Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My experience is quite different. I have been a chancellor of two universities that have actually recruited students from all over the world—for education, not for any other purpose. They were also wonderful universities for students within our own country. Before the founding of the University of Cumbria, students used to leave Carlisle to go to different universities in our country and they never went back. The creation of the University of Cumbria benefited local businesses —we have talked about manufacturing in places such as Barrow—so it has been wonderful seeing our own local students rising up to the possibility of being very good engineers, manufacturers, nurses and doctors, or being trained in other ways. I stood at the podium giving out degrees to students from all over the place. At York St John, there were always four ceremonies, each with about 400 students at a time. That is what I know from what I experienced—it is therefore possible for me to say that.

I must declare a second interest: I came here on a student visa in 1974, which was renewed every 12 months until I was ordained in 1979. Later, when I became Bishop of Stepney, I was given indefinite leave to remain but I never applied for naturalisation in this country, which was a possibility, until 2001. I was a faithful student who came here on a student visa. It is no good anybody telling me that if some Ugandans come here—let us say there are four of them—and involved themselves in criminal acts, we can then use those four as a test case to say that people from that country should not get visas. From all that I know, most of the students from Uganda went back—my circumstances were part of something different. Please can we not express guilt by association, where we say, for example, that if some people from Nigeria do something, all of them must be the same, so we must always gather the figures and numbers?

This has always been a free country for me, and it has helped quite a lot of people who have been in great difficulty. I came here because of Amin’s trouble; I had to give up my law job. My staying here has to do with me continuing to study and then being invited to become a chaplain of a prison in Richmond, which I did for four years. Indefinite leave was quite a different thing. I always resisted naturalisation to become a British citizen; at the time I thought that I was natural and that there was no need to be naturalised. Still, occasionally, whenever I hold my British passport, I say, “To get this, I had to be naturalised”. That term is pretty offensive, because there is nothing unnatural about me that needed to be naturalised.

My dear friends, yes, there is now concern about people, who either are on student visas or came here on asylum, having committed offences, but these amendments make it seem that Britain’s history has nothing to teach us. For that reason, should the amendments be voted on, I will move in the direction of the Not-Content Lobby.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will draw us back to the amendments before us. Amendment 35 requires the Secretary of State to collate and publish detailed data on overseas students whose visas are revoked due to criminal offences, and raises several important questions concerning data collection accuracy, resource allocation and the practical application of policy. The intent of the amendment is clear: to provide essential data to evaluate risks and ensure individuals who commit crimes are removed.

I almost have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for not getting answers to the questions he has asked time and again. What remains is that we have to look at the necessity of the subjects of those questions and their implementation. If the object of the amendment is to provide the data necessary to design efficient public policy, the first question must address the existing statutory landscape. The answers that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, got suggest that the Home Office did not collect the data relating specifically to student visas and criminality. What specific, new infrastructure or operational commitment would be necessary to collate this information reliably, particularly as the Minister implied that the Home Office already publishes a

“vast amount of data on immigration”—[Official Report, 26/6/25; col. 440.]

in regular publications that cover these themes?

Secondly, the amendment would require the publishing of figures on visa revocation, detention and deportation following a criminal offence. Given that 14,000 people who originally entered on a student visa claimed asylum in the latest year reported, and considering that subsequent detention or deportation is often tied to the outcome of complex asylum or human rights claims rather than solely the original criminal conviction or visa revocation, how will the published data accurately distinguish between detention related directly to government removal actions versus detention protracted by pending asylum appeals or other legal challenges? The Immigration Rules already provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay when conditions are breached. Would a statutory duty to publish retrospective data fully address the underlying problem, or would resources be better focused on the proactive enforcement and timely application of the existing Immigration Rules?

Thirdly, the amendment mandates that the published data

“must be broken down by nationality”.

That is intended to highlight countries associated with a high risk of abuse of the visa system, allowing the Home Office and universities to take risk into account when making decisions. What specific safeguards will be put in place to ensure that the publication of criminality data, broken down by nationality, does not lead to profiling or unfair discriminatory practices against students from those nations who are law-abiding citizens, especially given the clear parliamentary intention to use the data to identify countries of particular risk?

Amendment 35C, which is yet to be introduced by the Conservative Front Bench, proposes that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum or human rights claim inadmissible if the claimant entered on a student visa, applied for asylum more than two days later and there is “no evidence” of materially changed political circumstances endangering their life or liberty. This measure is flawed both practically and legally, and we must oppose it for three key reasons.

The proposed new clause establishes a near-automatic system of inadmissibility for a specific cohort of asylum seekers. The approach is inherently problematic because it fails to process cases based on individual merits and lived experiences. There is no substantive consideration of the asylum or human rights claim. Even if the primary motivation for the amendment is to counter visa abuse, refusing a person’s asylum claim without consideration of the merits and/or risks, placing the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention, specifically the prohibition on refoulement, is a matter of serious concern.

The amendment conflates asylum and human rights claims. Many human rights claims are founded not on a country’s general safety but on an individual’s personal connection to the UK, such as family ties. Automatically barring these claims simply because a person arrived on a student visa is an anomalous and unjustifiable imposition of a blanket ban.

The proposed new clause explicitly states that the inadmissible declaration is not a refusal of the claim and, as such, no right of appeal arises. Furthermore, it declares that the decision is

“final and not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court”.

Such provisions, which seek to exclude judicial review—we are going to have plenty of those today—of immigration decisions and to remove the right to appeal are repeatedly condemned as unconstitutional and contrary to the ECHR, which is of course part of our domestic law.

The intention behind the amendment may be to clamp down on those abusing the student visa route, especially concerning the 14,000 who claimed asylum after entering on a student visa in the last reported year. However, this absolute inadmissibility straitjacket would be functionally unworkable, echoing the failures of previous legislation. This amendment is ineffective, inhumane and legally unsound.

Amendment 71 seeks to fundamentally alter the established visa penalty mechanisms contained within the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The stated intent of the amendment is clear: to force the Government to impose visa penalties immediately if a country fails to co-operate on removals or the verification of identity of its nationals. While we share the desire to see prompt and effective removal of those who have no right to be here, the amendment risks undermining that very objective by destroying the necessary operational discretion essential for effective diplomacy and returns policy. The mandatory penalty system removes the ability to use engagement, diplomacy and other means to successfully unblock co-operation with other countries. We simply cannot tie the hands of a Secretary of State with a rigid system that risks damaging international relations without guaranteeing an increase in removals.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord finally winds up, I have two points to make. One is in respect of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about Written Answers. We have all had many of them, and they have sometimes been useful and sometimes been awful. This is a problem of not just this Government; it goes back many years. The answer is just to keep going, but I sympathise with the noble Lord.

I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee of this House. We spend a lot of time talking about the shortage of researchers and students coming into our universities. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is a very good example of how to come in properly; he passed all the exams and made a career of it. But there are an awful lot of other people who do not get here because of the difficulties, cost and delay of these processes.

I do not think it really matters how they come. It is easy to criticise people because they come in a small boat or because they get a visa in some other way. We really need to look and see how we can attract the best possible students in the world to help our research and technology industries here. We have got the opportunities from many who would prefer to leave the United States at the moment. All over, if we do not get the students, we are not going to achieve our academic success. I do not think the amendments in this group are the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I begin this group of amendments, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower, by stating that they are directed at illegal entrants and not genuine refugees whose claims are upheld or who enter by legal routes.

We began Report with a discussion about the Government’s new Border Security Commander, Martin Hewitt, who, during an evidence session of the Home Affairs Committee in the other place, said:

“What we absolutely have to do, I think, is ensure that there is nothing, there is as little as possible in our systems and our asylum systems that is making this particular place more attractive for someone than somewhere else”.


The Government’s own Border Security Commander himself recognises that there need to be changes to reduce the pull factors and create a deterrent effect. This year alone there have been 36,954 small boat arrivals. We know that 95% of those arrivals go on to claim asylum. The Government have argued that their new “one in, one out” deal with France will take up that mantle, but all we have seen is how migrants who are sent back to France simply make the crossing again. The plan is not working. It is not deterring illegal entry and it is not removing those who have already entered illegally.

These amendments would achieve the aim of deterrence. Although they are two distinct amendments, they are intended to work in tandem with each other, as well as with the other amendments we have tabled to the Bill, which will be discussed in later groups. The arguments in support of these amendments were well ventilated in Committee. Amendment 35A proposes that the Secretary of State must make a deportation order against any person who commits an offence under Sections 24 or 24A of the 1971 Act, is an excluded person under Section 8B of that Act, or who has had their asylum claim, protection claim or human rights claim rejected. Amendment 35B is a corollary to that. It contains the power of detention and, accordingly, mandates the Secretary of State to detain such a person. That person would be detained in a removals centre or detention centre immediately, not a hotel or home of multiple occupation, and would not be eligible for immigration bail. A deportation order would then have to be made against that person by an immigration officer acting on the Home Secretary’s behalf and the person must then be deported from the United Kingdom within one week of their initial detention.

When people cross the border unlawfully, claim asylum and then remain in limbo, it undermines the integrity of our system. Genuine refugees are mixed with those who exploit the system, and the public rightly question whether the rule of law is being honoured. It is important to repeat that these amendments are not about genuine refugees but rather about the clearly identified cohort of unlawful entrants—illegal asylum claimants whose cases have been rejected—and the need to ensure that we have the operational means to detain and remove them. By doing so, we preserve the integrity of the asylum route for those in genuine need. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it will come as no surprise that we oppose Amendments 35A and 35B. While we are committed to strengthening border security and tackling criminal exploitation, these amendments attempt to reintroduce the core unworkable architecture of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, thereby undermining the rule of law and proving counterproductive to the very goals they seek to achieve. It is rather like having the legislation that we saw from the last Government but without Rwanda.

Amendment 35A would require the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against anyone who enters irregularly or arrives without leave. This mandatory duty echoes the failed duty to remove provisions being repealed by the Bill. We oppose this mandatory refusal mechanism on grounds of legality and fairness.

First, it would be a breach of international obligations. Amendment 35A would mandate refusal and deportation without consideration of the merits of a person’s claim. Refusing a person’s asylum claim and proposing removal to their country of origin without considering the merits of that claim would put the UK in breach of its obligations under the refugee convention. Even if an asylum claim were refused by this measure, any related humanitarian protection claim would still need to be properly considered on its merits.

Secondly, on punishing victims and not assessing claims, the strength of a person’s claim to protection should not be indicative of the method by which they entered the country. This mandatory approach targets asylum seekers who arrive irregularly, rather than focusing on the perpetrators of organised immigration crime.

Amendment 35B would require the immediate detention of any person who commits an illegal entry offence or has had a claim rejected for the purpose of removal within one week. This proposal is flawed on operational and practical grounds. For a duty to remove to be effective, there must be a destination to which it is safe to remove people, or a host country must agree to accept them. The fundamental challenge to mandatory removal provisions is the practical question of where they are to go. The previous policy framework that these amendments seek to retain was deemed unworkable and led to asylum seekers being left in indefinite limbo because there was often nowhere to remove them safely.

The detention powers in Amendment 35B are reliant on the duty to remove provisions, like those proposed in Amendment 35A, which the Government are seeking to repeal precisely because they created an unsuccessful scheme. Current legislation already provides broad statutory powers to detain migrants for examination and removal purposes. Introducing a mandatory and immediate detention requirement, particularly one that is inextricably linked to a failed removal strategy, risks arbitrary detention inconsistent with standards in international human rights law.

These amendments attempt to enforce a strategy of deterrence without providing any practical or lawful means of enforcement. They are based on a framework that has already proven chaotic, unworkable and fiscally irresponsible. Reincorporating this approach into the Bill would serve only to complicate the removal process, clog up the courts and fundamentally undermine the integrity of our immigration system. I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, if the amendments in this group seem familiar, it is because we have seen their intention before. Taken together, Amendments 35A and 35B from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, can be seen as an attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023—indeed, at points taking a more unworkable approach than what came before. This Government have been clear on their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and the policy intentions of that Act. This Bill repeals the Act, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit, and fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024.

Amendment 35A, in effect, seeks to reintroduce in a different form the unworkable duty to remove measures in the Illegal Migration Act that we are repealing, as the noble Lord, Lord German, so clearly and ably articulated for us earlier. Having a duty to remove people unlawfully in the UK is something that is easy to say but very difficult to deliver in practice, as evidenced by the previous Government’s failure to implement that part of the Illegal Migration Act. Such a legal obligation means taking away all discretion, and defining exceptions to that duty is not always straightforward. There remains a risk of legal challenge for acting unreasonably in individual cases.

For a duty to remove to be effective, there needs to be a destination to which it is safe to remove people when their own country is not safe for them or where there are practical difficulties in proceeding with the removal, and a host country needs to agree to accept those people. If a third country is not willing to accept foreign national offenders or unaccompanied children, as was the case with the previous Rwanda scheme, that can incentivise perverse behaviour for migrants seeking to remain in the UK. I make no apologies for echoing very closely what the noble Lord, Lord German, said because the facts are the facts, and he was very clear in his analysis.

As I stated in Committee, we already have well-established powers to remove people who are unlawfully in the UK. In fact, we have seen an increase under this Government of over 31% in failed asylum seekers being removed since June last year, along with an increase of 16% in foreign national offenders being removed. Opposition to this amendment is not about opposing the removal of those with no right to be in the UK—far from it. It is about delivering long-term, credible policies to enable a properly functioning immigration system. Having a duty to remove will not add anything useful to that aim.

Amendment 35B, in effect, seeks to introduce a new power of detention and completely remove the power to grant immigration bail. It proposes that all those committing an immigration offence under Sections 24 and 24A of the 1971 Act should be detained in a removal centre, with no recourse to bail, until such time as they are deported. This is simply unworkable. There is no capacity to detain all those within scope of this amendment, it leaves no scope to bail people where removal is not likely to take place within a reasonable timeframe, and provides no discretion in the case of children or those who may be vulnerable. Without wishing to press the point, it is simply wishful thinking. We already have established powers of detention that cover the examination, administrative removal and deportation processes, as well as powers to grant immigration bail where the Secretary of State or the court considers that to be the more appropriate option. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already set out the risks of retaining the approach set out under the failed Illegal Migration Act, so I will not repeat those comments.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention and the ECHR. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome, and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We cannot ignore the fact that these amendments also fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw Amendment 35A.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in every single word of her in introduction about the move-on period. It always struck me as very strange that you create pilot scheme that you know you want to evaluate, then halfway through you take out part of the pilot simply to address a problem which is occurring in the community at that time. I accept that it was obviously a tough time for the Government when there were all those protests outside hotels in the summer. Our Amendment 73, which follows this one, would help the Government reduce the numbers on the waiting lists. However, having a smaller number of days as soon as you get your status is just impossible; 28 days creates a cliff edge between destitution and homelessness, which was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

The pilot is due to come to an end sometime during the autumn. I know that, in government terms, the parts of a year are flexible; autumn, in this case, is now going to be somewhere closer to Christmas—you might call it late autumn. However, the few weeks since the announcement in September have meant that there are a significant cohort who are being put into the homelessness category. That has been confirmed to me by people in local authorities, whom I met last weekend, who could not understand—with the success of the pilot on their doorstep, and making and seeing it work—why they were going to have to face up to the problem of homelessness.

There is a stronger point in that the longer period of 56 days was very important because it enabled asylum seekers to get crucial support during the period that they were looking after themselves. It assisted with their integration into society and allowed them to stand on their own two feet much more quickly. It also, of course, reduced hardship and homelessness. We reduced the burden of homelessness on local authorities, prevented newly recognised refugees from becoming completely destitute and enabled them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. Can the Minister say what consultation was had with local authorities prior to reverting to 28 days? Clearly, if the problem is being dumped on to local authorities, which then have to deal with homelessness, they might have expected to have some consultation and time for that.

Amendment 73 deals with “Nightingale” centres. This is a means by which we seek to improve and speed up the approval system. It calls for the establishing of processing centres to clear the asylum backlog for initial decisions within six months. The primary objective is to speed up the process; successive Governments have promised greater efficiency and promptly created their own backlogs, demonstrating that efficiency and fairness must go hand in hand. A functioning asylum system is one in which people’s claims are assessed swifty and accurately. The benefit will be a reduction in costly hotel accommodation. The enormous backlogs have put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, forcing the use of expensive hotels at scale, costing the taxpayer significant sums—around about £8 million a day on hotel accommodation alone.

By enabling the creation of temporary facilities for expedited assessment closer to where people are based, rather than moving them some distance to have their assessment, we can move people out of costly temporary accommodation and thereby reduce the asylum support budget. There are more than 90,000 people stuck in the Home Office’s asylum backlog, which are cases awaiting an initial decision. Of those, over half have been waiting more than six months and over one-quarter more than one year. This is a humanitarian crisis—created, of course, by the Conservative Government, who just put people in limbo, which went on and on while people queued up without any potential for a decision. I know that this Government have had to pick up a very tricky issue here, but we need to move it on as fast as possible. The policy of housing asylum seekers in hotels is disastrous for asylum seekers and for communities —we all know that. The situation needs to be addressed urgently, as an emergency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for Amendment 37, and for being able to listen again to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, speak in support of Amendment 37. Amendment 37 seeks to increase the period of financial and accommodation support for newly recognised refugees from 28 to 56 days and to allow the Secretary of State discretion to settle on the period following a grant of refugee status. The amendment is clear. It seeks to formalise what we are currently assessing as part of a pilot. I recognise that there have been changes to the pilot mid-flow, but, essentially, it is ongoing.

The Government recognise the importance of a smooth transition for all the reasons that have been mentioned by my noble friend and noble Lords who have spoken. I give the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochiel, the benefit of the doubt, in that he did not support the general thrust of what is been said, and I understand his position.

There is benefit in examining these issues. This is why—despite the fact that we have inherited significant pressures in the asylum system and our strategy has been to provide targeted, conditional support to restore credibility to the system and ensure value for money for the taxpayer—we are undertaking, particularly at the moment, the pilot. Extending the period by four weeks would put an additional strain on the accommodation estate, exacerbating pressures on the Government’s commitment to end the use of hotels by the end of this Parliament.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend, referred to the pilot that was introduced to extend the move-on period to 56 days from the point an individual had been notified of their grant of leave. The pilot has been put in place to support local authorities during a period when we anticipated an increased volume of asylum decisions being made, and coincides with the transition to e-visas for newly recognised refugees.

The pilot, as my noble friend knows, is in place until the end of the year. In early September, the Government took the difficult decision to pause the pilot only for single adults due to pressures on the accommodation estate. But the pilot continues for those who were in the system prior to September, and it applies now to families and the most vulnerable. The key point is that there is an independent evaluation currently ongoing regarding the impact of the pilot. We want to look at the pilot and the lessons learned and make judgments on this issue before deciding the longer-term policy.

I give everybody in the House the firm commitment that the intention is that the pilot’s findings, when produced, will be shared with Parliament, so we will be transparent on what that says. Members who are today arguing that the pilot is of assistance will be able to scrutinise the impact of that assessment. Those who believe that the length of the period is too long, such as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, will be able to judge whatever the pilot says and either revise or keep their opinions in due course. But it is important at the moment that we examine the outcome of the pilot.

A wide range of stakeholders have taken part in the evaluation, including—this was requested of me—local authorities, voluntary organisations and the community sector. Indeed, we are involving in the pilot individuals with the lived experience of going through the system. It is important that we do not see the extension of the move-on period to 56 days as a straightforward solution to a complex problem. That is why we are looking at a wider range of support measures and initiatives, including improved communications and support, and we are working with migrant help and asylum move-on liaison officers.

I say to my noble friend that the Government remain committed to offering support, improving the process that underpins transition from Home Office asylum support, and ensuring that any changes to the system are informed by robust evidence, which is the very reason why the pilot is in place. I think I mentioned that to my noble friend when I dealt with her Bill earlier in this Session, as did my noble friend Lord Katz when he dealt with this Bill in a later part of the Session. We both emphasised that point, so I hope that will help her. The pilot needs to run its course.

[Lord German (LD)]

Can the Minister say when the pilot is due to end and when it will present its report?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have said, even in the last few moments—as I am sure the noble Lord will remember when I tell him again—that the pilot runs to the end of this year. The end of this year is about seven weeks away. We have to evaluate the pilot. I do not have a date for him as to when the pilot’s evaluation will be produced, but the circumstances of where we are now remain in place. The pause on single individuals from September is in place, but people from before September will still have been dealt with under the old system, and individual families and others are still being dealt with under the terms of the pilot. I will report to the House as soon as possible, but the actual period of the pilot finishes at the end of this year.

[Lord German (LD)]

I am grateful for that answer. There will be a gap between the end of December and whenever the pilot evaluation takes place. Is it therefore expected that when the pilot ends, all people will go back to the 28 days rather than just some?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, again, tempts me. We are examining a whole range of issues and I will announce and report to this House when decisions are taken. As I have said to him to date, the evaluation is ongoing. Local authorities and others are looking at that. We will make decisions in due course and report them to this House.

That gives me a straight segue into his own Amendment 73, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seeks to provide “Nightingale” accommodation to clear the backlog of asylum cases. Again, I welcome the interest in and support for dealing with that backlog. We want to ensure, as a Home Office, that we invest in a programme of transformation and business improvement to speed up decision-making, reduce the time that people spend in the asylum system, decrease the number of people in that asylum system and maximise our capacity. The noble Lord, Lord German, is absolutely right to say that we inherited a massive backlog from the previous Government, which in part is due to the fact that they effectively paused asylum application assessments because they wanted to find a mechanism to send people to Rwanda, which failed miserably. That backlog built up before we took office in July last year.

At the end of June 2025, there were 70,532 cases awaiting an initial decision. By December 2023, the Home Office had completed processing the majority of the legacy backlog. However, everything was put on hold by the Illegal Migration Act. That meant that a number of decisions made by the Home Office in 2024 led to an emergency backlog being developed and, as noble Lords will be aware, the then Home Secretary laid a statutory instrument on 22 July 2024, not 19 days after the general election, to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act.

As a result, we have been able to take decisions on claims being resumed, and the number of people waiting for decisions has fallen again. We have seen in the past 12 months—this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned—that despite the record number of people claiming asylum, we now have 28,000 fewer people awaiting an initial decision than in the month before the general election—a 24% reduction. The backlog inheritance left by the previous Government has now been cut by 18%, and the percentage of cases processed within six months has increased from 7% to 41%. So we are in the process of taking action to deal with the very backlog that the noble Lord mentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right. I have a short but important amendment that is very fittingly in this group. It is unusual in that lawyers who act in immigration cases and the Home Office itself are at one on the issue. Both sides agree that in paragraph 9(1)(a) of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, “specified in the condition” should be widely interpreted to mean

“that is known at the time of the grant or variation of immigration bail, or”—

and this is the important point—

“an address that is yet to be specified”.

This has been the Home Office’s interpretation of that paragraph for a number of years. There is evidence from 2018 that that is the Home Office’s view. It has occurred in cases, and guidance was issued as recently as this summer. In my submission, it is a practical and sensible way of interpreting it.

Why, then, does this amendment, with its proposed change of words in paragraph 9(1), need to be laid and discussed in your Lordships’ House at all? The reason is that there is a Court of Appeal case in Northern Ireland called Bounar, which was decided not many years ago, in which their Lordships in that court took a different view and decided on a much stricter interpretation of the words of the schedule: for a person to be given bail by the Secretary of State, they must already have been granted immigration bail—and here are the words that matter—with a condition to reside at a specific address. So one has on the one hand the decision of the court in Northern Ireland and, on the other, I submit, a practical, sensible way of dealing with a situation that arises more often than the House might think. The Home Office has dealt with it in that way, as have the lawyers on the other side.

Why does it matter that there are these two conflicting decisions about and ways of looking at this element of this schedule? It matters, first, because it is unsatisfactory in principle to have legislation that has been interpreted quite differently in the courts and in practice in government when dealing with this issue. Secondly, who knows what situations may arise where a court, for example, would prefer the Northern Ireland precedent. Thus, a bail claimant—someone who the Home Office wants to give bail to—might lose his or her bail merely because, for good, practical reasons, the specific address is not yet known. This is what happens in a number of cases.

There are already significant delays between grant of bail in principle and people being released to Home Office-sourced accommodation. In recent months, 21 people have faced a delay of more than three months. The Home Office wanted to bail them and was happy to, but there was no specified address at that moment so everything had to start all over again. Without amending the statutory provision relied on in the case of Bounar, every individual would need an address provided by the Secretary of State prior to applying for bail, resulting in wasted places and longer delays. My invitation to my noble friend, to whom I very grateful for having taken the trouble to meet me on this issue, is to accept this amendment to the schedule. I very much hope that he feels that he can do that today.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I shall address the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, just raised. It seems to me, from having visited Harmondsworth IRC, met people who are ready for bail and seen them held back because of the bureaucracy, that what is being described is a bit of bureaucracy that ought not to be there. I hope the Minister will be able to say that he can deal with this matter. Unfortunately, it appears that it has to be in statute rather than simply a ministerial decision. Perhaps he will tell us how best this matter can be dealt with swiftly, because it is in no one’s interest for people who have the right to immigration bail to be kept at taxpayers’ expense in immigration detention when they need not be there.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

42: After Clause 45, insert the following Clause—
“Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employmentThe Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 42, I shall speak also to Amendments 43 and 44 in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Hamwee—who, unfortunately, is unwell—and Lady Brinton.

This group of amendments addresses the systemic failure to allow people seeking safety and justice in the United Kingdom the fundamental dignity of and opportunity to work. These proposals are not simply matters of compassion; they are pragmatic steps that align with economic self-interest and are essential for fixing a broken immigration system. The current restrictions on employment impose unnecessary costs on the taxpayer, cause misery and exacerbate the vulnerability of those fleeing persecution and exploitation. These three amendments would provide a future where efficiency, financial prudence and human dignity went hand in hand.

Amendment 42 seeks to require the Secretary of State to grant asylum applicants the right to work if their application has been pending for more than three months. This measure would offer immediate, tangible benefits. First, tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working and remain forcibly dependent on state support. This dependency contributes significantly to the enormous expenditure on hotel accommodation, which alone costs around £8 million per day.

Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget and the use of hotels, while simultaneously increasing revenue from both income tax and national insurance contributions. Allowing applicants to work ensures that successful refugees, who historically represent a majority of applicants, can stand on their own two feet much sooner. This would reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities and reduce state benefits claims following the move-on period. Work is integral to integration, cohesion and restoring human dignity.

The Government’s ambition to clear the backlog is welcome, but we must be realistic. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the last decade, reaching 59% at the end of 2024. The UK currently operates one of the most restrictive working policies compared with OECD member states such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier. It is interesting that a defence from the Government here is often that the French Government say that we are too open to people coming to work, yet the French have a scheme that is more flexible and liberal than the one in this country.

The argument that granting the right to work serves as a pull factor is unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in destination choice, whereas factors such as language and family networks are far more influential. In Committee, the Minister set out concerns that granting permission to work to asylum seekers would create a pull factor and undermine the work visa route. This is disputed by the Migration Advisory Committee, the Government’s own advisory committee. Logically, if it were a pull factor, the working rights in the United Kingdom would be more generous than in the country in Europe from which they leave. This is not the case, with the UK having one of the most restrictive policies on work, compared with some of our European neighbours. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier: after six months or three months, and in some countries even sooner.

Lifting the ban on working would bring the UK in line with other OECD member states, so I ask the Minister for evidence that granting work rights would undermine the work visa route. If he is saying that people will claim asylum with no case for protection in order to obtain working rights, an effective system would refuse that case speedily, before three months, and return the individual. An effective system would deter people from doing this.

Amendment 43 would give the right to work to potential victims of human trafficking and modern slavery in the national referral mechanism who have received a positive reasonable grounds decision and have been waiting for their conclusive grounds decision for more than three months. The median waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2023 was 526 days, which caused prolonged enforced unemployment. Those who rely only on the national referral mechanism for financial support soon become destitute, especially if they are trying to support families back home, which in many cases is the reason they came to the UK. This destitution forces some victims into irregular work, putting them at risk of re-exploitation while they are meant to be recovering in a protective system.

The stated purpose of the NRM is recovery from exploitation. Long-term unemployment is known to deteriorate mental health, due to a lack of purpose and agency. Granting the right to work is a significant component of recovery, restoring agency and dignity to survivors. There is no risk of this right creating a pull factor for the national referral mechanism, as individuals cannot self-refer: they must be identified through a mandatory two-step process involving a first responder and a Home Office competent authority. This amendment would enable people who are in the national referral mechanism to work.

Amendment 44 seeks amendments to the Immigration Rules to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers held under the original overseas domestic worker visa from 1998 to 2012. This includes the crucial right to change employers and gain indefinite leave to remain. The previous visa regime, in place from 1998 to 2012, permitted workers the right to change employers, registering any such change with the Home Office, and the right to renew their visa if they could demonstrate that their labour as a domestic worker was still required. Such rights also acted as safeguards and were instrumental in preventing abuse, as well as stopping exploitation from escalating. It enabled workers to access reporting mechanisms to hold employers accountable while in the safety of alternative employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me turn to that in a moment. I have spent my entire life making sure that people have protections at work and are not exploited, and that unscrupulous employers are weeded out, tackled and dealt with according to law. That is why, in the previous Labour Government, we introduced justice measures on things such as the minimum wage, and have spent hours, with Members from the Opposition Benches opposing us, trying to put an Employment Rights Bill through this House. That is why we have fought long and hard; I refer to arguing against the changes the then Government made on overseas domestic workers in private properties, where they did not have the rights that were later restored to them in this House. I accept fully that there will be exploitative, unscrupulous businesses that try to employ people who are in the difficult situation of being here while their asylum claims are processed, and that is why we need to speed up asylum claims.

However, I am afraid that a legal requirement to work would still be a pull factor; we need to deal with unscrupulous employers, and we will do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. Ultimately, any policy change must carefully balance allowing asylum seekers to work and protecting fair job opportunities for British citizens and lawful residents. I therefore cannot support the amendment.

On Amendment 43, individuals in the national referral mechanism, regardless of immigration status or work eligibility, are entitled to support to meet their essential needs. In England and Wales, this is delivered through the modern slavery victim care contract. Support is tailored to each victim, according to their individual circumstances. Those with permission to work are helped to access employment and, through the modern slavery victim care contract, there is support for recovery and integration. Victims without immigration status who receive positive conclusive decisions may be granted temporary permission to stay, and that includes the right to work. There is no time limit on how long a victim can remain in support after receiving a positive conclusive grounds decision.

Therefore, there are several reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment; expanding access to employment at an early stage would, in my view, incentivise the misuse of the national referral mechanism. The current framework maintains a clear distinction between protection and economic migration routes, and this is essential to uphold the integrity of our immigration system.

Again, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, well. On her Amendment 44, moved ably by the noble Lord, Lord German, the Government remain concerned about links between visa arrangements for private domestic staff and instances of modern slavery. As the noble Baroness will know, the immigration White Paper has already set out our intention to reconsider how this route operates.

My noble friend Lady Lister suggested that she would welcome the amendment. I understand why, but I believe that it tries to combine visas for two different groups of workers, and it would not be appropriate to do so. There are those on the overseas domestic worker route, who are accompanying private households visiting the UK for a short period, and there are domestic workers in diplomatic households, who are served by the temporary work international agreement visa and are required to stay longer to support them.

The conditions of each route reflect important differences. For overseas domestic workers, it is not the purpose of the route to establish them in the labour market full time. The visa grants permission for up to six months and cannot be extended, as this aligns with that of the overseas domestic workers’ employer, who, as a visitor, cannot intend to stay in the UK for longer than six months. They can also now change their employer during their stay. I argued for that when I was a Member of Parliament in opposition; we pressed for that and the Government listened. They should be able to change their employer because they are not slaves tied to an individual.

My noble friend Lady O’Grady made some very valid points, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I know that my noble friend is fully aware of this, both from her professional background and from her championing of these issues in this House, but I remind her that the fair work agency, which we are currently establishing, will strengthen the ability to identify and respond to labour exploitation —and rightly so; I celebrate the fact that it will do that. We will be able to share intelligence more effectively between enforcement partners, making it easy to spot patterns of abuse, in order to pursue the kinds of unscrupulous employers that the noble Lord mentioned. Indeed, it will provide protection for vulnerable workers, including those—this goes to the point my noble friend made—employed in private households. That was previously beyond its remit. This Labour Government will make those changes in the Bill, to provide people working in private households with those rights at work. I cannot accept the amendment in its current form, but I hope that my noble friend will know that we are not shying away from this, because people have a right not to be exploited at work.

In summary, Amendment 44 would significantly alter the purpose of the route—a route that we have already committed to reviewing. We welcome any views that the noble Lord, Lord German, wants to put through that review. We will also hear from some expert stake- holders, who are currently looking at how we can improve the route. The immigration White Paper is looking at that and, on behalf of the department, I will bring forward changes in that area in due course.

My noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester spoke to Amendment 45, which seeks to produce annual reports on the restrictions placed on asylum seekers seeking to engage in employment. That is a noble and valuable point to make, but the Home Office already engages in policy reviews and stakeholder consultations, and Ministers are accountable to both Houses. Ministers directly responsible for this issue, such as my honourable friend Alex Norris, the Immigration Minister in the Home Office, meet regularly and review those matters. I hope that that information will be examined without the legal necessity of putting a provision in the Bill.

I remind noble Lords that the Government will shortly announce reforms to modernise the asylum system later this year in our asylum policy statement. I touched on that in the Statement I gave to this House on 2 September. Reforms are under way and forthcoming, and we will bring that forward in relatively short order. I always use that phrase and people ask me what it means; in this case, I expect it to be done, dare I say it, before Christmas. I hope that gives noble Lords some reassurance. The Government remain committed to reviewing and improving the asylum system, including the permission to work policy, but that must be done with greater detail and evidence-based reform, not through statutory reporting obligations.

I recognise that I will not have satisfied noble Lords who feel very passionately and strongly about this issue; however, I say from the Dispatch Box that I am not in the business of supporting poor employers who exploit people or provide work opportunities that undercut British workers, who deserve our full support. That is why we, the Labour Government, have supported, through the whole of our existence, improvements to rights at work. However, I feel that this amendment would be, in the framing of today’s discussion, a pull factor; it would add additional burdens to the issues we are looking at. We will bring proposals back to this House in due course. I urge noble Lords not to press the amendment and to give the Government an opportunity to look at these issues in a new way over the next few weeks and months.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. I just cannot understand why the Government are resisting placing the controls of work in the hands of the Government instead of in the hands of the black economy. It just does not seem the correct way to do things. There is so much support for letting people work in our communities and in the public sector that I think I must test the opinion of the House on Amendment 42.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

44: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Migrant domestic workers(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to make provision for the matters in subsection (2).(2) All holders of domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visas, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, must be entitled—(a) to change their employer (but not work sector) without restriction, but must register such change with the Home Office;(b) to renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period of not less than 12 months, provided they are in employment at the date of application and able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, and to make successive applications;(c) to apply for leave to enter and remain for their spouse or partner and any child under the age of 18 for a period equivalent to the unexpired period of their visa and of any subsequent visa;(d) to be granted indefinite leave to remain after five continuous years of residence in the United Kingdom if at the date of application their employer proposes to continue their employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers had under the terms of the original Overseas Domestic Worker visa, in place from 1998 to 2012.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is ill, and her name is attached to this amendment. I wish to see the safeguards which were instrumental in preventing abuse for domestic workers reinstated. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to speak to the amendment in my name, but only in passing, because I cannot better the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. They made a very strong case. I also associate myself with Amendment 68. But I really want to talk to Amendment 46, the first in this group.

We all have a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the faith and trust that our citizens have in that system. At the present time, I fear that people are losing faith in it. They are losing faith in the capacity of the judicial system to deliver fairness and equity for the British taxpayer. I think it is perfectly possible to have a strong modicum of compassion for those people driven to seek asylum in this country by poverty, famine, war and despotic dictatorships. However, a system that is intrinsically designed to be gamed—for young men to come to this country and use legal loopholes to settle in one of the wealthiest countries in the world—is no longer a situation that we can tolerate. That is why we need to take what would appear to be immoderate and draconian action in the first instance, because we are in the middle of a crisis.

I do not often quote Labour Members of Parliament, but Mike Tapp, the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal—I think he is the Minister’s colleague—has been criticised for quite rightly complaining about the fact that people who are criminals are coming to this country and there is effectively nothing we can do about it. We can do nothing about it because this Government set their face against the Rwanda scheme and scrapped that scheme before it had a chance to work. Yet they go scrambling around parts of eastern Europe seeking an alternative scheme to put in place.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely correct; it is incumbent upon this Government, after 16 months, to come up with an alternative. With all due respect to the Minister, the speech he gave to the Chamber on Monday was exactly the same speech, verbatim, that he gave on 8 September on undertakings to bring forward legislation and to the review of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is quite right that we are now in a position where a significant number of member countries of the Council of Europe are sufficiently concerned that they are putting a very great deal of pressure to change things, because the system is broken.

If the system breaks, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, is absolutely right that it gives rise to people who are not moderate, who are extreme and who will scapegoat honest, decent people seeking to make a better life. It is incumbent on us to come up with solutions. Look at some of the egregious cases we have seen in recent years from the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal. “Egyptian migrant is ‘danger to the community’—but can stay in Britain”. “Cannabis dealer claimed deportation would destroy his marriage”. “Albanian who battered man with umbrella can stay because the attack was ‘one-off’”. “Asylum seeker can stay in Britain after having affair”. “Afghan drug user allowed to stay in the UK because Taliban is harsh on addicts”. “Migrant avoids deportation because he lost his phone”.

We may have a wry smile at some of those cases, and I accept that they are a minority of cases, but they are corrosive of the faith and trust people have in the system. That is why Amendment 46 is so important. If the Government are truly of the view that nothing is off the table, they have to be able to bring forward costed alternatives and not just fall back on the fact they are reviewing, they are looking at the European Convention on Human Rights and they will bring forward legislation. They have had 16 months; they need to take firm action to deal with this immigration crisis. On that basis, I strongly support the excellent amendment from my noble friend Lord Murray and, of course, the other amendments, including Amendment 46 from the Front Bench.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this is obviously a lawyers’ paradise of a debate, where we normally have expressions of views. I am going to be much simpler than that. I want to look at Amendment 79A first, because it is important and I think I understand what is happening. I am in the fortunate position of being a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which enables me to have access, ask questions and find out far more than perhaps this House has been informed about at this stage. I would encourage all Members to talk to their party delegates on this matter to see what they have been doing about it.

My question about Amendment 79A is: does it mean withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights? Is that being suspended? If that is the case, which I understand is Conservative Party policy, quite clearly what we are heading for is Brexit 2. Is that the position?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, Amendment 79A seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act. It would revert the situation to that which pertained prior to the passage of that Act. Of course, we were a member of the European Convention on Human Rights from 1951 until 1998, when the Human Rights Act was passed, and, as the noble Lord will recall, the sky did not fall in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I understand that anybody wanting to claim could use the European Convention on Human Rights to do so. In that sense, we might want to ask what the sense of the proposal is.

The issue relating to this is quite clear. Somebody mentioned 17 countries; I know that to be a fact. I also know what is happening in the Council of Ministers and of the discussion that is going on. Part of the discussion is about what these countries agree and disagree on. Some people are going for different parts of the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I just say to noble Lords that it is very hard to hear the speeches from the Front Bench if there is a lot of chattering on my right.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, to add to what noble Lords expect I would say, this seemingly small amendment and its consequential amendments seek to remove the words

“to be presumed to have been”

from Clause 48. It has enormous implications, in effect transforming a balanced legal measure into an irreversible and potentially unjust set of rules.

I will not read out Article 33 of the convention on refugees, but it is quite clear that it says that the person would have

“been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country”.

The explanatory memorandum from the UNHCR on what a serious crime is gives examples of murder, rape, arson and armed robbery. The amendment certainly does not meet that.

In short, the existing text in Clause 48 is carefully constructed to allow the courts to address serious criminality, such as sexual offences, while remaining compliant with our international obligations that require an assessment of whether the person poses a continuing danger to the community. Amendment 48 destroys this necessary balance and should be rejected.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to complying with their international obligations, including those set out in the refugee convention. A key principle of the refugee convention is the non-refoulement of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that they will be subject to persecution. However, the convention, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord German, recognises that there must be limited exceptions to this principle. Article 33(2) of the convention allows the refoulement refugees when they are a danger to the security of the UK or have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community.

Clause 48 goes further than previous amendments made by the Nationality and Borders Act by redefining the term “particularly serious crime” for exclusion purposes to now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence, including under Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. That is because the Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims and our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade.

Importantly, as it stands, Clause 48 allows an individual to rebut the presumptions both that they have committed a particularly serious crime and that, as a result, they constitute a danger to the community. Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the “particularly serious” rebuttable presumption. This would mean that asylum seekers or refugees who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences would be considered for exclusion from the refugee convention, with no ability to rebut the presumption that they have committed a particularly serious crime.

Similarly, Amendment 49 from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, seeks to remove the same rebuttable presumption for sexual offenders convicted outside of the United Kingdom where that offence would have also constituted a Schedule 3 sexual offence had it been committed in the UK.

The noble Lord’s Amendments 50 to 54 inclusive seek to make a number of changes to the provision, including removing the presumption that, where an individual is considered to have committed a “particularly serious crime” in relation to a Schedule 3 sex offence, they constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom as a result. There is no definition of a “particularly serious crime” in the refugee convention and no direct uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other state parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, and that is what we are seeking to adjust with Clause 48. A good-faith interpretation, in our view, requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words and respecting the guarantees provided by the convention as a whole. I hope that I am not going too far when I say that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord German, reflects that we have the balance right in what we are trying to do with Clause 48.

The rebuttable presumption mechanism provides a safeguard for individual offenders to rebut based on their individual circumstances. However, at the same time, it is important to note that Parliament has presumed such offences will be considered particularly serious crimes for these purposes. Not only have those who receive convictions for Schedule 3 sex offences failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. But this measure is limited by our obligations under the convention. Both the rebuttable presumptions must remain as a practical measure to ensure that we adopt a lawful approach. We contend that the Government, in proposing Clause 48, have the balance right. For that reason, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment. He has, obviously from personal experience, a great fount of knowledge of the difficulties that people are facing, coming from different parts of the world to this country, or trying to. He has studied over the years the different ways of trying to get here. It is not just in small boats; they could equally well be seeking asylum in another way. Bringing together a family, which was done by a small number of people—100—last year, is something on which I think we must support him. Let us hope that he carries on with getting as many families reunited as he can, wherever they come from. I shall certainly support him if we end up in a Division Lobby.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it falls to me to say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for taking this so far. I have had the temerity—he knows I have said this to him privately—to say that he probably ranks in this Chamber as a national treasure. That is because—I know he will not like it—if you have had his experiences and you have devoted your life to ensuring that the chance that you have had in life is given to others, you cannot fail to support this amendment. It is absolutely fundamental that children should have the right to be with their parents, and it is fundamental that we are currently denying them that opportunity. This amendment is so tightly written and so tightly executed that it is not going to take a large number of people: it is not going to take huge numbers from all over the world, it is a small number of children.

Those of us who have been on the beaches and in the background in Calais and Dunkirk know that children sometimes find themselves there in the most appalling circumstances. What are you to do as a parent if you have a child whom you cannot get to come to you? That is the most terrible thing you could possibly imagine to impose on parents. So I have no doubt that the empathy of this House is not just for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the causes he has put forward and this very tight amendment. It deserves the support of all sides of this Parliament and I hope the noble Lord will put it to a vote so we can all vote for it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, it is not that there are no means to enter the country, nor that families are being involuntarily separated at the French border; it is that we continue to allow unfettered and illegal entrance to the country and offer the amenities that make separating from one’s family a worthwhile choice for some. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for whom I have enormous regard, I submit that the amendment perhaps does nothing to solve these issues.

I understand that, in attempting to provide a legal route for asylum-seeking children to reunite with their families, the noble Lord’s intentions are well-meaning and indeed magnanimous. In practice, however, I suggest that his amendment might well cause even more issues with the asylum system and that more families would be split up. Those considering crossing the channel and illegally entering our country would be even more emboldened to do so if they were given the impression that having to part ways with their children would be a temporary measure. There is a great risk that more parents would board small boats, making the dangerous and sometimes fatal channel crossing. Their children, left behind with the promise of a future reunion, would be left exposed to the dangerous gangs that control the people-trafficking operations into this country.

To solve the issue of separated families, we must focus on what we can control. It is not in our power to force the migrants in France to remain with their families, but we can show them that the journey over here is not worth the risk, by taking away the luxuries offered on arrival, denying asylum claims after illegal entering and making it clear that, should you choose to leave your family, it is not the British state’s responsibility to reunite. These are clear and effective ways to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, this amendment incentivises the first set of prospects. It would fundamentally worsen the asylum crisis and, as such, I submit, it is not well judged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment, together with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whom we are very glad to see in the Chamber after his most unfortunate accident. I apprehend that one reason he might support it—although, if he is able to, he could contradict me—is simply that it is a good idea that we know what is being decided. It may be that this confirms what many journalists identify as rather egregious cases, or it may be that it provides reassurance; whatever it is, we should know what they are deciding. It is hard to overstate how engaged the public is on this particular issue, and yet they do not know what is being decided in their name on what is probably one of the burning political issues of the moment.

I referred in Committee to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, which has been published. He said:

“A further difficulty in this area”—


he is talking about the decision-making—

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

So we have to rely on what journalists select, doing their job as journalists. People say that they are unfairly selecting certain cases and that there have been plenty of decisions that are wholly satisfactory, but it would be much better if there was some sunlight on this.

I fail to understand the Government’s objection. The only objection that we were given in Committee was, “The previous Government didn’t make a fuss about this, and that suits us”. I am afraid that is simply not good enough, and I therefore support this amendment and invite the House to join me.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of supporting this amendment, in the interests of transparency in the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for Amendment 56, which would ensure that judgments from the First-tier Tribunal immigration and asylum chamber are published. It is not enough that justice is done; it must be seen to be done. This amendment goes to the heart of that principle. Decisions taken in the immigration and asylum chamber affect people’s lives in the most profound way. It is therefore essential that those decisions are open to scrutiny and that the reasoning behind them can be examined by the public, Parliament and the press. Transparency is the cornerstone of public confidence in our legal system. Where judgments are hidden, mistrust grows. There have been too many occasions where controversial or apparently inconsistent rulings have circulated in the media without the full facts being available.

That lack of visibility risks undermining both the independence of our tribunals and the confidence of the public in their fairness. Publishing these judgments will help improve public understanding of how decisions are made and the principle that underpins them. Importantly, this amendment is carefully drafted; it includes clear safeguards to allow for anonymity when necessary. Personal details and sensitive information can and should be protected, particularly when disclosure might endanger an applicant or compromise ongoing proceedings. The amendment strikes the right balance between transparency and privacy. It is only right that the public should be able to see how the law is being applied in their name, especially in an area that attracts so much public attention and debate. By opening up this process to proper scrutiny, we strengthen accountability and trust in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed both Amendment 58 and Amendment 80, which is consequential to Amendment 58. We have just heard very eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about why it is important. I will just highlight a couple of very brief points.

First, I lived in Hong Kong until 1960 and my family knew Anthony Grey, the Reuters journalist who was imprisoned by Mao Tse-Tung in 1967. As a young teenager, I wrote to him at his home in Peking where he had been imprisoned. Anthony died last week. His family have said that what China did to him, keeping him in solitary confinement with no charges or anything else for over two years, affected him for the rest of his life. We see an echo of that today in the treatment of people such as Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong in prison. Hong Kong is not a safe place for some people to be.

I just want to add that, two years ago, there were a number of incidents with border staff not understanding the British national overseas route and treating Hong Konger arrivals as if they were asylum seekers. They were not. I was grateful that, after our intervention in your Lordships’ House, Ministers ensured that this error was corrected.

Last week in your Lordships’ House we discussed the changes to the extradition arrangements for Hong Kong; again, I am very grateful to the Minister for those discussions. The reason that both these issues were important to the Hong Kongers who have come here to safety as British nationals, holding British national visas, is that their life here is very unsettled. Threats to their personal safety in the UK are bad enough, but their families are also threatened in Hong Kong as well.

The whole point of the BNO visa was to keep our word to fellow British nationals after 1984. We made that real in 2021. The tiny things that have been going wrong also add to the unease that many Hong Kongers feel in this country. Making sure that no decisions are changed on the BNO visa route other than by Parliament is exactly what needs to happen to give them the confidence that the UK still stands by them.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 70 and 85 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is not with us today for reasons I explained earlier. We listened to what was said in Committee and this amendment mirrors what was placed on the agenda then. But, in tabling this amendment, we have made some changes, one of which is the need for biometrics to be taken prior to travel, and the amendment also proposes a capped scheme to control numbers and an initial pilot of 12 months minimum in order to have the opportunity to evaluate it.

To try to explain this scheme, which is basically about a legal route into the United Kingdom, I will just refer to the United States. A similar scheme to the one we are proposing—not exactly the same, but similar—was instituted there, and the US Government were able to reduce illegal border crossings from Mexico across the US border by 77% between December 2023 and August 2024: that is, in nine months.

It was achieved through a three-pronged approach, one of which was, of course, diplomatic efforts to make sure that there was a strong ability to manage the system in the countries where people started, and also then taking a tough approach to the irregular border crossings, significantly reducing the chance of successfully claiming asylum for those arriving without permission, and a substantial official scheme through which people could apply to come to the country. That is the bit that, of course, the humanitarian travel permit relates to.

The result in the United States was that it simply was not worth the expense of paying the smugglers any more and it undermined their business entirely. That is because you cannot look at just one side of the demand-supply equation. The demand is being met by the smugglers, and we have to touch both sides. Without a form of legal route, you will not get that demand reduced.

I will try to explain it very straightforwardly. In the United Kingdom, we put up with queues. We may not like them, but we follow, if there is a queue, in a proper and orderly manner—mostly. If somebody pushes in, either they do not get served when they get to the front, or they get sent to the back of the queue. This scheme means to do exactly that—to provide a scheme where there is a queue in which people can come to the United Kingdom. If you decide to jump the queue by taking the smugglers route, you get put to the back of the queue again.

That means, of course, that you have to have a quota attached to the scheme, and because the law in this country says that you cannot make a claim for asylum unless you are here, you have to have a travel permit in order to come here. But that would be controlled right back at the beginning of the journey. If you have paid a slab of money to a smuggler back in Egypt or Libya, you are certainly not going to be put off when you get to the end of the route. It is certainly the case that you need to tackle this right back at the beginning. This whole scheme is about trying to create a legal route and being tough on anyone who tries to jump the queue by coming in irregularly and moving them to the back of the queue.

It does not matter if the queue is not moving very quickly; what matters is that it is moving. It is surprising that people will be prepared to wait, as they did in the United States, where, in the case of Haiti, instead of 10,000 people turning up at the US border, it was just a handful every month. That is because people said, “It’s not worth my while doing that”. They saw that joining the queue meant that at some stage they would get to the front of that queue.

It works much better, of course, if you are doing it with other countries as well, because you can collectively create these routes, which can be dealt with in a very efficient way. That way, we control the borders. That is what this is about. It is a different sort of approach from what is suggested by putting your hands up and saying, “You can’t get in”, and “We’ll stop you in every way possible”, and all that stuff. That did not work.

It may be that, in time, the pressures to try to deal with this across the channel may well work in reducing the numbers. But we are looking at changing the whole model so that the smugglers’ model does not work. It has been tried and tested. That is why, if we are going to use this in a European context, it is important that it is done with a capped model, with one particular country perhaps, and certainly for 12 months, so that we can find out whether we can make this work here in Europe as well.

This system, this scheme, is one that is designed to provide safe routes and to take away the business of the smugglers. It will not solve it all, but if it reduces it by 77%, as was the case in the United States of America, it is certainly worth doing.

That is what this amendment is about. The other amendment, with which it is associated, is simply to create a pilot scheme with a capped number of people in it. I hope that we will consider this when we come back to it later in this debate.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have brought forward this group of amendments concerning safe and legal routes and humanitarian travel permits. We recognise the compassion and concern that underpin these proposals. We cannot dispute that the United Kingdom has played its part in providing refuge to those fleeing war and persecution, but it is important to remind the House that the United Kingdom has a proud record of providing such safe and legal routes, which have brought many people to safety without the need to undertake dangerous journeys or place themselves in the hands of criminal gangs.

Through the Hong Kong British national (overseas) visa route, we have offered a secure and permanent home to those with whom we share deep historical ties. More than 180,000 people from Hong Kong have already come to the United Kingdom under this route, one of the most generous immigration offers in our nation’s history. Likewise, our Ukrainian family scheme and Homes for Ukraine programme have provided sanctuary to more than 200,000 people since 2022. Those fleeing Putin’s brutal invasion have found not just safety but welcome and support in communities across our country. In addition, our resettlement programmes for those affected by the conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan remain among the largest of their kind anywhere in Europe. The UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable people through the Syrian scheme and continues to support Afghans who served alongside our forces.

The United Kingdom has therefore demonstrated through actions, not just words, that we are willing to provide safe, legal and managed routes for those in need. What we must now avoid is creating parallel systems that risk undermining the integrity of our immigration framework or diverting resources from routes that are already working effectively. Britain has done and continues to do its part. Our focus must remain on maintaining fairness, control and compassion in our asylum system, ensuring that help is targeted where it is most needed and delivered through routes that are safe, sustainable and properly managed.