Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I supported this amendment in Committee. It has been quite improved and I therefore agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Cashman. I do not want to go over what they have said because they put the case clearly.

It must be welcome that this amendment would turn

“the duty into a power, to declare as inadmissible a human rights or asylum claim, which may not”

in the end

“be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”.

That to me is the nub of it and, therefore, the Secretary of State, instead of simply having a duty, would actually have a power to do something about it. There is an ability, under the Human Rights Act sometimes, for people to know that this has been breached—but who should then put it right? It seems that this Bill gives the opportunity to turn a duty into a power.

The amendment would also do another thing. It would create

“a duty to remove States from the Safe States list, if they are no longer safe”.

To have a list over which you cannot have the power or duty to do that can really prolong a misnomer. When people may have come from some places that were safe yesterday, but tomorrow are no longer safe, it seems to me that the Secretary of State needs to be given the duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is so changeable.

When South Sudan became independent everybody was full of rejoicing. I was involved with a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda, because I was hearing cases as a judge up in the north. After the sheer carnage that went on in South Sudan, where people’s lives were ruined and destroyed for so many years, peace came and everybody rejoiced. Who would have believed that it would not be long before warring factions were tearing that country apart? The carnage in Darfur was quite unbelievable.

Then what happened? Sudan was being ruled by a real dictator, but then that Government were overthrown, and overnight law and order began to collapse. It was not very long before two warring factions were tearing that country apart. Yes, we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations, but, my friends, we almost do not have the wherewithal to deal with such brutality.

Therefore, a country that was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess. We created a list of safe countries under that Act, so the Secretary of State should have the duty to remove such a country when it is judged to no longer be a safe country. This amendment is in keeping with that. I am very grateful to the Government for saying how much they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law. There is nothing here that is not supported by the rule of law, so I support this amendment.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. First, I apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is still not well. I know that she would have intended to support this amendment as it is now. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has presented us with a very neat solution to a problem that the Minister espoused in Committee. He has also sought—and I think this is the whole purpose of the amendment—to make sure that previously unworkable and satisfactory legislation is converted into something that has a sense of purpose and direction, and which is understandable and has clarity and definition within it.

In reply to my question in Committee as to why the Government are retaining Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, the Minister said that it would be right

“to retain the flexibility to expand the use of inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries that we would generally consider safe”.—[Official Report, 3/9/25; col. 825.]

That was the reason given for retaining that particular section.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just expressed the issue with the words “generally safe”. There are many countries that may be safe for some people but not for all people. The one that currently sticks out an absolute mile is Georgia. If someone has any political thought that has nothing to do with Georgian Dream, they will be imprisoned. I have lost count of the number of politicians who I—and, I know, other noble Lords in this House—have met, who said that the day after we met them they would be going back to go to prison because they were going to be arrested, simply because they were politicians who were elected by the people but who did not speak on behalf of the Government, and who were speaking out against the Government. While “generally considered safe” means that it is generally safe to send people to Georgia, we would be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know the disgraceful ways in which politicians have been treated in that country.

In conclusion, this amendment is a worthy solution to a problem that has been identified. In the context of the Government wanting to retain Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, they have before them a workable solution to make sense of it and convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position into something that is exactly the opposite. We on these Benches commend it.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, for his amendment and for his submission today, which I listened to carefully, on the case for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, the general issues of which we explored in Committee. That said, I regret that we cannot support his amendment—I do not think that will come as a massive surprise to him—because it would, in our view, weaken the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous Government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims. Consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord’s attempt to downgrade the duty under Section 80A to a power that “may”, rather than “must”, be exercised by the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I feel that I must, particularly about those who arrive here as children. Some in this House will know that I was a teacher in my professional life. I dare say that, on some days, some of those I taught showed bad character, but they were all completely redeemable. It is not a matter of how many people we have granted citizenship to until now; we would be bringing into the lives of these young people undue insecurity about their future. As others have said, this is a moral question, and it is so important that those of us in this House who are making these decisions look at things in the round. If we feel that something is a moral matter, we should stand by it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that my name is attached to this amendment, and I feel very strongly that the House should accept it.

I will not spend time talking about the issues that were raised in Committee: that it is a barrier to people becoming British citizenships, it is very costly, and people may not be able to use their valuable money in order to clarify whether they are part of an exception. We are also an outlier: I listed all the 33 countries—all the big ones in Europe—and nobody else does this. Then there is the whole issue about cohesion and integration, which has been so adequately put on the agenda by the right reverend Prelate.

I draw attention in particular to what will happen if the Government’s policy continues. It may be all right for people to get indefinite right to remain in this country as part of that journey, and it may be that that is where the Government want them to stop—to be people in this country who have only indefinite right to remain. But there are other parties—one of them sitting on my right-hand side here and one of them with a very small representation in the other place—which have a Bill before this Parliament, from the shadow Home Secretary, saying that people’s indefinite right to remain will be removed. So, at a glance, all these people who have entered this country as refugees, who currently have the right to remain in this country and will be given it, will suddenly have that stripped away, according to the Bill before the House of Commons.

The danger then, of course, is this. If the journey to getting citizenship in this country is 10 years—which is what the Government are proposing; it could be somewhat longer than that—and you come as a single person, marry somebody from this country, have children and send them to school, at the end of it all another Government might well say, “Thank you very much. You’re an outlier—you’ll have to go back”, and we would expel them from this country.

Just imagine what the consequence of that policy would be if carried through. This measure started in February this year. We are not talking about people who have come to this country in this immediate time, because it takes time to build up your relationship in this country, to contribute to it in the ways that we have heard from two Members of this House so powerfully today and to build up that good character. To do that, you then have to seek citizenship so that you can become a full member of our society. That journey is one which you will be judged on, but the Government propose to make that judgment right at the beginning, from February. So, people who come may be granted the right to be here because they are refugees and may be granted the right to remain, and they may even be granted the indefinite right to remain, but there are hostile partners in this Parliament, outside government at the moment, who would then say, “No, you cannot become a citizen, and if you’ve got indefinite leave to remain you will lose that right”, after many years.

I ask Members of this House, when they consider this matter, to think of it in the longer term as well as the shorter term. There will be amazing consequences from this right down the track. We are not expecting people who have come here since February to suddenly get citizenship. They have to prove the right to be in this country and that they are part of our society. They have to contribute to our society. It does not take much for us to look around this country and see people who have done just that. We are in danger of splitting up families, splitting up husbands and wives from each other, and leaving children in a state of limbo with a more hostile Government in place in this country. I ask your Lordships to think very carefully about the consequences of not supporting this important amendment.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for her speech. We recognise the principle behind this proposal. The good character test has been in place since 1981. It asks applicants for British citizenship to be of good character and is controlled by the guidance issued by the Home Office. The test must safeguard the integrity of citizenship but must also be applied with common sense and humanity.

However, while we understand and respect the intention behind this amendment, I am afraid we cannot support it. It would require the good character requirement to be applied in line with a wide range of international conventions. Decisions on who can become a British citizen should be for the UK Government applying national tests under domestic law. More broadly, we are cautious about references to multiple international bodies and agreements that could, in practice, limit the United Kingdom’s ability to manage its own borders and nationality system. Our view is that the UK must retain the freedom to make its own decisions on immigration and citizenship while still acting with fairness, decency and respect for human rights in our own right.

Of course, we are not opposed to the principle of international co-operation, but our domestic framework is set by Parliament and should serve the national interest. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment in its form.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, it is all very well saying that people who have come from a safe third country are not entitled to asylum here. That is the law; there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is in removing such people. These amendments provide no assistance in relation to that. People who have come here from France and Belgium, which are of course safe countries, cannot be removed to those countries—those countries will not have them back, other than under the scheme that the Government have agreed with France. So they cannot be removed there.

They are also not to be given asylum under these amendments, so are they to be removed to their own country? Are we really going to remove people who have arrived here unlawfully to countries where they face persecution? That seems intolerable to me. The problem is not saying that these people are not entitled to asylum; the problem is removing them from this country and these amendments make no contribution to that.

[Lord German (LD)]

I strongly support that intervention. The noble Lord, Lord Harper, referred to his interpretation of the letter. I prefer to rely on Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will refer to later, as the defence against the offence that he allegedly conducted in his letter.

These amendments target asylum and modern slavery claims made by those who have entered the UK irregularly. They risk compounding injustice and playing directly into the hands of the very criminals we seek to defeat. First, focusing on restriction of access to modern slavery protections for individuals, particularly those identified as illegal entrants, risks undermining the UK’s reputation for compliance with our international obligations, notably with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking. We must remember that victims of trafficking are frequently coerced into criminal activity and that extending disqualification criteria or imposing restrictions disproportionately affects genuine survivors of modern slavery.

Secondly, if these amendments aim to limit the judicial scrutiny of claims made by irregular arrivals seeking protection, they threaten the balance of fairness that underpins our legal system. Any such attempt would introduce legal uncertainty and risks violating individual human rights. Asylum legislation and decision-making must prioritise the principles of compliance with human rights obligations. We resist the temptation to craft legislation based on a political narrative that disregards the plight of those fleeing persecution and violence.

We must focus finite resources on those who truly need our help: the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. For these reasons, based on principles of compassion, international compliance and operational effectiveness against criminal exploitation, we reject these amendments.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, taken together, Amendments 65, 77 and 84 from the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, further amended by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in Amendments 65A and 77A, can be seen as another attempt to reinstate certain aims and objectives of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Rwanda plan. Again, as was the case with amendments discussed on the second day of Report, these proposals at points take a more unworkable approach than what has come before, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick— I hope he does not mind my praying him in aid—argued in his short but focused contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that our policies had failed. I simply point out to him that, whereas, as he mentioned, 400 asylum seeker hotels were in use under the previous Government, now it is around 200 and we have a plan to close them all by the end of the Parliament. We have seen more than 5,000 foreign national offenders deported over the last year, a 14% increase on the 12 months before. If that is what the noble Lord and his colleagues see as failure, that is perhaps a clue as to why their approach to tackling asylum and immigration failed so much itself.

I emphasise again that this Government have been clear in their approach to the Illegal Migration Act and its policy intentions. This Bill repeals it, aside from the six sections where we have identified operational benefit for retention. The Bill, as promised in our manifesto, fully repeals the Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 —a wholly unworkable scheme which cost this country around £700 million and which saw only four people leave the country, all of whom left voluntarily.

Amendment 65 seeks to reinstate Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act in a different form. This amendment would mandate the Secretary of State to refuse any asylum, protection or human rights claim made by a person who enters the United Kingdom from a safe third country illegally, provided they do not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were at risk, and regardless of the nature of the person’s claim. Amendment 65A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, would mandate refusal of a modern slavery claim on the same basis. This blanket approach would fail to factor in considerations around vulnerable groups, including children.

On Amendments 77 and 77A, I thank both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for their interest in the Government’s approach to third-country removal centres. However, I respectfully submit that these amendments are unnecessary. As the Prime Minister set out on 15 May, we are already actively exploring the establishment of return hubs with international partners. Our approach will be guided by what is workable. These hubs will facilitate the swift and dignified removal of failed asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal avenues to remain in the UK while they await redocumentation by their country of origin.

The effect of Amendment 77, together with Amendment 35A, discussed on day 2 of Report, would be to return to the Rwanda model by removing individuals whose asylum claims have not been determined and who are subject to the aforementioned duty to remove to a third country. The return hubs proposal is fundamentally different: it does not outsource asylum decision-making but instead targets those whose claims have already been fully considered by the Home Office and the courts and been found wanting.

We are committed to developing this policy in a way that is both workable and legally robust. As such, the Government cannot be held to timeframes on third country negotiations as set out in Amendment 77. Details of any agreement and associated policy will be made publicly available when the time is right. I therefore urge noble Lords not to move their amendments, on the basis that they not only duplicate work already in train but constrict that work and militate against the Government’s aim to conclude a mutually beneficial partnership in a timeframe that works for both parties.

These amendments would undermine the integrity of the UK’s immigration and asylum system and put the UK in conflict with its obligations under the refugee convention, the ECHR and the anti-trafficking convention. They would serve only to prevent asylum decision-making, increase the backlog of asylum cases awaiting an outcome and put impossible pressure on asylum accommodation, with significant costs to taxpayers. We also cannot ignore the fact that these amendments fail to take into account the needs of vulnerable individuals, including children and victims of modern slavery. I therefore invite the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

70: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Humanitarian travel permit(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person, subject to subsection (2).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish a monthly cap of the number of applications that may be granted under subsection (1).(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom,(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success, and(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted,(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom,(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has, and(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.(5) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.(6) The requirements are—(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).(7) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).(8) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. (9) A condition under subsection (8) must include the provision of biometric information under section 34 of this Act.(10) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.(11) For the purposes of this section—(a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1),(b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971,(c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—(i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”),(ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection, or(iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”),(d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention, and(e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment would remove the smugglers’ business by creating a safer legal route. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord German]

73: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Temporary asylum processing units(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make such provision as is necessary to enable him or her to develop and provide temporary facilities for the expedited assessment of asylum applications or to enable other persons to do so and for the subsequent cessation of such use and the restoration of land.(2) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult any local authorities likely to be affected and such other persons as he or she considers appropriate.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the creation of ‘Nightingale’ processing units to speed up the process of clearing the backlog of asylum applications.

[Lord German (LD)]

This amendment seeks to set up processing centres to clear the backlog and remove the need for asylum hotels. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 78 is a saving provision to protect the immigration rights of the Chagossian community, notwithstanding any agreement the Government may make with Mauritius. This is neither the time nor the place to revisit the arguments made in this House and the other place regarding the Diego Garcia military base Bill, but I thank the Government for agreeing not to proceed with Report stage of that Bill until the new year, following calls from these Benches for additional time for further scrutiny. We fundamentally disagree with the Government’s agreement with Mauritius, but if it is to be implemented, the Chagossians must have their say and Ministers must listen.

This new clause would give the Chagossian community the peace of mind and security of immigration status they deserve, and I urge the Government to take this opportunity to do the right thing and protect the Chagossians from any future weakening of their immigration rights as a result of any agreement with Mauritius. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment because it would protect the rights of Chagossians. After the treaty enters into force, Chagossians will not be able to apply for British Overseas Territories citizenship under the route that was set up in 2022. Those who currently hold British Overseas Territories citizenship through their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory will not be able to pass it down to descendants born after the treaty enters into force. If any Chagossian who has claimed BOT citizenship has a child born before entry into force, that child will automatically hold British Overseas Territories citizenship and does not need to make an application under the 2022 route before entry into force. If any member of the Chagossian community does not already have British Overseas Territories citizenship and would like to claim it based on their connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory, they will be able to do that through the 2022 route until the treaty enters into force. That is the issue about which we need an explanation. That protection of rights ends when the treaty comes into force.

I remind the House that the International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, discussed this matter and took evidence from Ministers. The summary of the evidence received was as follows:

“We regret that members of the Chagossian community feel that their interests were not sufficiently taken account of in the negotiation of this agreement”.


With that knowledge, it is important that we secure the rights of Chagossians—not just resettlement in the Chagos islands themselves, but that the status the United Kingdom has given them is protected.