Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a word in support of Amendment 37, which would allow 56 days before someone who has been given asylum is thrown out. The six-month experiment of the Government trying to move to 56 days from 28 seemed to be very successful. I was therefore puzzled that its extension in July was rescinded in August. I do not know why we are heading back to 28 days, and I am sure we should have 56 days.

Why? It takes some time for the documentation to be made available to the person who has been granted asylum. It then takes some time for that person to obtain accommodation, for which he will need a bank account. He may need to go on universal credit, and universal credit applications take longer than 28 days to come through. He is in a Catch-22 situation. He cannot rent accommodation, because he has not got a bank account and has not got access to universal credit, so he is homeless. Safeguarding incidents, the main cause of which is homelessness, declined by 50% during the six-month period in which 56 days were allowed.

As I understand it, the Government’s position now is that they are not going back all the way to 28 days for everybody. They are allowing families, the disabled, the pregnant and the over-65s to stay a bit longer while they look for somewhere to live. But actually, most of the asylum seekers are young men, who will be put on to a 28-day regime, which creates a very high risk of their becoming homeless. To integrate these people properly into society, we need to be generous on the timing of their being thrown out and on to the streets, in many cases to become rough sleepers. I strongly support Amendment 37.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, as well as Amendment 45 in my name, and that of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, I also strongly support the other amendments in this group, to which the noble Lord, Lord German, has just spoken. In fact, I have added my name to two of them.

The current lengthy ban on asylum seekers working wastes talent. Lifting it would let an incredibly talented, resilient group of people—as those are the qualities they needed to even get themselves here—support themselves and their families. It would allow them to rebuild their lives with dignity and independence, at the same time as they would be filling vital UK labour shortages.

As the noble Lord has just said, it also makes financial sense. It could save the Treasury £4.4 billion a year in expenditure, generate £880 million a year in tax revenues and boost GDP by over £1 billion. As the noble Lord also said, it would cut the hotel and asylum support bill. Some 91% of people seeking asylum struggle to afford food. Against that background, the present work ban is actually driving people into exploitation and forced labour. It often means that they are paying exploiters for the so-called privilege of 14 hour-plus delivery shifts earning less than the minimum wage.

There are even more harmful forms of work. Surveys have shown that some 10% of women seeking asylum have felt forced into sex work to support themselves and their children. More raids, and more enforcement, will not stop this. It will only drive people into more hidden and dangerous situations to try to support themselves. Lifting the ban is the only way to protect people from exploitative and irregular work, and it saves the money that we currently spend enforcing that ban.

The stoking of division was exemplified by the riots last summer, but the community cohesion offered by letting people work side by side with those who are seeking asylum is invaluable. When we let people share their skills with their new communities, it helps them settle, improve their language skills and make friends; it leads to better integration outcomes. These are things that we are already seeing in the many churches in my diocese where asylum seekers worship while their claims are being processed. If they can also build those connections, meet people and become known, respected and loved sisters and brothers in the world of work, that can only help community cohesion.

I accept that, alongside the humanitarian and economic considerations to which I have referred, politics does understandably matter. Let me briefly address any concerns that lifting the ban would be an unpopular act in the country. YouGov polling shows 81% of voters support giving people seeking asylum the right to work after six months. That includes 87% of Labour voters and 81% of Conservative voters. On top of that, a Survation poll found that lifting the ban is backed by a two-thirds majority of business leaders. It is backed by the Confederation of British Industry, the Association of Labour Providers, the Entrepreneurs Network and the Federation of Small Businesses. That is a pretty widespread alliance, and it is not the sort of people who are normally associated with weeping-heart, left wing causes.

We have all heard the mantra from all sides of this House over many years that the UK needs to get people off dependence on benefits and into work. My amendment would seek to encourage us to do that. It is not the sort of amendment I believe should be taken to a Division, and I am not going to do that. However, I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister will be able to offer some assurances that we can make progress on this matter, not least so that His Majesty’s Government can achieve the target of closing the asylum hotels.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 42 seems to me to be something of a no-brainer. It would relieve the public purse in two ways. Local authorities might no longer have to find the cost of accommodation, and central government would no longer have to provide the pittance it does as a weekly allowance to people held in asylum hotels. It would be good for these people. It would be good for their self-respect and it would make it more likely that they would successfully integrate if they were, in the end, granted asylum.

The only people it would be bad for are people in the black economy. We all know that people in the situation we are describing tend to go out and find work and that work is available for them, thus they are launched into a criminal level of British society straight away. That is the wrong way to integrate people who have done no harm—people who are here fleeing persecution, famine or war elsewhere. It seems paradoxical and extremely dangerous that we do not allow people to work. I strongly support Amendments 42 and 43.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I think that, across the House, most of us are not supportive of illegal migration and would want those who should not be here to be removed. Equally, therefore, we tend to be supportive of deportation. But we need to look at those who are here and going through the various processes. I support all these amendments, and in particular the speeches made by noble Lords in support of them.

Amendment 42, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, seems to be a no-brainer. Why on earth do we not let people work so that we do not have to pay for them? It seems a very simple point. It would, as has already been said—it seems necessary to say it again as the current Government do not seem to recognise it, as indeed the previous Government did not recognise it—save money, save having to provide accommodation, and solve the problem of immigrants in hotels. It seems a sensible thing to do. I find it very difficult to understand. Added to that, as has been said by the right reverend Prelate, it is a waste of talent. There is no shortage of people who escape to this country who have qualifications. We have gaps in our workplaces, and many of these people would be valuable and useful to the economy.

Amendment 43 is rather different. I declare an interest as co-chair of the anti-modern slavery APPG and vice chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. These people are exploited. They very largely have not come to this country as illegal migrants; they have come to be exploited or have already been exploited. It is a particular group of people. As has been pointed out, it takes a very long time to get through the NRM. Why on earth can they not be useful? Again, they are a similar sort of people, many of them with qualifications, and again, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is a waste of talent.

Take migrant domestic workers. There are the most appalling stories about the way in which they come to this country, where they work seven days a week, sleep on the kitchen floor and eat what remains on the plates of their employers. These are facts that various local organisations can prove. Kalayaan is a good example of a charity that looks after people who have been appallingly exploited as domestic workers. Currently, these workers do not have the rights that they had under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is about time that this badly treated group of people were given the opportunity to have another job in the same sector that they came here for. Therefore, for the various reasons I have just said, and for those that have already been given, I strongly support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I was afraid that the pull factor would rear its ugly head. There is a pull factor and it comes from the black economy. The smugglers have friends in the black economy and are often in it themselves—they are the employers. The pull factor exists now, but if we permitted people to work legally and not in the black economy, the pull factor would be reduced.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It is our polite custom to say what a privilege it is to follow the previous speaker. In this case, and on this subject, that is absolutely true. It is to this subject that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has devoted a life of public service, trying to do for others what was done for him in 1939. It does him great credit.

In 2016, as the noble Lord mentioned, his amendment was carried in this House and accepted at the end of the day by the then Conservative Government, and some 480 unaccompanied children got here who otherwise would not. It does him enormous credit.

Here he is again. This time, the noble Lord is concerned for the lone lost child left behind. He is concerned for the parent here who is a bona fide refugee, who has satisfied all the tests and has been given leave to remain in this country, but knows that the child is lost. The child is in a camp in Greece or Italy or, worse, on the streets of Calais. What is the father or mother to do? They have a heartbreaking choice. They can stay separated and forget the child, or they can go to the smuggler, pay up, and hope that the child makes it and comes in. That is not right. There has to be a third way.

There has to be a way in which a parent who has a right to be here, which has been established by our administrative systems and courts, can bring in the lost lone child. There used to be ways, before Brexit. But now there is only the option of a smuggler or of separation. We owe it to ourselves, to how we see our country, to stand with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this and pass Amendment 55.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I would have put my name to this amendment if I had got there in time. Every slot was taken, and I am not surprised. I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said my admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I have supported him on this proposal ever since he put it forward. He raises, quite rightly, issues about the well-being and welfare of children, who I spent all my judicial life trying to help. He also talks about it being a moral issue and an issue of principle, with which, of course, I agree.

However, what might be more attractive to the Minister is the fact that it is very few children. We have heard that it has been 10,000 in the past. But currently, we are talking about a few hundred. I do not think the public are going to mind very much about a few hundred children coming to this country.

Some years ago, when Fiona Mactaggart was still an MP, she and I, with the help of Safe Passage, went to Calais to meet some of the children. I have told your Lordships’ House this before, but I say it again because among the children, mainly teenagers, were some quite young children who were seriously at risk, sleeping under the trees and waiting for the one meal a day that very good, kind French people were offering.

We are talking only about children under 18, for goodness’ sake, and I do not apologise for saying again that we are talking about hundreds. This is not something that will embarrass the Government like the crowds of people coming in who they do not seem terribly good at getting rid of—nor did the previous Government. We are talking about a small number of children whose welfare is seriously at risk. The Government really should do something about it. For me, as a mother and a grandmother, the idea that it is suspended is tragic.