Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

in regular publications that cover these themes?

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

Thirdly, the amendment mandates that the published data

“must be broken down by nationality”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

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

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

and this is the important point—

“an address that is yet to be specified”.

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

“to be presumed to have been”

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

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

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

“A further difficulty in this area”—


he is talking about the decision-making—

“is that many of these decisions are not reported, making accountability difficult, and often these only come to light on appeal to the Upper Tribunal … there may well be low-quality decision-making going on in the initial stages, much of which is never corrected”.

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

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

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

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the evidence coming out in our debate today is that there are a lot of examples where people are being wrongly assessed as adults. Last weekend, I met a group of local authority leaders who told me about a situation last November, regarding unaccompanied children who had been kept in hotels and were coming out into their care. I asked whether it had improved, and they said that the numbers may have changed but there were still examples of young people who had been taken out of the system because they had been wrongly assessed. The current system for determining the age of unaccompanied children seeking asylum remains deeply flawed. I think there are not many who would accept that it is all working really well.

We already have some indication that the cohort of people being sent back to France included a number of children, largely because they were inspected rapidly upon entry by Border Force officials. As we know from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, appearance, demeanour and physical development are all affected by environment, life experiences and ethnicity, and making visual assessments is notoriously unreliable.

In answer to the point that there will be some people who will play the system, we need to understand that, when children are wrongly treated as adults, they are denied the rights and protections afforded them as children. That risks them being placed in adult accommodation, detained or even prosecuted. That is a clear safeguarding failure. Misidentification of children as adults poses a greater safeguarding risk than the reverse, primarily because adult systems lack the robust protections necessary for children. We have already seen cases where individuals who raised that their age was under 18 were subsequently arrested and charged in the adult criminal justice system, leading to time spent in adult prison on remand, or a conviction on immigration offences.

The stakes in this Bill are extremely high, with the new offences related to immigration crime contained within it carrying substantial periods of imprisonment, sometimes up to 14 years. It is critical that we safeguard against the unintended consequence of criminalising vulnerable individuals seeking protection.

I know that the Government have started to look carefully at these issues, as we had this discussion during Committee. The Government said that there were concerns about how such an amendment would operate in practice, mentioning the risk of delays that could arise from waiting for a full assessment, and that it would potentially frustrate the removals process and add to asylum backlogs. But at that time the Minister gave assurances, as he will know, that existing safeguards are in place. He named three: that the Home Office decision on age for immigration purposes is not binding on UK courts; that the Crown Prosecution Service is advised of age-dispute issues and determines if pursuing prosecution is in the public interest; and that the Home Office has introduced an additional safeguard, whereby an abbreviated age assessment conducted by qualified social workers is provided for individuals assessed as “significantly over 18” who maintain their claim to be a child and are identified for potential criminal charges. However, these assurances do not go far enough when a child’s liberty and future are at stake.

First, relying on the CPS’s prosecutorial discretion and the court’s ability to take a decision on age retrospectively is insufficient, when we know that individuals have already been wrongfully detained and imprisoned in adult settings. The risk of unlawful detention must be mitigated at the earliest possible point—before the charges proceed. Secondly, the proposal of an abbreviated age assessment is inadequate in the context of criminal law. This amendment would require a comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, which adheres to professional standards and best practice, and involves gathering information holistically.

On Amendment 57, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, we need to engage with all parties in respect of this matter. There are so many different interests here, not just local authorities and the key people within them but those who have expertise in this area. It is a difficult area, and we therefore need to bring together all that expertise to ensure that justice, through a full assessment, is preferable to the costs, both human and financial, of wrongful imprisonment or unlawful detention.

The Government are right to focus on improving the robustness of the process. That includes looking at what the NAAB does, how it operates and whether it is up to the job of doing the things that we have been talking about in this debate. Facial age estimation technology is almost a case of saying, “We may have that possibility in the future”, but, as with anything—such as if we were trying to tackle new drugs or give new treatments to people—we should not do it without sound advice that it is in order and would produce the right results. The question must remain open on that matter, and I am sure the Minister will know that the exploration of this issue may have some way to travel.

Amendment 27, in the name of my noble friend, is a fundamental safeguard. It would ensure that expert, child-focused social work assessment occurs before an individual is drawn into the criminal justice system as an adult. We know that this amendment has been supported by organisations across the children’s sector. It would ensure that the principle of protecting children from criminal proceedings is enshrined in law by requiring a high standard of age verification by appropriate experts before any prosecution can proceed. We support the intention of Amendment 57, also in this group. There are very serious matters here that I hope the Minister will address.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, we begin the second day on Report with the first of two groups on age assessments. As in Committee, they have produced a stimulating debate.

The two amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, approach the issue from a different standpoint from our later amendments. That is perhaps not surprising, but it will also come as no surprise that we take a different and opposing view from the underlying principles of both these amendments.

It cannot be right, as is proposed, for a person to be automatically assumed to be a child where their age cannot be proved by way of documentary evidence. We know that too many illegal migrants purposefully tear up or coincidentally lose their passports or identity documents, or, as has been said, lie about their age, so as to game the system once in the United Kingdom.

My noble friend Lord Harper made several compelling arguments in respect of both these amendments. I have little to add, except to say that we have seen too many cases where individuals have claimed to be children, despite being grown adults. To these Benches, that represents a grave safeguarding failure. For all those reasons, we cannot support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, we should of course be aware of public feeling, but we should also not inflame it. We need to be careful with that. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 32 seeks to leave out Clause 41(17), which states that the amendments made by most of the subsections in that clause

“are to be treated as always having had effect”.

We should be very wary of the retrospectivity contained in them. The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, is about to finalise, I hope, a report on the rule of law, and we point to retrospectivity, or retroactivity—I am never sure whether there is a difference—as threatening the rule of law, along with legal certainty and so on. I am therefore glad that the noble Baroness tabled this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will make just a brief intervention from us on this matter, which was raised in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for telling me what reasons he had for not taking out Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. It raises some further questions, which I guess the Minister might have been expecting. Essentially, the noble Baroness’s amendments aim collectively to inject greater protection of civil liberties and to ensure proportionality in the use of detention powers, and they demand clarity regarding the mental element required for the new immigration offences in the Bill.

In his letter to me, the Minister said of Section 12 that

“policies to differentiate in line with the provision can be resumed if required”.

He said that they

“are not currently in use”,

and they have not been in use since this Government took office. He said:

“This Government is prioritising steps to restore order to the asylum system”,


et cetera, as one might expect. But, he continued:

“While the Government reviews the approach, it would not be appropriate to remove these provisions from the statute book”.


Can the Minister tell me what review of what approach will determine whether this provision should be removed, and whether, in the immediate future, there is any intention to recommence Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act?

In conclusion, having some clarity on this matter would be useful. The Law Society, as noble Lords might expect, says that the retention of Section 12, by removing the

“court’s ability to decide for itself whether the detention of a person for the purposes of removal is for a reasonable period”,

risks increasing unlawful and prolonged detention. There is currently a legal aspect to retention; I know that it is not being used, but we need to ensure that the fallback described by the Law Society is in place. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making plain our opposition to the amendments in this group. In Committee, we spent much time rehashing the arguments over the Illegal Migration Act 2023. We have made our position abundantly plain. It is obvious that there exists a gulf in opinion regarding that Act between many of us in this House. This is Report, so now is not the time for me to repeat those arguments. As noble Lords know, we strongly oppose the repeal of the bulk of the Illegal Migration Act, but I should say that it is at least some solace to us that the Government have deemed it right to retain Section 12. Since we support the Government’s intent to keep that section on the statute book, we oppose Amendments 28, 30 and 32, notwithstanding the elegant arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend and the three amendments that she has in her name, Amendments 29, 69 and 79B.

Amendment 29 seeks to repeal Section 29 of Illegal Migration Act and to remove individuals who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”. We have heard clear warnings that Section 29 represents a dangerous expansion of the public order disqualifications originally introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Crucially, Section 29 transforms the disqualification of potential and confirmed victims of trafficking and modern slavery from a discretionary power to a mandatory duty—unless compelling circumstances exist. This mandatory disqualification extends to non-British nationals sentenced to imprisonment of any length for a crime of any seriousness. This blanket approach fails to consider that victims of modern slavery are frequently coerced by their traffickers into committing criminal offences. By lowering the threshold so severely and making disqualification mandatory, there is an increased risk that vulnerable survivors will be denied protection, denied a recovery period and ultimately be removed from the United Kingdom, potentially exposing them to re-trafficking or retribution. The International Organization for Migration has explicitly called for the repeal of this section.

The Government argued in Committee that Section 29 needs to be retained for its potential “operational benefit” and to allow flexibility in reforming the national referral mechanism. While reviewing the national referral mechanism is vital, retaining a measure that institutionalises the potential criminalisation of victims is fundamentally unjust and unnecessary. Section 29 seriously undermines our commitment to tackling modern slavery. We must uphold our duty to protect the exploited.

Amendment 69 would introduce a new clause to strengthen protection for victims of slavery or human trafficking by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This amendment seeks to establish crucial firewall arrangements. Its intention is to safeguard vulnerable individuals by preventing public authorities, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, sharing information with immigration authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. That firewall is critical for many people to report on what is happening to them.

We must ensure that these victims feel safe seeking help and engaging with the national referral mechanism process. Without a robust firewall, a victim coerced into illegal entry might fear that disclosing their history of exploitation to obtain assistance will simultaneously expose them to immediate prosecution and removal. It is chicken and egg, egg and chicken. This is an unacceptable dilemma for them to face.

Amendment 69 seeks to weaken the grip of traffickers and enable victims to come forward and seek justice. By implementing this firewall, we align safeguarding duties with our enforcement aims, preventing information provided for protection purposes being weaponised against the victim by the state.

Amendment 79B seeks to address a fundamental vulnerability in our system: the inherent conflict faced by a victim of labour abuse who is simultaneously subject to immigration controls. This secure reporting clause is designed to prevent information disclosed by a victim or a witness of labour abuse being used for a purpose within Section 40(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007, which of course is the gateway for immigration and nationality purposes.

This firewall is desperately needed because exploitative employers rely on the fear of their workers that authorities will prioritise issues around their immigration status over the abuse that they have faced. Unscrupulous employers use threats about illegality, detention and removal as a method of control and coercion. This turns the state’s immigration framework into a tool of the exploiter—Amendment 79B would combat this.

These Benches also oppose Amendments 29A and 31A, which are a reversal of the modern slavery safeguards that appeared in the Illegal Migration Act. Sections 22 to 28 of the Illegal Migration Act removed protections for victims of modern slavery who had arrived in the country without a valid visa. The current Bill includes the repeal of those sections, a step that is widely welcomed, because these positions could have been catastrophic for survivors. Therefore, we support the Government in proceeding with these amendments and in removing those sections from the Illegal Migration Act. Section 29, as proposed here, is dangerous because it expands the scope of public order disqualifications and makes them mandatory. This measure mandates disqualification for potential victims of modern slavery unless there are compelling circumstances, even if they have been convicted of an offence of any length.

In conclusion, we support the Government in their intention of removing those sections in the Illegal Migration Act and press them on a way in which the firewall of which we have spoken earlier can be protected.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, efforts to tackle modern slavery are indeed a noble and important cause—we all agree on that—but, as my noble friend Lord Harper said in Committee, there is a balance to be struck.

My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch has made many of the points I would have made, and I will not repeat those arguments, particularly on Report. Suffice to say, however, that protections which were initially intended to protect victims of modern slavery have now become loopholes that are being exploited by those with no right to be here, and whose claims are too often totally spurious. It does our country no good. It does not build public faith in the immigration and asylum systems when illegal migrants abuse modern slavery protections to circumvent their own legitimate deportation.

To that end, my noble friend Lady Maclean is right to highlight that the Government have a number of legislative tools at their disposal. It is unfortunate that they are seeking to repeal those powers, and even more unfortunate that the Liberal Democrats wish to remove those others that the Government intend to retain.

We take particular issue with Amendment 69. When it comes to tackling the border crisis, surely there cannot ever be enough information sharing. The noble Baroness’s amendment would prohibit public authorities mentioned in it sharing information regarding a suspected victim of modern slavery. We fear this may only encourage more people to make spurious claims in a last-ditch attempt to halt removal from the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, in Committee we had a very detailed and well-informed discussion of this amendment in the existing framework of legal aid in the asylum and immigration system—with a House full of eminent lawyers, this was always bound to be the case. On our side, of course we welcome efficiency, and we have looked hard at this amendment, but we are not persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and other noble Lords that the proposals they advance will have the beneficial effect that they seek.

Amendment 33 would ensure that any person detained under a relevant detention power would have access to a raft of legal aid within 48 hours, but to move from the current situation, where a person is given a 30-minute window for free legal advice, to one where there is a 48-hour window in which legal aid can be given, would come with entirely unknown costs. The current system already diverts scarce resources away from those in genuine need: every pound spent on repeat litigation, in particular, is a pound not spent on border security, faster processing or refugee support. We are unable to support Amendment 33.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is entirely positive that we can say, “Let’s look at the wording of this”; we might have some qualms about whether we need to reword it to avoid unintended consequences—that is fine. The noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, made a good point: this is a very important moral debate. It is one that more and more people in the country are frustrated that Parliament is not having, so it is positive that we are doing so today.

I will emphasise three things. First, we often consider what will happen to the safety of people if we deport them to countries that we deem unsafe. But the key question is actually: what about the safety of British citizens? They get forgotten in that whole discussion. We end up with this ridiculous situation where we say, “Oh, I’m really worried about this person who has committed a serious sex crime. If they are returned to their country, they might be thrown into some terribly unsafe prison. They might be beaten up or killed for the fact that they’re a sex criminal. We’ve got to save them”. We say that rather than emphasise the victims of that person. That is why people get frustrated about the topsy-turvy nature of this.

Secondly, until we legislate on this, the British public could rightly say that the Government have no control over a decision, which they want to make, to deport foreign nationals who commit crimes in this country. That is entirely appropriate for legislation, even if we need to work out the wording so that it is proportionate.

Finally, we are about to start the Sentencing Bill, which I am very interested in. The state of prisons is incredibly depressing at the moment. In fact, while we are talking about unsafe places, I do not know that going to prison here is safe for anyone. They are overcrowded and there are serious problems with our prison system. It is unexplainable that we would have people in that prison system, taking spaces that we just do not have, when we should, by right, be able to say that they do not deserve to be in this country. They broke the social contract after they were given an opportunity to be here. Sometimes they are illegal—that is different—but if they are given the right to remain, and then they murder, rape or steal from their fellow citizens, they have broken the basis on which we trusted them to stay. That is reasonable to say.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a good point: this is not an extreme position but a normal, commonsensical position. Based on everything I have heard from the Government, I think they agree with that. If they do, they need to legislate accordingly, which is what these amendments are trying to do.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I think it will be no surprise to Members of the Conservative Party that we oppose Amendments 34 and 72. It is quite interesting that, once the rat had been let out of the sack that the amendment was not capable of being put to the House, of course, this debate turned into a Second Reading debate about other issues on the way we should be talking about this matter. I will turn to that in a moment, but let us just take these amendments at face value as they are written, because that is what the Report stage of a Bill is about: reporting about amendments which we are discussing, not about raising other issues which should have been raised at Second Reading way back in the beginning.

These amendments embody an approach of absolute and mandatory deportation that sacrifices judicial discretion and proportionality in favour of unworkable rigidity, thereby undermining fundamental legal safeguards and international obligations. Amendment 34 proposes a sweeping new deportation regime. The explanatory material states:

“This new clause would require the deportation of any foreign national who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom”.


Further, it seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 by requiring a court to sentence a non-British citizen over the age of 17 convicted of “an offence” to deportation from the United Kingdom. You might call this the “Mars bar” scheme, whereby anybody who steals a Mars bar will be deported, or, perhaps, if that was not serious enough, you may have to steal a multi-pack of Mars bars rather than a single one.

We must oppose this proposal on multiple grounds. First, there is a lack of proportionality and balance. The amendment would introduce an obligation to make a deportation order with no exceptions and no discretion. Such an absolute provision ignores the circumstances of the offence, mitigating factors or the length of time a person may have lawfully been in this country. It comes to something when a noble Lord prays in aid the ECHR to support us against an amendment from the Conservative Party. That is an extremely interesting way forward.

Secondly, on risk of torture and human rights breach, this obligation to deport would apply even if removal would send the person concerned to a country where they would face torture or even, in some countries, where they have capital punishment. The proposal is unworkable and contrary to our international obligations.

Thirdly, on vulnerability in modern slavery, Amendment 34 would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking. For example, a small child who arrived in the UK, committed a crime, was sentenced to prison and was subsequently found to be a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of forced criminality would be subject to automatic removal without any court or tribunal mechanism to consider the circumstances of their case.

Fourthly, on eroding criminal safeguards, Amendment 34 seeks to amend Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 by omitting instances of “knowingly” from certain immigration offences. Removing this element of mens rea—a lack of knowledge as a defence—will likely result in consequential deportation decisions being subject to more challenges under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Amendment 72 would place a duty to remove foreign offenders on the Secretary of State. It mandates that a deportation order must be made against any non-British citizen who

“has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment”—

this is different in this amendment—and “has completed their term”. Crucially, it dictates that:

“The Secretary of State must make the deportation order … within the period of seven days”.


This amendment falls foul of some of the critical flaws in Amendment 34—first, in terms of an unworkable timeline and mandatory duty. Placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to execute a deportation order within a rigid seven-day period against any person sentenced to imprisonment disregards the complex process required for removal, particularly when a human rights for protection claim is lodged.

Secondly, there is an absence of scrutiny and due process. Such an absolute obligation removes necessary judicial oversight and requires deportation without considering the individual’s human rights. The objective of mandating deportation in this manner risks encouraging offending behaviour and would not necessarily increase removals from the UK.

Thirdly, the amendment conflicts with legal principles. In mandating deportation for any offence, conviction without exception, it ignores the fact that deportation orders can be made against those who are victims of coercion or human trafficking. To support these kinds of absolutist amendments, especially in the context of deportation, is incredibly difficult for anyone who believes in the rule of law and due process.

We must remain resolute in our commitment to deport those who abuse our hospitality by committing crimes in the UK, but the paths produced and proposed by Amendments 34 and 72 substitute effective, balanced legislation with measures of legal absolutism. We must empower the Government to act decisively, but we must do so in a way that respects fundamental rights, due process and proportionality. These amendments fail all those critical tests.

Asylum Seekers: MoD Housing

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question. The local authorities in both areas were informed two weeks ago, and we are continuing to ensure that we discuss the arrangements to date with the police, the National Health Service and local councils in each area. The Government are trying to do what I hope the noble Lord wishes the Government to do, which is to put a deterrent in place. The individuals who will be going to these sites in a phased, operational way, over a period of time, will have arrived, been processed and been put into those sites pending asylum decisions being taken. That is a real deterrent to people: it is not about going to a hotel or into the community—they are going to a very firm site where action can be taken. It is our ambition to reduce the number of hotels, and we have reduced the number from 400 at its peak to 200 now. It is our ambition to stop the crossings that are leading to these pressures in the first place. I look forward to the noble Lord’s support on both matters.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise simply to ask the Minister whether contracts will be issued for looking after these two sites, and whether the lessons learned from Napier and Wethersfield will be transferred to the actions that are now taking place in those two sites. It is all very well to simply emergency-open new sites, but not if they are going to be managed inappropriately. The substantial changes that were made in Wethersfield should be transferred, and that knowledge transferred onwards. Also, what is the timescale of those contracts? When are they due to start and end? I draw attention to my interest in the register in the RAMP organisation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not quite sure where the noble Lord, Lord Harper, is ending up in his consideration of Amendments 1 and 2. On any view, the crisis has got worse and worse with regard to the arrival of masses more immigrants coming across in small boats and the inability to identify and arrest these criminal people-smugglers. I am afraid I cannot give examples because I have not had time to think about it, but I do recognise one example: the modern slavery commissioner is completely free from the Civil Service, as indeed was her predecessor. This suggestion advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, seems sensible, and therefore I want to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will first address Amendment 26. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, I would say that the reason we have this particular amendment before us is because of the harness which was left by the Conservative Government in the arrangements that they made with Europe in the TCA relating to Europol. I do not want to go through the five or six pages in that heavy white tome—I photocopied those pages to make it lighter to carry—but in the whole remit of the way in which the relationship with Europol is stated it is quite clear that we “should” do something and the European Union, through Europol, “may” do something. I think we are trying to address that sort of relationship.

The core objective of the Bill, which I think unites the House, is clear. We must strengthen our borders and effectively identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal gangs engaged in people-smuggling and human trafficking. To achieve this, international co-operation is paramount, especially in addressing the complex international and cross-border nature of these challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend in his Amendment 3 and the amendments that the Government have brought forward to try to make Clause 13 more effective and appropriate.

I have a broader question for the Minister. I suspect that many of the people who may be caught by this are already committing all sorts of other offences, either provisions within the scope of the Bill or those under some other relevant legislation, such as the Immigration Act 1971. My question to the Government is: how effective do they believe Clause 13 will be? What sort of a difference do they believe it will make? They have brought forward legislation and asked this House to pass a Bill containing Clause 13; they must have a view, whether from the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or other arms of government, on how effective they believe this measure will be, given that many, perhaps even the majority, of people committing these offences will not be resident in the United Kingdom, but will be elsewhere as part of the broader supply chain.

Therefore, I am broadly supportive, but I would appreciate the Minister answering my question when he sums up the debate.

[Lord German (LD)]

I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee and will ask a couple of questions about the “concerned in” area. The Government’s Amendments 4 and 8 further expand the scope of offences in Clauses 13 and 14 by introducing this liability to be “concerned in” the supply or handling of articles. I understand that some of this phraseology is also in some of our counterterrorism laws, and I wonder whether it has been drawn from those very serious laws and just put in this in the moment.

The original intention of Clauses 13 to 17 was to target the activities of facilitators and organised criminal gangs. As my noble friend says, the worry is that the expansion of the offences risks inadvertently criminalising people who should be protected and providing unintended harms to those who are most vulnerable.

I have one other point about criminalising non-criminal actors. Perhaps the Minister could say a little word about legal practitioners. There is a certain ambiguity created by these broad offences which might risk affecting legal practitioners who provide legitimate services. Perhaps he could tell us whether that can be explicitly put into the Bill or explicitly ruled out of the amendments that the Government have put before us today.

In summary, these government amendments are seeking to widen further the extraterritorial counterterror-style offences. In turn, that requires statutory guardrails to prevent them targeting vulnerable individuals, and legal representation and legal practitioners, instead of solely the organised crime networks. I hope the Minister can put that matter to rest.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but worthwhile debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for tabling Amendments 3 and 6, and to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to them. These seek to criminalise possession with intent to supply and to ensure that those who arrange for a relevant item to be received by a third party fall into the scope of the offence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, acknowledged, in response to the debate that we had in Committee on these amendments, the Government have tabled Amendments 4, 5, 8, 9, 16 and 17. These build on proposals advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, in Committee and, indeed, this evening on Report.

In refining the approach, we have tabled amendments that ensure that individuals who are concerned in the supply chain can be held accountable where they know that their actions are enabling criminal activity, and that those who are knowingly concerned in supplying articles for use in immigration crime fall in scope. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, noted, criminals are always developing new ways to pursue organised immigration crime, and we have to stay on top of them. These amendments are part of the package of measures in the Bill, and that is why we have tabled these government amendments, to address the concerns around third-party supply that were noted in Committee.

I believe that this matches the intent in the noble Lords’ amendments, both on Report and in Committee, by ensuring that those who are concerned in the supply of, or the making of an offer to supply, a relevant article for use in immigration crime, and those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime, are in scope of this offence. As such, I hope that noble Lords are content with the government amendments and will not press theirs.

This is a proportionate and necessary step, one that targets the infrastructure behind the wicked trade of organised immigration crime. It allows us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. As we have already heard tonight, organised immigration crime works internationally, through networks of facilitators and organisers. This new offence, strengthened by this amendment, is about acting before the facilitation offences have happened, to prevent crossings and the risking of life, and everything that goes with it.

These amendments have safeguards in place, reflecting our wider discussion on this aspect, in that the individual must be knowingly engaged in facilitation to fall into scope, and law enforcement must be able to prove that knowledge, protecting those who act in good faith from these offences.

I turn to some of the questions and points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord German, raised concerns about the language in the Bill and its precision.

First, on how “concerned in” is any different from the “handling” wording in the Bill—as Lord German asked—the Bill equips law enforcement with counter- terror-style powers to disrupt and dismantle smuggling operations far earlier, well before a boat is launched from the French coast and lives are put at risk. The amendment strengthens these powers, setting out that someone does not need to smuggle people into the UK themselves to face jail time. Law enforcement can also use these powers to go after people playing other roles in smuggling operations. This may include, for instance, providing a lorry to try smuggling people into the UK, sending money to buy small boat parts, or storing dinghies in warehouses knowing full well that they are being used for channel crossings.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about the breadth and vagueness of the use of “concerned in”. Would it, for instance, capture those who are selling boat equipment to sailors? To be clear, that is not the intention here. All that is changing with this amendment is setting out that someone involved in people-smuggling operations can face jail time, not just those smuggling people into the UK themselves.

To go to the heart of whether this is an overreach, which I think is the concern coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches, let us be absolutely clear, and I think we can all agree on this: vile people smugglers are wreaking havoc on our borders and are putting lives at risk to line their own pockets. None the less, law enforcement must follow a strict legal test and prove that someone knew the activity was part of smuggling operations. As with any criminal offence, independent prosecutors will look at all factors when considering prosecution and judge every case on its merits. Indeed, the officers who are carrying out potential seizures and applying for arrest warrants will bear in mind the usual high bar of evidential standards that prosecutors require for a successful prosecution. Nothing changes there.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the impact on legal practitioners. To be clear, this is about supplying goods, not services. There is a clear difference between people who want to supply dinghies to get people across the channel and those who are supplying people with legal services to defend an appeal claim for asylum, for instance.

Lastly, I turn to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who asked for the bigger picture. This Bill is about making it harder for vile smugglers to operate. The new counterterror-style powers equip law enforcement with the tools that it needs to act earlier against the smugglers. I would say to the noble Lord that even one prosecution that stops a smuggler in their tracks could save countless lives. We have seen over many summers the number of people who are crammed on to those boats. If we can stop any single boat launching, through getting those dinghies seized earlier, that will have a material impact in saving lives.

This is tough legislation that builds upon the surge in operational action against people-smuggling networks. The National Crime Agency carried out around 350 disruptions on organised immigration crime networks—its highest level on record and a 40% increase on the previous year. Through these amendments, we send a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences. This aligns with the Government’s broader commitment to stop the boats and dismantle the nefarious networks that profit from the evil of human exploitation, and reinforces our resolve to tackle every link in the chain of illegal migration.

The Government’s approach has been clear from taking office: to go after the gangs. We need these offences enacted to allow operational colleagues to do their jobs. They will strengthen our ability to prosecute facilitators and reinforce our stance that nobody concerned in the supply of articles for use in such offences should be beyond the reach of the law.

Having said that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to withdraw his amendment. We shall then formally move the government amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to support government Amendments 10 and 11 and pick up a couple of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made. I think we kicked the first point around a bit in Committee so I will not overly repeat my points from then. We said then, and I think it has come out in the debate so far, that the point of this legislation, which I strongly agree with, is very important. The substance of a lot of the Bill is about increasing the deterrent effect of the law, although I may not have agreed with what I continue to think is the rather cosmetic Border Security Commander.

We want the offence here. I want it to be quite broad because I want it to put off people helping to facilitate offences and then pretending that they are not. I think the noble Baroness or somebody else gave a similar example in Committee. I do not want people assisting people to commit immigration offences. In this case, it is helpful for it to be a broad offence. We are trying to deter people from helping people.

My reading of the case that the noble Baroness set out is that an offence would be committed only if the person supplying the article, the phone in this case, had a reasonable suspicion that an immigration offence was going to be committed. If they did, then I want them to be concerned that they would be committing an offence and therefore not supply the device. That is the point of the exercise. If it is not going to do that, there is really no point in passing this legislation. It is supposed to be setting out tough offences that deter people from such activity.

I would make a similar point on Amendment 12, about lawyers. First, I do not know whether the position has changed enormously—I suspect not given some of the other things the Minister has said—but I had not noticed any shortage of people providing immigration advice when I was Immigration Minister. There seemed to be a never-ending supply of people who would assist people to breach our immigration rules and outwit our Home Office lawyers and so forth. There may have been a massive drying up of such people, but, based on the number of cases and the battles that the Home Office undertakes, that is highly unlikely. I do not think there is a shortage of lawyers who provide advice for people in this area.

Secondly, if someone is providing legal advice about what somebody has done and their legal position, then they are not going to be caught by this offence. This offence is about people providing advice that will facilitate immigration crime. It is not the function of a lawyer following the professional standards that lawyers are supposed to operate under to provide legal advice that enables people to commit crimes. If this clause as drafted by Minister’s officials and draftsmen stops a lawyer providing advice about how to commit a crime, I am very pleased, because they should not be doing it.

I do not see any legitimate legal service that a lawyer should professionally be providing that will be caught by this clause. It seems to me that it will catch only people operating on the margins and pushing the envelope about what they are doing and what they are facilitating. It is not the lawyer’s job to help people commit criminal offences. That is absolutely not what lawyers are supposed to be doing, so the clause as drafted in the legislation is fine as it is with its breadth. I know that the noble Baroness said she would not press them, but I would oppose the two amendments from her and think the Bill is better without them.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to defend lawyers. I do not why I should be doing this, but it struck me to do so here, as it did on the previous set of amendments.

In Committee, the Minister assured us that

“the list of reasonable excuses in this clause is non-exhaustive””—[Official Report, 8/7/25; col. 1287.]

and that legitimate activity should not be captured. However, relying on ministerial assurances of the good sense and discretion of the CPS is insufficient when it comes to framing criminal law. That is why it has to be represented in the Bill or by regulation, or some other way, that we are not talking about that here.

I advise the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that it is very difficult to find sufficient lawyers to deal with the case load that is before us, which is affecting the backlog as well, of course. I will not go into the reasons why that has happened, but it is certainly not easy. The actual penalty would be 14 years’ imprisonment, if a lawyer was caught in it, so it is a very serious matter. If we fail to include explicit protection, we risk imposing deterrents on the exercising of proper legal practice in this field of the law. I support my noble friend Lady Hamwee in that objective in her amendments.

I want to speak to government Amendment 11 because while we may have had a different agenda of items, which my noble friend was talking about, at least I think I know what I am talking about here. I know that razor blades on safety razors are particularly dangerous. There are ways in which you can deal with that matter but there is also the alternative of some form of electric device, which can do the job as well, as we know. You might need a wire, but you can also operate them by battery; those ones are much cheaper. I can assure the House that that is my personal experience in this Palace, when you come from a different part of the country from London. However, I would like to know what explanation there will be for how people can shave. The Red Cross has raised that issue and I am sure that the Government have an answer.

--- Later in debate ---

On the other side of this, as it were, I wish to ask about the narrow purposes that that are referred to in the provision that I have just mentioned. If someone puts in an online blog or website an account of their experience of being trafficked or smuggled—and this happens, as a lot of the organisations in the sector report publicly on their clients’ experiences—is that promoting the targeted services? I am sorry that I am raising questions, but I suppose that is what happens with a difficult proposition and arrangement such as this.

[Lord German (LD)]

I shall add one more difficult question to the lump sum of woes that the Minister has just received, and that is in respect of the most used platform in this area, which is Telegram. Telegram is a company based in the British Virgin Islands, but the people behind it are a moveable feast and very secretive. As the Minister will know, of course, formerly VK sprang out of Russian influence, but Telegram is the biggest alt messaging platform in the world and the one that is more frequently used by people in the world in the area that these clauses are meant to deal with.

Having spent the best part of two years in developing the Online Safety Bill, we know that the question is how you make sure you get at a body such as the people who own Telegram, who will obviously be among the most important people in respect of these new clauses. It is not that it is not worth trying, but I query how easy it is going to be and whether there is—I do not expect a detailed answer because otherwise that will be giving away the processes—a way in which this particular platform would be caught by this and would be able to be tracked down and held to account.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have tabled a raft of amendments criminalising the online advertisement of unlawful immigration services. We know that this is a major source of business for the trafficking gangs and, as such, if the advertising methods can be targeted and disrupted then this should go some way to removing a key part of the business model.

The Government’s impact assessment on this new policy acknowledges that

“it is expected that there will be a small number of arrests under this offence, as the majority of activity is assessed to take place overseas”

The key to the success here will, therefore, lie in enforcement and international compliance, so what steps have the Government taken to push other countries to take action and remove online posts and sites that publish this sort of material? How are they supporting the National Crime Agency to go further with its investigations and campaigns? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, is it possible, whether by letter or verbally, to know whether this clause will affect the biggest online platform—the one which is doing all the damage that this refers to?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

This is the guarantee that I give all noble Lords. It is right that I am questioned on these matters. It is right that we poke around and look at the detail in the woods—the big picture that I have established. But, ultimately, this is legislation. I have given the assurances that I can. I will look at the comments from all noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, who have spoken in this debate. If there are point on which they are not satisfied, I will write to them in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned internet service providers and a number of the bigger players, such as Facebook, TikTok and Telegram. The clause expressly provides intermediate liability protections for internet services such as social media companies, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence. It will be the individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online who are targeted. I will look again at the noble Lord’s comments in the cold light of day. If I need to write to reassure him, or to provide clarification, or because he has suggested items that we should look at further on another occasion, it will be important to do so.

I hope that, with the assurances that I have given and the case I have made, the House can agree to the new clauses before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a short and simple group with one simple amendment, so I will speak briefly. I moved this amendment in Committee to highlight that, as drafted, I suspect that the offence might not be utilised as much as it could be. This amendment is intended to apply the new offence of endangering another to any individual who makes a sea crossing with the intent of gaining unlawful entry in an unseaworthy vessel. This would remove the requirement for an individual to have done a particular act to create risk of death or serious injury.

The principle here is that if a person has crossed the channel in a small boat or dinghy then they have, by definition, created a risk of death or injury. No small boat packed with a large number of people can be considered safe to cross the busiest shipping lane in the world. By being in that boat, you are endangering the lives of all others in that boat. The Minister said in Committee that the reality is that none of the vessels can reasonably be considered safe, which means that the amendment would capture all those making a journey. I agree with the Minister that these journeys cannot be considered safe. Surely if this clause is to have any meaning at all, it must be expounded to capture those who are making these journeys unsafe. This amendment seeks to make that completely clear and, as such, ensure that the offence in Clause 18 can be applied to those it is intended to target. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment would significantly alter Clause 18 and capture all people in these boats. Every one of them would come under the power of this clause. It treats the vulnerable asylum seekers as criminals and is inconsistent with targeting specific criminal behaviour.

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

My Lords, as I hope everyone in your Lordships’ House knows, the Government are absolutely committed to action to prevent illegal migration, dangerous crossings and—specifically in relation to this amendment—fatalities at sea.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who also proposed this in Committee. The noble Lord has been consistent in wanting to ensure that the scope of these provisions does the job of breaking up these criminal gangs, and the smuggling. I think we are all on the same page on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Amendments 23, 24 and 25 in my name amend the text of Clause 32, which relates to general provision about disclosure with respect to Clauses 27 to 31, and the specific application of the data protection legislation in the Data Protection Act 2018.

I hope that noble Lords will recollect that it was but a few months ago when we considered the Bill that went on to become the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. Section 106 of that Act came into force on 20 August 2025. From that date, provisions in Acts that require or authorise the processing of personal data are automatically read as being subject to data protection law.

In practice, this makes express reference to data protection legislation unnecessary in statutes subsequently enacted in Parliament. That means that, in effect, the protections afforded by the Data Protection Act 2018 continue to apply to these clauses, which relate to the disclosure and sharing of HMRC’s customs and the DVLA’s trailer registration information.

It is not necessary or good lawmaking to duplicate these protections by placing unnecessary words on the statute book. These three amendments ensure that we are tying up and tidying up the issue. Amendment 23, and the two consequential Amendments 24 and 25, are technical in nature.

I want to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has to say on Amendment 62, which he will address very shortly, but, while I am speaking—potentially to save the House time—I will reiterate my previous reassurances to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, that using personal data for legitimate purposes such as immigration control is already permitted under data protection law. It would therefore be not only disproportionate but unnecessary to disapply data protection rules in a blanket fashion for certain groups that include some of the most vulnerable people in our society, including victims of trafficking. I will listen to what the noble Lord says, but I gave reassurances in Committee and now is an opportunity to repeat them. Obviously, the noble Lord will speak to his amendment and, if he wishes to discuss it further, we can, but I ultimately hope that he will not move it.

[Lord German (LD)]

Just before the noble Lord speaks to Amendment 62, I want to say that these Benches support the Minister.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 62 was also tabled in Committee. Its intent is to disapply data protection laws and regulations for a data subject who has entered the UK illegally or who is a foreign national offender.

The purpose here is, in essence, the same as in Clauses 27 to 31: it is intended to reduce the barriers to data sharing between the relevant law enforcement and immigration services. We feel that data protection legislation should not stand in the way of our ability to protect our borders; it should act as a block on action, not as a shield behind which those who have committed immigration offences can hide. In the same manner as human rights legislation, data protection legislation is not meant to be used to protect those who have broken the law, who have entered illegally or who are trying to prevent their lawful deportation. I will not be pressing this amendment to a Division, obviously, but I hope the Minister has listened to what I have to say.

I understand the purpose of the government amendments in this group, which are removing provisions that are now redundant due to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. As such, I take no issue with them.

Child Poverty Strategy: Migrant Families

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the cohort of refugee children in this country who are in child poverty is large, and the Government propose to extend the time at which people can gain indefinite leave to remain in this country from five years to 10 years, so there is an implication for that cohort who will be held in that position for much longer than they were expecting. Can the Minister indicate whether the health and mental health of these children will be paramount in the strategy which is about to be produced and that it will ensure that there are responses to that?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I have one simple answer to the noble Lord: yes. It is vital that all children have the best start in life, and children should not be impacted by the position of their parents. They deserve the opportunity to thrive in life. The child poverty strategy will deal with how we meet those challenges over a 10-year period.

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

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

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

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

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches also approve of the amendment. This is a very narrow Bill, with an even narrower amendment. I do not intend to repeat everything I said about children at Second Reading, but we are absolutely clear that, without a measure of comfort, the Bill will have consequences for a very limited number of children and will reverse the protection that has been offered to them under the Supreme Court case of N3(ZA) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said, we are discussing the limbo status of some children in this situation. A child whose parent’s citizenship deprivation was ruled unlawful by a court could have their citizenship status left in limbo until their parent’s final appeal is determined. We had a debate at Second Reading about how long that period would be. There were some views that the justice system was so quick that it might flash through in a number of weeks, but others suggested that it could take a number of months or even longer. During an extended period of uncertainty, the child could be exposed to serious harm or death, without the ability to enter the UK and reach safety or to obtain consular assistance.

As I explained at Second Reading, this is not a hypothetical matter. There are, and have been, cases where the situation has arisen. It may involve a small number of people—a small number of children—but we cannot be certain that those children will not face such risks in the future. This amendment would therefore provide a minimum safeguard to prevent the most serious consequences for the children who might be caught by the Bill, and who are obviously the most vulnerable British children. It would ensure that the best interests of the child are prioritised and that the effects of the Bill do not unjustly threaten the lives and rights of British children.

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

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling the amendment and for their contributions to today’s debate. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who has previously raised this issue with me in private meetings. I was pleased to meet the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who tabled the amendment to discuss their concerns privately; it is an important issue that I hope I can address today. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Lister; as the regular recipient of terrier activity on my legs, I appreciate her persistence in these matters.

I want to be clear—this is an important point that the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, made in his introductory remarks—that where a child already holds British citizenship, the subsequent deprivation of a parent’s citizenship does not change that. I know that that was a concern held by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, but that is a given. As the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, said in his introductory remarks, we would need to make changes to sections of the British Nationality Act 1981 that relate to the acquisition of nationality in order for the amendment to have its desired effect. Whether or not we want to make those changes, they would be out of the Bill’s scope, so I am unable to agree to them today.

In any case, the amendment could not be limited to cases where the parent’s appeal is ultimately successful and their citizenship reinstated. The amendment would apply to cases where a higher court upholds the Home Secretary’s decision. In my view, that would undermine the integrity of the immigration and nationality system and could give rise to cases where a child is temporarily a British citizen, only to lose that status through no fault of their own. If their entitlement to another nationality were to be removed because another country had laws that prohibited dual citizenship, there is also a risk the child could be left stateless.

In accordance with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, consideration of a child’s best interests is a primary consideration in the immigration and nationality decisions that affect them. Considering the representations I have had from the noble Lord and the noble Baroness in our private discussions, I say to them that the Government will monitor the impact of the Bill, including the impact on children, during the course of its implementation downstream. If there are lessons to be drawn from that, obviously we will do so.

As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading last week, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, under the UK Borders Act 2007, can assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the migration and borders system, which includes the deprivation power. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, I say that, if there were a challenge in expediting appeals or an issue with children being impacted, I have no doubt—without wishing to assess the independent inspector’s programme for him—that the inspector would examine those matters. The UK Borders Act 2007 empowers the inspector to define their own inspection programme, something that the departing inspector, David Bolt, refers to in his most recent annual report as

“the cornerstone of the role’s independence”.

I have no doubt that, in the event of challenges appearing—and with representations from noble Lords, Members of Parliament or voluntary organisations—that could well be an area where the inspector focuses their attention.

I thank the noble Lord and noble Baroness for prompting this worthwhile debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has not spoken today, but I believe that he broadly supports the position that I take on this matter. I trust that, for the reasons I have set out, the Members who tabled the amendment understand why the Government cannot support it. I therefore respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

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.

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.

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.

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.