Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Southwark Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, the diocese in which I serve covers one of the most diverse parts of the country. Indeed, arguably, south London is one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. This diversity is often represented in our churches, which have benefited, as has the rest of the country, from the great human fact of migration. It would be good to hear some recognition of this in government and Home Office statements.

It is worth stressing that the vast majority of migrants to this country come here properly under the Immigration Rules, and thus there is no proper sense in which their arrival and settlement can be described as uncontrolled. The Government of the day may, for good reasons of public policy, wish to alter the rules or introduce fresh primary legislation, but that does not mean that a system and process is not in place, that applications are not assessed and fees paid, and that the results do not match what Parliament has sanctioned.

Should this Bill pass, it will be, I think, the 13th piece of primary legislation on immigration since 1997. No one should doubt the interest of successive Governments in this subject. Indeed, I wish to congratulate His Majesty’s Government on recently publishing a White Paper on their further intentions in this area, something that had happened only once since 2002. The return of more regular engagement on major issues of policy is to be welcomed. The repeal of provisions in the safety of Rwanda Act is also welcome, although I note with concern what has been said in this debate about the weakening of the provisions of modern slavery legislation.

I wish to make a point about resources which I believe is relevant to the Bill and its impact. The Bill is concerned to a significant extent with enforcement, not least with the effectiveness and statutory footing of a new border security command. But the business of managing migration into the UK is a resource-intensive activity, and I fear that attempts to substitute more draconian sanctions in a concertina of legislation down the years is no substitute for the resources needed to train and staff border control, casework, intelligence and enforcement. The result is backlogs, asylum accommodation—which in some instances resembles a dystopian novel—and a detention estate which repeatedly fails inspection. No conceptual framework sketched out in Explanatory Notes will compensate for an absence of staff or mitigate hurried and arbitrary decisions where more nuanced consideration is required.

I appreciate that such comments are unwelcome in the closing days of a spending review, but please consider this. The pressure of those who wish to come to Europe is not mitigated by the abandoning of our commitment of 0.7% of GDP to aid. The allocation of billions of pounds of the aid budget to support asylum and refugee costs in this country is not matched by any other G7 country. In 2024, it was just over £2.8 billion. The Prime Minister, in recently announcing a further reduction in aid spending to 0.3% of GDP, stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is no longer to be the spender or saver of last resort. That, at least, is welcome, as is the announcement that it will no longer be expected to meet unpredicted rises in refugee costs during the year.

But these Benches have never welcomed diverting humanitarian and development aid to other purposes. On pragmatic grounds alone, to do so raises migratory pressures and increases the influence of those whose geopolitical objectives are contrary to our own. Might there be space in this Bill for something addressing safe and legal routes and the nexus of humanitarian crises, if the Government are minded to do so at this point?

The Bill references powers to detain. I end by drawing the Minister’s attention to the Refugee & Migrant Advice Service alternative to detention pilot, a community-based alternative to detention, sponsored jointly by the Home Office and UNHCR between 2020 and 2022. The cost was significantly less than that of detention, it was more congenial to participants and I understand that the absconding rate was low. Ministers at the time decided not to pursue it further. I ask the Minister whether the current Government might revisit the pilot and consider greater use of this approach. I look forward to his summing up.