Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I really enjoyed that speech. I was thinking more of the “1812 Overture” than the “Rite of Spring”, given how many borders and immigration Bills I have been through here and in the House of Commons. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister. I thank him for his openness and willingness to listen and to discuss with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary the issues that many of us are raising with him.

The Bill, together with the White Paper, has many good suggestions and ways forward. Quite a number have been mentioned already, including the removal of criminals from our country, which actually undermine the legitimacy of our border policy and the welcome that people in this country generally wish to give to asylum seekers.

It is wonderful that we are setting aside the legacy of Suella Braverman and the absurdity of the Rwanda suggestion. Now that it has gone, the Government have been able to start processing at some real speed. The Government have started to use this terrible Civil Service phrase that has crept into speeches as well as written material and letters, which is that they are “working at pace”. It is a terrible phrase. I really hope that people stop using it. It is a bit like “Stand ready”, which means “We are doing absolutely nothing”. We really have to talk normally. But the speeding up of the processing has been quite remarkable, as has the removal of people from the country who had no right to be here, and the Government deserve real credit for achieving that over the last 11 months. Asylum has now fallen substantially, which gives us a chance, I hope, to have rational and sensible debates about what needs to be done.

Mention has been made of More in Common, which is now the favoured political polling company. The truth is, and anybody who goes and speaks to people in communities such as the one I live in and used to represent knows, that it is the small boats crossing the channel that is worrying people. By its very nature it is going to worry them, not just because of the daily count and the reporting in the newspapers, but because of the danger and worry that people legitimately have for what is happening with organised criminality.

My suggestions, which have not yet been taken up, are twofold. One is that the new relationship with the President of France that has been developed by the Prime Minister could lead us to develop a licensing scheme for parts of boats so that they could not be purchased, transported or sold to people in France. That would immediately have a major impact on the ability of the French to intervene in the warehouses and transportation. The other would be that we build on Clause 45 of the Bill, which provides for electronic visas and documentation. Given that we have got the new NHS moves to digitalisation, the DVLA electronic programme, the unique pupil identifier and the so-called government digital wallet, it is time we had a sensible identity system for everyone, and that way, we could stop illegal working and access to public services by those who did not have the right to be here.

I have a real worry about the attitude on naturalisation in the Bill and the White Paper. Naturalisation is something we should be strongly in favour of. I have had very good discussions with my noble friend the Minister about this, and I understand the difficulties he faces. Because we are setting aside the awful legislation that we had to deal with, there is no legitimacy in or excuse for saying that those whose assigned claims can be processed should not be able to move in exactly the same way as others towards naturalisation. It is really unfortunate because it undermines our credibility in every other area in which we are now taking steps to reassure the world that we are committed to our international obligations and to the way in which we carry through our legal requirements.

I ask the Minister to please think again because it is bad for integration. Why would people want to stay here and not want to integrate? If they want to go home that is absolutely fine. The real problem now is people who are here legitimately on other visas, who then attempt to claim asylum when their visa stay is over. We could deal with that very easily by ruling out asylum for those whose country of origin has not had any material changes in terms of the threat to their life and the danger to their liberty. So let us try to get some balance into this at the same time as very strongly welcoming the measures that are being taken.

I have one final, small thing to ask my noble friend the Minister: please go back to the White Paper and set aside the notion of a surcharge on overseas students. It is a particularly pernicious and unpleasant measure, and unless the Home Office and the Department for Education get their act together and understand that when people pay for a service, when that service is provided at full cost when those costs allow us to cross-reference into research and to maintain our university system, we retain our reputation across the world. When we start to pull the plug on it, we do ourselves damage for no good reason whatever. I have not met anybody, even a Reform voter, who thinks it is a bad idea to encourage overseas students to pay large sums of money to receive a service and then to go back home and tell the world what a wonderful place the United Kingdom really is.