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.