Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Does this mean that the Government are considering its extension to further countries? I ask my noble friend the Minister for his response.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow noble Members of this House speaking with wisdom, compassion and conviction. I understand that, in the current polarised climate, the Government want an immigration policy that is not only capable of exercising control over migration into this country but is demonstrably seen to be doing so. In that endeavour, the recent summary of immigration statistics, published for the year ending 31 December 2025, indicates a marked reduction in inward migration in most categories, although that of illegal channel crossings—itself not the largest category by some margin—remains stubbornly immune to downward pressure.

I wish to offer some observations from these Benches that, while sympathetic to where Ministers find themselves, none the less owe a debt of gratitude to the regret Motions from the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for making it possible to have this debate—for which I express thanks.

First, my episcopal colleagues and I do not dispute the function of the Executive in exercising immigration control. However, we assert the contribution that migration has made to the United Kingdom. With a declining birth rate and rising economic inactivity, it is likely to play a continuing, vital part. Secondly, we deplore rhetoric that creates images of the “other” and imputes images of rampant criminality on migrants and asylum seekers. That is utterly reprehensible and disgraceful.

Thirdly, I understand the point made about visa pauses because of the switch from various nationalities from visa routes to asylum applications, but apart from the very modest numbers involved, given that the grant of asylum is given in most such cases, what is the point that the Government are trying to make? Is it that the criteria in the refugee convention are no longer adequate for the task, or is it that the Government think that Home Office staff are applying them incorrectly and with too great a liberality, so all possibility of getting anywhere near the United Kingdom must be denied to these people?

Fourthly, we have heard the concerns about the 30-month leave to remain and the anxiety that this imports into a category of people who dearly wish to put anxiety behind them, and the inhibition this puts on integration. I would rather hear about the expansion of in-person English classes.

Finally, the denial of family reunion to those given refugee status is a major concern. For most of us, family means the nurture, happiness and support which enables us to face the trials of life. This is true for refugees, and I find references to family reunion under other routes unsupported by any evidence and difficult to comprehend. I call on the Minister to announce the recommencement of family reunion in this category. I support the regret Motions in the names of the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Lab)]

My Lords, it pains me to intervene to say that I think Ministers have got these changes wrong. It pains me even more to say that this is an all too common feature of Home Office decisions at the moment. I want to focus, as my noble friend Lady Royall did, on the provisions in these changes for students, and I do so, of course, as chancellor of the University of Cambridge.

The total ban brought in on students from four countries, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, not only removes opportunities from students severely affected by war and regimes in those nations—and let us not forget the impact on Afghan women students particularly—but diminishes the experience and opportunity to learn for British students too. Overseas students bring life and cultural difference to our universities, and we are infinitely the richer for it. Welcoming international students also represents a rather crucial bit of British soft power, and we should not forget that advantage either.

Why on earth is the Home Office deciding to remove any possibility for students from those countries to come here to the UK, even Chevening scholars, simply because a small number of those who have been here in the recent past have asked to stay? While I am at it, can I ask, as I have done before, why students cannot be removed entirely from the immigration figures? Students, by definition, are not immigrating—they are here for a temporary, defined period. The statistics are there to record permanent immigration. It is high time for the Home Office to think seriously about that change, and not the changes in front of us this evening.