Lord German:

Moved by Lord German

164: After Clause 48, insert the following Clause—“Additional safe and legal routesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations to—(a) provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully, and(b) specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”Member's explanatory statementThis new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes under the UK Settlement Scheme, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 164, I will speak to Amendment 173, which is also in my name. Both amendments are measures that seek to address the significant gap in this Bill: the lack of safe and legal routes for those seeking protection in the United Kingdom.

While we welcome the measures in this Bill aimed at tackling criminal gangs and reducing deaths in the channel, the Bill as currently drafted is, as described by the Minister, designed to “beat” or “smash” the gangs—depending on the language the Minister was using at any given time. The Bill is therefore heavy on the supply side, taking strong measures to deal with the smugglers and gangs, but light on actions to support asylum seekers on a safe journey to the United Kingdom, thereby denying the smuggling gangs their trade. This imbalance is concerning. We on these Benches support a controlled, humane, ordered and planned migration system that encompasses both stopping dangerous journeys and creating safe routes to asylum.

Of those who currently travel here by small boats, 74% are successful with their asylum claims—and that is before any appeals are even considered. That is evidence that many arriving via dangerous routes are genuinely in need of protection, yet they currently have a negligible or non-existent way to enter this country safely. The path to securing our border, as described in the Bill, will not by itself curtail irregular migration. Having safe routes must be an integral part of our strategy to try to divert people from the treacherous routes that they choose.

This does not mean an open border. It means that we can more effectively control the numbers who come. The Hillmore agreement with France is a currently small-scale example of a safe route. If you want to reduce the numbers of people fleeing persecution who use smuggling networks to reach the UK for protection, they need to have an alternative route that changes their calculations and decision-making. I will return to the French example later.

Amendment 164, which concerns additional safe and legal routes, would require the Secretary of State within six months of the passing of this Act

“to provide an increased multi annual quota for the safe and legal route provided by the UK Resettlement Scheme … and … specify additional safe and legal routes under the UK Resettlement Scheme through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully”.

The UK resettlement scheme originated from the resettlement programme in response to the crisis with Syrian refugees in 2015 and provides a way for a UNHCR-recognised refugee to come to the United Kingdom. The value is that the arrival is planned; the refugees are prepared for arrival in the UK, with cultural orientation prior to departure. The receiving local authority or community group has prepared for their arrival and support is ready.

The UK resettlement scheme operates through a quota. In an Oral Question to the Minister, I received a reply which indicated that no quota for 2025 had been supplied to the UNHCR. Is this still the case? Can the Minister confirm whether a quota has been given for 2025 and, if so, for how many people? As I understand it, the last multi-year quota was given by the Cameron Government. The Minister may recall that, last week, he met some of the last three families who have come here from Sudan after being in the Cameron Government quota for at least the last six years. This demonstrates that people are prepared to wait in a queue, provided that the queue is moving, however slowly. The process is very similar to that of Biden Administration in Haiti, where the number of irregular movements dropped away to virtually nothing once people got themselves into the queue.

This new Clause is vital. It would allow us to offer an alternative to dangerous journeys, which will, in turn, help break the business model of criminal gangs, reduce the number of cases in the appeals process and, crucially, save lives. Without offering alternative safe routes, people are likely to continue to seek ever more dangerous methods to find safety. This amendment provides a positive and proactive response to the mix of solutions being undertaken.

Amendment 173 introduces the humanitarian travel permit. Under our existing legislation—which is not touched by this Bill—no one can claim asylum in the UK unless they are physically in the UK. However, it is not necessary to conduct the whole asylum claim process from within the UK. The new deal with France produces an element of triaging for those who will be admitted in that country; in other words, taking the most likely people who are eligible for settled status. While we do not yet have the full details of the scheme, the Government’s statements thus far indicate that this is the approach being taken.

Amendment 173 replicates that process for applications further back in the journey. Under this provision, the appropriate decision-maker must grant entry clearance to a person if satisfied that they are a relevant person. The definition of “serious harm” for this permit is 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)”.

This provides a clear, principled basis for granting protection.

By proactively creating and expanding safe routes, we can deter dangerous, irregular migration, enhance our ability to tackle criminal networks, and ensure a more humane and orderly system for all. These amendments are not merely about mitigating harm; they are about offering a positive and effective framework for migration.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 203B and 203C in this grouping, which I have signed, but I am largely speaking on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who, as noble Lords have heard, has been involved in quite a serious accident where it was very lucky that lives were not lost. It was the recent bus crash at Victoria. I know that we all wish him a speedy recovery.

I begin by declaring my interests. I serve as co-chair of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, I am a patron of Hong Kong Watch, and I have been working closely with the international legal team fighting for the release of Jimmy Lai, the imprisoned pro-democracy publisher in Hong Kong who is a British citizen and whose politically motivated show trial has just concluded.

This Amendment concerns the British national (overseas) visa route, a scheme established not as an economic migration pathway but as a humanitarian commitment. It is rooted in our history, in treaty obligations under the Sino-British joint declaration, and in the moral promise made by this country to the people of Hong Kong when we handed over sovereignty in 1997.

When Britain created the BNO route, it did so in response to Beijing’s breach of its international obligations. Hong Kong’s freedoms, judicial independence, freedom of expression and democratic participation have been stripped away. Brave men and women who stood for liberty have been arrested, silenced and exiled, and we in Britain recognised that we had a duty to provide sanctuary and a future to those Hong Kongers who still held a form of British nationality but lacked a right of abode.

Now, however, that promise is at risk. The Government’s recent white paper proposes doubling the standard time to settlement from five to 10 years, and it is not clear which visa routes will be affected. Without this amendment, the BNO route, which has become a lifeline for 200,000 Hong Kongers already here, could be fundamentally weakened by ministerial fiat, without proper scrutiny by Parliament.

I underline here that the BN scheme was a substitute for accountability. To this day, we have still failed to sanction a single individual responsible for the outrages in that city, which directly affect the UK and our treaty obligations. We have been scared of seeking to hold Beijing to account, and instead we created this scheme. It is, and was, the very least we could do.

Let me be plain: if we change the rules mid-way, we will be moving the goalposts for families who have already uprooted their lives on the basis of Britain’s word. We will be telling young people who came here expecting to settle after five years that they must now wait a decade, and that their children may be unable to secure citizenship until their teenage years. We will be placing unbearable financial strain on families who plan their children’s education around home fee status, only to find themselves burdened with international tuition fees beyond their means. We will be leaving pro-democracy activists forced into exile without the consular protection they so desperately need when they travel. We will be stripping Hong Kongers of a firm sense of identity, many unable to renew their SAR passports and withdraw their pensions.

BNOs are not entitled to welfare; they pay an NHS surcharge. Nobody has ever attempted to characterise this group as abusing the system. They have accepted the terms offered to them, which deny them the privileges associated with British citizenship for six years. It is wrong to dangle this carrot and whisk it away again as their home city, which the UK signed a treaty to protect, is burning.

Beyond the human cost, there is the reputational cost. Credibility is the coin of international politics. If Britain retreats from its commitments to Hong Kongers, the message to Beijing will be clear that we do not stand by our word. Our allies too will take note, and we cannot expect others to trust us on human rights, security and treaty obligations if we renege on this promise.

This amendment does not create new rights; it merely preserves the existing five-year pathway to a settlement and requires that any fundamental change be made openly through primary legislation, rather than being slipped in by secondary rules. That is not radical; it is responsible. It is Parliament doing its duty to those who place their trust in us. While there may be rumblings on the front bench about the legal mechanism that we have chosen here and it may seem unusual to prevent the repeal of sui generis in Immigration Rules by primary legislation, we are assured by a former Clerk of the Parliaments both that there is precedent for it and that it is good idea to prevent the use of Henry VIII powers—and I believe that the Government indicated that at one stage.

There is nothing wrong with this modest amendment, either in its drafting or timing. It is germane to the purposes of the Bill and is desperately needed to give succour to a group of newly arrived Hong Kong people, who more than deserve it. In defending the BNO route, we are not only protecting vulnerable families but upholding Britain’s honour, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Amendment 203C ensures that Ukrainians barbarically torn from their homes and given a safe haven in the UK are not forced to have that chance taken away. Without a clear pathway to indefinite leave to remain, the relief given to Ukrainians under resettlement schemes amounts merely to a false promise. The third anniversary of Russia’s tyrannical and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine passed in February. There remains no prospect for refugees to return safely, as Putin continues to bomb the country with no ceasefire in sight, despite promises to the contrary.

More than 2.5 million homes have been damaged and destroyed. Russia has chosen terror as its weapon, bombing schools, reducing hospitals to dust, shattering infrastructure, and so preventing people from returning. Russian soldiers use rape as a tool of war, turning human dignity into another battlefield, leaving scars that no rebuilding can ever erase; I know that because I have been working on the war crimes on behalf of President Zelensky and his office.

Russian soldiers also aim to destroy the fundamental fabric of society by tearing children from their families. I have led the unit that is working on the return of children. They have forcibly transferred them and trapped them in Russian-occupied territories, or deported them far into Russia itself, where they are subjected to indoctrination designed to erase their Ukrainian identity. They are told to forget their language, flag and history and are instead pressured to embrace the very regime that destroyed their homes.

This has been the reality for the Ukrainian people for over three years, and it continues each passing day. For that reason, in March 2022, the UK introduced its primary settlement scheme for Ukrainian refugees. At that point, it was unimaginable that this horrific war would continue for this long, and therefore the three-year visa period under those circumstances seemed viable. Realising that this time period was insufficient, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced, allowing refugees under existing schemes to apply for an additional 18 months’ leave to remain. Although well-meaning, this programme was grossly insufficient in delivering security and stability to Ukrainians.

I know that we are short of time, but I must add that a BBC survey of 1,333 Ukrainians found that 41% of them lost a new job opportunity due to visa uncertainty, and 26% did not have their tenancy renewed. The process is a cliff edge, and it takes the future of refugees back out of their own hands. This has serious consequences, and it would be inconsistent with the Government’s condemnation of Russian despotism to make a U-turn now and deny support to the people most affected by it.

This amendment should not be viewed as creating new policy but, rather, as standard procedure when existing policy needs to adapt to changed circumstances. The war has lasted much longer than we envisaged. Three years of support to Ukrainians was not enough; with the war raging on, 18 more months will probably not be enough either. We must respond to the reality on the ground, and I have little confidence in the offers currently made by the United States of America.

In supporting a pathway to indefinite leave to remain, we domestically adapt policy to reality, we support the victims of this war, and we continue to position the UK as a global leader in standing up against despotism and in defending democracy. I beg to move.

My Lords, in speaking to the amendments in this group, I make it clear that we all recognise the importance of ensuring that those who come to this country do so safely and legally. That principle is not in dispute, and earlier today I already referred to Homes for Ukraine and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. However, I am concerned that some of the amendments before us would unreasonably tie the hands of any Government in a way that would be neither practical nor wise.

On Amendment 164, the reality is that migration flows are shaped by global crises and events over which we have little control, whether conflict, natural disaster or political instability. To legislate now for a mandatory increase in quotas and routes, regardless of future circumstances, is to commit ourselves to a policy framework that may not reflect the realities of tomorrow. We should allow the Government of the day the flexibility to respond to events as they arise, not bind them with artificial statutory requirements.

I made the point earlier that public confidence in our migration system is a precious and finite resource. The British people have made it clear that they want overall migration numbers to come down. If we ignore that, we risk undermining the very public support on which the sustainability of safe and legal routes depends. For those reasons, while I accept the good intentions of this amendment, I believe that it would make for poor legislation and cannot support it.

On Amendment 173 and the humanitarian travel permit, I am afraid that I must once again position myself against this proposal. Proposed new subsection (1) would oblige an appropriate decision-maker to grant entry clearance if satisfied that a person is a relevant person. That test is defined in proposed new subsection (2) in extraordinarily broad terms. The applicant merely

“intends to make a protection claim” that would have a realistic prospect of success, and

“there are serious and compelling reasons” for that claim to be considered here.

Yet how are these serious and compelling reasons to be assessed? Proposed new subsection (3) would require consideration of matters such as the applicant’s risk of persecution, their family ties and their health and vulnerabilities, all of which would have to be determined remotely from overseas without the proper safeguards or full knowledge that in-country processes allow. That is a recipe for abuse, dishonesty and serious error, as well as a massive increase in the administrative and operational burden which is creating the inertia that we already see in our asylum system as it stands.

Proposed new subsection (4) would compel the decision-maker to waive the usual requirements under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 and the Biometric provisions of the UK Borders Act 2007 if the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to comply. In other words, the very security checks that are in place to protect the integrity of our borders could be set aside. It is reckless to propose that we water down the safeguards currently in place when the threat we face is far from hypothetical.

Proposed new subsection (6) would remove the fee for such an application, further incentivising volume and adding yet more pressure on an overstretched system. Most concerning of all, proposed new subsection (7) guarantees a minimum grant of six months’ leave to enter, baseline rights to remain conferred in advance of any asylum determination. Proposed new subsection (8) goes further still, deeming the protection claim to be made the moment that the individual sets foot in the United Kingdom.

The consequences are obvious. This would place an immense burden on our border authorities. It would substantially reduce oversight of who is arriving and worsen the very delays which the asylum system is already struggling with. I suggest respectfully that these amendments ignore the reality that the British people feel that our system is already out of control, too lenient and too open to abuse, and that this would take us in precisely the opposite direction to that which the public demand. It is an invitation to expand the system to breaking point. My concerns are shared by other noble Lords. Although my noble friend Lord Jackson is not in his place, I welcome the changes proposed in his Amendment 174.

Finally, on Amendments 203B and 203C, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, this Committee will know that the BNO visa route has been a vital scheme, reflecting our historic obligations and our modern responsibilities. It has provided a lifeline to many who sought refuge here and it has been source of pride that the United Kingdom has upheld it with fairness and dignity. Amendment 203B seeks to place the BNO on a statutory footing. I can understand the motivation behind that: to provide reassurance and stability to those who have already made their lives here and who rely on the existing pathway to settlement after five years of lawful residence. That principle of safeguarding continuity in such a scheme is one that I support.

I approach the proposal with a small degree of caution, in that we must always be mindful of hardwiring provisions into statute that could have implications for flexibility in government policy and for how immigration law is best managed. It is not immediately clear that this is the most appropriate legislative vehicle, but I hope that the Minister can use this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do Ministers remain fully committed to the BNO route as it currently operates, and have they given thought to whether such statutory underpinning of the scheme as suggested in this amendment might give greater reassurance without unduly constraining future policy-making? I look forward to hearing the Ministers’ views—I am looking at both Ministers.

Perhaps I can briefly cover the final amendment in this group, Amendment 203C. I am proud, and I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee are proud, of the support that this country has provided to those from Ukraine who have sought refuge here. At a time of great hardship, we have stood alongside our ally and her people, and I am glad that this is a point on which we can all agree. It is a developing situation, and I know that all of us here share the same wish that all Ukrainians should one day be able to return to a country that is safe, secure and free from the tyranny of Russia. Until that day comes, however, we must ensure that our support for those in need continues. On that basis I would welcome an update from the Minister on this, and an assurance that those who require our help from Ukraine will continue to receive it.

Can the noble Lord be tempted to express support for Amendment 203C? On his test of support by the British public, there can be no doubt that the British public support Ukrainians who are here.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, at such a late hour, for their contributions, and I add my good wishes for a speedy recovery to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I very much welcome the opportunity to hear from my noble friend—my very good friend—Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

This group includes Amendments 164, 173, 174, 203B and 203C, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Jackson and Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, relating to safe and legal routes. I begin by reaffirming the United Kingdom’s proud record of offering sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution and oppression around the world. It is fundamental, a cornerstone of our international reputation. The UK operates global safe and legal routes for refugees, including the UK resettlement scheme, in partnership with the UN Refugee Agency, the UNHCR. As the noble Lord, Lord German, referenced, the UNHCR assesses refugees living in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities and identifies who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK.

We do not seek to influence the cases referred to us by the UNHCR. This ensures that refugees from across the world can access a safe and legal route to the UK. Alongside this, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary, as noble Lords have mentioned, for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. There is no provision within our immigration routes for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum. While we of course sympathise with people in many difficult situations around the world, I am afraid we could not consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. Those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord German, has been concerned about safe and legal routes for a long time. They are an important part of the Government’s wider strategy to restore control over the immigration system. The immigration white paper published on 12 May 2025 announced a review of refugee sponsorship and resettlement, and further details will be set out. Problems in the asylum system are hardly new, and the Government are determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.

Amendment 173, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, includes a provision that would enable biometrics to be waived. Biometrics, in the form of fingerprints and facial images, underpin the current UK immigration system to support identity assurance and suitability checks on foreign nationals who are subject to immigration controls. They enable us to have comprehensive checks against immigration and criminality records to help identify those who pose a threat to our national security, public safety and immigration controls, or those who we think are likely to breach our Laws if they are allowed to come to the UK. There is, however, I reassure noble Lords, already scope to waive or defer the requirement to enrol biometrics in compelling circumstances.

It is for these reasons that the Government cannot support any amendment which would undermine those efforts and create an unlimited route, adding untold pressures on our decision-makers and accommodation and support systems, as well as the justice system. The number of people we can support through safe and legal routes depends on many factors, including local authority capacity for supporting refugees. I fear a scheme that would be difficult to control, such as this one, would quickly overwhelm our asylum system and have wider ramifications in our entire immigration system. As other noble Lords, including the noble Lords opposite, have mentioned, we worry that that would compromise public confidence.

Amendment 203B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, seeks to amend the British national (overseas) route into primary legislation, so that any changes restricting eligibility conditions and settlement can be made only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedure, and I have noted the comments made in the Committee about the importance of the commitments we have made. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, that the Government are firmly committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK, and those who may yet come here in the future on the British national (overseas) visa route.

The Government recognise the concerns that the White Paper proposals on new earned settlement and citizenship rules have raised, and we are taking steps to ensure that British nationals overseas can share their views during the upcoming consultation. We appreciate how important this issue is to the Hong Kong community, and we will listen carefully to what they tell us.

Given the ambitious nature of the proposals in the White Paper, it is essential that we fully understand their impact on all affected groups before making final decisions. Following the consultation, the Government will outline how the new rules will operate, including which immigration routes they will affect and when the changes will come into force. In the meantime, the current rules for settlement under the BNO route will continue to apply.

Delivering the BNO visa route through the Immigration Rules allows the Government to make swift changes to the route when necessary; for example, should the situation in Hong Kong deteriorate further. This amendment, we on the government side fear, would limit this ability to act quickly and create unnecessary delays. Given the unique circumstances of this group of people whom we support, the flexibility of the Immigration Rules is, in the Government’s view, more appropriate.

Finally, I will address Amendment 203C from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The purpose of this proposed new Clause is to make individuals under the Ukraine scheme eligible for indefinite permission to stay once their permission has expired, even if there is no further permission they can apply for under the scheme. The UK support for Ukraine remains steadfast and, together with our international partners, the UK continues to stand in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked and premeditated war. That stance has had the very committed support of the entire House and the country as a whole.

We recognise the importance of providing clarity and reassurance to Ukrainians living in the UK under the Ukrainian visa schemes. This is why the Home Secretary recently announced that the Ukraine permission extension scheme will be extended to offer those eligible a further period of permission of 24 months. However, the Government have been clear from the outset that these schemes are temporary and do not provide a direct route to settlement. They reflect a generous and meaningful commitment to support those displaced by the conflict. We have heard comment, which I heartily endorse, about the very moving commitments made by the entire British nation to support the displaced people of Ukraine, extending to taking them into their own homes. However, we also respect the Ukrainian Government’s strong desire for its citizens to return home and contribute to the country’s future recovery. This amendment would mean the UK Government rowing back on that long-standing position, which we believe would be ultimately to the detriment of Ukraine as a country—which will need its people back to rebuild.

I hope that those explanations and assurances that I have given set out the Government’s position clearly. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I was fascinated by what sounded to me like illogical statements. Can I be absolutely clear? My question was whether, under the UK resettlement scheme, the quota offered to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in this year—2025—is zero. I asked how many, and no answer was given to that. If the answer is zero, it is wrong to claim that the UK resettlement scheme is open, because there is no vacancy for anybody to be coming under that scheme.

It is also incorrect, surely, to say that the UK resettlement scheme is one where people can choose to get in the queue. It is UNHCR system that will choose the people who come into that settlement scheme, in discussion with the UK Government. If I am incorrect and a quota has been issued to the UNHCR for 2025, I am happy to withdraw what I have just said, but if I am correct and there is not quota yet issued, it is wrong to say that that scheme is open until a quota has been issued, because that is the way it works.

The other thing I would like to follow through in logical terms is the agreement with France—the Hillmore treaty. The Hillmore treaty, as I understand it, requires triaging of people in France who will then come to the United Kingdom. Under our law, as the Minister said, you can come to the United Kingdom only in order to make an official claim; in other words, it is a triaging point. There will be people in France, who will triaged to find the most suitable candidates to come. They then have to come to the United Kingdom and when they do they get the final asylum claim determined. If it operates in a different way from that, I am happy to be told, but everything that has been said by the UK Government indicates triaging of the sort I have described.

The humanitarian visa scheme I have described is only an expansion of that: it is one where we would determine whether someone has a really good case to make and then they are permitted to come to the United Kingdom to make that case—for a short period. If the period is too long, that is fine. The reason it is there at the moment is because that is the time span that the UK Government set for determining an application.

With those questions deeply in my mind, I realise that we will perhaps have to rephrase how we approach this and come back to it later in the course of the Bill. If, however, I have wrongly asserted what the Minister said to me, I would be happy to receive a note saying that there is a quota and that the Hillmore treaty will not triage people in France. If I am right in those two things, I would be happy to proceed. If I am wrong, I would be happy to receive a note to say that I am incorrect. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

My Lords, if I may, I first thank the new Minister for his response to the amendments that I placed before the Committee. All I can say is that one man’s flexibility is another man’s uncertainty. I raised the uncertainty for people who have disrupted their lives and are resettling their lives by coming to Another place to rebuild. It is very disruptive to have no certainty, so I urge the Government to think again about this business of flexibility.

Certainly the position going forward should at least be to give security to those who have already arrived—the security of knowing that they can make plans for their children, their education and so on, and have some knowledge of what the limits are. They have always expected, after five years, to have that security of tenure.

From my contact with Ukrainian refugees here, there is absolutely no doubt that they want to return to their country. They want to see peace and justice in the settlement that reaches the end of this war, and that is the encouragement that all of us would give, but that is not what they are seeking. They are seeking the confidence of knowing that the Government will continue their commitment. I was very reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who indicated that his Government were very much there at the beginning in supporting Ukraine and were then followed by Labour in government. We are providing that strong commitment to the people and nation of Ukraine that really gives some confidence to those who are here, living in uncertainty but wanting to return, to know that they can be here for as long as it takes.

Amendment 164 withdrawn.

House resumed.