UK-Rwanda Partnership

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

From the noble Lord’s last remark, it sounds like he has answered his own question. However, as I said in my opening remarks, the numbers are uncapped. I do not know the context of the Court of Appeal judgment in this regard, so I cannot comment on that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I have two questions for the Minister. First, Article 19 of the treaty says that we are under an obligation to take a “portion”—an odd word—of Rwanda’s “most vulnerable refugees”. A two-way flow of people is envisaged, some going from here to Rwanda, some going from Rwanda to here. Can the Minister give us a forecast ballpark figure of how many Rwandans are coming? Secondly, he will remember that last year the State Department found the Government of Rwanda guilty of arbitrary murder, torture, cruel and inhuman and degrading punishments, arbitrary detention in harsh and life-threatening prison conditions, carrying out murders and kidnappings abroad and harassing domestic and international human rights groups. Our Bill requires us to deem Rwanda a safe country. Will he tell us why the State Department is wrong?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

In answer to the first part of the noble Lord’s question, Section 19 of the treaty indeed says that the UK will resettle refugees from Rwanda to the UK. This is not new; it was also set out in the MoU. As I have mentioned before from this Dispatch Box, Rwanda currently hosts and provides for around 130,000 refugees from across the region, and as part of our joint commitment to the principles of the refugee convention, and through the partnership, we have offered to settle particularly vulnerable refugees hosted in Rwanda, whom we could better support. Rwanda is leading in supporting the UNHCR and neighbouring regions with those in need of resettlement, and the UK will support these best efforts as its partner. We expect the number to be small. However, the UK resettles many refugees each year, through safe and legal paths from those first safe countries which accommodate many people who seek their sanctuary. As the MEDP has not yet been operationalised, there have not yet been any refugees from Rwanda resettled in the UK as part of it.

The second part of the noble Lord’s question was on the State Department. We have also just published a new treaty, which contains many legally binding elements. In the light of that, I imagine the State Department will reconsider.

Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

In conclusion, I strongly support this amendment, for the reasons set out in it and that I have discussed, but also because the whole exercise is based upon a false premise about the proportion of age-disputed children found to be adults and apparent lack of concern about the safeguarding issues arising when children are wrongly classified as adults, as raised by the interim AESAC. Newspaper reports have suggested that this can lead to children wrongly being put in adult detention centres, or even adult prisons containing sex offenders, or made to share hotel rooms with adults. I have yet to hear a convincing response to the ethical concerns raised by professional bodies, some of whose members may be called on to operate medical procedures that they believe to be harmful in this context. I hope that today’s debate will cause the Government to think again.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I know the convention of the House is that I should say it is a pleasure to follow two such brilliant speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Lister, but it is not actually a pleasure—it is intimidating; one fears the contrast. Mine will be an amateur contribution after those of two professionals.

I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report, particularly because it draws our attention to the evidence the Home Office gave in answer to its questions. The answers from the Home Office struck me as a little unsatisfactory and, in one or two cases, astonishing. With your Lordships’ permission, I will give just one example, on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the absence of the impact assessment. Here was the Home Office’s answer:

“The Home Office has not produced”


an impact assessment

“due to the uncertainties regarding wider implementation”

of scientific age assessment

“within the end-to-end age assessment model”.

If you can understand that, you are smarter than me. But it gets better:

“It is the Home Office’s view to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy. As policy and operational development continues, the Home Office will take a view as to when it is appropriate to produce an impact assessment”.


Well, that is nice of them. If you are buying a house, it is quite a good idea to have the survey done before completion of the deal. If one is buying shares, it is quite nice to see the prospectus for the sale of the shares before one makes the investment. And the purpose of an impact assessment is to accompany the legislative proposal and inform the legislator.

It is, of course, very important that the Home Office should monitor how these age assessments work out, but that is a completely different question from the need to provide an assessment ab initio of what the impact is expected to be. For the Home Office to say that it is better

“to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans, especially given the controversial nature of the policy”,

is frankly absurd.

I have four questions for the Minister. The first is really a question from the Children’s Commissioner in the evidence we have seen: can a child truly consent to a procedure if they know they may be punished if they do not consent? The Children's Commissioner thinks not. The young refugee, threatened with X-rays, might be bewildered, traumatised, frightened, and may not understand English; he may not understand the questions put to him or anything of what is going on. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee advised in January that

“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”.

Why have the Government ignored what the committee said?

My second question is: how safe is the procedure? The committee is clearly uneasy. It says:

“The use of ionising radiation must be limited, with the ultimate aim of eradicating it”.


That is the position of the Government’s official advisers. The Council of Europe says that that the use of radiation for age assessment is

“in conflict with medical ethics and potentially unlawful”.

My third question is: how reliable is the procedure? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has mentioned, the British Dental Association does not like it at all. It believes that assessment using X-rays is inaccurate and unethical, and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA and the BASW all share that concern. As the noble Baroness also said, the Government themselves are aware, and admit, that the science is inaccurate. In their evidence to the committee explaining why they are not using the draconian automaticity procedures in Section 58 of this year’s Illegal Migration Act but are instead using the provisions in last year’s Bill, with the negative inference provision, they say that the procedure is not sufficiently accurate to permit using the 2023 Act. If that is so, how can it be accurate enough for using the 2022 Act, with the negative inference result detrimental to the interest of the refugee?

My last question is: who is to be responsible for carrying out this procedure? Last week, there was some alarm among local authorities when the Minister for Immigration seemed to suggest that the responsibility would fall to them. Who is to be in charge and if it is the Department of Health and the NHS, are they relaxed about the extra workload coming their way? An impact assessment might have looked into that.

The Government should shelve the regulations until they can: tell us how they are to work; conduct a proper public consultation; provide a normal impact assessment in advance; and answer our questions. I should have said at the outset that I used to be a trustee of the Refugee Council but I mention that now. Of course, I strongly support the regret amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, in strong support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the others who have already spoken in this debate, I would argue that this is primarily a matter of science. On the idea that this is a scientific assessment, it is not. We are using instruments developed by science but the assessment is certainly not a scientific one. I have six questions for the Minister.

First, with regard to bone age and the assessment, can the Minister give us the range for any particular ages? What assessment has been made of the confidence limits and the error bars in this? Without those statistics, you cannot possibly have such a test. I do not believe that these have been published but perhaps I am wrong and he can tell us otherwise.

Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the preceding situations are with those immigrant children? For example, what diet were they on before they came in? Did they have normal calcium in their diet or were they deficient in it? Did they have other issues which might have changed their bone age? That is quite possible.

Thirdly, what is their hormonal status? As we know, some children have pituitary tumours which will change their bone age and these would not be discovered by an X-ray of the wrist or, necessarily, of the lower part of the skull and the jaw. There would be no reason for that child to have symptoms, so that would have to be dealt with as well. There are many reasons why age changes, not least because of mitochondrial activity. Is the noble Lord aware—he might have realised this—that about a year and a half ago we had a Select Committee inquiry on ageing? The ageing process starts very early in life and among the things we had were the hallmarks of ageing. Horvath’s clock, which includes mitochondrial age, for example, has 353 different points which give rise to ageing, yet we still cannot determine somebody’s age accurately within about five years on any of these bases. Of course, it is better with X-rays but certainly not something which we should really be considering in this situation. The diet of that child is most important.

I also suggest to the noble Lord that we have used an assessment in pregnancy which is now regarded as fallible. For a long time, we looked at bone age of babies in utero; for example, by looking at the length of the femur. We now know that all those publications, which resulted in us again and again delivering babies at a certain time, are totally flawed and those assessments are no longer used. It is a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has great experience in this area, is not here but he and I absolutely agree on that. Again, we say that we have to be very much aware of bone assessment.

There are two other issues which have not come up in this debate. I am going to be quick. The risk of ionising age radiation is serious. How do we know that a child might not need another X-ray later on for a medical condition, in which case there will be an accumulative risk, or perhaps has had ionising radiation before getting to the United Kingdom or on their way here? That is one of the issues.

Lastly, the issue of informed consent has not been fully described here and we need to discuss it. The autonomy of the child, or the parent on behalf of the child, is critical here. What does the noble Lord suggest is done if, for example, they X-ray the baby or child’s wrist and find a tumour in the bone? Do they then proceed to undertake some form of medical treatment? Suppose that that tumour is totally benign and could be living there indefinitely, without any harm to the child, but the child then has surgery which would not actually be necessary. That is not just a pretend risk. We really have to consider the risk of scanning people without clear medical evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am not familiar with the case that the noble Baroness refers to, so I am afraid I will have to look into it.

Individuals will be assessed for their fitness to undergo scientific age assessment, which will include consideration of both mental and physical health. The individual will not undergo scientific age assessment if they refuse to consent. Reasonable grounds for refusal will be set out in guidance and considered on a case-by-case basis. Appropriate adults, translators and others will be available to support the young person. If a young person is assessed as lacking the capacity to consent, they will not undergo any such methods and a negative credibility inference will not be taken.

Provisions under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 allow for decision-makers to make a negative inference. As I have said, the Home Office considers negative inference to be proportionate to prevent individuals deliberately frustrating the system. There is precedent in other legislation of negative consequences being applied where an individual refuses to submit to a medical examination. For example, an individual may be asked to undergo a medical examination to determine their eligibility for employment and support allowance. If they fail to undergo such an assessment, they will be treated as ineligible. Therefore, consent can still be informed and freely given even if there is a negative consequence for a refusal to give that consent.

It is important to note that taking a negative inference from a refusal to consent does not result in an automatic assumption that the individual is an adult. Rather, the negative inference is taken into account as part of the overall decision on age. A decision-maker can still assess an individual to be a child following the holistic age-assessment process, even if they refuse to consent to scientific methods without good reason.

I will answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about monitoring and review. The Ministry of Justice will monitor and review the Home Office’s use of X-rays approved by this instrument and compliance with the conditions as per Regulation 10 of the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004.

I would like to reassure the House that, as this is a new practice in the UK, the Home Office will monitor and review the policy to evaluate its success and make any changes necessary for its effective operationalisation. The Home Office will not do this in isolation but will continue to seek advice from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and key stakeholders to support the process. Quarterly datasets including age disputes are already published on GOV.UK and, when scientific methods of age assessment are introduced, the Home Office will ensure that the relevant statistics are published alongside them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, questioned whether these regulations should be made before a full impact assessment and costings have been laid before Parliament. As I stated, scientific methods will be integrated into the current age-assessment process. A full impact assessment has not been produced at this point as it would not provide the rigour of economic value required at the early stage. The Home Office recognises the importance of transparency—please be assured that a full impact assessment will be prepared when appropriate, as my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister said in the other place.

I will go into the costs in a little more detail. As I have said, we could not provide the rigour of economic value that the impact assessment would require. Instead, the Home Office has produced an economic note that pertains to the narrow focus of the SI—the impact of introducing the specified methods for age-assessment purposes. We have decided not to publish this yet, as the information provided would be isolated from wider plans; it is the Home Office’s view to wait until we have an appropriate level of detail to better reassure and inform the public of our plans. As policy and operational development continue, the Home Office will take a view on when it is appropriate to produce the full impact assessment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am rather surprised that the Minister has repeated the bits of the Home Office written evidence that struck me as a bit odd. The clue, surely, to the timing of an impact assessment is in the name: impact. It should be there at the start. We are not terribly interested in an impact assessment two or three years down the line. We would have liked to have one today.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s point; obviously, I will take it back to the Home Office and make sure that it is well understood.

On the use of X-rays, I remind the House that the Ministry of Justice has determined the practice is justified under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Justice made this decision to justify the practice independently from the Home Office, as they are functionally separate on the policy of age assessment as required by the 2004 regulations.

Your Lordships will know that X-ray scans are commonly used in the UK for medical purposes by doctors and dentists. Although age assessment is for non-medical purposes, images will be taken by qualified professionals who are trained to minimise exposure to ionising radiation and any other potential risks. We expect all professionals to abide by their own professional guidelines, as well as any set out in Home Office guidance, but medical professionals are required by the relevant legislation for ionising radiation.

The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee suggests that any risk associated with this low level of exposure to ionising radiation is minimal when compared to the benefits of swifter, more informed age assessment in terms of both safeguarding and well-being.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Safe Routes

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that it was declared unlawful by the courts. The fact is that there were some issues with regards to a particular county, and, as far as I understand it, the courts basically reaffirmed that there is a statutory duty on local authorities to look after unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. In terms of the support that is available to those councils, we have made a considerable amount of money available, and we are working very closely with the councils that are involved in order to make that happen.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, why do the Government continue to turn down repeated French offers to facilitate our establishing a processing centre for asylum seekers in France?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know that that is true. I have not seen any evidence that we have turned down French offers. I will investigate again, and if I am wrong, I will definitely correct myself.

Illegal Immigration

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

If my noble friend is right in his assertions, yes, they should be convicted, but I do not what has happened with prosecutions and convictions in that space. I will endeavour to find out.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Does the Minister recall that the International Agreements Committee criticised the form taken for the previous agreement with Rwanda—a memorandum of understanding—and thought it should have been a treaty, partly because it was so weighty and partly to provide this House and the other place with an opportunity to scrutinise it properly. I think this new agreement will be scrutinised properly in this House so I am very glad that it is taking the form of a treaty, which will enable us to do that. The Statement said that it will be amended

“to make it clear that those sent”—

to Rwanda

“cannot be sent to any country other than the UK”.

That is what the Home Secretary said in the other place. How is that consistent with our Illegal Migration Act, which says that those who come illegally, in its terms, to this country can never be admitted to this country, will be sent to Rwanda and will be processed there by Rwanda for asylum in Rwanda?

The Minister said that other countries are seeing what we are doing and following suit. With respect, that is not the case. We are the only country that is saying, “If you come by a route that we do not like, we refuse to look at your claim”. We are telling people they may claim asylum in Rwanda but they can never come back here. No other country is doing that. Other countries are considering outsourcing the process and having the processing done abroad, but then the people could go on claiming asylum in the country they intended to go to. How does the Minister reconcile the statement that these people will never be sent to any country other than the UK with the Act, which we spent so long debating here and which I thoroughly disagreed with, that says they can never be sent back to the UK?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I agree with the noble Lord about the International Agreements Committee and the previous comments made there. The fact is that the International Agreements Committee is now getting its wish. Legally enforceable treaties should be the vehicle of choice; obviously, it will be scrutinised in both Houses of Parliament. As regards the apparent anomaly between what the Home Secretary has said and what the noble Lord has just pointed out, to respond to that would be to speculate as to what will be in the forthcoming legislation when I simply do not know. I will make sure that point is well made, and I hope to come back to the noble Lord with a strong answer very soon.

Asylum Applications Backlog

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No is the short answer. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the asylum system is not open to abuse. By promptly withdrawing asylum claims from non-compliant individuals, we are ensuring that decision-making resources are concentrated on those who genuinely wish to continue with their asylum claims within the UK. Asylum seekers can withdraw their claim, should they no longer wish to claim asylum in the UK, and may do so for a variety of reasons, including that they want to leave the UK or have permission to stay on another basis. Asylum claims may also be withdrawn where the individual fails to comply with the asylum process or absconds before a decision is made on their claim.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, will the Minister confirm that, as reported in today’s press, it will no longer be possible to charge to the aid programme the costs of asylum seekers whose claims are deemed inadmissible under the Illegal Migration Act?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have not seen the article to which the noble Lord refers. I will of course look at it and reply to him in due course.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9D in lieu—

9D: Clause 4, page 6, line 13, leave out “cannot be considered under the immigration rules” and insert “must be considered under the immigration rules if the person who made the claim has not been removed from the United Kingdom within six months of the day the claim is deemed inadmissible, subject to subsections (3B) and (3C).
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.(3B) For the purpose of calculating the period of six months under subsection (3), any period during which the person cannot be removed by virtue of section 46 (suspensive claims: duty to remove) is to be disregarded.(3C) Subsection (3) does not apply if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person.””

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, when the House last debated this issue, the noble Lord, Lord German, stressed the risk to the public purse as thousands are locked up while the search goes on for further Rwandas to send them to. I will not repeat his arguments. The House found them convincing and supported his Motion by a majority of 61; nor need I remind the House that neither my Motion nor the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, asks that those locked up for over six months be granted asylum. We ask simply that their cases be heard, as the refugee convention requires. Nothing in the Motion pre-judges the asylum adjudication procedure. It simply rules out the possibility—maybe the probability—of limbo, of extended inadmissibility gagged and incarcerated behind barbed wire.

I will make only three points, two new and one sadly familiar. First, the Minister, in arguing against the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord German, advanced only one argument—which he made again tonight. He said that it would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out to reach the six-month cut-off date. I suspect that the threat of being sent to Rwanda might be sufficient reason to seek a delay. However, in any case, the Minister’s point is met in the new version of the amendment. With all due respect to him, the change is substantive. The final subsection, proposed new subsection (3C), is new and means that nothing that a detainee does can advance the date on which the Government would have to countenance and begin to consider his application for asylum. Gaming the system would not be possible. If the Government’s concern was real, their objection is really met.

Secondly, the reason that the other place gave tonight for rejecting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and so many other amendments, was that it is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration. However, willing the end does not and cannot mean willing all and every possible means. Capital punishment might be an effective deterrent, as might tarring and feathering or hanging, drawing and quartering. Willing the end does not absolve Parliament from discriminating among possible means, distinguishing the acceptable from the unacceptable. Sine die incarceration, case unheard, surely falls on the wrong side of the line.

My third and final point is that the underlying issue here is simple and sadly familiar. Our debate has not been just about conventions and commitments. It has been about people, about common humanity. It is about whether the House and the country think that locking people up sine die is a fair and reasonable way to treat those fleeing oppression, famine and war—locking them up and denying them any chance to explain why they seek sanctuary here and what it is that they fear back home. Doing that was in no party’s election manifesto. The House has so far taken the view that it is not what the country should do. I hope that we shall maintain that view. I beg to move.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. I remind the House that this issue was raised at an earlier stage, either on Report or in ping-pong, by a Member of the Conservative Benches in this House. I also remind the House that how the law will be applied is not what the Minister says; it is what the law actually states. We are hearing from the Minister that in relation to unaccompanied children it will not be used very much, but that is absolutely not good enough. If the law allows unaccompanied children to be detained for well over 28 days—that is, unless the child gets to the tribunal, and how will the child know that he or she is to apply to the tribunal?—then under this law they could remain there indefinitely.

I have four points to make. First, there is a risk to the welfare of the child of this indefinite detention instead of the present 24-hour maximum—a very considerable increase. The Government talk about child-appropriate detention. I just wonder what that really means.

I am afraid that I have banged on to this House again and again about the Children Acts, but I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Children Acts on Home Office detention if the detention goes beyond just two or three days, because there is no parental responsibility. What happens, as a Conservative Peer said much earlier, if a child suffers a serious medical emergency? There is no one, particularly not in the Home Office, with the right to sign the consent form for a child. They would have to go to the court to get an emergency protection order for the child to be able to receive proper medical attention. It would be quite a good idea if the Home Office remembered that. I said it to it earlier, and so did the Conservative Peer, but it does not seem to have put that in its mind.

Secondly, I worry about the Department for Education. To what extent does it know the implications of the Bill? I get the impression that the members of the DfE in this House do not really have any knowledge of it.

Thirdly, there may be disputes between local authorities and the Home Office over a child being removed from local authority care under the Children Acts and taken into detention. What happens if there is a care order where a judge has ordered that a child should be living in a particular place under the care of a local authority? Is the Home Office really going to move the child where there has been a judicial order over where the child lives?

Fourthly, although I know this is not necessarily popular with many people, Article 5 of the human rights convention talks about detention. In due course I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government cannot accept any of the proposed amendments. I shall deal first with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to his Motion B1 and his amendment concerning a proposed subsection (3C) where subsection (3) would not apply

“if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person”.

I suggest that that phrase would generate a tidal wave of litigation were this amendment to be accepted. It would make the statute wholly uncertain and, I suggest, open a very large loophole in the scheme of the Bill.

I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in relation to the provisions concerning the responsibility in respect of children. I can reassure both the noble and learned Baroness and the right reverend Prelate that we are working closely with DfE on the implementation of this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the other propositions that they advanced.

Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord German, it is not our intention to “lock up children”, as he put it, under this Bill. It is our intention to have the power to do so should that be necessary in very rare circumstances. For those reasons, I invite the House to reject these amendments in the event that they are not withdrawn.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The Minister said at the outset that Motion B1 contained no substantive change. He has now asserted that it contains a change that would be unworkable, wrecking and mammoth. He ought to make up his mind; but I hope the House’s mind is made up that we are not prepared to see sine die incarceration. I ask to test the opinion of the House.

Support for Migrant Victims

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Noble Lords can rest assured that I will take this back. However, I have heard in many debates in the House in recent weeks calls for more evidence. The fact is that we have evidence and we are considering it carefully. Noble Lords should applaud that.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

There is a degree of urgency in this that the Minister is not acknowledging. We do not ratify Article 59 because it is still the Government’s policy that, other than those who benefit from the little pilot scheme, local authorities are not allowed to permit migrant women who are subject to domestic abuse to access shelters. This disgrace is going on and we should stop it as soon as possible.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have just outlined some of the other options available to the migrant women the noble Lord describes. They are far from without support. As I have alluded to, there is also a migrant victims protocol detailing other aspects of the work being done that will be published towards the end of this year.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced the government amendments to Clause 59, but I am sorry that they were limited in scope. When we had an exchange in Committee and I argued that the revision of the cap should take account of exogenous as well as endogenous factors, he told me that he thought he and I were not far apart. The cap level should not be determined simply by consultation with local authorities. It should take some account of famine, war, massacre, earthquake and natural disasters abroad, which are what tend to encourage the demand for asylum. He told me he did not think we were far apart and agreed to look at it, but I see no amendment. I regret that, but I guess that is where we are.

I support Amendment 163 and I particularly support Amendment 164, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I congratulate her, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on their courage in coming forward with such a sensible amendment.

Clause 60, which the Government have put in the Bill, is welcome, but the report it foresees is a purely descriptive document. It is not prescriptive. Amendment 164 calls for a further report which will be more purposive. The amendment is however quite modest; it does not attempt to point to any particular type of safe and regular route which the Government should explore. It does not suggest we take up the French offer of a processing centre in France, although for the life of me I do not know why we do not. It does not suggest we reconsider what seems to be a systematic reduction now going on in the number of family reunion cases we are allowing. It does not consider —this would fall foul of the ruling of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope—that we should change our advice to UNHCR on the number and types of resettlement cases that we will be prepared to take.

About 5,000 people from Iran who came into this country in 2022. It is an astonishing fact that 5,642 arrived by irregular routes and 10 by the regular resettlement route. That seems absurd and can be only on the basis of instructions to keep the flow to a minimum. The amendment does not suggest that we sift new applications for asylum in the same sensible way that the Home Office is now sifting those already in the queue from people who are here, waiting to have their case heard. There is no reason why a similar sift should not be conducted remotely.

If you are a young woman who has demonstrated in Tehran and is now on the run, and wanted by the authorities, there is no remote way in which you can register your wish for sanctuary in this country. We allow remote access to people who want to get into our immigration system, but we do not allow remote access to our asylum system. If you are safe where you are but simply want to live and work here, you may apply remotely on the internet or via diplomatic representation, although the internet is the more likely route. But if your life is at risk, if you are on the run, if you are in Kabul or Khartoum and you are wanted, if you are starving or if your tribe is being massacred, we will not consider your case for asylum in this country, unless you get here directly by some route that does not exist. That seems to me shaming. We cannot put that on our statute book; if we have to do so, let us at least add Amendment 164.

It is hypocrisy to pretend that the aim of the Bill is to stop the small boats. The most obvious way of stopping the small boats is to open new, regular routes. If we can do it for immigrants, by sifting their applications remotely, why can we not do it for asylum seekers? To refuse to do it for those fleeing for their lives—to refuse them even the possibility of applying for sanctuary here—seems a bit immoral, a bit illegal under international law, a bit hypocritical and entirely ineffectual, because it will keep the small boat men in business. I strongly support Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said and I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. During last year and this year, one of the criticisms we have heard in this House of the small boats and those coming across has been that they should have taken safe and legal routes; but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has demonstrated extremely clearly, there are absolutely no safe and legal routes at the moment, unless you go through UNHCR. For people like the woman fleeing Tehran, whose case was given as an example by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, there is no way she could get here.

If I may respectfully say so, it is hypocritical of the Government to suggest that there are routes that could have been taken to avoid taking the small boats. I deplore the small boats. I do not want to see any more of them. The dangers are appalling and I recognise the problems that the Government have but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, they need to provide safe routes. To suggest that these may be ready by the end of 2024 seems a nonsense; we need them now. If we are to get rid of the boats, we absolutely must have well-known, safe routes from somewhere in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and I have discussed this many times and agree about many things, but when he argues for excluding certain existing programmes—as he does in Amendment 162—we as a House need to remember that 60% to 70% of our fellow citizens think that this country is already crowded. Therefore, we—they—are entitled to know the overall number that this House thinks we can and should take. They are all terribly worth while and all ghastly experiences—the way people are treated will make your hair stand on end—but a number is important.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Does the noble Lord agree that we are talking about admission to the system, or admissible cases? We are not saying that all applicants’ asylum requests must be granted; we are talking merely about admissions into the system. I have not heard the noble Lord answer my argument for remote admissions.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The issue with remote admissions is that you completely lose control of the system, because it is run on a multibased system around the world. We need, quite simply, to be clear about the number we could admit into this country, under all these worthwhile systems—they may be run in the way the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, wishes, or the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wishes—and keep faith with the country’s ability to absorb it without undue social and economic strain.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her clarification of the statistic used in the earlier debate on age assessments.

Turning to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I am heartened to hear, and indeed I entirely agree with him, that this group particularly highlights a point on which all across the Chamber are agreed—that there should be safe and legal routes—and the question is about the mechanics of that safe and legal route and how it fits with the scheme in the Bill to deter people embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel. It is in the spirit of that consensus that I conclude this debate.

Before I turn to the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about Clauses 58 and 59, not least as this will provide important context for the examination of the amendments. This Bill will introduce for the first time a cap on the number of people entering the UK through safe and legal routes based on local authority capacity. Clause 58 sets out how that cap will be developed and agreed. In answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the cap is being introduced in recognition of the limited capacity that local authorities have to house and support through integration and local services, such as health and education, those in need of resettlement in the UK, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Green.

In recent years, following the fall of Kabul and the war in Ukraine, we have welcomed and provided sanctuary to larger numbers of people than we could comfortably manage because it was the right thing to do, and I appreciate the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made in relation to that. Going forward, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to debate and approve through the affirmative procedure—which I can confirm to the noble Lord—the numbers to be admitted to the UK each year through safe and legal routes. That is the purpose of Clause 58. Local authorities have been required to provide accommodation for these large cohorts and subsequently there is no longer sufficient capacity in our system for our UNHCR-referred global settlement schemes to function in the way in which they were intended.

At this point, I wish to clarify this route for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The UK’s global resettlement schemes do not involve an application process. Instead, those who have sought sanctuary in the first safe country should on arrival register with the relevant authorities as a person in need of international protection. The UNHCR is expertly placed to help the UK authorities identify and process vulnerable refugees who would benefit from resettlement in the UK and has responsibility for all out-of-country casework activity relating to our resettlement schemes.

I remind the Committee, especially my noble friend Lady Helic, that even under our current constraints between 2015 and March 2023 the UK resettled more than 28,400 individuals under UNHCR resettlement schemes, around half of whom were children. I should be clear that the cap does not remove any routes or change our willingness to help. However, consulting on capacity and developing the cap figure based on the response is the right way to continue offering resettlement pathways to the UK for those in need of our protection as part of a well-managed and sustainable migration system.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I apologise for missing the start of this debate as I was in a committee. Will the Minister explain why Clause 58 imposes a cap on the maximum number of people who may enter the United Kingdom, not the maximum number of asylum seekers, using safe and legal routes—in other words, tourists, businessmen, or whatever? They tend to come by safe and legal routes. I do not understand the drafting. Secondly, will the Minister consider the cart and horse problem? He has said more than once—I hope I have got it correctly—that once illegal immigration is under control the Government will create new safe and legal routes. However, the way of getting the illegal immigration problem under control is by creating safe and legal routes. Will he address that point?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I appreciate that the noble Lord was unable to be here at the beginning of the debate. I hope that Clause 58(1) makes it clear that the regulations must specify

“the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually using safe and legal routes”.

There is a cross-reference to subsection (7), where noble Lords will see that “safe and legal route” is a defined term. It means

“a route specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

Those regulations will clarify what that term means.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I understand the Minister’s point, but it does not answer the question that I asked: why does the clause talk about “persons” rather than asylum seekers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is because that is the structure of the legislation, and it simply makes for good parliamentary drafting. There it is. Forgive me: I shall make some progress because we have a lot of groups to deal with.

Clause 58 provides for the Home Secretary to consult local authorities, and any other organisation or person deemed suitable, to understand their capacity. The cap figure, and by extension the routes to be covered by the cap, will be considered and voted on in Parliament through a draft affirmative statutory instrument. The cap will not automatically apply to all current and new safe and legal routes that we offer or will introduce in the future. The policy intention is to manage the accommodation burden on local authorities, and my officials are currently considering which routes are most suitable to be included within the cap.

Alongside the cap on safe and legal routes, Clause 59 further requires the Home Secretary to publish a report on existing and any proposed new safe and legal routes. In response to the right reverend Prelate, we will continue to work with the UNHCR and other organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in devising proposed additional safe and legal routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In due course— I am very grateful. All these questions make it clear that bringing up legal migration is irrelevant to the Bill, a point that relates to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The issue for the Bill is that the UK Government and local authorities have limited capacity to provide or arrange accommodation, hence a sensible cap is needed. There are other questions we need answers to. Are these safe passage visas to be given to young single men at the expense of those in more pressing need of sanctuary in the UK?

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I hope the Minister will reflect before Report on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I do not recall a cap on Czechs in 1968 or on Hungarians in 1956. There was no cap on Germans and Austrians in 1938 and 1939. The reputational damage to this country done by the idea of a cap would be considerable. It could be defused if the Government would consider an amendment to Clause 58(3) which made it clear that a change of international circumstances, as well as a change of domestic circumstances, could create the need to change the number. To me, the horror is that we are doing this all endogenously, as if needs have nothing to do with what happens exogenously in the world out there—so if something awful happens in the world, we will pay no attention because we will be concerned about the consultation we had with local authorities about houses.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am not sure the noble Lord and I actually differ on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It seems to me that the impact on the national reputation of Britain is not relevant, given the provision for the cap to be varied in the event of an international emergency such as he outlined. As he will see, Clause 58(3) states:

“the Secretary of State considers that the number needs to be changed as a matter of urgency”.

He can provide that regulation to both Houses of Parliament without consulting, and therefore the matter will be capable of discussion and approval and the cap lifted. In reality, I do not think there is any risk to our national reputation as a place which takes its obligations of international protection seriously.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

Forgive me, I have taken an awful lot of interventions, and I am very conscious of the time. I ask the noble Lord to keep this intervention until the end and allow me to make some progress.

I will return to the amendment. If, on the other hand, some numerical limit is envisaged, these schemes will not stop the boats and they are not an alternative to the Bill. Those who do not qualify for a safe passage visa will continue to be exploited by the people smugglers, all too ready to continue to take their money on the false promise of a new life in the UK.

As I have set out, we are ready to expand existing safe and legal routes as we get a grip on illegal migration, and the Bill already provides for this. That is the way forward, not amendments which exacerbate the current challenges. I commend Clauses 58 and 59 to the Committee and invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I was very encouraged by the answer the Minister gave. He seems to be saying that the needs referred to in Clause 58(3) could be exogenous as well as endogenous: that the cap could be raised in response to an urgent need even if that need had nothing to do with housing here but something to do with massacre or war abroad. If that is the case, could that not be made clear in the Bill by a government amendment to Clause 58(3)?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

I can certainly think about that. I will take it away, but I do not think we are terribly far apart.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I have put my name to Amendments 134 and 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I will leave it to him to speak to them if he wishes to do so at any length. I support these amendments to ensure that we have accountability and review, and I do so on a probing basis.

I think the Minister who will reply to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has been subjected to a considerable amount of attrition on the Bill—which he has treated with commendable control and self-restraint. Few have been provoked as much as he has in this Chamber in recent years. That said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would confirm in his private conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is real concern in your Lordships’ House and in certain well-informed sectors in the country about the consequences of the Bill.

In the recent past we have had reviews—I and my noble friend Lord Anderson have been part of this in relation to terrorism—which have reported to Parliament in relation to controversial pieces of legislation that cause great concern, particularly to Members of the other place. I understand that, having been one. I simply ask the Government to take into account that such reviews are necessary in some form and to provide for accountability and review of the consequences of the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She made her case for transferring this responsibility from the Home Office to the Foreign Office on grounds of efficiency and good administration. In my totally unbiased view, it is of course the case that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a model of efficiency and good administration. But on practical grounds, I really do not agree with this.

There is a Foreign Office role. The role of the treaty section is monitoring, ratification procedures and quality control over the treaties that we sign. There is a role for legal advisers, referred to by the noble Baroness, monitoring the Government’s respect for their treaty obligations and, if necessary, reminding other departments of the obligations that we have taken on.

There could be a role for our posts abroad. I strongly support the proposal in Amendment 130 for the safe passage visa. It would be very good if our posts abroad were allowed, say, to filter out applications that are clearly not unfounded and to assist applicants with the electronic application system. That would be very good, but the trend in the Home Office, which the noble Baroness in my view correctly described, to move more and more to being a department of the interior, with a bit of homeland security, would be increased if responsibility for carrying out our treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers were transferred to another department.

Moreover, the Foreign Office really is not equipped to take on the enhanced teams required to deal with 178,000 applicants in the asylum queue. So, although I understand the noble Baroness’s motives and applaud her praise for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I am against this proposal.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the Minister ought to welcome Amendments 132, 134 and 135, because they simply ask for transparency of reporting back on the success of the Bill. The introduction says:

“The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.


Most of the arguments have been around the Government’s conviction that this is the right way to stop the boats. Many of us in this Committee believe that it will not stop the boats, that we will end up with large numbers of people being detained for indefinite periods and that it will cost a huge amount of money.

I quite happily accept that the Minister will probably say that practically these amendments cannot work with one month and might need a different timescale and so on, but they are basically saying, “Please report that this is doing what the Bill set out to do”. Really, I cannot see how the Government can object to being required to report on their own successes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I was pleased to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who added another sensible and rational Conservative Back-Bench voice to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Good heavens, I have just remembered that they are both former MEP colleagues of mine—not from the same political group, obviously—and perhaps that is where they learned a sensible approach to policy.

At first blush, the inclusion of this amendment with others about the asylum backlog might not seem the right context, but the rationale of the grouping is that, with such a big asylum backlog, the impact of not allowing asylum seekers to work is all the greater; not only are more people left to stew, unable to support themselves, but for longer. Some people wait not only months but years—many years in some cases—for resolution of their asylum claims.

To pick up something I said earlier, all of these attempts—most of them from the opposition parties but not entirely; there was lots of contribution from the Cross Benches—are trying, perhaps in a piecemeal way, to construct a more sensible asylum policy than is in this Bill or last year’s Bill. Many of us think that the Bill is not designed to work and that the mess will, I fear, be dumped on the next Government—I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, smiling. The Bill is designed to get the Government through the next election.

Some of us are trying to suggest elements of a more sane asylum policy—the Government could, with all the information resources at their disposal, go out and put a case to the public for why you need more sensible things to manage asylum. That is where this amendment, on the ability of asylum seekers to work, fits in. I happen to have put in the amendment that it would be after three months, but I am not particularly insistent on the time—it could be six months. The point is that, after the initial processing, and people having the ability to focus on something else, it makes sense to put people to work and give them the opportunity to contribute.

At the moment, people seeking asylum in the UK are effectively prohibited from working, such that they are forced to subsist on asylum support of £5.66 a day while they wait for a decision on their asylum claim. A lot of the public assume that such people are able to access welfare benefits and are just sitting idly in clover, but that is far from the case. They can apply for permission to work only if they have waited for a decision for over 12 months, and only for jobs on the Government’s highly restrictive shortage occupation list. This has not always been the case: until 2002, people were able to apply for permission to work if they had waited for a decision for more than six months, and only in 2010 was the right to work restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list. Today, almost seven in 10 people who are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim have been waiting for more than six months.

This forced inactivity is totally at odds with government policy, which, in most instances, aims to move people away from any kind of dependency and into work. It also increases the difficulty of integration for those who are eventually permitted to stay. I remember as an MEP dealing with a refugee from the Middle East. I never saw the end result of his case, but he came to me after about three and a half years. He was a doctor, but his skills were obviously deteriorating and he was losing status in his family because he could not support them, and generally he was in a very deteriorated state—mentally, physically and in his whole ability to live any kind of decent life. That is a personal and social tragedy.

Not being able to work increases the difficulty of integration for those eventually permitted to stay and puts an unnecessary cost on the public purse, even with £5.66 a day. The Lift The Ban coalition, which I applaud for its campaigning, estimates that reform of this policy could lead to a gain to the public purse of almost £200 million, about three-quarters of which would be from tax and national insurance contributions. A study by British Future found that 71% of the public supports the right to work after six months—my amendment says three months but, as I say, I am not hung up on that figure. One of the members of the Lift the Ban coalition is the CBI. I heard its new director-general, Rain Newton-Smith, on the Laura Kuenssberg Sunday morning programme the Sunday before last, calling for asylum seekers to be able to work, so this is not just the cause of those with a lefty-liberal axe to grind. Mind you, I look at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I would not dare put him in that category. It is because it makes sense, and makes sense for employers.

We have seen articles in the Financial Times saying the same thing. An article in Mach said that it is

“a human disaster for the refugees involved, and it hurts the economic prosperity of the places where asylum seekers live while waiting to have their claims processed”.

Another article of just over a year ago, under the headline,

“Keeping asylum seekers in limbo is bad for everyone”,


said:

“‘Human capital’ is damaged when people are shut out of labour markets”.


The article also made the point that:

“The UK stands out internationally for its reluctance to let asylum seekers work. In the EU”—


I remember, because I worked on that directive, and there was a fight over it—

“the law specifies they must be allowed access to the labour market after a maximum of nine months”.

The UK, which could choose whether to opt in, refused to opt in to that directive, for reasons that we will come to. The article continued by pointing out that many countries have shorter periods, with Sweden giving immediate access to its labour market, while Portugal puts just a one-month stay on it.

The argument for reform is that it would ensure that many people seeking asylum who have skills and experience in keyworker roles and the desire to contribute are able to do so. I know that we sometimes overuse the phrase no-brainer, but I suggest that this is one of those.

Another point is made by Professor David Cantor, director of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London, who says that the Government’s approach seems designed to push refugees into illegality. He asks:

“Why would a refugee present herself in good faith to the authorities on arrival, or stay in touch afterwards, if there is no prospect of protection, only detention and lack of status? If released on bail, why not simply disappear into irregularity?”


The ability to work would keep people plugged into the system, paying tax and national insurance, and they would necessarily be in touch with the Home Office—they would also have an incentive. They would not disappear into the shadows, but come forward and lawfully await the determination of their claim. That would put more order and sense into the system.

In January, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, replied to the following oral question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:

“Would the Minister agree that it would be better if those waiting in that internal queue were able to work—better for them, the Exchequer and the country?”—


very succinct. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, said:

“I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. It is clear that one of the major pull factors for people crossing the channel is that they hope to work in Britain”.—[Official Report, 17/1/23; col. 1700.]


This is replicating a debate that we had on the Nationality and Borders Bill last year. I should have mentioned it at the beginning, but in that debate, we were discussing an amendment led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She told me earlier that she would have liked to be here to participate in the debate today because she continues, with admirable consistency, to support this cause, but she unfortunately had another commitment that she had to go to. However, I remember —and I am afraid that I am going to repeat—a citation that I made a year or so ago of the report from the Migration Advisory Committee. That is an independent committee that advises the Government. In a report of December 2021—some of us know this bit by heart—it took issue with the Home Office’s assertion about a pull factor. The report concluded:

“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made”.


In other words, it is not made by making unsubstantiated assertions that every other commentator rebuts.

Indeed, the Home Office itself rebutted that assertion in a research report from September 2020 called Sovereign Borders: International Asylum Comparisons Report. It was produced by a unit called Home Office Analysis and Insight, and delightfully subtitled, Informing Decisions Through Evidence—which is what I think many of us would like the Home Office to do. One of its conclusions was:

“Economic rights do not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. A review of the relationship between Right to Work and numbers of asylum applications concluded that no study reported a long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice … Denied the right to work, many migrants may be forced to turn to clandestine work in highly insecure jobs in both the formal and informal labour markets to meet their basic needs”.


Perhaps it is not surprising that this report was labelled “Official Sensitive”, since if it got out into the public domain, it would be used to undercut the Government’s completely unsubstantiated assertions that the pull factor is the reason why they will not allow asylum seekers to work. Their own internal research, along with the independent Migration Advisory Committee, says: “You haven’t got a leg to stand on”.

There is no argument, except a gesture politics one, against allowing asylum seekers to work. Allowing people to work presses so many buttons in terms of their own personal well-being, the well-being of society and the well-being of the Exchequer. I hope that I will hear something positive from the Minister about this subject.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My name is on Amendment 133, and I had planned to make a speech debunking our friend the pull factor. Unfortunately, my speech has just been made rather brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Let me try something slightly different on the Government: since we last debated this issue during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act, the economic arguments for allowing asylum seekers the right to work have surely strengthened considerably. Our productivity problem is greater than it then was.