Lord German (LD)

My Lords, in moving Amendment 42, I shall speak also to Amendments 43 and 44 in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Hamwee—who, unfortunately, is unwell—and Lady Brinton. This group of amendments addresses the systemic failure to allow people seeking safety and justice in the United Kingdom the fundamental dignity of and opportunity to work. These proposals are not simply matters of compassion; they are pragmatic steps that align with economic self-interest and are essential for fixing a broken immigration system. The current restrictions on employment impose unnecessary costs on the taxpayer, cause misery and exacerbate the vulnerability of those fleeing persecution and exploitation. These three amendments would provide a future where efficiency, financial prudence and human dignity went hand in hand. Amendment 42 seeks to require the Secretary of State to grant asylum applicants the right to work if their application has been pending for more than three months. This measure would offer immediate, tangible benefits. First, tens of thousands of people are currently banned from working and remain forcibly dependent on state support. This dependency contributes significantly to the enormous expenditure on hotel accommodation, which alone costs around £8 million per day. Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget and the use of hotels, while simultaneously increasing revenue from both income tax and national insurance contributions. Allowing applicants to work ensures that successful refugees, who historically represent a majority of applicants, can stand on their own two feet much sooner. This would reduce the homelessness burden on local authorities and reduce state benefits claims following the move-on period. Work is integral to integration, cohesion and restoring human dignity. The Government’s ambition to clear the backlog is welcome, but we must be realistic. The proportion of people waiting six months or more for a decision has risen sharply over the last decade, reaching 59% at the end of 2024. The UK currently operates one of the most restrictive working policies compared with OECD member states such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, where asylum seekers gain the right to work much earlier. It is interesting that a defence from the Government here is often that the French Government say that we are too open to people coming to work, yet the French have a scheme that is more flexible and liberal than the one in this country. The argument that granting the right to work serves as a pull factor is unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little or no role in destination choice, whereas factors such as language and family networks are far more influential. In Committee, the Minister set out concerns that granting permission to work to asylum seekers would create a pull factor and undermine the work visa route. This is disputed by the Migration Advisory Committee, the Government’s own advisory committee. Logically, if it were a pull factor, the working rights in the United Kingdom would be more generous than in the country in Europe from which they leave. This is not the case, with the UK having one of the most restrictive policies on work, compared with some of our European neighbours. In countries such as France, Spain, Italy and Germany, people seeking asylum gain the right to work much earlier: after six months or three months, and in some countries even sooner. Lifting the ban on working would bring the UK in line with other OECD member states, so I ask the Minister for evidence that granting work rights would undermine the work visa route. If he is saying that people will claim asylum with no case for protection in order to obtain working rights, an effective system would refuse that case speedily, before three months, and return the individual. An effective system would deter people from doing this. Amendment 43 would give the right to work to potential victims of human trafficking and modern slavery in the national referral mechanism who have received a positive reasonable grounds decision and have been waiting for their conclusive grounds decision for more than three months. The median waiting time for a conclusive grounds decision in 2023 was 526 days, which caused prolonged enforced unemployment. Those who rely only on the national referral mechanism for financial support soon become destitute, especially if they are trying to support families back home, which in many cases is the reason they came to the UK. This destitution forces some victims into irregular work, putting them at risk of re-exploitation while they are meant to be recovering in a protective system. The stated purpose of the NRM is recovery from exploitation. Long-term unemployment is known to deteriorate mental health, due to a lack of purpose and agency. Granting the right to work is a significant component of recovery, restoring agency and dignity to survivors. There is no risk of this right creating a pull factor for the national referral mechanism, as individuals cannot self-refer: they must be identified through a mandatory two-step process involving a first responder and a Home Office competent authority. This amendment would enable people who are in the national referral mechanism to work. Amendment 44 seeks amendments to the Immigration Rules to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers held under the original overseas domestic worker visa from 1998 to 2012. This includes the crucial right to change employers and gain indefinite leave to remain. The previous visa regime, in place from 1998 to 2012, permitted workers the right to change employers, registering any such change with the Home Office, and the right to renew their visa if they could demonstrate that their labour as a domestic worker was still required. Such rights also acted as safeguards and were instrumental in preventing abuse, as well as stopping exploitation from escalating. It enabled workers to access reporting mechanisms to hold employers accountable while in the safety of alternative employment.