Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Lords Chamber

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, welcomes the extension to the Ukraine permission scheme, and I agree. But, as I understand it, this is through Homes for Ukraine, sponsorship often being the only scheme open. Is this in fact the case? If so, do we have the necessary volunteers? I have written “et cetera, et cetera” because I realise that by this time I have more than taxed the patience of the House, but one of the et ceteras is a report today that the respected Professor Jonathan Portes, using Home Office data, estimates the savings from this raft of proposals to be about £600 million, which is 6% of the Home Office claim of £10 billion. One of the refugee support organisations put it as, “Bad for refugees, bad for communities, bad for the economy”. I will add, and I think this follows the noble Lord, Lord Davies, “Bad for our own sense of self-worth and self-respect as a country”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for bringing forward these regret Motions. Both Motions relate to issues that concern the effectiveness and fairness of our immigration system. I reiterate at the outset that the Conservatives broadly support the direction of travel reflected in these changes to the Immigration Rules: we have long argued for a firmer and more controlled system. We therefore welcome elements of these changes, including the move towards temporary refugee status and the increase in requirements for settlement. These are steps in the right direction and reflect arguments that have been consistently made by the Conservative Party. However, there are details which require further scrutiny, and the key question is whether these measures can deliver a system that is effective and sustainable.

Several concerns raised in these regret Motions merit serious consideration. Regarding the asylum backlog and continued use of hotels, it remains unclear how the proposed changes alone will achieve the Government’s stated aims. Despite a range of reforms, the number of individuals in receipt of asylum support remains high and pressures on accommodation persist. More than 30,000 individuals remain housed in asylum hotels, at significant cost to the taxpayer, and it would therefore be helpful if the Minister could set out how these specific changes will contribute to reducing the backlog and ending the use of hotels.

Similarly, we share concerns raised regarding the potential for increased bureaucracy in relation to the move towards shorter periods of refugee leave and more frequent reassessments. While we support the principle of temporary status, there is a legitimate question as to whether the system has the capacity to manage repeated reviews efficiently, without adding further strain to an already stretched Home Office.

On integration, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raises topical points. It is essential that those who are granted protection can integrate effectively into British society. There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that status is not automatically permanent and providing sufficient stability for individuals to build their lives and integrate. I would be grateful if the Minister could address how the Government intend to maintain that balance in practice.

On the concerns raised about the absence of impact assessments, particularly in relation to children and equality considerations, it would be helpful for the Minister to tell the House what analysis the Government have undertaken in these areas.