretary as

“the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 509.]

This is echoed in the Explanatory Memorandum’s explanation that this

“marks the start of introducing a new regime”.

Yet without these regret Motions, which I very much welcome, we would not even be debating this fundamental change from what the EM describes as

“an assumption of offering permanent protection … towards a more basic, and temporary protection”.

Surely, as has already been said, in the name of democratic accountability, such a significant change merits primary legislation subject to full parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses.

It is the change to the basic asylum protection that will be my main focus, but I echo my noble friend’s welcome to the extension of the Ukraine scheme and his Motion’s concern about the visa brake’s prevention of educational opportunities, including for Chevening scholars. I will leave it to colleagues to say more about this, but I simply wish to raise the question of the lack of a published equality impact assessment.

The response to my Written Question about vulnerable women from Sudan and Afghanistan who had already been selected for scholarships completely ignored the gender dimension mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. The cursory treatment of equalities in the general impact assessment displayed total ignorance of the position of women and our responsibilities under the UN’s women, peace and security agenda, for which we are penholders.

This raises a more general question about the lack of impact assessments for key measures, which, as we have heard, the Secondary Legislation and Scrutiny Committee advises makes full scrutiny impossible. The committee is somewhat dismissive of Minister Tapp’s assurance that the Home Office takes the provision of IAs “extremely seriously” and concludes that the Home Office may not have

“fully thought through the implications”

of the change in asylum protection.

I add my disappointment that we have not yet seen a child rights impact assessment. In response to an Oral Question, my noble friend the Minister assured me that such assessments

“will be conducted throughout the policy development process”.—[Official Report, 27/1/26; col. 763.]

But, in answer to a more recent Written Question, he emphasised:

“There is no legal requirement to publish Child Impact Assessments and to commit to do so would be premature given that for many of the measures, policy development is ongoing”.


So this new regime starts without parliamentarians and others having the necessary information to assess its effect on children and other asylum seekers. This is among the wider process concerns raised by the SLSC, including the total lack of consultation.

When asked about this, the Home Office responded:

“Given the pace of change”—


which surely the Home Office itself has set—

“it is not always possible to consult ahead of all policy reform”.

While the significance of some of the changes was accepted, the Home Office later stated that

“it is important to put that meaning into context for the change in question as those factors on their own do not always result in a justification for a public consultation”.

What on earth does that mean? I am not surprised that the SLSC was not convinced by the Home Office responses, and I sympathise with my noble friend the Minister, who has to defend the very poor case made by his department.

I turn to the substantive impact of the move towards temporary protection for refugees. The SLSC is similarly sceptical about the Home Office’s responses to its questions on employment and suggested that we might want to press further on this. Can my noble friend tell us what the evidential basis is for assuming that temporary protection status will improve refugees’ employment prospects, when organisations such as the Refugee Council, Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation argue the opposite in their submissions to the SLSC? Please could the Minister not respond that the expectation is that refugees will be able to switch to the new bespoke work and study route, which offers a speedier route to indefinite leave to remain, given that the Government still cannot say what the criteria for joining it will be or even when it will be introduced?

The mention of a fee and the possession of skills, together with changes to the occupations in which asylum seekers can seek work after 12 months, suggests that the work lane of this route might be open only to those who are able to access more skilled and better-paid jobs. That should be irrelevant to refugee status and would create a two-class system of refugees. If my noble friend cannot give us any details now about the work and study route, can he at least say when the Home Office hopes to make those details available?

On the related question of the permitted occupations open to asylum seekers after 12 months, while it is welcome that the number of available occupations will be increased, it is not clear why this cannot be in addition to the current rules rather than instead of them. As it is, and as the SLSC warns, it could mean that fewer asylum seekers are able to find work and, as we have heard, it also closes off the social care sector to them, which could have significant effects. Its report says that the Home Office has not engaged with this point, so I hope my noble friend will do so now and will also commit to monitoring the effects of the change, as called for by the SLSC.

Employment is an important element of integration, which we have heard about, which the EM, echoing Ministers, states is a key aim of this and related reforms, in line with the recently published, and welcome, social cohesion action plan. But I have not yet seen an explanation of how making refugees’ data so insecure is conducive to integration, from the point of view either of refugees themselves or of employers and landlords who might think twice, as we have heard, before taking them on. This is certainly not the view of organisations that work with refugees, including the International Rescue Committee and the UNHCR. The latter warns:

“Providing refugees with only 30 months of leave at a time is likely to be detrimental to refugees’ sense of security, belonging and stability, factors critical to positive engagement and participation in society. Status of such a temporary nature may impact on a person’s ability to find housing, seek employment, learn English and develop skills, and risks undermining the Government’s intention to enhance refugees’ ability to contribute to their new communities”.

Child Poverty and Homelessness: Asylum and Settlement Policies

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications for their child poverty and homelessness strategies of their proposed changes in asylum and settlement policies.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Government will ensure that the needs of vulnerable people, including families with children, are fully considered as part of our asylum and settlement reforms. We remain committed to assessing all proposals carefully to create a system which is both fair and sustainable. Ministers are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other stakeholders to understand the potential impacts of these changes, especially in relation to child poverty and homelessness.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the child poverty and homelessness strategies have been widely welcomed, but there is growing concern that the asylum and settlement policies will, as a recent Home Affairs Committee report warned, lead to more child poverty, thereby undermining these strategies. The Home Affairs Committee is clear that

“The Government will need to understand and mitigate any increase in child poverty”.


Will my noble friend therefore please undertake, first, to publish now an assessment of the impact of their policies on child poverty and homelessness, and secondly, to review and ease the “no recourse to public funds” rules, actual and proposed, so as to meet the child poverty strategy’s commitment to ensuring that vulnerable migrant children receive the support that they require, regardless of immigration status?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I say to my noble friend that the aim of these measures is to reduce misuse of support, not to make people homeless or to increase child poverty, which it is a core mission of the Labour Government to eradicate. We will not deny support to those who genuinely need it and who have no way to support themselves. My noble friend will also know that we have consulted on these measures. We have had some 200,000 responses and we are currently assessing them. A full economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment of the regulations will be undertaken in due course, and we will look at the responses to the consultation to inform how we deal with these measures as we go forward.

Asylum and Immigration: Children

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether a child’s rights impact assessment was conducted on the proposals affecting children in (1) Restoring Order and Control (CP1418), published on 17 November 2025, and (2) A Fairer Pathway to Settlement (CP1448), published on 20 November 2025.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

Policy development is ongoing for reforms across the across the asylum and immigration system. Child impact assessments will be conducted throughout the policy development process to consider the impact of the reforms on children, in accordance with Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, that is encouraging, but the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expects child rights impact assessments to be integral to policy-making from the outset. Deep concern about the likely impact of these proposals on children’s well-being and security and on child poverty have been expressed by, for instance, the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium, Barnardo’s and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Can my noble friend therefore give us an assurance that a child rights impact assessment will be not just conducted but published without further delay and that the principle he recently enunciated so well in this House will guide final decision-making: namely, that it is really important that, whatever our policy on migration and illegal migration, children do not suffer as a result?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I can give my noble friend the assurance that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an essential framework which will guide both Ministers and officials in drawing up the appropriate policies to ensure that we look at the safeguarding, welfare and best interests of the child. My noble friend will know that the proposals about which she has raised questions are subject to consultation up to 12 February. She will also know that I have suggested to her that we meet to discuss those issues outside the Chamber. I look forward to both her response to the consultation and her representations at any meeting we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think that even the Opposition would agree that another party is welcome to Suella Braverman, in the current context. I have never shared the analysis or the objectives of the previous Government, or the previous Home Secretaries, on how we deal with illegal migration and the serious issues of managing our borders. We have just put through an immigration and asylum Act, which has set up a border command. We have agreed deals with France that are making some difference; we have agreed deals with Germany; and we are looking upstream with Iraq and other countries. We are working internationally. That is all in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government, who basically let this thing happen without any intervention, and those who now stand up and say they have the solutions are the ones who caused the problems.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take my noble friend back to the question of child poverty? I very much appreciate his answers. Migrant children are disproportionately at the risk of child poverty. I am a great supporter of the Government’s child poverty strategy, but that will not help those children, largely because it is not easing the no recourse to public funds rule. There is a widespread consensus that these proposals, including some that I do not think will be consulted on, will make it worse. Could the noble Lord take that question of no recourse to public funds back to the Home Office, so it can take another look?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I say to my noble friend that there is a consultation. I will meet with my noble friend to discuss that, with Peers from the Government side who have made representations to me. We will listen to those representations. Ultimately, though, the Government have to act on these issues and when the consultation closes we will assess those responses accordingly.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, basic discretion, without stronger guidance and safeguards around how it should be applied, may lead to children being sanctioned. It will needlessly segregate refugees and British citizens, in the end damaging community cohesion. Stating how discretion should be exercised does not nullify the discretionary element of the guidance. Therefore, I implore the Government to commit to look again at the guidance for what I argue are minimal safeguards. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to express my strong support for everything that the right reverend Prelate said. I will not repeat the principled case I made in Committee, but I thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter he sent me after the debate. In it, he stated that

“it is important to ensure clarity both for applicants and decision makers”.

One way of achieving greater clarity would be to accept the right reverend Prelate’s request that the guidance spell out explicitly that a person must not be refused citizenship because of irregular entry if that were to contravene our international obligations, particularly under the refugee convention, and that anyone who entered as a child should not be barred from citizenship on the grounds of the manner of their entry.

Leaving it to full discretion does not ensure clarity, despite the helpful reassurances provided by my noble friend and other Ministers, with the result that some of those who entered as children might be denied citizenship, even though it is accepted that the immigration breach was outside their control. Indeed, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, has already received reports of refusal on character grounds, based on how the person entered the UK as a child. The PRCBC also contests what my noble friend said in Committee about the guidance providing flexibility; in its experience, the guidance is routinely applied in a rigid fashion.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend not to plead flexibility as a justification for rejecting the very modest request of the right reverend Prelate to spell out in the guidance our obligations under international law, including our commitment to upholding the best interests of children. As the Court of Appeal has advised on sentencing policy, children are not mini-adults. No child who entered the country by irregular means should have that held against them when, subsequently, they would otherwise become eligible for citizenship.

I wish we could strike out completely this unjust and, as the right reverend Prelate called it, immoral rule, which will, as we have heard, impede refugee integration. The amendment would, at the very least, erect some guardrails around the rule’s implementation and thereby mitigate its impact. Failing that, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give the assurances sought by the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself persuaded by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Her arguments need to be listened to.

Archbishop Robert Runcie defined a saint as a person whose character has never been fully studied or explored. We all have a dark side to ourselves. If we talk about good character, it may appear in a person’s life only when they have moved away from all the bad stuff that was hanging around them. We carry within ourselves both a sainthood and some not so good characteristics—that is why Archbishop Robert Runcie’s definition of a saint was right.

When I arrived in this country in 1974 and went to Cambridge to study theology and my doctorate, I was so unwell in the first seven months that I was going in and out to see doctors. Eventually, they said that I must have lost a lot of blood through internal bleeding, from the blows received from Amin’s soldiers. I was very angry—extremely angry—that I should be subjected to such terrible things. Of course, that was all bottled up, but I was very angry. Had someone said to me at the time, “We want to know how good your character is, so that we may see whether you can become a citizen”, I would still have been extremely angry in those interviews.

It was not until one night, when I remembered my mother saying, “John, never point a finger at anybody, because when you do, three others are pointing back at you”. Friends, noble Lords, noble Baronesses, this whole question of good character can be very subjective and misleading when the person first arrives, particularly when they come as children. We all have the grace and ability to grow out of some of the not-so-good bits of us, but we still remain a very rough diamond. We are never fully polished until we go through the gate of death.

I find it strange that this country—that I have grown to love, that always shows give and take, that always has this magnanimity of meeting people halfway—would, I am beginning to understand, now use good character as a ground for someone being accepted as a citizen. How do you know that at the time you receive them? They could go on and do some outrageous stuff, because within all of us there is the good and bad. Legislation based on good character as a way of allowing someone to be a citizen has probably not understood that we are on a scale of learning, of growing, of finding ourselves in the future. Even when we die, there will still be lots of stuff that we have not dealt with.

May I plead that when the guidance comes, particularly on dealing with people who arrived here as children, there is more grace than the harshness which I sometimes hear has come into this most green and pleasant land. People become more harsh, more judgmental, more unloving, more uncaring. The legislature should be the guardian against such attitudes and behaviour. I support the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

37: After Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
“Prescribed period for newly recognised refugees(1) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704), for “28” substitute “56”.(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act, but the Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would amend the Asylum Support Regulations to increase the period following a positive asylum decision during which a newly recognised refugee is eligible for financial and accommodation support from the Home Office from 28 to 56 days. It allows the Secretary of State to set a different period, as long as it is more than 56 days.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37. I am grateful to noble Lords who have added their names and to the Refugee Council. I also declare, and am grateful for, help received from RAMP as an associate.

The proposed new clause would ensure that newly recognised refugees have at least 56 days to move from asylum support to mainstream accommodation and financial support—commonly called the move-on period. I have tabled the amendment because, having introduced a pilot in December last year to extend the move-on period from 28 to 56 days to great acclaim, the Government, with minimal warning, reverted to 28 days in September for most childless adults of working age. Yet the pilot, together with the independent evaluation of it, had only recently been extended from its original end date in June. The Home Affairs Select Committee spoke for many when it recently said that it found the decision “extremely disappointing”.

I and other noble Lords made the case for the extension to 56 days in the debates on my Private Member’s Bill on the subject, because 28 days is simply not long enough to sort out the practicalities involved in the move from asylum support. The result is all too often homelessness and destitution, with devastating psychological effects. What should be a time of joy turns into a nightmare. Young people in particular, according to Young Roots,

“are thrown into crisis in which they may be unsafe and at risk of harm”,

just when they hope

“to get on with rebuilding their lives”.

We are talking not just about those officially considered vulnerable groups who will continue with the 56-day period, because all those affected are potentially vulnerable, as the Boaz Trust has shown.

In Committee on the PMB, I presented evidence from a range of NGOs on how well the pilot was working. In the words of NACCOM, the UK-wide No Accommodation Network, the extension to 56 days had

“proven overwhelmingly beneficial for new refugees and the organisations that support them”.

Similarly, London Councils called it a “vital support” and pointed to a number of positive effects. In a recent letter to the Minister, it states that

“extensive evidence shared by partners … shows that this was a successful policy initiative in reducing risks of rough sleeping and leading to better and more joined up responses across the system”.

British Red Cross reports similar findings from a range of local authorities. This is not surprising, given that an earlier LGA survey found that the extension to 56 days, in line with the Homelessness Reduction Act, was seen by its members as the single most effective change that could be made to the move-on period.

It is also not surprising, therefore, that the response to the reversion to 28 days for most refugees has been overwhelmingly negative. London Councils warns that it

“will put the progress that we have made so far at risk”,

and that it is particularly concerning as we approach the winter period. In a letter to the relevant Secretaries of State on behalf of more than 60 organisations, Homeless Link and NACCOM made it clear that they believed the change to be harmful, fearing that it would

“increase homelessness and rough sleeping, cause individual harm, put pressure on local statutory and voluntary sector organisations, and undermine the government’s commitment to ending homelessness through a cross-departmental strategy”.

The letter continued:

“The emerging evidence we have, including testimony from our respective member organisations and from a survey NACCOM conducted of its members, indicates that the 56-day pilot has helped reduce rates of homelessness and enabled more people to successfully move on from Home Office accommodation and begin to integrate and participate in their communities”.


Surely, this is exactly what the Government want to happen. Young Roots, which very kindly sent me evidence about the impact of the change, reports that:

“56 days works. It was very clear during the 56-day pilot that the longer move-on period was beneficial for everyone”.


Its front-line staff report that it helped with claiming universal credit, opening a bank account and finding accommodation. Importantly, its safeguarding data showed a 50% reduction in safeguarding incidents during the six months of the pilot. Previously, the most common reason for a safeguarding incident raised was homelessness.

Young refugees themselves are clear that they cannot manage the transition in 28 days. One said:

“28 days are not enough to apply for universal credit and open a bank account, so we need at least 56 days”.


Caseworkers have commented how the young people have been calmer, as

“there isn’t such a sense of desperation”,

and that a longer move-on period has helped them to

“begin planning their futures with greater stability and dignity”.

The longer move-on period may not be a silver bullet, but it has clearly had an overwhelmingly positive effect. I appreciate the pressure to reduce the use of asylum hotels, but it should not be vulnerable refugees who have to pay the price.

When questioned on “Panorama” about why the unexpected change, Minister Norris answered that

“artificially inflating the period that someone stays in a hotel is not doing them a favour”,

and that it is in a refugee’s interest for the period to be as short as possible. Is it in their interest to be turfed out on to the streets and made destitute? I think not. There is nothing artificial about increasing the period to that already operative in homelessness legislation. If anything, it was the original 28 days that was artificial, or “arbitrary”, to use the word used by the Home Secretary, who said something very similar earlier in answer to an Oral Question. This is worrying, as it suggests that the new team in the Home Office is simply out of touch with the evidence, yet surely this Government believe in evidence-based policy-making.

Young Roots tells us that,

“since the pilot was suddenly ended, we are already seeing the devastating impact on young refugees”,

with a

“50 per cent increase in the number of young people experiencing street homelessness”.

Referrals to supported accommodation are being rejected because they do not yet have the necessary universal credit documentation. The organisation is really worried about the health and well-being of young refugees as winter approaches. Similarly, Islington Council reports that

“far more people have been referred to our local Crisis homeless shelter”

and more are sleeping rough. It argues that,

“this is a clear indication that the shortening of the move-on period has shunted costs from central on to local government and the voluntary sector”,

as well as, as I have already said, on to refugees themselves.

In response to a topical Oral Question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, my noble friend the Minister repeatedly talked about “tweaking” rather than ending the pilot, but I hope he will accept that what he calls tweaking is causing real harm. My noble friend also responded more than once that “the vast majority” of newly recognised refugees are not affected, but given that we are constantly being told that most are single young men, and that in a Written Answer the Home Office was not able to provide data on the proportion of newly recognised refugees who are exempt, I cannot see how he can say that.

In conclusion, in a helpful letter to me, my noble friend the Minister said that the outcomes of the evaluation of the pilot

“will be used to inform longer term policy proposals”.

With winter approaching, I make a plea on behalf of organisations on the ground and the refugees they work with, as well as local authorities, to revert to 56 days immediately. At the very least, will the Minister give us an assurance that, if the evaluation reflects the positive evidence I have received of the pilot’s impact, the Government will, in the name of evidence-based policy-making, make the pilot permanent for all newly recognised refugees? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend Lady Lister can give us the breathing space to try to deal with this issue. She may be unhappy, and I accept that, but I hope she can give us breathing space. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German, is helpful, but we are trying to deal with this, and I would not wish to start a rush to Nightingale centres when we can continue our good work to reduce that backlog. For both those reasons, I urge my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken.

The formal position of the Opposition was on the grounds of disincentivising. How many of those who are willing to risk their lives coming over the channel even know about such a thing as a move-on period, and how many are aware how many days they get? I am sorry but it is just a ridiculous argument, and I do not accept it. Anyway, it does not really matter.

I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr, for their support. I note that the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a question that was not answered about what consultation there was with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days. I am pretty sure that the answer was none, so perhaps I can answer that on behalf of my noble friend. They were taken by surprise; they were given very little warning. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, rightly emphasised the question of integration and how we are undermining the integration of newly recognised refugees.

I appreciate my noble friend the Minister’s response. In some ways, I would just like to quote back to him. He said, “The pilot needs to run its course”. Yes, exactly—that is our case. The pilot should have run its course before reverting to 28 days for some of those who are part of the pilot. I understand the pressures that are being placed on the Government in terms of accommodation, but there is a pilot and an evaluation, and in the name of evidence-based policy-making that should have been allowed to, as he said, run its course. I will also quote back at him the concept of breathing space. To be honest, I am a bit more concerned about the breathing space we give to newly recognised refugees to be able to get their lives in order—which needs 56 days at least, not 28—than about the breathing space the Government have. But the Government have their breathing space.

I did not expect the Government to accept this amendment. I tabled it only because of the reversion. If the pilot was running its course, I would have been very happy to wait and see what the outcome was. My Private Member’s Bill is currently suspended, waiting for that.

I asked for, and realise I probably will not get, an assurance about the independent evaluation, which is a very good one, as my noble friend said, including voices of lived experience and so forth. I have a lot of faith in the evaluation but find it difficult to believe it is not going to show what all the various organisations have said to me: that the 56-day period, as I said, is not a silver bullet and does not solve all the problems but eases a lot of the problems faced by refugees, local authorities and voluntary organisations. I hope that underlying what my noble friend said is an acceptance that, if the evaluation shows that, the Government will accept 56 days in future. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 37 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments on the right of asylum seekers to work, and in particular Amendment 45, which makes the eminently reasonable proposal for there to be opportunities to review the evidence, if necessary year on year, on the impact of the current policy and the case for an alternative approach. As we have heard from the right reverend Prelate, there is enormously wide support for this proposal from employers, trade unions and local authorities, which have to deal with the consequences of the current policy.

Asylum seekers, who wait many months and sometimes years for their application to be determined, want the dignity of work and the opportunity to provide for their families and to visibly make their contribution to their communities—and, yes, to use their skills in the health service and in so many other areas too—rather than being stigmatised as a drain on public resources. It would be good for them and for their integration in the community—and it would be good for the Exchequer too, given the tax revenues they would contribute in place of the benefits they would otherwise be reliant on. It would also be bad for the informal, exploitative part of the labour market to which they might otherwise feel the need to turn.

My noble friend the Minister may, I suspect, make reference to the argument about a pull factor, but there is deeply contested evidence on whether the opportunity to work is really a key motivating factor for those making the desperate decision to cross illegally into our country. Let us have a real opportunity to look at that evidence—and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can indicate a recognition of the value that that might be able to contribute in determining our future policy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 44, which would simply reinstate the rights that the last Labour Government introduced, and I cannot understand what the case is against doing so now. If it is not possible to do that, my noble friend Lady O’Grady has made the very helpful suggestion of a summit to discuss how to take this forward.

I have long argued and voted for the principle of the right of asylum seekers to work, and that should include, once asylum seekers can work, the right to work in any job, not just those on the immigration salary list, such as a ballet dancer or a geophysicist—hardly critical to our economy or our health service. That is something that the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended on a number of occasions. However, when we in this House have voted in support of this principle in the past, it has been on the basis of a right to work after six months, not three months. That is what is being proposed by a lot of organisations, including Lift the Ban, so I think it is unfortunate that the amendments refer to three months, not six months, but the principle is an important one, for all the reasons that have already been given.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. It has been a very stimulating debate on one of the most difficult areas in the Bill, in my view. This group of amendments concerns the right to work and, of course, no one can dispute the vital role that work can play. We encourage people to contribute to society and support themselves, where appropriate. However, our position is that while a claim is pending, asylum seekers should not be working; nor should anyone who has entered the country illegally have the right to work. That is a clear and fair principle and one that we believe must underpin our immigration system.

Specifically on the amendments, Amendment 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, proposes granting asylum seekers the right to work after three months. Reducing the current 12-month waiting period to three months risks making the United Kingdom a more attractive destination for those who enter illegally; quite frankly, I think it is a pull factor. We do not believe this is sensible or appropriate, as such a change would incentivise further illegal entry. Here, with the greatest respect, I flatly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendment 44 seeks to restore wider rights for migrant domestic workers, including the ability to change employers freely and apply for indefinite leave to remain after five years. Again, we encourage all domestic workers to enjoy the flexibility of the job market, but while these workers remain on domestic worker visas, we do not think that the proposed changes are appropriate. Granting such rights prematurely would undermine the integrity of the Immigration Rules and create gaps that risk exploitation and misuse of the system.

Finally, on Amendment 45, we made our position clear: we do not believe the amendment is necessary as it risks diverting focus away from the effective administration and integrity of the asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to express briefly my support for my noble friend Lord Dubs. He talked about this being a question of morality. He talked about the importance of hope. At a time when among the wider public there is distrust of politics, to do something that is right would chime with them. They would look to this House to do the right thing. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about the children she saw in Calais. This is a safeguarding issue. We are constantly being told about the importance of safeguarding children in the context of other amendments, so surely we can support this amendment in the best interests of children following the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So, for the first time, I will be voting against my Government and in support of my noble friend.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I too, like my noble colleague, have not intervened on this Bill until now, but I feel compelled to, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. If anybody has a right to speak on this issue, he has. If we have a duty to listen to anyone on this issue, our duty is to listen to him. A Labour Party activist, a trade unionist in my village, used to have a saying that anything that is morally right cannot be politically wrong. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is morally right, and we should support it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to take part on this Bill at an earlier stage. The second amendment in this group, Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, addresses the issue of age assessment of young asylum seekers who may or may not be under 18, and we continue to support these amendments. My Amendment 27 deals with a more specific part of the age-assessment process. It seeks to introduce an immediate mandatory referral for a Merton-compliant, social work-led age assessment before any criminal proceedings can be taken against the individual. I thank the Home Office for issuing its paper on abbreviated age assessments earlier in the year, which clarifies its position on this sensitive issue of issuing criminal proceedings against an asylum seeker who says they are under 18, but who officials believe to be over 18. From these Benches, while it is a helpful clarification, it does not change the core position that this amendment wishes to remedy.

At the heart of the government note is an abbreviated and expedited process now led by National Age Assessment Board—NAAB—social workers. We still argue that this process needs to be carried out by local authorities and not by NAAB, because NAAB is answerable to the Home Office and, of course, to its Ministers. Any age-assessment process must be independent of the Government and their staff, who have often already decided that the individual is probably over 18. I therefore have some questions for the Minister.

The considerably shorter abbreviated age-assessment process has turned the premise of how old an individual is into trying to determine that somebody could be under 18, as opposed to establishing their actual age under the Merton-compliant system; whereas the full assessment uses age ranges in much more depth. In January 2022, the Kent intake unit tried an abbreviated process with an investigation half way between a full age assessment and a brief inquiry, which was found to be unlawful in the courts. Can the Minister say how the abbreviated system will be different from the previous Kent intake unit case? Can the Minister also confirm that, if someone is in a hotel saying that they are a child, then they are potentially a child in need in that area, and therefore the local authority needs to respond, given that the case law makes it abundantly clear that it has to take a view that is independent from the Home Office? It would be a miscarriage of justice if the Home Office tells local authorities, who think they are children, that they are not children. That must remain the role of local authorities. Can the Minister confirm that local authorities will still play this key independent role?

This amendment is laid because concerns continue that the National Age Assessment Board uses a hostile approach to the age-assessment process. The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit has investigated the experiences of children who have been assessed by the NAAB and found that it:

“Operates according to the Home Office’s political agenda, which is felt by the children being assessed … Carries out assessments that do not follow established age assessment guidance, and therefore make it difficult for children to engage meaningfully in the process … Causes distress, retraumatisation, mental health crisis, and ongoing trust issues for children”.


One young person said to the Greater Manchester Immigration Unit:

“From the first time, you feel that they are against you. This is their intention, to end with the report that you are an adult”.


This is not a safe human rights approach to making a decision about whether a young person and child could be deemed to be over 18, then treating them as such, without the safeguarding protections afforded to under-18s in our court system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 57, in my name and those of other noble Lords, to whom I am grateful for their support. I am also grateful to the Refugee Migrant Children’s Consortium for all its help and to my noble friend Lady Longfield, who cannot be in her place but who has written to my noble friend the Minister in support of the amendment, drawing on her experience as a former Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for finding the time the other week to discuss some of this with some of us. I should make clear my support for Amendment 27 and everything that has been said so far.

This amendment is focused on the age of assessment of children at the border. It would create safeguards for asylum-seeking children whose age is in dispute and would set limits on the use of scientific or technological age-estimation methods, which I believe the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, will cover. It would also provide for an annual report to Parliament.

To recap the case very briefly, as we have heard, the Home Office continues to assess incorrectly as adults a significant number of asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK based on a quick visual assessment of their appearance and demeanour. This has serious consequences—some have already been outlined—which include significant safeguarding risks when children are placed in accommodation with adults without appropriate safeguards, including the oversight of child protection professionals.

Concern has been expressed about this by the Children’s Commissioner, Ofsted, the British Association of Social Workers and, just last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee, which called it a “serious safeguarding issue”. Yet the Home Office appears to be more concerned about the potential risk of an adult masquerading as a child being housed with children even though child protection professionals will be present in those circumstances.

The Select Committee made it clear that it did not share the Home Office director-general of customer services’ confidence in the current system. In his recent inspection report, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration highlighted that over a decade of concerns around the Home Office’s “perfunctory” visual age assessments remain unaddressed, and that questions about policy and practice “remain unanswered”. He noted that

“inspectors were surprised at the lack of curiosity from individual officers and corporately about decisions that were subsequently disputed and overturned, and at the view that there was no learning to take from the later assessments”

made by local authority social workers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted all the chief inspector’s recommendations and that they are working to improve the data, which have been woefully poor hitherto.

I simply draw attention now to what the chief inspector described as his “overall message”, namely that the Home Office

“should look to work more closely and collaboratively with external stakeholders”,

among which he included NGOs,

“as much as possible in designing and delivering its processes”.

Thus, his first recommendation was that the Home Office should:

“Produce a stakeholder map and engagement plan that takes full account of the practical and presentational value of involving external stakeholders”,


including non-governmental organisations,

“in the development and delivery of relevant policies and best practice, including but not limited to input into and implementation of each of”

each of his other recommendations.

How does my noble friend plan to respond in practice to this recommendation? Will he agree to the establishment of a task and finish group that includes NGOs, notably members of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, to work with officials on taking forward the chief inspector’s recommendations? I understand that such collaboration has existed in the past but was ended about 10 years ago, so it would not be setting a precedent. I know it would be warmly welcomed by stakeholders, especially if provision were made to hear from those with direct experience of age disputes. The proposal was also supported by my noble friend Lady Longfield in her letter to the Minister.

I have made it clear to my noble friend the Minister that I do not plan to push the amendment to a vote. However, I will be very disappointed if he is not able to agree to this very modest proposal, which does no more than embody the spirit of what the chief inspector has recommended.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for very long on this, I hope. I also hope that the Minister does not feel that this is becoming a pattern—I am largely on the same side as him on this issue—and that I can bring a little bit of balance to the debate. Both noble Baronesses have mentioned the chief inspector. I looked carefully at his very balanced report. There are points on both sides. It is worth putting some of them on the record that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did not.

The chief inspector made the point that accurately assessing the age of young people is undoubtedly difficult. It has always been very difficult. It was difficult when I was the Immigration Minister between 2012 and 2014. The same debates that take place now took place then. It remains difficult. One of the reasons it is difficult is because there is an incentive in the system because, rightly, we treat children differently from and more generously than we treat adults. If you are not careful, adults game the system and say that they are children when they are not. That is a problem: first, because you are putting adults in an environment with children, which does present a child protection risk; and, secondly, it enables adults who have entered the country illegally and inappropriately to try to avoid the consequences of their actions. That brings the system into disrepute, which is not good for anyone.

The inspector makes the point that the Home Office gets some of its initial age decisions wrong and that it would be helpful if both sides accepted that. That is a point for the Minister to recognise: it is difficult and the Home Office does not always get it right. Importantly, he also said that the debate would be better if the Home Office and its critics could agree that some migrants lie about their age and that not to attempt to make some form of initial age assessment—which both noble Baronesses have criticised—risks incentivising more to do so. There is a balance to strike here.

I am pleased that these two amendments will not be pressed to a vote because I would not be able to support them. Amendment 27 seeks to put a bright-line rule in place which will strengthen the incentive for anybody to claim that they are a child because it would mean that they went automatically into the process and were treated as a child until it had been shown that they were not a child. That would make the Home Office’s job, on behalf of us all, to have a functioning immigration system even more difficult.

My concern about Amendment 57, given today’s fourth Oral Question and the pace of technology, is that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause does not specify how we should use technological methods of age estimation, including facial age estimation, saying that they must not

“be used as the sole or primary basis for determining age, or … override the presumption”

that someone is a child.

My problem is that the pace of that technology is such that I do not think we should be ruling out its use as the determining fact in statute. My understanding—I am sure there are AI experts in the House who can correct me if I am wrong—is that this technology can get somebody’s age within a few years of the true age. I accept that that is quite important when a person is on the boundary between being a child or an adult, but the point is that that is pretty accurate and who knows where that technology will have gone in a few years? If we had a very accurate method, perhaps with other things, of determining somebody’s age, I would not want there to be something in primary legislation which ruled that out, given all the complexities around that.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to the debate, who have all made extremely valid points probing the Government’s position. But, ultimately, age assessment is a difficult issue. We have safeguarding challenges in getting that wrong and, therefore, we think that the proposals as currently outlined are satisfactory and that both Amendments 57 and 27 would water down the legislation and create certain further difficulties on these issues. But I say to all Members who have spoken in the debate that the Government keep this matter under review; we will look at facial recognition and will report back, and we will have further statistics on these issues in due course—and the Government’s intention is to try to ensure that the information we get is as accurate as possible to ensure that we place individuals in the appropriate category for safeguarding and other issues.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked a specific question about how the Government propose to respond to the chief inspector’s recommendation about involving stakeholders. At the meeting that the Minister has forgotten I was at, I asked about a task and finish group that would involve particularly NGOs, because they bring such understanding to the issues. I said I would be very disappointed if my noble friend refused that, but I am even more disappointed that he has not even addressed it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I think I did address that. I said at the very beginning of my statement that the Government have accepted all eight recommendations from the inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders to advance progress on the recommendations. I have met my noble friend, I think, three times in various meetings in the last couple of weeks; in that meeting I gave her an assurance, and I give her that assurance again, which I hope will satisfy her.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am really sorry to push this, but I was asking how that recommendation is going to be implemented. If the Minister is giving me an assurance that NGOs will be included in the discussions as to how all the recommendations of the chief inspectors should be implemented, I am very happy—but I am not sure that is exactly what he said.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me say it again and see whether I can help my noble friend: the Government have accepted all eight recommendations. That is clear. We have accepted all the recommendations from the borders inspectorate, including plans to proactively engage with local authorities, social workers and key stakeholders—voluntary agencies are key stakeholders, and I met them again last week to discuss this very matter—to progress the recommendations. How that pans out will be for my honourable friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, to take forward, but I give this House the assurance that that is the level of engagement that we are trying to have. On that basis, I hope that I have satisfied my noble friend and that she will not press her amendment, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will withdraw hers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. What I have to say is almost redundant, but I will still emphasise a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, admirably highlighted why the current system needs fixing and the rationale for it. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has given some practical advice on how we could speed up the process. If the amendment were accepted, it would improve the efficacy of the system and access to justice and, in the long run, as we have heard, save money.

It is worth emphasising that this amendment does not seek to extend the scope of the current provision of legal aid; it merely seeks to improve its effectiveness and access. As we have heard, in the light of the UK-France deal, the shortcomings of the scheme are even more evident, because those detained under this deal are facing greater risk of not having legal representation before they are removed. Experience shows that in substantial cases there have been delays of more than seven days in accessing DDAS, thus depriving people of opportunities to receive legal aid. We are very grateful to charities working in this area for providing examples; they have shown the inadequacies of the current system and drawn attention to the delays and the inability of individuals to get timely and proper assistance.

The failures of the scheme are not new; they were evident well before the UK-France deal and were highlighted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in 2022, during his inspection of the Brook House immigration removal centre. The benefits of this amendment are self-evident, and I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment and some very critical advice given by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on how to improve the process and organisation of the scheme.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of my noble friend’s amendment. In July I visited Harmondsworth IRC as a member of the APPG on detention. One lesson I learned from that was about the poor quality of legal advice and access to it. I heard from talking to some of the men who were detained and NGOs working there that the failure to provide decent legal advice for the detainees is a systemic issue that needs addressing urgently.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the beginning of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that this was Pro Bono Week. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that he has fulfilled his job for this House. I am sure that the Minister will be very grateful for the advice that he has given pro bono and I hope that, if he asks for more, the noble Lord will be willing to give it.

I have learned two things from what has been said so far in this debate. First, we have a crisis of legal aid. No one who has spoken has said that it is all fine and dandy. Secondly, what is available is not working well.

On the first of those, a survey by Bail for Immigration Detainees found that only 42% of people held in IRCs had a lawyer in their immigration case in 2025. That is a steep decline, down from 75% in 2012—some years ago. For those detained in prison, 71% of respondents had not received legal advice under the scheme. The second concern raised is of course about what is provided; that is the 30 minutes, often considered to be of doubtful quality and insufficient. As professionals have argued, immigration law is highly complex: those of us who are working on the Bill will understand that this is a very highly complex area of work. It is unrealistic to believe that a detained person, who may be traumatised, speak little English or have just arrived, can navigate this complex labyrinth of law on their own and without professional assistance.

The amendment is necessary not merely on humanitarian grounds but to protect the integrity of the rule of law itself—first, access to justice, and secondly, practical effectiveness. I do not want to repeat the points about cost, which are obviously going to come up in the response, but it would save taxpayers’ money: invest to save early. That is quite clear from everything that has been said so far. We must be clear also that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights, particularly under Article 6 of the European convention, so this amendment offers a practical and necessary solution to a systemic failure. It mirrors existing successful arrangements, such as the immigration police station advice scheme, which is used when detained persons are found to have no criminal element in their case. It would simply ensure that an immigration lawyer is allocated to an individual upon entering detention, providing a necessary check against unlawful incarceration and ensuring fair process.

I end with a quote that was given by one of the organisations working in this field:

“Ensuring prompt legal counsel for detained persons is not merely a gesture of goodwill; it is the necessary foundation for a fair judicial process. A system that incarcerates first and allows access to justice later is like starting a race 48 hours behind the starting gun—the individual is severely disadvantaged before they even begin to fight for their rights”.

Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on child poverty of the application of the no recourse to public funds policy to migrant families with children and the implications of this for the forthcoming child poverty strategy.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the Child Poverty Taskforce will publish its 10-year strategy to drive sustainable change later this year. The Home Office has agreed that children whose families have no recourse to public funds will be included in the scope of the Government’s child poverty strategy.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s response is most welcome. Because of this rule, hundreds of thousands of children, including some British children, are at a disproportionate risk of poverty, especially deep poverty, to the detriment of their mental health and development. The former Work and Pensions Committee, under Sir Stephen Timms, stated that the deprivation they suffer

“should not be allowed to dominate any childhood”.

Does my noble friend therefore accept that an inclusive and effective child poverty strategy must embrace concrete measures to help this group, including through child benefit and childcare support and by limiting the number of children subject to the no-recourse rule?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope that I gave her a very strong answer in my first Answer, which I hope met the objectives that she has set. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. Poverty scars the lives and life chances of all our children, whatever background they are from. Currently, the no recourse to public funds referral that children can access allows access to free school meals, funding for school support and development, early years entitlement, support for children with special educational needs and local authority grants. It is quite right that, in all those circumstances, that drive is there to ensure that we tackle the challenge of poverty in the United Kingdom today as a whole. My noble friend will know that the review is due shortly. When that review is published, there will be further information on how to approach this issue.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Report stage & Committee stage
Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I have read the debate and listened to the speeches in support of the amendment—of course. As a member of the noble order of terriers who have battled on behalf of children’s citizenship over the years, I have a moral duty to express my moral support for this amendment.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment shows that there are ways in which the rights of children could be protected. The debate so far has shown that we believe it to be extraordinarily important that the rights of children in these circumstances should be protected. I am therefore very glad that the amendment has been tabled, even though the chances of it being accepted are small.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I was delighted to add my name to Amendment 177. I have very little to add to his introduction of the amendment, but it is important that the Minister makes it clear to the Committee what the present position on refugee family reunion is. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we saw the announcement on 1 September that the refugee family reunion process had been paused temporarily. As I understand it, applications submitted before 1 September are being handled—perhaps the Minister will confirm that—but no more applications are being looked at until a review has taken place.

On 1 September the Home Secretary was very clear that this was a temporary pause, but on 2 October, No. 10 announced:

“In her forthcoming asylum policy reform, the Home Secretary will introduce a fundamental change to the rights provided to those granted asylum in the UK, looking to end automatic family reunion rights”.


That seems to indicate not a temporary pause but something a bit permanent and, to my mind, on the face of it, shocking.

I do not know exactly what is meant by “automatic” in the No. 10 statement, but I guess, charitably, one could assume it simply means “free”—that one should no longer have the right to apply to bring in the lost child without an application fee, attaching a cheque for jolly nearly £2,000 under present rules. For RFR cases there is no cost attached: there is no health surcharge or application fee. You could construe—this is the good interpretation—that the “automatic” in the No. 10 statement actually meant “free”. But people are going to have to pay to bring in the lost child, which is the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has so eloquently argued for.

I do not want to say that I hope that is the explanation and the correct interpretation. But the alternative seems to me to be worse: that we are going to end people’s ability to bring in the lost child. What kind of country do we think we are? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is saying in his amendment. The lost relative who turns up in the transit camp in Libya or Turkey is not entitled to come to this country, and the bona fide refugee here—the member of the family who got here, whose case for asylum was established and who was granted protection status—is not allowed to bring in the child, wife or cousin who got lost on route. That is a shocking idea. Surely that cannot be what the No. 10 announcement on 2 October meant. I strongly support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I would be with him in saying that, if it is not accepted now, it should be debated on Report.

But I do not know on what playing field this match is taking place. What happened on 2 October? All these amendments were drafted before the summer: before the Home Secretary paused the policy at the beginning of September and No. 10 apparently killed the policy—or at least announced its massive modification, depending on what “automatic” means—on 2 October. We need to know before Report what the present position and policy are. I of course support Amendments 165, 166 and 178.

I might surprise the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, by saying that I think Amendment 168 is a rather good idea. I expect that the Minister will say that it is not necessary because thorough and satisfactory checks are carried out in any case. But, if I am wrong about that, I would be happy to support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

However, before we go much further in Committee, we need to hear from the Minister what the real situation as of today is. Have the Government decided to abolish the RFR route?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203K in my name, which is supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who is sorry she cannot be in her place. I thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for its assistance. The amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Government to publish and implement guidance on the resettlement of children and families of children. It would ensure that such guidance is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and reflects our domestic and international legal obligations to protect children affected by forced displacement. It would complement other amendments, in particular from my noble friend Lord Dubs and from the Lib Dem Benches, which I support.

Children are disproportionately affected by conflict and persecution: they face heightened risks of exploitation, trafficking, abuse and long-term psychological harm. They are fleeing crises in countries such as Sudan, Iran, Afghanistan and Eritrea. Most have no access to safe or regular routes for protection. While the UK resettlement scheme prioritises children and adolescents at risk, there is no statutory guidance to ensure that their specific needs are met consistently across the country. Implementation varies widely, and local authorities are left without a clear framework to deliver trauma-informed care, education access and safeguarding support.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

186: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Good character requirement for citizenship(1) Part 5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41A, insert—“41B Good character requirement(1) The good character requirement must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law relating to immigration and asylum.(2) When considering whether a person (P) meets the good character requirement, the Secretary of State may not take into account P’s illegal entry to or arrival in the United Kingdom—(a) if P was under the age of 18 at the time of such entry or arrival, and(b) except to the extent specified in guidance on the good character requirement published at the time of such entry or arrival.(3) In this section "the good character requirement" refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that an assessment of good character may not take into account a person’s irregular entry or arrival to the UK if they were a child, and it may only be taken into account to the extent specified in guidance published at the time of an adult’s irregular entry or arrival.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce Amendment 186 on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who very much regrets that she cannot be in her place as she feels strongly about this issue.

The amendment concerns a change in official guidance for immigration staff assessing good character in nationality applications. Refugees claiming citizenship after 10 February who entered the UK “illegally” will now normally be refused regardless of when they entered the country. The policy change, in effect, reintroduces sections of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill repeals. That repeal was described by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as

“a positive step that recognises the importance of naturalisation, both for the individuals concerned and for social cohesion”.

Without this amendment, this Bill is one step forward only for guidance to take us one step backwards.

Following a Private Notice Question tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, there was considerable criticism of the new guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, commented that

“this is a major change that deserves much more substantial consideration and scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force”.—[Official Report, 12/2/25; col. 1256.]

There was no such scrutiny, but this amendment provides such an opportunity now. It would do three simple things. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting consideration of a child’s irregular entry to the country. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity further to uphold the rule of law. I will consider each in turn.

First, in a letter to ILPA, to which I am grateful for its assistance with the amendment, the then Minister Dame Angela Eagle said that

“the Secretary of State may choose to apply discretion to grant citizenship … where necessary to comply with our international obligations”.

I will return to the discretion question later. Here I simply note that the amendment seeks to turn “may” into “must”. In the PNQ debate, my noble friend Lord Boateng warned that the policy contravenes Article 34 of the refugee convention, which calls on states to facilitate the assimilation and naturalisation of refugees as far as possible. The UNHCR makes the same point, citing a similar provision in the 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. It also expresses concern that the policy may result in breaches of Article 31 of the refugee convention, discussed in the previous group, which clearly states that countries

“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees”.

According to the UNHCR, Article 31 is central to the object and purpose of the refugee convention because it ensures that refugees can gain access to international protection and the rights associated with it without being penalised for breaches of immigration and other laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We can wait, but the people who fear that they will be affected are becoming increasingly anxious.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is an important point. I was going to say we have been asking this question for many months and are still waiting for an answer to it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his very strong support for the amendment and particularly for his really helpful research in the Council of Europe. It is still not clear to me why we are out of step and are the only ones doing this.

I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response. There was one particular thing I asked—which I will not ask him to pursue now because it is late, but perhaps he could write to me—on the guidance, which does not make clear the position of children. Perhaps he could look at Hansard and write to me and to the right reverend Prelate about that.