Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this legislation, while described by the Government as “small” and highly focused, carries constitutional significance and poses risks to fundamental rights, which is why it needs the rigorous scrutiny which this House can provide. The Government’s stated purpose for the Bill is clear: to safeguard the UK from individuals who pose a threat to national security or public safety. The Bill seeks to amend Section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that if the Government strip a person of their British citizenship, the deprivation order remains in effect throughout the entire appeal process. This measure is a direct response to the Supreme Court judgment in N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That judgment established that when a person successfully appeals a deprivation order, their citizenship is automatically and retrospectively restored at that point.

The Government argue that this Bill is necessary to prevent high-harm individuals who are overseas from returning to the UK, and to stop persons seeking to undermine deprivation action by renouncing other nationalities in order to become stateless while an appeal remains ongoing. I understand the Government’s duty to keep the country safe, but we must question whether this measure is right, proportionate and the only tool available to achieve that goal. I will raise some of the contradictions that have been raised in the other place and look at some of the possible solutions to them. I will then pose questions to the Minister that I think will help to clarify the rightness and proportionality of the measure and whether it is indeed the only tool available to achieve that goal.

This Bill proposes to overturn the ordinary presumption that court orders take immediate effect. The legislation delays the restoration of citizenship until all governmental appeal rights are exhausted. That diminishes the only mechanism for scrutinising the Home Secretary’s decisions and thus could be viewed as an assault on the rule of law. The Bill grants the Government unwarranted power to ignore court rulings that find their actions unlawful. The Bill also applies retrospectively to appeals brought but not yet finally determined. This means that any individuals currently caught in the legal process will have the rules changed against them mid-appeal.

The principal concern relates to the severe consequences that this Bill poses, particularly for vulnerable individuals and potentially for British children. Under the current regime, the UK employs deprivation of citizenship orders more frequently than most other countries in Europe. The practice of citizenship-stripping disproportionately targets ethnic-minority communities. Some of those affected are stranded overseas and exposed to severe harms such as detention, cruel treatment and death, without consular protection or the ability to return home, even when courts rule in their favour.

The case of N3 (ZA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department is instructive. A child born in the UK to a British father whose citizenship was later ruled to have been unlawfully stripped was initially denied recognition as a British citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the father should be treated as having retained his citizenship throughout the deprivation period. This Bill reverses that, meaning that future children in similar positions could be left without UK state protection until their parent’s final appeal is exhausted, which could be some years later.

We know that British children are already detained in inhumane conditions in places such as north-east Syria. Available information indicates that all British adults detained there have been stripped of their citizenship, leading to the creation of stateless, or effectively stateless, children. The Bill would expose those children to these extreme risks for a significantly longer period, even after a court has found that they have a valid claim to citizenship.

The Bill impairs an individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in legal proceedings. Individuals challenging deprivation from overseas face insurmountable barriers to accessing justice, making it difficult to instruct lawyers or access documents.  The Bill prevents the individual, even after winning at the first instance, from returning to the UK to participate fully in the ongoing appeals process. UK courts have already acknowledged that appeals from those detained in north-east Syria would

“not be fair and effective”.

Forcing an individual to continue participating in this admittedly ineffective process compounds the unfairness.

I need to press the Minister on why the Government have chosen this blanket approach, rather than legislating for more targeted solutions, and why crucial safeguards have been either omitted or rejected. My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, the Government’s stated motivation is to maintain the ability to exclude individuals who pose a threat. Why was the alternative approach, suggested by Reprieve and others—of legislating to clarify the rules governing stays in the First-tier Tribunal and the SIAC, allowing the Government to apply for a stay of a successful order on a case-by-case basis where justified—rejected in favour of a blanket suspension?

Secondly, given that the duration of the appeals process could be considerable—potentially lasting years—and result in British children being stranded overseas, why have the Government resisted establishing an expedited appeals route to ensure unlawful deprivation orders do not continue to have effect for prolonged periods of time?

Thirdly, the Government have rejected judicial discretion to suspend the effect of a successful appeal, asserting that national security accountability rests with the democratically accountable Secretary of State. However, in the House of Commons, a proposed amendment—the so-called the Malthouse amendment—would have provided judicial discretion to prevent severe hardship, specifically if a person faced a real and substantial threat of serious harm, or if the continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence. Can the Minister confirm why the Government did not accept these basic judicial safeguards to protect against the most egregious cases of abuse and harm?

Fourthly, the current power to strip citizenship is already criticised for placing excessive power in the hands of a single Minister under the subjective test of being

“conducive to the public good”.

Will the Government commit to reforming the entire deprivation process—as called for by the Liberal Democrats—to require the Home Secretary to apply to a court for permission to make a deprivation order in the first instance, thereby ensuring judicial oversight before the power is exercised?

Finally, following concerns about transparency and oversight, will the Minister commit the Government to publishing annual reports detailing the use of deprivation of citizenship powers, and ensuring their regular review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation?

The Bill grants greater authority to the Government in a context already marked by high levels of citizenship-stripping and minimal checks. It threatens to legislate away the authority of British courts. Your Lordships’ House has a constitutional role as the final check on government overreach to ensure that, if this Bill is to proceed, we can preserve judicial oversight and prevent British people, particularly children, being left at risk of serious harm.

Refugee Family Reunion Scheme

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I can say yes. The Government are always in discussion with the United Nations and will continue to be so.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the suspension of the refugee scheme until next spring presents a particular problem for unaccompanied children whose refugee parents in the United Kingdom will be making an application for them to come to the United Kingdom. What special consideration have the Minister and the Government given to those children in that regard, in this period between now and next spring?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government uphold the principle of family unity and want to ensure that we maintain that. We have to examine the reason for the significant drive in family reunion applications over the last two to three years. It is a significant increase, and therefore the pause has been applied so that we can assess the situation, look at those areas and make some recommendations for, as I said to the right reverend Prelate, spring of next year. Family reunion and safeguarding children will remain key factors. Individuals can still apply through existing safe and legal routes, but the automatic assumption, which we have now closed on a pause basis, is not going to continue until we have reviewed it.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I had sat down but, given that the noble Baroness intervened on me, I will make a brief response since we have gone over the time—although that was largely to do with her rather than me.

I was not saying that the noble Baroness was in favour of imprecision; I was saying that it is about who decides what things mean. I think that Parliament should decide what they mean. It can keep the convention updated with the modern world, rather than courts doing that in a way that is not compatible with the views of the public. That is all I am saying; it would fundamentally strengthen the convention that we have signed up to and is likely to keep it in force for longer, with the support of the public. That is the thrust of my argument. I am content to leave it there.

[Lord German (LD)]

Let me go briefly through my quick summing up of what I have heard.

It seems that there are those who wish to leave things as they are; those who wish to have a more relaxed regime in terms of getting further from the convention; and those, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who want to lock them together. We have just heard those three different positions but I have never heard, except from my noble friend Lady Ludford behind me, the view that what you can do is to seek to change, alter or amend while seeking definitions of “internationally”. After all, this is an international document that we signed up to. If we believe that we are on our own in this world and that there is nobody else who will support us in making any changes, then, surely to goodness, we are not going to be stuck in saying that everybody else is out of step except us. That is not an argument I can accept.

The crucial issue here is how we make the best use of the convention and of our laws with it together. Whether or not we change from the position where we are now to a more fundamental change, in wrapping the two together, is an issue that requires a lot of debate and discussion—and by wise heads who are in this area—but it seems that what we have is a suspicion, which I can hear from those on my right, that we need to slacken our application of the refugee convention. In the sense that we have not tried to seek accommodation with others who might feel the same way, that strikes me as an incorrect way of dealing with something that has been integral to our law and integral to the way in which we operate for such a long time.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, the IPPR has described this as a worrying misstep that is neither good politics nor good policy. Its research, like that of others, has consistently shown that the public has little appetite for punitive citizenship policies. Nearly 150 organisations, including faith groups, condemned the change in an open letter when it was announced. Personally, I feel ashamed that my Government have taken this misstep. This amendment would at least mitigate its impact. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to repeat all that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, but I agree with every word. If we wish people to become full citizens of, or to integrate into, our country, looking back at the way in which they came into the country actually damages that process. People who could have been working here for years, and brought families up together, are being denied that opportunity.

It is quite clear that this is a case of one step forward, one step back. The repeal of some of the provisions of the Illegal Migration Act, in Clauses 38 and 39 of the Bill, was absolutely the right thing to do. But then the Secretary of State overturned that by stating simply that, from 10 February 2025, individuals applying for citizenship who arrived by “a dangerous journey”, or who entered the UK irregularly, “will normally be refused” British citizenship, with no carve-out for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children—and it is retrospective to people already in the United Kingdom.

Because it is such an important issue, I managed to ask whether Britain was standing alone on this matter. I have arranged, through a system in this Parliament that I did not know about, to ask all 46 Parliaments of the Council of Europe a question. When considering a citizenship application from an individual who is legally recognised as a refugee, to what extent does the method by which they entered the country impact their eligibility for citizenship? For example, does entering national territory without permission normally make an applicant ineligible for citizenship, including if they are later recognised as a refugee?

That was dealt with by the Parliaments of the Council of Europe, and we received responses from 31 member countries. Not one of them has the rule that the Secretary of State has just applied to this system. I will read out the names of those countries, because they ought to be on record: Albania, Armenia, Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada—which is an associate of the Council of Europe—Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Moldova, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine. None of them carries out this policy.

Why are we standing alone? Why are we the ones who are marching out of step with everybody else? Why is it that we do not want these people, who are coming here and spending their lifespan here, to be integrated fully and granted citizenship? They have worked their way through our society. It is absolutely shameful and the Government ought to rescind the Secretary of State’s statement and fall back on what is done in this Bill. In the Bill, we have done the right thing. By contrast, the Secretary of State’s statement needs to be re-dealt with, so that we can fall in line with every other country in Europe that decided to respond to this. Incidentally, it was only the small countries that did not respond, such as San Marino and Andorra; all the big countries of Europe are in there.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly about the first amendment in this group, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, before moving on to those in my name and those of my noble friends.

The “good character” assessment may, in the view of some noble Lords, have a slightly antiquated name, but let me take a moment to go into some more detail. A person will not normally be considered to be of good character if there is information to suggest that any of the following apply: if they are a criminal, if they are a terrorist, if they have failed to pay tax, if they are dishonest or if they have breached immigration laws. That is not an exhaustive list, but those are the main points set out by the Government.

I know that the amendment is well intentioned, but we on these Benches believe that the requirements currently set out to be considered a person of “good character” are not only valid but important for maintaining national security and the safety and well-being of our citizens. For us to say that a person should not be a threat to national security, that they should be honest and that they should seek to nurture our community rather than harm it, as a prerequisite, is, I am sure all noble Lords will agree, an entirely valid principle. I therefore cannot support any measures that threaten the watering down of this principle and cannot back the amendment.

I turn to the amendments in this group in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Cameron and Lord Jackson of Peterborough. We need to acknowledge in this debate that, despite our various disagreements on the Bill and, to some extent, on how we approach the issue of migration more widely, we share the same fundamental ambition to see our country succeed. We all want a country in which everyone contributes, in which communities thrive and work together, and in which our economy and public services are properly supported. But, if we are to get closer to achieving this ambition, we must face up to the reality that our social security and welfare systems are not limitless. They exist to protect the vulnerable here at home and to support those who fall on hard times. That is why these amendments are so vital.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken in this particular bit of the debate. Indeed, most of what I would have said has already been said, but there are three things I wish to say.

First, I support Amendments 165, 166 and 203K, and I would have added my name to them had I been able to. Secondly, I may be one of the very few people in the House who actually has some experience of child family reunion. My mother came to this country as an adult refugee in 1937. Her brother was 10 years younger and was stuck in Germany, being treated abominably at school after Kristallnacht in 1938. My mother got permission to bring her 13 year-old brother under family reunion rules, such as existed back then. That meant that he could not be a charge on the state, but he was allowed to use such health services as there were—this was before the NHS. The people around—his neighbours, her neighbours, the wider society who came into contact with him—were unflinchingly supportive.

I believe that we live in the kind of society in which people believe that children who are stuck and in danger and have family here who will support and look after them should be supported now just as much as then. For that reason, I support these amendments. However, is the Minister prepared to tell us where we are really going on family reunion more generally, because, to put it mildly, I think we are all a little confused?

I admire hugely the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and his Amendment 177 is a beautifully crafted piece of legislation. I cannot see how anybody could possibly object.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate around a cluster of amendments that are, I remind the Committee, largely about children and women. If we look at the background of the present system, we find that 91% of all visas granted since 2010 were for women and children, with children being the majority: 56% were for children against 35% for women. We should remember that we are looking at something important towards the sort of society that we want and that we want people to integrate within.

If we believe that we need a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system, and if we are serious about solving the challenges at our borders, we have to acknowledge that enforcement alone is not enough. We have to pair control with compassion. That is what is proposed in the amendments that have been put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee persistently over a number of years. These amendments are comprehensive in trying to establish compassion as part of a full migration system. One thing I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on is that we must have a comprehensive system, and a comprehensive system must be those four things: controlled, humane, ordered and planned—all four are important. To concentrate as this Bill does, potentially, on one aspect is fine, but we need to bring together the parts into a whole system.

That is why safe routes are so important. Family reunion is about safe routes. When separation occurs due to conflict, it is essential that we uphold the principle that families belong together. The best interests of a child are a primary consideration in all decisions concerning family reunion. We have to address the barriers that push vulnerable people towards smugglers. When accessible legal routes are lacking, families who are unable to reunite will often feel forced to find alternative, dangerous ways to reach their loved ones. Restricting family reunion will not stop dangerous journeys; it will only push more desperate people into the arms of smugglers. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated that, in Calais, there are children seeking family reunion. We must be prepared to say that they are on a dangerous route because they are attempting an irregular route. We need this as part of a comprehensive system, so that people—young people in particular—do not feel pushed into the arms of smugglers.

At this point, three things are necessary in the legislation to try to simplify the whole process. One is removing restrictive requirements for people who are unable to return to their country of origin, meaning that family reunion is the only way they can exercise their right to family life. New financial and English-language proposals are being put forward by the Government, and I will come back to specific questions on the fundamental point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, put to the Minister earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

175: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migrationThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on how implementing a carers’ minimum wage would impact on levels of net migration.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Brinton, for very sad personal reasons, I shall speak to the amendments in her name, which I have also signed, and do my best to replicate what I think was her intention when she tabled them.

First, I need to say that the Government have already slipped a pass, in a way, by announcing on 30 September that they are intent on having the first ever fair pay agreement for care workers—the Government’s press release was announced on that date. I also notice that this agreement will not take place, and the fair pay agreement will not come into force, until 2028, so there is a small gap of what happens between now and 2028, when the new regime comes into place.

In the meantime, we have what we have been calling a fair wage for care workers. We have classified it as a carers’ minimum wage, which I think suits the style in which the Government are attempting to deal with this matter. The challenge of managing migration, particularly within the health and social care sector, requires solutions that address both workforce needs and the ethics of recruitment. Obviously, we must address the reliance on migration by focusing on domestic reform. I think all that is in accord with the Government’s intention, and of course the core area for intervention is the issue of pay and conditions for domestic carers, which directly influences our reliance on overseas recruitment in this sector. The minimum wage would significantly impact migration levels in social care by tackling the underlying drivers of domestic workforce shortages.

The policy case is clear. Vacancies in the social care workforce are driven largely by poor pay, terms and conditions. I do not think that the Government disagree with that, because their announcement was made to deal with it. That leads to low domestic recruitment and retention rates. Poor pay, and often sub-minimum wages in the worst workplaces, have allowed reputable employers which look after their staff to be undercut. There are significant concerns over abuse and exploitation of individual workers. The Government have already committed to tackling these issues, through their fair pay agreement, to empower worker and employer representatives to negotiate improvements in terms of employment. A specific carers’ minimum wage would be a decisive step in this direction. This policy links directly to the Government’s stated intention to end overseas recruitment for social care visas and to address the long-term reliance on overseas workers by bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as social care. Improving pay and conditions would make these roles more attractive to UK residents, reducing the pressure on the Government to rely on international recruitment.

The recent expansion of the health and care visa route triggered a sharp increase in migration for below degree level jobs, rising from 37,000 in 2022 to 108,000 in 2023. Following concerns about exploitation and subsequent scrutiny, the number of health and care worker visas granted for main applicants and dependants fell significantly in 2024. Implementing a statutory minimum wage would cement the move away from reliance on low-skilled migration by addressing the root cause of domestic vacancies. This amendment simply asks the Government to

“within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration”.

That would mean that we would be able to see what the situation was and to understand the direction of travel that the Government laid out in their announcement of 30 September.

It is important that we measure the success of using domestic labour market improvements to regulate immigration in this key sector. It is important to find a balance between one and the other. With an ageing population, as part of this strategy on social care there is obviously going to be an increase in the numbers of people required to undertake duties of care, particularly in the home. Social care will naturally be an increasing requirement on our workforce, so improving the pay and conditions of UK-recruited care workers and the corresponding level of vacancies that would then need to be filled through migration, and understanding the gap in numbers between those who will come into the marketplace as employees from the domestic market against those who are currently in the migration market who are undertaking these roles, would be the purpose of this report.

It is a straightforward request for a report that will help us to understand the direction of travel, and I think it would be in accordance with what the Government are proposing anyway for 2028. I beg to move.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, Amendments 175 and 176, and I will speak briefly to both.

On the first, in my spirit today of agreeing with people where I can agree with them, I do not think there is a massive disagreement between us on the link between wage levels and migration; I just think that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord German, has just moved has got it rather the wrong way round. If we are talking about the labour market generally—I will come on to carers and the social care workforce in a minute—I think we actually start by limiting migration, which then forces employers to think about how they are going to attract the relevant staff and to stop thinking about bringing them into the country as their first resort. There should be some challenge in the system that says to employers, “There are circumstances in which you can import labour from overseas, but you have to jump through some hoops and demonstrate some shortage and some reason why those people cannot be recruited domestically”. I think that that is the right way of approaching it.

I just say in passing that when we were in government and I was Immigration Minister and we used to say that, those on the Opposition Benches, both Labour and Liberal Democrat, used to come up with all sorts of reasons why we should just let lots of people in. That was when we were a little bit more robust in controlling migration, when my noble friend Lady May and I were in the Home Office, where we robustly controlled such things. There is a challenge in the social care sector, of course, because a significant amount of the costs that would be borne by an increase in wages are of course not borne by the private sector, in effect, because there is a lot of public money used to pay for this.

The thing I have not heard from the Government when they talk about increasing wages in the sector—which may well be the right thing to do—is who is actually going to pay for it because that will drive up the cost of delivering social care, and not just for older people. The noble Lord was right to mention older people, but of course more than half of the public money that is spent on social care is spent on those of working age, so one has to think about both aspects. I do not disagree with him about the link between wages and migration, but where I do not think this amendment is very helpful is that it starts by assuming that you import people as the default and then you have to change the labour market to deal with migration. Actually, we control who comes to the country and we should set some tough rules about who you can bring in. That then drives the market to have to change the wages that it pays people, or the skills that it trains them in, to be able to deal with them.

That flows nicely on to the second amendment in this group—I am not quite sure why the noble Lord did not touch on it. Amendment 176 is about exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. I chose to speak after he had spoken as I was hoping he would explain the point of that amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank those who have spoken in this short debate. I hear what the Minister says about Amendment 176, but I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding on the intention of Amendment 175. The direction of travel that the Government are seeking—to reduce the pressure around having migratory care workers and to increase the numbers in our domestic workforce—is obviously related to this amendment. The Government have recognised that in the way they are challenging the pay and conditions aspect of this issue.

This amendment would merely require them to say how much of a difference things are actually making to the numbers recruited locally and the numbers of those coming from a migratory workforce, to make sure that we are on the right track. I intend to think carefully about Amendment 175 before Report, because it goes far more with the flow of what the Government are doing; we need to understand this to be able genuinely to agree on what is happening in this country as the process of agreement on a new wage level is brought into effect. With that, I seek to withdraw Amendment 175.

Amendment 175 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She has been consistent in arguing for this with various Governments, and I would like to be consistent in my support for her.

As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, this is essentially an amendment about standards rather than the method of delivery. From the very beginning, the noble Baroness has made the point that where it is vital we get consistency of language or the written word, we ought to be able to rely on translation where English is not the first language. I have to say that my experience of policing is that English is not that precise at the best of times. With the police or others, it is sometimes quite hard to determine exactly what people have said.

Particularly important here is that the list in the amendment is of rights and expectations that people rely on for the system to be fair. We rely on understanding, in language, what we have been asked to do and what we may be unable to do in the future. This also allows the individual to ask questions. One of the things that underpins human rights law, which we all debate at times, is that the individual’s rights and responsibilities should be protected against the state. The state can be an overwhelming and powerful thing at times; all of us need rights to argue our case when we potentially come into conflict with it.

Language can be precise, but it is also very nuanced at times—sometimes by dialect, and sometimes by different languages. It is vital that we all understand that we are talking about the same thing in any judicial, tribunal or other procedure where our rights are going to be affected. This is all the amendment arguing for. To the point of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, it is not arguing for extra rights; it is just saying that where you have a right, you should be able to make your argument.

Probably as importantly, the amendment first enables the individual to understand what is involved in the process, what the outcome is going to be and what their rights are. Secondly, it enables them to understand the questions they are being asked. Finally, it enables them to provide an answer which is accurate and understood. I do not think it is asking any more than that.

I acknowledge that there may be a cost, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said. In fact, the police service has quite a good system, because in the criminal process, when you run the risk of the sanction of being imprisoned, it is vital that you are represented and understood well. The police have developed a system with some good standards, but there is a cost. As migration has increased over the years, that cost has significantly increased. In a city like London, around 38% to 40% of the people arrested are foreign national offenders, and often, language can become an issue. That is not unrepresentative of London; it is just a fact that this is what London is like.

The rising cost of migration and the changes it brings mean that we sometimes have to change our process. This is a vital part of it; it is about setting standards. You could say that it is hard to imagine why the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, had to make this argument. It is hard to understand why you have to argue for a—presumably significant—standard to make sure people understand what they are involved in. We might imagine it already exists, but I am afraid it does not. That is why this amendment is vital, and I support it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I absolutely support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in this matter. I draw upon my own experience of 11 years in a bilingual Parliament, the Senedd Cymru: without accuracy or professional translators, it would undoubtedly have been difficult to create the laws we passed during those 11 years.

Accuracy and clarity are critical. There is of course a cost to doing it properly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harper, rightly says. However, if it is not done properly, it will end up in the courts, and legal aid and various other factors will be involved. I do not agree with the noble Lord that you should not face the cost, because that cost may be displaced over the time.

I will wait for the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to reply on AI assistance, but there is a big difference between people hearing what is said exactly and reproducing it in exactly the same way it is being spoken. When someone speaks, the interpreter and translator translate those words exactly as they were said. That is the important issue here.

I want to tempt the Minister to talk about the learning of the English language, which is of course associated with this. There is undoubtedly a real problem in providing sufficient language courses to help people get an experience of the English language. Do the Government have any ambitions to improve the teaching of English to people coming here on the migration route?

As for the reason for this amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, we should not be putting ourselves at risk by not having it.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this amendment. The intention behind it is obviously very welcome. We need to make sure that those going through this process can understand what is happening and what is being asked of them. It is of course a duty of the Government to make sure that this can happen. To that end, I hope the Minister can take this opportunity to set out to the Committee that the Government are already working to make sure that the Home Office and other agencies have the capacity to provide these services, and how they plan to manage any increase in demand.

Asylum Claims: Religious Conversion

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness will know, more than 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. Almost half of the initial decisions—48%—were grants, which means that 52% were not. We do not keep statistics on individual religious conversion aspects. We take that into account and will make a judgment on the case before the examiner in each individual case.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, at the outset, can I say how much these Liberal Democrat Benches will miss our dearly respected and valued colleague, Lord Ming Campbell of Pittenweem? He served the country well. My question to the Minister is this: last year, the previous Government established a faith working group to look at the issues at the basis of this Question. Does that working group still exist and, if so, can the Minister tell me what it has achieved?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

On behalf of the Government Benches, I echo the noble Lord’s comments about his noble friend. He was a good servant to his party, to his constituency and to the country. The recommendations made by that working group have been put into government consideration. I am not involved in that working group and there may not be a working group in existence now. I will check whether other ministerial colleagues are involved and let the noble Lord know in due course.

Undocumented Migrants

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I will share part of my noble friend’s analysis, in that factors of war, poverty and starvation are driving migration from many parts of the world into western Europe. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and other European countries and international partners, are looking at what those driving factors are. Part of the overall strategy needs to be how we deal with poverty, hunger, starvation and the impact of war. There are times when the UK and other partners need to help and support interventions, but I take the first part of my noble friend’s question extremely seriously, and that is something our international partners are very focused on.

[Lord German (LD)]

The Government’s French scheme has the benefit of giving us a safe route for people to come to this country. However, as the noble Lord has explained, it will not work unless it is ramped up. So would I be wrong in my expectation that the ramping up of the scheme will take place some time before the end of next year? In the meantime, what is happening to those who are now legally going to come to the United Kingdom? How are they being assessed, by whom, and where?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

As noble Lords will know, we have negotiated the French pilot for the first time with the French to ensure that we have detention in the UK and return to France. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Massey, we intend to have returns under that scheme imminently. That is a pilot scheme; it will be assessed, and the intention, if both parties think it is valuable, is to increase its capacity over time to meet our obligations. In the meantime, there are a number of legal routes that people can apply to. There are asylum claims that individuals can make. We have put in additional support to speed up those asylum claims to determine who can stay and who can go. It is the responsibility of any responsible Government to try to deal with this with constructive solutions, of which I know the noble Lord is supportive. I look forward to his support in evaluating the success of the French pilot.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 8th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a very brief point in addition to that one. It is interesting that we have just came out of a debate on a group of amendments that address the rule of law and legal advice. Around the Committee, there was a strong view that people should have representation, that they should be able to make their case and that their case should be heard. What we have before us now is a group of amendments in which there is absolutism without any sense of balance or proportionality. The case of coercion, which my noble friend has just discussed, makes it incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and in due process to support these amendments, particularly when we are told that the criticism largely comes from the Daily Telegraph.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I will respond, with all due respect, to the noble Lord’s comments about minors. We should bear in mind that this amendment would apply to people who would be subject to the provision as adults, not children, when sent into the prison estate. They would be subject, for instance, to pre-sentence reports and background information being provided if they were young people, but, in essence, they would be adults. They would be at the top level of criminality, because they would be incarcerated in respect of a custodial sentence. In other words, they would have committed pretty serious offences; they would not have been sent to prison for not paying their TV licence or for speeding. Therefore, for the noble Lord to conflate the two is wrong. This is something that the British people are looking to the Government to take action on. They look at other jurisdictions and simply cannot understand why other jurisdictions are in a position to take robust action to remove people who have committed persistent criminal offences in their country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who unfortunately cannot be in her place today. In doing so, I pay tribute to her tireless advocacy for EU settled status holders. I also thank the3million for the brilliant work that it does representing EU citizens in the UK and for its support and briefing.

The amendments in this group seek to protect the rights of holders of EU settled status and ensure that the procedural safeguards provided for under the withdrawal agreement apply to them all. I should say at the outset that we welcome Clause 42, but we believe it would be significantly improved if the Government took on board the key elements of our amendments.

The problem that Clause 42 seeks to address arises from the creation of two distinct groups of EU settled status holders: those whom the Government have determined the true cohort, who had permanent resident rights or were exercising treaty rights at the end of the implementation period, and the extra cohort, those who were not exercising treaty rights but who were granted settled status based on simple residence at the end of the implementation period. The Government did not tell settled status holders which cohort they were in as they never tested for true cohort membership when granting settled status. Regardless of cohort, the grant of settled status states specifically that it is issued under the withdrawal agreement, even though the Home Office argues that that is not the case for the extra cohort. Nevertheless, the Government claimed that as they did not intend to distinguish between the two cohorts, the existence of two cohorts had no material impact. Subsequently, the outcome of litigation required that some government services could be accessed only with proof that the person concerned was part of the true cohort. This requires them to prove the exact legal status of their residence on 31 December 2020, and this is increasingly difficult as time marches on.

Clause 42 seeks to legislate to end this distinction between the true and extra cohorts, and to fulfil the Government’s commitment that they would not treat the cohorts differently. It does that by granting a separate route to withdrawal agreement rights for the extra cohort via this Bill. In intention it is therefore extremely welcome. However, there are elements of the clause that undermine the Government’s own objective and create further difficulties. It is these difficulties that our amendments seek to address.

First, Amendment 144 would delete Clause 42(2)(c), as this is foundational to the issue. The subsection gives the Home Office the power to remove settled status without affording status holders the procedural safeguards provided by the withdrawal agreement where it believes that settled status was granted in error, even if that error was the Home Office’s.

This is wrong, for several reasons: first, because it is wrong for the Government to remove status from someone who applied in good faith without committing fraud or misrepresentation of any kind and who has been building their life in the UK over many years. If the Home Office has made an error in the original decision, it is one that it needs to live with rather than visiting that error on others and potentially causing huge disruption and misery.

Secondly, it is wrong because it allows the Government to execute this decision without applying the procedural safeguards which exist to ensure that status is not unjustly removed, and which are provided under the withdrawal agreement. This is because, where the Home Office thinks status is granted in error, it does not issue a decision to remove the status; if it did, people would have procedural safeguards, as the Home Office would need to have applied a proportionality assessment and the status holder would have a right to appeal.

Instead, what the Home Office does is to allow the status to expire. This sidesteps a proportionality assessment, which would otherwise be required, and denies the right of appeal. The Home Office says that this is a helpful thing to do, to give people a bit more time before their status is lost, but in fact it is letting status holders slide off a cliff without any of the withdrawal agreement safeguards. This must not be allowed to happen, fundamentally because the Home Office may well be wrong in its assessment that the status was granted in error.

Does the Minister accept that there is no right of appeal on the specific decision to allow a person’s status to expire on the basis that the pre-settled status was granted in error? Is a withdrawal agreement-compliant proportionality assessment made before a decision is taken to allow status to expire? If it is not applied, does he accept that the Government will be in breach of the withdrawal agreement should it transpire that they wrongly asserted that pre-settled status was granted in error? The fundamental issue here is protecting people’s rights to safeguards under the withdrawal agreement.

Thirdly, the subsection could also invite any government department or public body to revisit a grant of settled status to decide whether the individual can rely on withdrawal rights by assessing a person’s legal position on 31 December 2020. That is precisely what the clause is supposed to avoid.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 142 would ensure that

“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”

benefit from Clause 42—not only those with extant settled status. This is to ensure that rights under the withdrawal agreement are maintained for those whose status is varied—for example, if they have been forced to give up settled status to access protection as victims of domestic abuse—those whose pre-settled status has expired because of a failure of the automatic extensions and those whose settled status has been deliberately expired rather than revoked.

Amendments 143 and 145 would address the situation for those granted settled status under EU derivative rights; that is, those rights which were established outside EU directives through case law, which are known as Zambrano, Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights. Zambrano rights holders are not protected under the withdrawal agreement, and these amendments would maintain that situation, but they would ensure that Ibrahim/Teixeira and Chen rights were covered by Clause 42.

In conclusion, these amendments would clarify the law. They would give certainty and reassurance to settled status holders and would ensure that the Government’s stated intentions had effect.

Finally, before I sit down, I want to raise with the Minister a related issue of serious concern about the lack of transparency of the Home Office over the effectiveness of its digital immigration systems, which directly impact settled status holders. On 22 July, I tabled a Written Question asking how many reports had been made through the “Report an error with your eVisa” online form in each of the past 12 months. The Minister replied on 30 July, saying:

“The information requested is not currently available from published data and could only be collated and verified for the purposes of answering this question at disproportionate cost”.


The idea that the eVisa IT system cannot generate a report of how many error forms it has received for anything above a minimal cost is, to my mind, absurd. In any event, this is critical information for policymakers and those who scrutinise them. If officials and Ministers do not have this data, how can they know how their systems are functioning?

Perhaps they do know the answer, and they just will not tell us. In replying to a similar question in a letter to the 3million group, the Home Office gave a different answer. It did not claim that the data could be provided only at disproportionate cost. In fact, it stated that it intended to publish the requested data on the volume of error web form requests in due course. We all know what “in due course” means, or, more precisely, we do not know what it means at all.

I hope the Minister will address this issue in his answer and tell us when the data will be published. We cannot have faith in ministerial assurances that errors in the eVisa system are not a significant problem if the Government are not able or prepared to share the data. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this issue and to the points raised on the amendments. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lord Oates. We support Amendments 142 to 145, as they would safeguard the rights of individuals granted status under the EU settlement scheme, ensure the proper application of the withdrawal agreement, prevent arbitrary removal of status, and uphold procedural safeguards.

It is worth just stating what those safeguards are. There are four of them: first, the Home Office must notify the person of the decision that their status will be removed; secondly, the Home Office must explain the grounds on which that cancellation decision was taken; thirdly, the Home Office must take proportionality into account before removing their status; and, finally, the individual would have a right of appeal against the decision to remove their status.

Amendment 142 would ensure that

“all persons granted residence status in the UK under the EUSS, which has not been cancelled, curtailed, or revoked”

benefit from Clause 42 even if they are not already direct beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement. This is crucial for some groups because there are those whose EUSS status might be varied; for example, to access protection as victims of domestic abuse under a different immigration route. It clarifies that these individuals should be deemed still to have directly effective withdrawal agreement rights.

Amendments 143 and 145 focus on those who obtain resident status by the various routes under the EUSS. While the Home Office suggests that these individuals are already part of what is called the “true cohort” of beneficiaries, there may be a minority whose grants were based on caseworker discretion and would not otherwise fall under this cohort. Amendments 143 and 145 ensure that such individuals who have built their lives in the United Kingdom in good faith are also included within the personal scope of the withdrawal agreement without undermining the Government’s overall policy intention to exclude certain other routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I do not understand why one should object to protecting people with these four protections in circumstances in which it appears that the Home Office has made a mistake. It seems to me that the most unsuitable moment to remove the protections is when the Home Office has made a mistake. Indeed, if the Home Office has made a mistake, one would hope there would be greater protections because there was a mistake.

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord is correct. If the Home Office recognises it has made a mistake, then it should apply the protections which are provided by the withdrawal agreement, which is precisely the major point that is being made in this set of amendments. Amendment 144 would ensure that all actions related to EUSS status are subject to clear procedural safeguards, as laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

Taken together, these amendments reinforce fairness and legal certainty for EUSS beneficiaries, ensuring that administrative decisions respect individual rights and that the procedural safeguards are consistently applied.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I have very little to add except that I await the explanation from the Minister with great interest. The amendments in this group and Clause 42 itself concern the rights of those granted settled status in the UK under the EU settlement scheme after the UK left the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has ably explained, there are a number of avenues for an individual to apply for this scheme. As I understand it, the impact of Clause 42 is to standardise the rights applicable to EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who are granted leave to remain under the settlement scheme so that they can rely on them under UK law. Subsection (2) of the clause defines precisely who this applies to, and Amendment 142 seeks to amend that. I am not quite certain of the intent behind that, because the language is very similar to the original text, so I think it is essential for the Minister to clarify what Clause 42 lacks that makes these amendments necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 203D follows from others in the group to provide for a review of the rights of people who do not have indefinite leave, who have experienced labour abuse or who, having protested or reported abuse, have lost employment as a result of that. Not to be prepared to review the overall issues around this subject would indicate an attitude which would be quite hard to justify. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151 and 152 in my name, and Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which I have signed.

I will begin by explaining to the Committee the whereabouts of the other signatories. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has had Covid—caught here, I am afraid, in meetings last week. She is very unwell but recovering at the present. It is a great shame that she was not able to speak to these amendments. Perhaps more worrying, of course, was the accident that I know most noble Lords will have read about in the newspaper, which involved the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who suffered at Victoria station from the bus that drove off the road. He has some serious injuries. I am not in a position to say whether he is making a speedy recovery, but he has replied to emails, so that says something of his perseverance. The Committee might wish to offer him every best wish in recovering swiftly from that accident.

These are very important amendments for many noble Lords around the Committee, because they concern how we can do a number of things that are currently on the agenda for the Government all in one go. Tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working while awaiting an asylum decision and are made forcibly dependent on the state for support, which is often inadequate; for accommodation, which is often overpriced; and for subsistence. Spending on hotel accommodation alone costs us £8 million per day.

The Government’s policy includes five priorities: first, to reduce the asylum support budget; secondly, to reduce or eliminate the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels; thirdly, to reduce child poverty; fourthly, to reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities of newly recognised refugees; and, fifthly, to reduce the number of people claiming state benefits. Amendment 151 addresses all those priorities. Enabling asylum seekers to work will reduce the asylum support budget and enable people to earn money, so that they can pay their own accommodation costs. Giving people this support enables them to make the best choices for themselves and their families. It would also help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if they are seen to be paying their way.

Visible delivery is what the Government need, and this policy could contribute to that if communities see hotels being closed. Working will help those asylum seekers who get refugee status—which is somewhere in the region of three-quarters—to stand on their own two feet much quicker than if they had been languishing in a hotel for months or years. This would be very helpful to local authorities with their obligations to homeless people and to the DWP benefit budget.

I understand what the Government’s responses to this will be. First, I am sure that the Minister will tell us that this will be a pull factor. However, having asked this question frequently, including in this Chamber, I have found that, in reality, there is no available evidence that supports the argument that it is a pull factor—that is an assumption. All the available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in determining people’s choice of destination when they are seeking safety and are largely unknown to people seeking asylum before they arrive here. Without the evidence, the UK currently has one of the most restrictive working policies compared to our European neighbours. Lifting the ban on work would bring the United Kingdom in line with other OECD member states. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier—after six months, three months or, in some countries, even earlier, such as in Belgium.

The second reason that the Government push back against this policy is because they believe that we are already reducing the list of people who are seeking asylum. They argue that we are improving our processing and getting appeal times tighter, so the work will not be needed at this stage. Although the Government aim to process all asylum claims within six months—a welcome ambition in a system where many people wait for years for an outcome—we must be realistic. When the current ban was introduced in 2002, the then Government made an identical argument about processing times, and the six-month target was not met. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for an asylum decision has risen sharply over the last decade, from one in four, or 25%, at the end of 2014, to 59% at the end of 2024. No matter what the Government are doing—they may be reducing the processing time—we still have large numbers and long waits.

There is also no reason that faster application processing and enhanced working rights must be mutually exclusive policies; in fact, they should be complementary. This policy would allow people to apply for work sooner. It would not only improve their lives but enable them to contribute to the economy, reduce public spending on the asylum system and bolster community cohesion. Legal working of this sort is to be entirely separated from the idea of illegal working, which the Government of course want to crack down on. The Government can contain legal working and make all the necessary provisions for it.

--- Later in debate ---

We have talked about illegal working. It is worth reflecting on the fact that, by stopping people working, we cause ourselves a problem, because we put people into a situation where they are vulnerable to those who come along and recruit them into the illegal economy. Predatory action relies on people looking for opportunity, so we strengthen that illegal economy in the country, with all the consequences for those individuals and for wider society. I ask noble Lords to consider supporting the amendment today.

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord has reminded me that I have not declared my interest as also being supported by the RAMP organisation.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have said. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for reminding us that our good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has been injured. We wish him a speedy recovery. He plays such an important part in our debates.

When I have talked to people claiming asylum in this country, they have had two main wishes: either they want to complete their education, which has been damaged through difficult journeys here and dangers in the countries they have fled from, or they want to work. They want to work because it is the right thing to do; they want to contribute to our society. There is this idea that they want to benefit from benefits but, frankly, I have never heard that. I am quite convinced that when they say they want to work and contribute to this country, they are telling the truth.

Then there is the argument about pull factors. I have heard that argument used about every single group of people we might be talking about. When I was discussing child refugees many years ago, I was told that if those children come, others will follow. It is the argument that Governments have used since the beginning of time, and I am just not convinced by it. There are much stronger arguments the other way.

The point about other EU countries is important. If our labour market is such that people want to come here, why is it that other EU countries which allow people to work do not appear to have a pull factor? I think we should get in line with other countries instead of being different.

The noble Lord talked about people being willing to work for lower wages. Yes, but I think that is regrettable. I believe and have argued before that it is up to the trade unions as much as anybody else to ensure that people do not work below the proper wage level for the industry they are in. It is difficult. I know that today may not be the best day to argue the case for trade unions, but I believe that it is important that people do not undercut wages. It should be done by strength and unity at the workplace.

Finally, I am interested in the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made about ID cards. It is becoming higher up on the agenda and we shall all have to consider it very hard indeed. I agree with all the amendments, apart from Amendment 154A. The denial of the right to work has been so fundamental for many years; for heaven’s sake, let us deal with it sensibly.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

164: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—
“Additional safe and legal routesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations to—(a) provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully, and(b) specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes under the UK Settlement Scheme, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 164, I will speak to Amendment 173, which is also in my name. Both amendments are measures that seek to address the significant gap in this Bill: the lack of safe and legal routes for those seeking protection in the United Kingdom.

While we welcome the measures in this Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel, the Bill as currently drafted is, as described by the Minister, designed to “beat” or “smash” the gangs—depending on the language the Minister was using at any given time. The Bill is therefore heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom, thereby denying the smuggling gangs their trade. This imbalance is concerning. We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system that encompasses both stopping dangerous journeys and creating safe routes to asylum.

Of those who currently travel here by small boats, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that is before any appeals are even considered. That is evidence that many arriving via dangerous routes are genuinely in need of protection, yet they currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. The path to securing our border, as described in the Bill, will not by itself curtail irregular migration. Having safe routes must be an integral part of our strategy to try to divert people from the treacherous routes that they choose.

This does not mean an open border. It means that we can more effectively control the numbers who come. The Hillmore agreement with France is a currently small-scale example of a safe route. If you want to reduce the numbers of people fleeing persecution who use smuggling networks to reach the UK for protection, they need to have an alternative route that changes their calculations and decision-making. I will return to the French example later.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that those explanations and assurances that I have given set out the Government’s position clearly. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

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

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

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

Refugee Accommodation: Move-on Period

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I can assist the right reverend Prelate with some clarification on what has actually happened. First, nobody who is in the system as of 1 September will have their 56-day period changed; that will still be operational. The pilot we are undertaking runs until December this year, and we will fully evaluate the pilot accordingly. Those individuals affected by the announcement on 27 August, who will change from 56 days to 28 days from 1 September, are single applicants; no families, nobody over 65 and nobody with disabilities will be impacted. We are trying to help tackle the longer-term asylum accommodation problem, but the pilot on 56 days to which the right reverend Prelate refers is continuing, and we will evaluate it and report back in due course. We have tweaked the pilot—we have not ended it—so we will continue to monitor the impact assessment issues. There will be full accountability on the outcome of the pilot when it is completed in December, but the majority of individuals to date will not be impacted by the change.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the arguments given last year for the 28-day/56-day pilot are the same as those given currently. In the Statements given to this House at the time, it was quite clear that this pilot was until the end of July and would be evaluated and the results published by the end of the summer. We are bound to suspect that, in moving as quickly as the Government have now done in shifting people from hotels into the hands of local government so swiftly, they will meet with the same problem of more homelessness that we had last year. Can the Minister confirm that the assessment so far has found a reduction in homelessness, and will he publish the interim evaluation promised to this House last year?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I repeat what I said to the right reverend Prelate: we are running the pilot until December and it will be evaluated. We have made some changes from 1 September, but not for the vast majority of people in the system—they will still be eligible for 56 days. Families, over-65s and those with disabilities will not be affected; it is single applicants who will be affected from 1 September. As this House continues to press the Government on, we need to reduce the reliance on hotels and provide a move-on period. The objective of the actions we have taken now is to relieve some of those pressures on hotel and asylum accommodation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I suppose that was a slight defect of the Bill, but that ship has sailed. The crucial point, which I will come back to—and I respect the noble Lord enormously—is that the Rwanda deal had a deterrent, and that is what we are lacking. It may have been only for small numbers, not anywhere near the numbers we wanted, but it was a deterrent. It was one part of a series of steps that we should have taken, but, as I say, that ship has sailed.

I am backing the amendments from my noble friend Lord Murray and my noble friends on my Front Bench, certainly not because I have been asked or told to, and, as my noble friend Lord Jackson said, this is not about pulling out of the ECHR or the refugee convention, nor—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, was saying—about saying that we do not want to accept any refugees, but because it is about tackling illegal migration and the crossings we have had.

We have seen one so-called spectre raise its head today in the form of the elected President of the United States. There is another spectre on the horizon that we have not yet heard about, but I am sure we will at some stage: Reform UK and Farage. It is certainly not a view that I share, nor is it that of Reform voters. I am not saying that the Ministers do not know this, but I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said: outside this hallowed hall there is a genuine, deep, growing sense of unease, anger and frustration, which is building. I know that it is not unique to this Government, as it has been growing for some time, but it has grown exponentially of late because of this sense of injustice and lack of control.

As I think the Government have said—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, alluded to—crucially, we need a deterrent to tackle the crossings. We have to grip this; we have to tackle the numbers and, as I think my noble friend Lord Goschen was saying, we have to tackle the pull factor. There is no deterrent in the Bill as it currently stands. That is why I wholeheartedly support my noble friend, and the two amendments from my Front Bench.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in sporting words, this has been a game of two halves. One half has very much struck at what I would call Second Reading speeches and issues, and the other has been very specifically about the structure and place of safety issues in the Bill. I will deal first with the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, supported by my noble friend Lady Brinton, on Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act.

My first question to the Government is why they are retaining this section of the Illegal Migration Act, which I understand has not been enacted. I understand that their rationale is what we call “operational benefit”. That could mean having some petrol in the car or some policy vehicle that you want to move forward. An explanation of what that operational benefit is would be helpful, because the retention of this section effectively removes the Secretary of State’s discretion in declaring asylum and human rights claims from these countries and renders them all inadmissible.

We have been talking about what is “generally safe”, and so on. I recall the 2023 regulations, on which I spoke about the inclusion of Georgia, Albania and India. I made the point that countries can be safe for most people, but not all. The context is that, as the UNHCR says, we have to note that, while a safe destination may be procedural, it does not negate the need for individual assessment, particularly in avoiding the risk of refoulement, significantly, which we have talked about here over the years.

It is down to the Government to tell us why they want to retain this section. We talked about the threshold for admissibility being negligible. As I understand it, there is only a limited judicial review route with no right of appeal, so if somebody wishes to try to appeal, it is a very thin route, and judicial review is not a simple process—it requires considerable assistance.

My colleagues have raised major concerns, particularly about Georgia. Colleagues in this Chamber will know that we have spoken to the leaders of political parties. One of those I spoke to went back the next day and was immediately imprisoned. Just think about this policy of treating Georgia as safe. By the way, Georgia is in the Government’s list but not in the Conservatives’ list, which we will discuss later—even they agree that Georgia is not safe. Let us imagine that we were commanded by the Lord Speaker to attend here at a certain time and sign a particular support motion for the Government, not as a recommendation but as an imprisonable offence. That is happening. Political freedoms, which we all think are essential, are being denigrated in Georgia at the moment.

We have heard about how changes in countries can happen frequently and rapidly. We just cannot afford to say, “This place is safe”, and then a few years later change our mind after many people have suffered because of its actions. I repeat the report from the United Nations high commissioner: we have to make an individual assessment and make sure that we are obviating the risk of refoulement.

I will simply say two things about the second half. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, was absolutely right that, if you are a member of a convention and want to change it in a big way, we know from the way that conventions are placed that there is room for movement, adjustment and interpretation. I would maintain that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is a severe method. Under it, the only people who could be admitted to this country, for example, would be people who took a flight directly from Sudan to London Heathrow. There are no flights—and I know that there are noble Lords here who know that. Our experience is that it is right for conventions to be examined all the time, and to try to make them move on.

I noted many mistakes. People frequently interpret the ECHR as being a body of Europe. It is actually a body of the Council of Europe. Could the Minister address this? I spoke to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the Committee of Ministers, including those from this country, and he said that discussion on the ECHR is already under way among the countries in the Council of Europe. I must say to those who say we should leave the ECHR that we would be leaving the Council of Europe as well. We as a country have signed up to 151 conventions on freedoms that we all take for granted. We have to be clear about this and take the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I do not know how far it has progressed, but it has certainly started and is under way, and I know that that discussion will progress.

I do not think that any other noble Lords in the Chamber are members of the IAC of this Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked about the Hillmore agreement, where the decision was taken not to have the scrutiny under the CRaG arrangement. It is the IAC of your Lordships’ House that does it on behalf of Parliament, by the way—not just the House of Lords but also the House of Commons. We discussed this matter yesterday because obviously, it is clearly important. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, is sitting right next to the noble Lord, and she will tell him that there was an exchange of letters between the Government and the committee. We have agreement from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that there will be an evidence session, and they will provide exact details of the agreement. The committee will then report to Parliament, and there can be a debate in this House about that matter. In some senses, it is a bit of an advantage to have a treaty that is in action in this case, so we will be able to report on what is happening rather than what is proposed to happen. It may be second best, but it certainly was possible for it to happen.

So, in conclusion, I return to my first question: why do the Government want to retain this section of the Illegal Migration Act? If they do, what is the operational benefit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I will continue to go through the list. Let us begin with Albania. The amendment proposes to strike from the list of safe countries a NATO member and a nation with which the United Kingdom has a formal bilateral returns agreement, signed in 2022, that has been a cornerstone of our efforts to tackle illegal migration and organised criminality. It allows for the swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK and ensures that genuine protection claims are still assessed on a case-by-case basis. According to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused. Why? It is because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning failed asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status, and co-operates with a range of international human rights mechanisms—

[Lord German (LD)]

Georgia has been suspended for reasons we just talked about to do with the way it treats people.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I still suggest that it co-operates with a range of human rights mechanisms.

India is the world’s largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner and a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitutional protections for minorities, an independent judiciary and regular multi-party elections.

To suggest that those countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound. Are there challenges in all societies? Yes, of course—that point was made forcefully by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. However, that is not the test, because the test under Section 80AA is whether “in general” the country poses a serious risk, so the statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise. A lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments, but the question that she has to ask herself is a general one: does that country in general pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, and would removal to those countries contravene our human rights obligations? I would suggest quite firmly that the test is not remotely met in the cases of Albania, Georgia or India.

Genuine refugees deserve our protection, and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims from nationals of safe democratic states. That is why we cannot support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me reassure the noble Lord that this is not personal. I would welcome any suggestions from across the Committee. If we reject the amendment in due course, as he is right to suspect we will, it will not be because it comes from him; if anyone else had moved it, it would still be rejected. The noble Lord knows better than anybody the challenges of the roles that we have in the Home Office. I am grateful for his suggestions and we are trying to examine them.

The key point—maybe this will give the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a chance to think again as well—is that the merits of the claim could attract an appeal right, removing the possibility provided under the current system for certifying the claim as clearly unfounded. We would end up with even more litigation, which may help lawyers but would not help the resolution of the challenge at home. Without the specific further provisions in the legislation, our decision would need to explain why we considered that this measure applied in an individual’s particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised alleging that their life and liberty were threatened in what we consider to be a safe third country. It is nothing personal to the noble Lord, but we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment 203E, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had support from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Cashman. It seeks to provide a definition of “exceptional circumstances” for the working of our inadmissibility provisions. It also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia and India from the list of generally safe countries to which inadmissibility provisions may apply in the future.

I have explained how exceptional circumstances bear on the inadmissibility process. Section 80A already sets out examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, which relate to states derogating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These examples are not exhaustive, and there may be case-by-case instances where exceptional circumstances are identified and where that inadmissibility should not be applied. At present, the question of whether a person’s evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. The amendment would replace this established approach.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. He has referred to derogation from the ECHR. I wonder what consideration the Government are now giving to Georgia, which is in clear breach of the ECHR and has taken itself out of the Council of Europe, because it knows it has to do so. This is clearly a country that has derogated. Is that something that the Government are looking at? We can do it by regulation, as we are going to talk about, but since this is the only power that the Government are holding on to, this is a country that needs to be looked at very seriously indeed.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

To add to that, that is a country in which our Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual Ministers. Is there any correlation between what the Foreign Office does and what the Home Office considers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made about the blame game and the importance of us all working with the Government to do what we can to try to tackle the fundamental issues that are influencing the nature of this huge crisis. As I have said before—I repeat the figure now—117 million people are displaced in the world today. That is not the fault of the previous Government or this Government, but it is the reality. People will keep on coming, including from places such as Sudan, which was mentioned in the previous group of amendments.

I attended the All-Party Group on Sudan’s meeting at lunchtime today. The situation in Darfur is absolutely horrific. It is a place I have visited in the past. Two million people were displaced from Darfur, and 200,000 to 300,000 people have died there. If any of us were in Darfur, we too would try to leave, and we too would probably make dangerous journeys. Most people who leave Darfur travel through Chad. They try to get to Libya and to the Mediterranean. Most never even succeed in making that journey—they die on that part of the journey. If they get into the Mediterranean, they probably reach the seabed. If they make it to the continent, some of them finally get to the English Channel. We talk about this as our crisis, but it is their crisis as much as it is ours.

If we do not tackle the fundamental reasons why people are being displaced—for instance, the nature of the current, almost untalked-about war in Sudan that has led to this massive surge in the number of people leaving that part of the world, as is reflected in the figures that the Government publish about the people who are in these boats, coming from places such as Sudan—and if we do not tackle the root causes, this will keep coming round again and again, whoever the Government of the day may be. That is why I agreed with what was said in the previous group of amendments, and I reiterate the importance of finding international solutions.

The 1951 convention on refugees was right in its time—it needed to be drafted in the way it was drafted at the time—but we still need that convention. Yes, it probably needs to be reappraised. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been thinking about this too, as well as looking at Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Minister and others have referred to. These things can be examined, as the Minister has said again and again today, but they can also be reformed. Indeed, nine countries, including Denmark, wrote an email to the European court and the Council of Europe—

[Lord German (LD)]

They did not send it to the right people.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Well, they sent an email. The noble Lord, Lord German, is right to point out, from a sedentary position, that it was perhaps not done through the most courteous of routes. However, the point is that those nine countries—Poland was another—are not illiberal countries and they are not led by people who have a hatred of European institutions. They were arguing that the time has come for international action to be taken by countries, collectively, to re-examine the things that we are signed up to, to see whether they are fit for the present time.

I want to say one other thing to those who have tabled these amendments. We have heard a lot about the Rwanda Act and the Illegal Migration Act. At the heart of that was the suggestion that that would be a deterrent and a safe place to which we would send people. Recently, I have been looking again at Rwanda to see what the situation there is at the moment. In its human rights assessment of Rwanda just a few weeks ago, the US Department of State said that Rwanda is raising

“arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflict by government-supported armed groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and significant presence of any of the worst forms of child labor”.

I am talking about Rwanda, and that is the US Department of State’s finding within the last few weeks. Recently, Human Rights Watch made a submission to the universal periodic review and reported on the use of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees from 2019 to 2024. I might add that the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on transnational repression—which is with the Minister at the present time, and I look forward to his response to that—identified Rwanda as one of the countries responsible for transnational repression. I point the Minister to those details.

Last but not least, we cannot forget about the involvement of Rwanda in atrocity crimes in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with M23 raging on across eastern DRC. Earlier this year, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Law, Justice and Accountability that I chaired published a report on CRSV in the DRC and the abuses perpetrated by that group.

Let us be careful what we wish for. Let us understand the nature of those countries that we are going to send people to and that we say are safe places where people will be able to have good, prosperous and decent lives. Let us be realistic and honest about the nature of these things. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reminded us that we will get to Amendment 110 from the Official Opposition, which is about lists and, indeed, we can then talk more about the countries that are on that list. Rwanda is on that list that the Official Opposition are pointing us towards.

I just want Members of the House to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said: we should stop blaming one another and trying to score political points and realise that this issue is now being exploited by people who have no great love of democracy and the rule of law and are taking people on to the streets and capitalising on this crisis. If we do not find solutions to this, I fear for the stability of our communities and the dangers to law and order and to the very vulnerable people whom I think all of us in this House are trying to protect.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord German]

116: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed—(a) sections 12 to 65;(b) sections 68 and 69.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 116 and 118 in my name. This is a bit of a reversal, because it is looking not at what is happening but at what is left behind. I am asking the Government to consider this in some detail, so I am worried that the Minister may have some difficulty answering all the questions. If it is not possible, I am hopeful that we will get the answers in writing later.

The position is this. We support the repeal of the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. What I am concerned about is what policy is left behind when you take those out. As it stands, in several places the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 will become the default directive, even though this was not regarded as being something of satisfaction when that Bill went through this House, so there are concerns about what is left in that area. This amendment brings together a range of issues, presenting the Government with the opportunity to explain the continuing concerns about the aspects of the Nationality and Borders Act that they have chosen to not repeal in this Bill but to rely on in sections where the IMA has been taken out from it.

There are sections of the Nationality and Borders Act which worsen the risk of violations of human rights, build further delays into the asylum system and increase the likelihood of legal challenges and judicial reviews in the future. I will dwell on several sections, but there are more than I am speaking about in the whole of this area. Section 12 of the Nationality and Borders Act is officially paused, but it allows for differential treatment between different groups of refugees, dependent on how they arrived in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister explain why the Government wish to retain that ability, even though it has not been brought in yet? Why are the Government retaining this section? If it is for operational benefit again, it would be useful to know what the operational benefit is.

The main issue of concern with Section 13 of the Nationality and Borders Act is that subsection (9) could lead to people being held in accommodation centres, including at such large sites as Wethersfield, for lengthy periods of time. Before the Nationality and Borders Act, there was a limit of a continuous period of six months, which could be extended to nine months by the Secretary of State. This section of the NaBA enables the Secretary of State to increase the time. There are ongoing concerns about the conditions of asylum accommodation, particularly the large sites such as Napier and Wethersfield, and there seems to be a pattern of repeating mistakes rather than learning from them. Safeguards are therefore important and it is concerning that this section, which we will fall back on, would enable people to be accommodated at such sites with no indication of how long they will be there for. My personal experience when I visited Wethersfield was that it was quite clear that, when people understood that they were going to be there for a maximum of nine months, it reduced the concerns and increased the well-being of residents. So, having a time limit is very important.

Section 14 is about safe countries, but we have already debated that. Section 18, which is not in force, creates a requirement to provide evidence. The argument about this is that it can only lead to additional bureaucracy for the Home Office. Providing evidence is part of the existing process for applying for asylum. If evidence is provided at appeal which could have been provided at the initial decision stage, the immigration judge will seek an explanation for this, and that could impact an individual’s credibility. With very tight deadlines, it could be a short window of time to provide the evidence. Also, it might be difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to provide the necessary evidence if they are unrepresented, and more than half of asylum claimants are currently without legal representation owing to the legal aid shortage.

Section 19, which is not in force, amends the assessment of whether to treat a person as truthful. That may be a straightforward assessment, but I do not know how it might work. Sections 20 to 25—also not in force, but the Government are retaining them—relate to priority removal notices, which warn people that they are being prioritised for removal. The person then needs to respond in the cut-off period. If they respond late, it will damage their credibility unless they have a good reason.

The concern about this is that a late claim is not necessarily without merit. It can take time for people to make a claim, because they are suffering from trauma relating to torture or sexual violence. It is unclear whether these reasons could be included in the good reason element of the priority removal notice, but it builds on a culture of disbelief in a decision-making process that already exists and is widely relied on. The inference is that not providing responses in time indicates the poor credibility of a person, which could result in improper refusal of protection claims.

Section 27 creates, although it has not yet happened, an accelerated detained appeal system in the First-tier Tribunal, which can be used for any detained appeal if it is considered that the appeal is likely to be disposed of expeditiously using the fast-track procedure. At the time, of course, it was an attempt by the Government to revive the detained fast-track scheme, but the Court of Appeal ruled it unlawful in 2015, and it described the timetable for such appeals as so tight that it was inevitable that a significant number of appellants would be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases. So what is the operational reason for retaining the ability to have an accelerated detained appeals system? If there is an operational reason for it, perhaps the Minister could tell us.

Section 29 makes it possible to move someone to a safe third country when their asylum claim is pending—not when it has been determined but when it is pending. In other words, while there is an appeal going on or a claim is being determined by the Home Office, you could deport someone in that process. That removes important rights of appeal. Members of this Committee will remember that, when we discussed the difficulty with the Rwanda scheme, people were going to have to make appeals from another country, and it would have been very difficult to maintain any means of correct procedure in that respect.

I am sorry this speech is quite long, but these are very important issues. Each one of them is about what the Bill does in making this the fall-back position that we are falling on.

Sections 30 to 38 require decision-makers to interpret the refugee convention in ways that do not accord with the long-settled meaning of that convention. We may already have had that discussion earlier today, and most of the interpretations concern Article 1A(2), which of course we have talked about, and we will further exhaust that when I talk about Amendment 118 in a moment.

Sections 40 to 41 relate to the criminalisation of asylum seekers. Those who arrive outside official routes in the UK, and people who facilitate arrivals, are committing an offence under this Act and are liable to prosecution. I understand the difficulties that there are with that one, but it is one that the Government need to describe so we have it on the record as to why that is important.

Sections 42 to 47 significantly expand maritime enforcement powers for pushbacks in international waters, removing the requirement to consider the duty of rescue. That is a fundamental in international maritime law; although it may not have been used yet, this is what the law will now say and it is important to understand why the Government want to retain that.

Sections 49 to 57 deal with age assessments, which we have just dealt with in the previous group, and Sections 58 to 63 exclude people, including children, from modern slavery protections if they have received a prison sentence of 12 months or more, even if the offence was committed as a result of their exploitation. The Government have distanced themselves in that respect from some, or indeed many, of these issues, so the question is why they are being kept.

I turn to Amendment 118, which is really an exploration of changes in the rates of refusal of asylum, which is particularly marked in in relation to Afghans, Iranians and Eritrean people claiming asylum. There has been a dramatic decline in the initial grant rate of asylum applications from those three countries. In the last two years of the previous Government, the grant rate of Afghan asylum claims stood at 98%. In the first year of this Government, that grant rate more than halved to 44%; the average grant rate for Afghans across the EU as a whole was 72% in Q1 of 2025. Eritrean grant rates are down by 13%; those of Iranians reduced by 26%. I do not observe any positive changes inside those countries during the relevant periods—certainly no change in Eritrea. The Taliban rule has been more oppressive and the human rights situation in Iran remains dire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed questions. At 10.19 pm, it is a great test of stamina to examine those issues in some detail. The noble Lord is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed. I should start by making it very clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, as I have mentioned before. We want it to operate swiftly, fairly and firmly, and to ensure that the rules are properly enforced. That means we need to deal with the backlog of issues that are before the House as a whole.

The noble Lord raised a number of particular issues. I am very happy to go through the detail I have on inadmissibility of asylum claims, the UK’s interpretation of key concepts of the refugee convention, and Sections 30 to 39. If he wants me to do that now, I can. If he wants me to write to him so he can reflect on it more slowly, before Report, I can do that. I am happy to take his advice on how he wishes me to respond.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister. As I said at the beginning, it would be very helpful to have it in writing so that, as he rightly says, we can reflect on it in the greater time we will have available to us.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have before me in my notes a full encyclopaedia of responses to the many points the noble Lord made, and I am very happy to go through them. However, it may be more sensible—given the hour and the fact that the noble Lord will not, I suspect, be pushing these amendments to a Division this evening—if I reflect on what he said in Hansard and respond to those points with clarity, using this document. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library, so that other Members can see the detail. In my view, this would speed up the response and give some clarity to the noble Lord, so he can reflect on whether he wishes to return to these matters on Report. If that is satisfactory, it would seem to be a useful way of progressing.

With that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment, pending any discussion and response to the letter I will send him.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that. That is exactly what we were hoping for from this amendment: to understand the Government’s intention in these various areas. I am grateful for his response, and I therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 116 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

119: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“A three-month service standard for asylum casework(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, implement a three-month service standard for asylum casework.(2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases.

[Lord German (LD)]

I will be as brief as I possibly can, given the hour. What is important in this amendment is to try to return to having a service standard. The amendment proposes a three-month service standard to determine asylum decisions. I know that the Minister, and others in the past, have looked at the issue and whether it might be six months. The important question here is whether there should be a service standard for dealing with these matters.

The history of this is that a service standard to decide 98% of straightforward asylum applications within six months was introduced in 2014 after a report which criticised delays in asylum decision-making. Of the claims that were submitted from March 2014 to the end of the year, only 8% received a decision within six months. In the second quarter of 2018, 56% of decisions were received within six months. In the third quarter of 2018, 25% received a decision within six months. Subsequent to that, the service standard was abandoned.

The reasons given by the Government at that time were:

“We have moved away from the six-month service standard to concentrate on cases with acute vulnerability and those in receipt of the greatest level of support, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. … Additionally, we will prioritise cases where an individual has already received a decision but a reconsideration is required. … the current service standard does not always allow us to prioritise applications from the most vulnerable people in the system if their claim is ‘non-straightforward’”.


That told me that there is a sort of on-off switch and a whole range of categories, and the Home Office would move the arrow to whichever one it thought was the most concerning at the time. I know that, in the context of things such as accident and emergency departments in the health services around this country, having a service standard is an important way—though it may not be kept—of having that focus.

Therefore, this seems to be an issue of prioritisation. The Home Office says that it can prioritise different targets or different circumstances rather than having a service standard. There was a large backlog of 91,000 at the end of 2024, with the associated costs to the taxpayer and slow decision-making hampering integration. Of those waiting for an initial decision, around 50,000 people had been waiting for more than six months. Arguing for a new service standard means that we could speed things up, because people would have a standard in mind.

I know that the Minister has dealt with this in the past in response to questions, but I would be grateful if he could say whether the Government have reviewed the potential benefits of reintroducing a service standard, what the current prioritisation is for asylum decision-making, and, of course, what the Government are doing to reduce the backlog.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. I was not proposing to speak to it until recently. I may well have it wrong, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the position. I think I read that arrangements have been put in place for bonuses for caseworkers who meet a standard. As I recall it, it was a very small amount of money, but if the Minister could tell the Committee what the standard is for asylum applications and say something about that bonus, it would be helpful. I am trying to ask that in a very neutral fashion.

I have Amendment 195, to which my noble friend has his name, relating to the use of artificial intelligence in the system. Obviously, artificial intelligence is going to be used. Asking whether it is used is probably like asking whether electricity is going to be used—of course it is these days. As this is about data as well, we start from the position that migrants are not criminals, and they should not be treated as criminals. Immigration, asylum seeking and refugee matters are civil matters, and any interference with privacy must be proportionate and subject to safeguards. I think we would all agree that our data is valuable, it is very precious, and that generally it needs regulation and oversight, and transparency is hugely important.

When I chaired the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, every Home Secretary we questioned assured us that the human would remain in the loop. Frankly, we were sceptical about what that really meant and the efficacy of it. The data subject must know what the authorities know, or think they know, about him. There is a lot more public discourse now about training of AI, but I doubt that we are all completely reassured about that. Immigration decisions are hugely impactful; they are life changing. The amendment would ensure that no machine alone may determine a person’s immigration fate, and that personal data remained insulated from algorithmic training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope that we can agree that we will examine Hansard tomorrow to determine the information required from each of us and provide it in the fullness of time.

On Amendment 202, I thank noble Lords for their interest in ensuring transparency in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. I think the amendment is unnecessary. On 15 May, the Prime Minister set out that we are actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable and what reduces the impact of migration on the British public. The hubs could facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers. It is not the Rwanda model; the return hub proposal is fundamentally different. It does not outsource asylum decision-making but targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts. Details of any agreements and associated policy would be made publicly available when the time is right. I hope that, at that stage, in the event of any schemes progressing, we could have some scrutiny and take decisions accordingly. I give him a commitment that we will publish such details in the event of any scheme progressing. In the light of those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I think I heard the Minister say on the service standard that he would take that into consideration or look at the matter. I also heard him say that there is a standard already, upon which appeals would be completed. In a sense, that is what a service standard is: you are setting targets for what you want to happen. If that is the case and both those things are factually accurate—we can look at Hansard—then I think that starts to satisfy what we are looking at here. Obviously there will be some more questions on the detail, but it seems to me that it is therefore appropriate for me to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

131: Clause 41, page 36, line 8, leave out subsection (17)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the retrospective element of the changes made by this clause.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 131, I will also speak to Amendments 132 to 135 and Amendment 210 in my name. First, this amendment would provide a time limit of 28 days’ detention for persons detained for immigration purposes; secondly, it would introduce general criteria for detention to ensure that detention for the purpose of removal would be used only when strictly necessary and proportionate, and when the person can be shortly removed; thirdly, it would ensure effective judicial oversight of detention via the First-tier Tribunal, with automatic bail hearings after 96 hours of detention.

I tabled this amendment because, having engaged with the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, visited immigration detention centres and spoken to current and ex-detainees, I believe that it is a change that needs to happen. When I visited an immigration removal centre last year and spoke to detainees and staff, it was made clear to me that case progression for immigration detainees is slow and hampered by staff shortages. Further to this, detainees were unaware of the progress on their cases and when they could expect to leave detention or be removed. Communication to them was minimal and this clearly led to despair and frustration with the lack of hope for the future.

In its 2025 report on the progress of Harmondsworth IRC, the inspectorate noted that case progression was poor in six of the eight cases reviewed. The inspectorate reports common reasons for excessive periods of detention as including

“poor case progression; delays obtaining travel documentation; delays in securing appropriate release accommodation; and failures or delays in recognising high levels of vulnerability.”

With no limit on how long someone can be detained and no set time for their detention, there is no incentive for or pressure on the Home Office to make swift, accurate decisions.

A time limit set at 28 days, together with automatic bail hearings, would ensure sufficient time for the Home Office to proceed with removal in circumstances where impediments to these processes, such as outstanding legal appeals or unavailability of travel documents, have already been resolved.

In 2024, more than 50% of people held in immigration detention by the Home Office were later released back into the community under some form of immigration bail—a clear indication that the detention was likely unnecessary or even unlawful. According to the most recent Home Office annual report and accounts published on 17 July, from 2024 to 2025 the Government paid out compensation for unlawful wrongful detention in 334 cases, totalling £10.4 million. In 2023-24, there were 838 cases, totalling £11.8 million. This is clear evidence that significant numbers of people are detained wrongly or unlawfully each year. Without their having access to appropriate legal appeals or processes, the Home Office could have continued to detain them.

These amendments intend to significantly reduce the incidence of unnecessary detention and reduce the considerable suffering and inefficiency inherent in the current detention system. This would help to ensure that immigration detention is used only when a person has exhausted all appeals and removal is imminent and no viable alternatives are available. I appreciate that the Government will state that immigration detention is not indefinite. Indeed, the Minister for Border Security and Asylum recently stated:

“Immigration centres are not used for indefinite detention. We can only keep anyone in detention in an immigration centre if there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. If there is not, they have to be released”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/6/25; col. 18.]


The point here, of course, is that for the individual that experience can be indefinite, but there is certainly no straightforward answer when people ask that question.

The call for a statutory time limit on immigration detention has been made consistently by lots of expert bodies, including, of course, the Home Affairs Select Committee of the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the Independent Monitoring Boards, the British Medical Association, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Bar Council and, of course, the Brook House Inquiry. So against that, there is a mound of evidence in favour of these amendments.

Even in the most serious criminal cases, judicial oversight of detention is required after 36 hours and individuals must be released from detention after 96 hours if charges are not laid. Those suspected of terrorism offences can be held for a maximum of 14 days. Further to this, the statutory purpose of immigration detention is to effect removal, not to serve as indefinite detention to prevent reoffending.

Conditions in IRCs are often harsh and prison-like, with people routinely locked in cells for up to 12 hours a day. In a recent report on an IRC, the Chief Inspector of Prisons noted:

“A longstanding and fundamental problem was that all immigration detainees at Brook House, who should be held in relaxed conditions with minimal restrictions, were instead in an institution that looked and felt like a prison”.


The centre simply did not have enough space or experienced staff to manage an increasingly vulnerable population. Behind that, of course, we have the Brook House Inquiry, published in 2023, which recorded over a five-month period 19 incidents or acts of omission capable of amounting to mistreatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Reducing the period of detention is therefore important in reducing harm. When this proposal has been debated previously, the concern has been expressed that detainees will run down the clock to frustrate removal and subsequently be granted release. But the amendment permits re-detention beyond the period of 28 days when there has been a material change of circumstances which could, for example, include a situation when an individual’s appeal rights are exhausted or a travel document is issued.

There are, however, a range of criminal sanctions available under Section 26 of the Immigration Act 1971 that enable anyone seeking to frustrate the system to be prosecuted. Under these proposals, the tribunal can refuse to grant bail if removal restrictions are set and removal is to take place within the following 21 days. Further, these proposals do not impact the broad powers of the First-tier Tribunal to set conditions for immigration bail under paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. These include reporting and residence conditions, financial conditions and such other conditions as it deems fit. These proposals all exempt cases where the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain was taken in the interest of national security.

I would like to probe the Minister on another avenue to reducing time in immigration detention. For people serving a sentence of imprisonment who have been issued with a deportation notice in prison, custodial sentences provide sufficient time for immigration cases to be resolved. In this time, the Home Office can obtain the travel documents and make arrangements to facilitate a person’s lawful and efficient deportation on release from prison—in other words, a straight-through process without having to go through the intermediary steps and the time that that takes.

As a way of reducing the cost and harm of immigration detention, will the Minister consider the merits of progressing individuals’ criminal deportation cases while they are serving their sentences? Further to this, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, following his inspection in 2022-23, stated that the Home Office was “not making best use” of the early removal scheme or the facilitated return scheme. These schemes could also reduce numbers entering immigration detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

What a note to finish the evening on. I find myself in agreement with the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and I find myself not in agreement, I am afraid, with the noble Lord, Lord German, so it is an interesting end to a long day of debate.

Immigration detention is an issue that I know noble Lords feel strongly about. The purpose of Clause 41 is to clarify the existing statutory powers of detention where the Home Office is considering whether deportation is conducive to the public good, and the consequential amendments to existing powers to take biometrics and searches upon being detained for this purpose. It is the Home Office’s position that the current detention power is lawful. This clause provides greater legal clarity regarding its application. Without the retrospective effect of this clause, individuals could challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Such claims risk undermining the integrity of past deportation proceedings and frustrating future deportation proceedings.

Amendment 131 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to remove that retrospective effect. I do not believe that is a productive way forward because, as I mentioned, Clause 41 clarifies these powers. The Home Office already detains individuals at the first stage of deportation. Clause 41 is not expected to increase the use of detention powers but is intended to remove ambiguity and ensure that existing practices are legally robust.

On Amendment 132, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, with support from other noble Lords, it is important to make clear the Government’s position that a statutory time limit on detention will not, in our view, be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be in the UK actually leave the UK. The Government have been clear that we are committed to increasing removals of people who have no right to be here. That is what the public expect and, in that vein, I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

In the year ending March 2025, there were 8,600 enforced removals—a 22% increase on the previous year—and that would not be possible with a time limit on detention because it would simply not be possible to achieve that level of numbers. It is crucial that we have an immigration system that encourages compliance. Under a 28-day time limit, people who have no legal right to be in the UK—including, as the noble Lord, Lord, Davies, mentioned, some who potentially have committed serious crimes—would be automatically released after 28 days, regardless of whether they have actively obstructed removal efforts or pose a clear risk to the public. We have a duty to protect the British public, and it is simply not safe to have an automatic release date, particularly because foreign national offenders, who may have committed serious criminal offences, would benefit from this amendment equally to anybody else.

Additionally, such a time limit is likely to encourage and reward abuse of the system by allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate removal processes until they reach that 28-day limit. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made that would potentially push people over the 28-day limit, and this would undermine effective immigration control and potentially place the public at risk.

Amendment 133 requires that, after 96 hours of detention, a person may continue to be detained only if they have been refused bail by the First-tier Tribunal or are awaiting a scheduled bail hearing. This would again, in my view, place significant additional burdens on an already-stretched tribunal service, and the increases would simply be unsustainable.

There are a number of safeguards in the detention process—I hope this will reassure the noble Lord—including access to the courts by judicial review; bail applications, which can be made at any point; and automatic referrals for consideration of bail for those detained for slightly longer periods. With these mechanisms in place, the transfer of these powers to the tribunal is not necessary.

I recognise and understand that there are concerns about prolonged periods of time in detention. The law is currently clear that we have powers to detain people only for a reasonable period to carry out a specific purpose, either to examine a person on their arrival, to remove or to deport. We have a number of safeguards in place, and I assure noble Lords that, where removal cannot be achieved within a reasonable timeframe, these safeguards ensure that people are released. I know that will not satisfy the noble Lord, but I put that for him to consider today in order to withdraw the amendment, which we can return to later.

I know the noble Lord, Lord Swire, has tabled Amendment 140. Sadly, he has not managed to be here this evening, but when he looks at Hansard in the cold light of day tomorrow morning, he will see that we include data which includes illegal entrants. We also produce and publish additional statistics on the number of foreign national offenders subject to removal and deportation, so that amendment is unnecessary. With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord German, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I am obviously disappointed that the evidence produced by the inspectorate and many other bodies, including the House of Commons Justice Committee and our own committee on human rights, if not exactly thrown out of the window, has not necessarily received the full consideration we are speaking of. I hear what the Minister says, and I will reflect on that. I and the other supporters of this issue may well come back to it later. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 131 withdrawn.