Immigration and Asylum Bill
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 day, 10 hours ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are now sitting in public in. The proceedings are being broadcast. Today we will continue line by line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today in accordance with the programme motion for this bill. If the committee is still sitting at 5 p.m., the chair will put the questions necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion. There can be no debate after 5 p.m.. Before we begin, I would like to remind members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to Bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. We now come to Group 56 and New Clause 25, with which it will be convenient to debate new clauses 26 and 27. I call Sean Berry to move clause 25.
The selection list for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to Bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. We now come to Group 56 and New Clause 25, with which it will be convenient to debate new clauses 26 and 27. I call Sean Berry to move clause 25.
09:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Many thanks, Mr. Barker, and great to have you back in the chair today. I am speaking today in support of my new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which all surround the issues faced by first responders, non-statutory first responders, organisations who are, as we know, people who are suffering from modern slavery cannot self-refer themselves into the national referral mechanism. So these are a vital, vital part of making sure that we fulfil our duties towards victims of modern slavery. What we have are designated statutory and non-statutory organisations. They are known as first responders. These organisations have a duty to refer potential survivors of trafficking and modern slavery into the NRM when they identify indicators of trafficking.
To suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping, and this means not that there is a lack of demand, but it means there is a lack of capacity. It means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism, and I believe the government needs to take action on this.
Hence these amendments. Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will prioritise, for example, criminal investigations over the survivors safety, and that these fros might have information sharing policies with other government policies. As we've discussed in earlier amendments, these organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders, and we can see in the evidence the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM.
This suggests higher quality service, higher quality referrals and support to gather the evidence that is provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred into the support they need. What we've seen is between quarter 2 in 2025 and quarter 2 in 2026, the referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive, reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases, while the rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, it was 62% for referrals and 47% just 47% for the other government agencies. This suggests lack of capacity in those organisations as well, but also those systemic issues around collecting evidence, making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.
For example, higher quality referrals of the kind that non-statutory first responders make. It also makes the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse, as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, leading to potential victims being turned away in some cases and in many cases giving up at that point. In looking for a non-statutory first responder as an MP, I'm not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery and searching for finding the right first responder organisation, reassuring that person that they would be able to get hold of them was was hard for me.
I would love to have in my own casework more availability of non-statutory first responders in my area. The evidence that we have underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open, tender and transparent application process in order to deal with increased demand for referrals and to reduce a postcode lottery that does exist, for access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and to reduce the stigma in referrals. That is the the absolute core of New Clause 25 to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations. I'm also proposing new clause 26.
This asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. The need for this is reflected in the fact that we need high quality and specialised training for first responders, and this is integral to successful victim identification. This again will ensure better quality and more efficient decision making, statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations, as well as non-first responder organisations, have expressed that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers within statutory first responders are unaware that they are first responders making home office calls, toolkits and information hubs alone ineffective. My amendment asks for a review.
Looking at the quantity, the quality, the content of training, making sure that this reaches the organisations who need it, and making a report of this review available to the Houses of Parliament. New clause 27 again tackles the issues that I've outlined. It asks for a review of resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders also highlight the lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors needing referrals. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively.
In practice, this can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff to undertake first responder duties or to ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand. Respond to those people who are referred to them, or respond to other organisations who raise cases with them accordingly. There have been many calls for further allocation of resources for non-statutory first responders, and the need for this to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. What we're asking for is a review of the current resourcing for first responders to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, to identify gaps in capacity and service provision and assessment of how these effects the identification and support of potential victims.
Such a review would also help determine what actions, resources, or structural changes are needed to address these gaps and ensure first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively and ensure that we, as a country are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery. Thank you.
To suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping, and this means not that there is a lack of demand, but it means there is a lack of capacity. It means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism, and I believe the government needs to take action on this.
Hence these amendments. Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will prioritise, for example, criminal investigations over the survivors safety, and that these fros might have information sharing policies with other government policies. As we've discussed in earlier amendments, these organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders, and we can see in the evidence the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM.
This suggests higher quality service, higher quality referrals and support to gather the evidence that is provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred into the support they need. What we've seen is between quarter 2 in 2025 and quarter 2 in 2026, the referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive, reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases, while the rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, it was 62% for referrals and 47% just 47% for the other government agencies. This suggests lack of capacity in those organisations as well, but also those systemic issues around collecting evidence, making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.
For example, higher quality referrals of the kind that non-statutory first responders make. It also makes the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse, as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, leading to potential victims being turned away in some cases and in many cases giving up at that point. In looking for a non-statutory first responder as an MP, I'm not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery and searching for finding the right first responder organisation, reassuring that person that they would be able to get hold of them was was hard for me.
I would love to have in my own casework more availability of non-statutory first responders in my area. The evidence that we have underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open, tender and transparent application process in order to deal with increased demand for referrals and to reduce a postcode lottery that does exist, for access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and to reduce the stigma in referrals. That is the the absolute core of New Clause 25 to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations. I'm also proposing new clause 26.
This asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. The need for this is reflected in the fact that we need high quality and specialised training for first responders, and this is integral to successful victim identification. This again will ensure better quality and more efficient decision making, statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations, as well as non-first responder organisations, have expressed that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers within statutory first responders are unaware that they are first responders making home office calls, toolkits and information hubs alone ineffective. My amendment asks for a review.
Looking at the quantity, the quality, the content of training, making sure that this reaches the organisations who need it, and making a report of this review available to the Houses of Parliament. New clause 27 again tackles the issues that I've outlined. It asks for a review of resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders also highlight the lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors needing referrals. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively.
In practice, this can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff to undertake first responder duties or to ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand. Respond to those people who are referred to them, or respond to other organisations who raise cases with them accordingly. There have been many calls for further allocation of resources for non-statutory first responders, and the need for this to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. What we're asking for is a review of the current resourcing for first responders to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, to identify gaps in capacity and service provision and assessment of how these effects the identification and support of potential victims.
Such a review would also help determine what actions, resources, or structural changes are needed to address these gaps and ensure first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively and ensure that we, as a country are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery. Thank you.
09:33
09:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mrs. Barker, and as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you and good morning to our honourable colleagues. I thank the honourable member for amendments 25, 26 and 27, which seek to introduce statutory reviews relating to first responder organisations. Modern slavery is a brutal crime that strips people of their dignity, and the government remains unwavering in its commitment to tackling this abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the right protections and the support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The government recognises the vital role that first responders play in identifying potential victims of modern slavery, and referring them into the national referral mechanism.
Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the measures of this bill to ensure a robust end to end system. The government does not, however, consider these amendments necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation, duplicates existing activity, reduces operational flexibility and creates additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables statutory sorry enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.
We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the First Responder Toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.
And I want to reiterate, since taking office in 2024, this government has demonstrated its commitment not only to improving identification and support of modern slavery victims, but also tackling modern slavery in all its forms. This includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, helping them with their recovery, improving support for adult victims through procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery. Contract to replace the current Modern Slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking Guardian service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims, introducing a change to support skilled workers to leave exploitative employers and move to new, safe employment, and providing a more cohesive response to labour exploitation by introducing a standalone offence of child criminal exploitation, as well as cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act and the creation of the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act.
These changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes, and more supportive of those affected by them. And just to refer to a couple of points the honourable lady made. She's right. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, representing a 5% increase compared to the year ending March 2026. 93 of those were made by statutory first responders, 4% by non-statutory first responders, and our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification, and that the operation of the first responder system should continue to be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.
The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I've mentioned, we've recently introduced the updated referral form First Responder e-Learning First Responder Toolkit, and we've just had the recent call for evidence on victim identification, which gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office is continuing to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and evidence gathered through the call for evidence. I think that's the responses to her points and but I'm afraid for all of the reasons I've set out above, that we do continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders.
I'm afraid we do not support these amendments, and they should not be added to the bill. Sean.
Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the measures of this bill to ensure a robust end to end system. The government does not, however, consider these amendments necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation, duplicates existing activity, reduces operational flexibility and creates additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables statutory sorry enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.
We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the First Responder Toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.
And I want to reiterate, since taking office in 2024, this government has demonstrated its commitment not only to improving identification and support of modern slavery victims, but also tackling modern slavery in all its forms. This includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, helping them with their recovery, improving support for adult victims through procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery. Contract to replace the current Modern Slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking Guardian service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims, introducing a change to support skilled workers to leave exploitative employers and move to new, safe employment, and providing a more cohesive response to labour exploitation by introducing a standalone offence of child criminal exploitation, as well as cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act and the creation of the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act.
These changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes, and more supportive of those affected by them. And just to refer to a couple of points the honourable lady made. She's right. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, representing a 5% increase compared to the year ending March 2026. 93 of those were made by statutory first responders, 4% by non-statutory first responders, and our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification, and that the operation of the first responder system should continue to be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.
The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I've mentioned, we've recently introduced the updated referral form First Responder e-Learning First Responder Toolkit, and we've just had the recent call for evidence on victim identification, which gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office is continuing to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and evidence gathered through the call for evidence. I think that's the responses to her points and but I'm afraid for all of the reasons I've set out above, that we do continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders.
I'm afraid we do not support these amendments, and they should not be added to the bill. Sean.
09:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Very many thanks, chair. I appreciate the detail in the Minister's response to me there, and I am content to withdraw these amendments. I would very much like for the points around resourcing to be tackled, however, and I don't think that was covered in the minister's response. I wonder if she might agree to to write to us with more about the the resourcing and future plans for resourcing of non-statutory first responders.
09:39
09:39
09:39
09:39
09:39
09:40
09:40
09:40
09:40
09:40
09:41
09:41
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Thank you, Mr. Parker. It's an honor to serve with you in the chair. I am speaking in support of new clauses 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the member for Bristol and Woodstock. Let me be clear from the outset these clauses do not challenge the government's responsibility to accommodate people seeking asylum. They ask two simple things before a large site is chosen. Show us that it is suitable before public money is committed. Show us what it will cost. New clause 30 would require the government to publish an assessment of every large site covering transport, healthcare, policing capacity, safe pedestrian access, safeguarding infrastructure and the alternatives considered an impact on the local community.
It would also require consultation with local authorities. New new clause 31 would require the government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs, the cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates change materially before a site open, the assessment would have to be revised. So why these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown Development Route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend has seen the consequences at Mod. Mr.. In his pack, where up to 101,256 people could be housed for ten years.
The sewage arraignment arrangements rely on tankering that would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators because the existing supply cannot be relied upon. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than six metres. While the plans allow buildings up to 12m. Local people had just ten days to make representations and there were no pre-application discussions with the Highway Authority. My hon. Friend's analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish an over 1 billion across ten years. Those are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public is committed to such a substantial bill.
These concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire, but in my own part of the country in North Yorkshire, to the proposed reopening of the former RAF Linton on Ouse also raises many of the similar same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. That scheme was subsequently abandoned after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back on the 15th of July, North Yorkshire Council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I joined colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader's letter to the minister. It's also worth noting that the mayor, the Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Scaife, has also similarly opposed these plans, which is a little bit interesting when you consider the government's devolution agenda and how they want to empower these mayors to make planning decisions, yet they seem keen to ignore them when they're coming from the centre.
The concerns set out in that letter read, almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1000 single adult men, beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited. The surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding. There are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage, electricity, infrastructure and there's no mains gas. Much of the site's infrastructure has been stripped out since 2022.
Reopening it would therefore require substantial investment, given that public money was already spent on a previous proposal. The public deserves to understand what has been spent, what further expenditure would be required and how the costs compare with alternative options. And once again, the council had no prior engagement with this government. These concerns are about the people as much who will live on the site as those who live nearby. An isolated site with inadequate infrastructure, limited transport and poor access to services is not in the interest of anyone. The concerns raised in 2022 have not gone away yet.
Without these clauses, there is no requirement for the government to publish a comprehensive assessment of a site's suitability and costs before proceeding. So I put forward two questions to the minister. If a site is suitable, why not publish the evidence? And if it represents value for money, then why not publish the costs? Both the situation in Oxfordshire and North Yorkshire demonstrate why Parliament should require proper assessments and cost transparency for every site of this scale. And it's also worth just mentioning I'm grateful to the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold, but also having his name in support of this amendment.
This is about responsible decision making, proper scrutiny of public money and ensuring that local communities are not left dealing with the consequences of decisions in which they have had little say. I would urge the committee to support new clauses 30 and 31 large scale asylum accommodation site suitability assessments.
It would also require consultation with local authorities. New new clause 31 would require the government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs, the cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates change materially before a site open, the assessment would have to be revised. So why these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown Development Route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend has seen the consequences at Mod. Mr.. In his pack, where up to 101,256 people could be housed for ten years.
The sewage arraignment arrangements rely on tankering that would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators because the existing supply cannot be relied upon. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than six metres. While the plans allow buildings up to 12m. Local people had just ten days to make representations and there were no pre-application discussions with the Highway Authority. My hon. Friend's analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish an over 1 billion across ten years. Those are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public is committed to such a substantial bill.
These concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire, but in my own part of the country in North Yorkshire, to the proposed reopening of the former RAF Linton on Ouse also raises many of the similar same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. That scheme was subsequently abandoned after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back on the 15th of July, North Yorkshire Council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I joined colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader's letter to the minister. It's also worth noting that the mayor, the Labour mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Scaife, has also similarly opposed these plans, which is a little bit interesting when you consider the government's devolution agenda and how they want to empower these mayors to make planning decisions, yet they seem keen to ignore them when they're coming from the centre.
The concerns set out in that letter read, almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1000 single adult men, beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited. The surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding. There are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage, electricity, infrastructure and there's no mains gas. Much of the site's infrastructure has been stripped out since 2022.
Reopening it would therefore require substantial investment, given that public money was already spent on a previous proposal. The public deserves to understand what has been spent, what further expenditure would be required and how the costs compare with alternative options. And once again, the council had no prior engagement with this government. These concerns are about the people as much who will live on the site as those who live nearby. An isolated site with inadequate infrastructure, limited transport and poor access to services is not in the interest of anyone. The concerns raised in 2022 have not gone away yet.
Without these clauses, there is no requirement for the government to publish a comprehensive assessment of a site's suitability and costs before proceeding. So I put forward two questions to the minister. If a site is suitable, why not publish the evidence? And if it represents value for money, then why not publish the costs? Both the situation in Oxfordshire and North Yorkshire demonstrate why Parliament should require proper assessments and cost transparency for every site of this scale. And it's also worth just mentioning I'm grateful to the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold, but also having his name in support of this amendment.
This is about responsible decision making, proper scrutiny of public money and ensuring that local communities are not left dealing with the consequences of decisions in which they have had little say. I would urge the committee to support new clauses 30 and 31 large scale asylum accommodation site suitability assessments.
09:46
09:46
09:46
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Mr. Barker. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I'll speak to newcomers a 64 and 65 in the name of my hon. Friend the member for Rutland and Stamford and in mine and to new clauses 30 and 31. Everyone in this committee wants to see the end to asylum hotels, and the government's plan is to move people into large sites. Former military bases housing hundreds at a time. New clause 30 and 31, as we've just heard, would require consultation and published costs. First, the opposition opposition are sympathetic to the arguments that the honourable member has just made, but consultation and costs alone are not enough.
Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored. That is what clause 64 would do before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden.
With no warning and no plan. It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact these sites on community well-being or on local safety as a whole. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. This is totally unacceptable, with new clauses, 64 large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval, and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure these impacts will be mitigated.
I hope that members of this committee recognise how New Clauses 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers. New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police. This addresses incidences of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk, and failing to do so would be an offence itself. There was currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements, ensure consistency so that practice so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next.
It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken, and it would require the government to set clear rules for how incident reporting incident information is reported, handled and shared. The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not acted upon. It is obvious that large sites and communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules. So can I please ask the Minister how many large sites does the government plan to open and where?
And is there any duty on providers today to report serious incidents to the police? I will move clauses 64 and 65 when they are reached. I hope the Committee recognises the importance of these for our communities across the country and our constituents. Thank you very much, Paul.
Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored. That is what clause 64 would do before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden.
With no warning and no plan. It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact these sites on community well-being or on local safety as a whole. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. This is totally unacceptable, with new clauses, 64 large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval, and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure these impacts will be mitigated.
I hope that members of this committee recognise how New Clauses 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers. New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police. This addresses incidences of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk, and failing to do so would be an offence itself. There was currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements, ensure consistency so that practice so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next.
It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken, and it would require the government to set clear rules for how incident reporting incident information is reported, handled and shared. The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not acted upon. It is obvious that large sites and communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules. So can I please ask the Minister how many large sites does the government plan to open and where?
And is there any duty on providers today to report serious incidents to the police? I will move clauses 64 and 65 when they are reached. I hope the Committee recognises the importance of these for our communities across the country and our constituents. Thank you very much, Paul.
09:51
09:51
Paul Kohler
-
-
Paul Kohler
It's an honour to serve under your chairmanship. I agree with my honourable colleague the last two speeches completely, but can I make a separate point? I do have some sympathy for the minister. Last week we criticised the government's approach on hotels, rightly criticised the government's approach on hotels. Now we're rightly criticising their approach on large sites. And the argument might be that, well, what is the government expected to do? Can I urge the government to take a wholly different approach? As I mentioned last week, the Home Affairs Select Committee went to Denmark last, last, last few weeks ago.
Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues. It's far subtler than that, and their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than to the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire George King millions if not billions. Denmark uses NGOs. The Red cross run their asylum centres rather than than than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not for profit basis. If they make a profit, the money has to go either go back into the asylum centre or be given back to the government, and it wholly changes the tone.
In Denmark we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres for volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers, to provide the accommodation, which I accept is needed. Although the government must indeed improve and speed up its processing of claims. Thank you.
Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues. It's far subtler than that, and their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than to the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire George King millions if not billions. Denmark uses NGOs. The Red cross run their asylum centres rather than than than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not for profit basis. If they make a profit, the money has to go either go back into the asylum centre or be given back to the government, and it wholly changes the tone.
In Denmark we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres for volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers, to provide the accommodation, which I accept is needed. Although the government must indeed improve and speed up its processing of claims. Thank you.
09:55
09:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, and I appreciate all the contributions of members across the floor this morning, as members across the House will know when the government enters office in 2024. The use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. This was clearly impacting the confidence of the public had in the government to run an efficient and cost effective asylum system. Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous government's failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities acted as lightning rods for social unrest.
They represent the removal of a lever the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interests in the area, bless you and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community. That is why we are working relentlessly to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, and we have our manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the Public Express expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number from. I think it's down to fewer than 160 hotels remaining, and I'm looking forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.
Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels, it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of this commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites. To date, we have already delivered this. To answer the honourable gentleman's question, we have two that have already been operational. Wethersfield, which was opened under his government and more recently, more recently Crowborough. We have three more in the pipeline that we that are undergoing various review and planning permissions.
These sites provide basic safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on site services such as health and safeguarding, which lessens reliance on overstretched local facilities in terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety.
Specialist security will also be on site 24 over seven, with CCTV and strict sign in procedures for residents. And just to be extremely clear, what I understand is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area. I categorically reject this. In September, the Chief Constable of Essex Police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site. As I hope I've outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities whilst giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision making process.
Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to use the use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. This approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK to ensure dispersal is. I will.
They represent the removal of a lever the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interests in the area, bless you and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community. That is why we are working relentlessly to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, and we have our manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the Public Express expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number from. I think it's down to fewer than 160 hotels remaining, and I'm looking forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.
Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels, it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of this commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites. To date, we have already delivered this. To answer the honourable gentleman's question, we have two that have already been operational. Wethersfield, which was opened under his government and more recently, more recently Crowborough. We have three more in the pipeline that we that are undergoing various review and planning permissions.
These sites provide basic safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on site services such as health and safeguarding, which lessens reliance on overstretched local facilities in terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety.
Specialist security will also be on site 24 over seven, with CCTV and strict sign in procedures for residents. And just to be extremely clear, what I understand is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area. I categorically reject this. In September, the Chief Constable of Essex Police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site. As I hope I've outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities whilst giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision making process.
Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to use the use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. This approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK to ensure dispersal is. I will.
10:01
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
I thank the Minister for giving way. I would just press her a little bit further. Some of the arguments in my in my speech in support of these clauses talks about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage, electricity, the lack of consultation with local government. So can she not acknowledge and try to empathise with those individuals, those authorities, in terms of the inappropriate nature of these sites? And will she look again?
10:02
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I thank the honourable gentleman for that. When we apply for planning permission or even urgent Crown planning, all of these issues are taken into account as part of the planning process and the decision that will be made by the Secretary of State for the Department of Community Health. And I have actually got some responses to the honourable gentleman's questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All of the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round.
But yes.
But yes.
10:03
10:03
10:04
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Minister as as a Liberal Democrat, the honourable gentleman will know very clearly how the term NIMBYism gets used quite a lot, but I think it's really important that local areas quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas. And we would expect that as part of the planning process and those decisions, all those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made. Just to respond to a couple of points he made, going back to the point of engagement with local authorities, you know, as I said, we do recognise the importance of them, but a statutory a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, different planning routes and different stages of development that apply to individual sites they could duplicate.
Existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay, delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal, and the point that was raised about publishing costs and assessments will be as transparent as we possibly can. Whenever we can, we have to balance, of course, publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data, site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. And all of that is obviously, as you can imagine, extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance. So and I think, as I said, the reforms that we're looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control of the border.
This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and handling, in particular, our hotels, back to the communities. In terms of the statistics behind all of the government's reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels is 46% lower than when the government entered office. There are 71% fewer individuals staying in hotels than compared to the peak of September 2023. And as I mentioned earlier, this has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently being in operation.
The. I will chair Robertson.
Existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay, delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal, and the point that was raised about publishing costs and assessments will be as transparent as we possibly can. Whenever we can, we have to balance, of course, publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data, site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. And all of that is obviously, as you can imagine, extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance. So and I think, as I said, the reforms that we're looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control of the border.
This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and handling, in particular, our hotels, back to the communities. In terms of the statistics behind all of the government's reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels is 46% lower than when the government entered office. There are 71% fewer individuals staying in hotels than compared to the peak of September 2023. And as I mentioned earlier, this has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently being in operation.
The. I will chair Robertson.
10:07
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
I just wanted listening to the minister talking about taking people out of hotels, which of course we all support. We want the government to be successful at. But can she explain any justification? Because I can't see one of how . Housing a large number of 1000 asylum seekers or refugees or people seeking asylum in a community that is smaller, how can that ever be right? And actually, it doesn't even matter that they're refugees or they're not from this country, just a thousand extra people on the side of a smaller settlement seems to me crazy. It's just seems to be something that shouldn't be able to happen.
10:09
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Minister, the honourable gentleman is not quite right. We're not housing them in the community. They are being housed in on a specific site that is self-contained, that is away from the community. All of their needs are met on that site and where they aren't met, they are transported to usually larger places like sort of cities or towns. That's certainly the situation in the two that we have at the moment in Wethersfield and Crowborough. They are taken specifically for their needs and their requirements, but it is very rare as a whole that those individuals leave the camp of their own volition.
They they have to sign in and out. They are self-contained. So they're not in the village. They are separate on a self-contained site. As I said, this government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero and we stick by that. It is how we will restore public confidence in the system. As members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we're restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster care progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention to reduce the overall demand for accommodation in the round.
Yes.
They they have to sign in and out. They are self-contained. So they're not in the village. They are separate on a self-contained site. As I said, this government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero and we stick by that. It is how we will restore public confidence in the system. As members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we're restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster care progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention to reduce the overall demand for accommodation in the round.
Yes.
10:11
10:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Yeah. The honourable gentleman makes a really good point. I know he has a long standing interest in the sort of delivery and the delivery partners. We of course, we have a, you know, a protocols and agreements with these organisations. They have high standards that they have to fulfil. If they don't, we will review the contracts that they have. So we keep that under review all the time. Turning specifically to the honourable member's amendments, amendment 30 sets out a new clause which would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities and other public bodies considered appropriate and to prepare and publish a site suitability assessment before a site is used to accommodate 300 or more people as part of the asylum support system.
Similarly, amendment 64 would require the Home Secretary to prepare and publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment before designating a high capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity. I thank the honourable members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The government agrees with that objective. Site selection, mobilisation already involved assessment of safety, safeguarding service capacity and local impacts supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the amendment will impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded, creating significant overlap with existing planning processes that would delay delivery, reduce the government's ability.
Similarly, amendment 64 would require the Home Secretary to prepare and publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment before designating a high capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity. I thank the honourable members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The government agrees with that objective. Site selection, mobilisation already involved assessment of safety, safeguarding service capacity and local impacts supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the amendment will impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded, creating significant overlap with existing planning processes that would delay delivery, reduce the government's ability.
10:14
10:14
10:14
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
And if the government isn't willing to concede the point that there should be a rigid statutory process, would the government accept that those safeguarding risk assessments should be made available? So there's transparency to the local community? I know the minister, in response to my friend for the Isle of Wight East, said that these asylum seekers are effectively not living in the community because they're in a camp outside, but they are free to come and go and they are free to go into their local communities. So I think it's important that the government commits to provide safeguarding impact assessments to the local community.
10:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point, and we take the safeguarding really seriously and say that this is all undertaken as part of the process we make when we make these decisions and the contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I would like to just flag back to the point I made earlier, that the police, particularly in Wethersfield, have said there's been no discernible impact on crime. So I think it's just to reiterate that. But I do take his point. Amendment 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact.
A smaller site may require intensive engagement, while an increase of 100 places at a larger established site may not create the same pressures. The government considers that existing operational assessment engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask that honourable members withdraw the amendment.
A smaller site may require intensive engagement, while an increase of 100 places at a larger established site may not create the same pressures. The government considers that existing operational assessment engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask that honourable members withdraw the amendment.
10:17
10:17
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Thank you, chair. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response. I think the response, which outlines the views of the government, doesn't adequately address the issues that Crown development groups pose in terms of bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The minister also made points to about wanting to be as transparent as possible. I don't think that this place should be allowing them off the hook when it comes to these issues, and the questions around suitability of sites weren't adequately answered, so I will not be withdrawing the amendments.
10:18
10:18
10:18
10:19
10:20
10:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The purpose of my amendments in this group is to ensure that the government should stop using AI systems shaping, life changing and in some cases, life and death decisions about people's protection, liberty and removal until it can show they are lawful, accurate, and open to challenge. And this is not a debate solely about the future. It is also something that is going on in the present. The Home Office is already deploying two AI tools in asylum casework. The asylum policy search tool has operated since July 2025. The asylum case summarization tool was rolled out to all decision makers in April 2026.
Both tools use OpenAI's ChatGPT four. According to the department's own impact assessment. These tools will summarize around 17,500 asylum cases every month, summarizing interviews where people share traumatic experiences, torture, persecution, their sexuality, their faith, their politics. Now, a machine condenses these detailed accounts into the summary, a decision maker reads, before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake. These are issues, I think, that the Home Office and the minister today needs to to deal with, particularly around how legal this current practice is. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing the tools that I talked about.
Neither tool is listed on the Algorithmic Transparency register. There is no independent audit. Testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. The government's only justification for this that I can see is speed, not quality or. The human right, I think exists for a person's life and death case to be considered in full. The evidence they give to be considered in full by another human and speed is not a safeguard, and speed does not equal justice.
When the cost of an error is a person returned to danger. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its
Both tools use OpenAI's ChatGPT four. According to the department's own impact assessment. These tools will summarize around 17,500 asylum cases every month, summarizing interviews where people share traumatic experiences, torture, persecution, their sexuality, their faith, their politics. Now, a machine condenses these detailed accounts into the summary, a decision maker reads, before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake. These are issues, I think, that the Home Office and the minister today needs to to deal with, particularly around how legal this current practice is. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing the tools that I talked about.
Neither tool is listed on the Algorithmic Transparency register. There is no independent audit. Testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. The government's only justification for this that I can see is speed, not quality or. The human right, I think exists for a person's life and death case to be considered in full. The evidence they give to be considered in full by another human and speed is not a safeguard, and speed does not equal justice.
When the cost of an error is a person returned to danger. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its
10:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
When the cost of an error is a person returned to danger. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its working or. justify its decisions. The Minister must deal with these. points today if she wishes to dismiss these . New clause. 37 as it applies in this bill. It is. simple but is also. comprehensive and precise.
It says that no decision with legal or similarly similar, similarly significant effect on a person about.
It says that no decision with legal or similarly similar, similarly significant effect on a person about.
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:28
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The decision maker may never know to look for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. When a person's life or freedom is at stake. Subsection six. matters as the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act currently lets the Home Office set aside people's data rights. This clause ensures the subclause. ensures the exemption cannot be used to house AI in these decisions. New clause .
10:28
10:28
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:29
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The person. In so many cases, the impact assessment for the. summarization tool. records that no other party is involved in the processing, and names no processor. Even though the model is supplied by open AI and hosted on. Microsoft's Azure platform. Parliament is entitled to know what those contracts say, and this clause would put the answer beyond doubt. I'm also.
10:32
10:32
10:32
10:32
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
If an. adjudicator under the new Appeals Authority cannot see whether AI shaped the decision that is under appeal, the appeal cannot correct it. So we do need to see changes made and amendments to schedule three to require the Home Office to say in every appeal, whether AI was used in the original decision, and to produce any.
10:33
10:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We need to say, in our. legislation and in future amendments, I hope the government will bring that. An adjudicator may also not use AI to decide an appeal, judge credibility or right reasons. Credibility is a human judgment about a human being. These decisions are about people's. human rights, and. restrictions on AI must go into this bill so that these .
10:34
10:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Use of artificial intelligence in immigration and asylum decisions. The question is that New clause 37 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much. And I thank the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling these new clauses. They are on an important issue, and it's right that as. technology develops, that we continue to monitor and ensure that we are doing everything to make sure that we use it effectively and responsibly. So I'll start by addressing her new clause 37. This clause would effectively bar the use of AI systems in immigration and modern slavery, decisions, making in all but a small number of highly limited circumstances.
The new clause would apply to any decision being made by or with the assistance of AI systems. This would include prohibiting circumstances in which summaries, transcripts or search results are relied on or made available to a decision maker. The government is fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations. We take these obligations seriously. The government has in place robust policies and frameworks which guide our approach to adoption of AI systems.
All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and.
The new clause would apply to any decision being made by or with the assistance of AI systems. This would include prohibiting circumstances in which summaries, transcripts or search results are relied on or made available to a decision maker. The government is fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations. We take these obligations seriously. The government has in place robust policies and frameworks which guide our approach to adoption of AI systems.
All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And we have in place measures to ensure that staff are used. Such tools are provided with clear guidance and ongoing training on how to use them responsibly. We also have in place measures to ensure that AI systems, where they are used, are adopted in a transparent way, with clear mechanisms for accountability. The UK General Data Protection Regulation GDPR, already sets out that where an individual will be the subject of a solely automated.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
There are robust safeguards in place to protect their rights. For example, article 22 requires. safeguards where a significant decision is based solely on automated. processing and based entirely or partly on personal data. These safeguards include measures which provide the individual with information about the decision, enable them to make. representations about it, enable them to obtain human. intervention and enable them to contest the decision. Taken together, these existing legal, ethical and governance safeguards already. require careful consideration of the rights and interests of. individuals when deploying artificial intelligence. I hope this reassures the honourable member that the government is, and remains committed to ensuring AI systems are adopted in a fair, responsible and ethical way.
However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. It has the potential to greatly transform the way the government carries out its functions and provides its services. The Prime Minister set out on his recent speech at the UN General Assembly that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, bringing the right people together to deliver on the potential of AI for good whilst guarding against its risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and.
consistency across our .
However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. It has the potential to greatly transform the way the government carries out its functions and provides its services. The Prime Minister set out on his recent speech at the UN General Assembly that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, bringing the right people together to deliver on the potential of AI for good whilst guarding against its risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and.
consistency across our .
10:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Services, providing a better experience for those who interact with them. It can give way on that point. Speed and consistency. The minister has mentioned. I'm worried about quality and I'm. worried about bias, given that AI is trained on what currently exists on the internet and the biases there are within society. Is the minister. confident that. credibility decisions, credibility. recommendations are not going to be subject to, for.
10:41
10:41
10:41
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Or gender bias in these decisions. Minister makes important points. We've all seen the sort of media issues of ingrained in bias and so on, but we're making sure that we have those safeguards in place. AI systems should not undermine people's rights or discriminate unfairly. The government is committed to responsible and evidence based AI.
10:42
10:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Guided by robust policies, ethical frameworks and transparent governments. This includes mandatory evaluation and assurance for all AI or new AI tools, including ongoing staff training and responsible AI practices and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure every deployment of AI upholds public trust and meets our legal and ethical obligations. Operational efficiency time savings as measured during the pilot set out in the pilot.
10:43
10:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
A high volume of detailed information is gathered during the asylum decision making process and interviews. Decision makers who've had access to the case summary are able to effectively. identify areas to review to aid the decision making process. We'll continue to review and improve the tools outputs for the benefit of decision makers. The output of the tool is deliberately designed not to provide enough. information for the decision maker to make their decision. It is there to aid them in the decision making process and direct them to the information that they need to do that more efficiently, efficiently.
And I think I just want to reemphasize, again, the the mitigations that we're putting in place this to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. That includes new offences targeting AI generated child sexual abuse.
And I think I just want to reemphasize, again, the the mitigations that we're putting in place this to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. That includes new offences targeting AI generated child sexual abuse.
10:44
10:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The creation of. non-essential sexually explicit deepfake. images and extending paedophile manuals, offence to cover AI generated material. We're also working with industry in AI Security Institute to understand and address AI enabled harms, and we've introduced measures which will enable authorised. organisations to safely and legally test AI systems for harmful and illegal outputs, helping to identify vulnerabilities and safety mechanisms, improve safeguards and prevent criminal misuse. Just on the point about data protection, just to.
10:45
10:45
10:46
10:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Including personal data processed by or for the development of AI. systems related to immigration functions. There are specific provisions where solely automated decision making has taken place, which is, any decision which has legal or similarly significant effects is taken by automated means and without meaningful human involvement. The Home Office does not undertake solely automated decision making, but uses AI in various roles across the system for example translation.
10:46
10:46
10:47
10:47
10:48
10:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Particularly in terms of the time that decision makers spend on time consuming tasks that are very basic tasks and allowing them to focus their attention and their human expertise. At The Honourable Lady referred to where it is most beneficial. Indeed, AI tools are already assisting asylum decision makers. The asylum case summarization and asylum policy search tools are already in operation. Our evaluation of these tools shows that their use can reduce the time taken out, taken to carry out some decision making tasks, creating new efficiencies. The Home Office published these. evaluations demonstrating our commitment to transparency.
It's right that we work to harness these opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. It is this government's position that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring the immigration system remains fair and sustainable into the future, whilst not placing unnecessary burdens on the UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place. However, it significantly restricts our ability to realize the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I don't believe that it is proportionate or desirable. I'll turn now to new clause 38.
This clause seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data, except to fulfill their obligations in providing the service and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data. For immigration purposes, AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these.
It's right that we work to harness these opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. It is this government's position that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring the immigration system remains fair and sustainable into the future, whilst not placing unnecessary burdens on the UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place. However, it significantly restricts our ability to realize the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I don't believe that it is proportionate or desirable. I'll turn now to new clause 38.
This clause seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data, except to fulfill their obligations in providing the service and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data. For immigration purposes, AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these.
10:51
10:51
10:51
10:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
For clarification. As I said in my speech, the the impact assessment for the. summarization tool that is used says no other party is involved in the processing of people's personal data. I think the minister has confirmed that the data is passed back for training by the tools and open AI and inter Microsoft systems.
10:52
10:53
10:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The amendment would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools which have been trained on home Office data. Taken alone, this amendment could risk encouraging the deployment of AI, which had not been rigorously tested and evaluated. The government is committed to responsible AI.
10:53
10:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So this is not tenable in conjunction with new clause 37. However, the cumulative effect is that AI could not be developed using or deployed within immigration and other related functions. This would prevent the use of AI to improve the efficiency and security of the immigration system, and to protect the vulnerable, even where it is effective, efficient and ethical to do so. The use of any personal data and development of AI systems related to immigration and related functions is also governed by GDPR. As I've said, existing obligations in GDPR impose a rigorous. processes to ensure the processing of personal data is lawful.
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Contractual controls , including non-disclosure agreements and. confidentiality clauses, explicitly, expressly restrict how any Home Office data is processed and used. For example, Home Office contracts material. requires authority data to remain within the supplier's secure environment. Lastly, the intent of subclause three is also already covered by data protection.
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:57
10:57
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Ask the honourable member to withdraw them. Sian Berry Thank you, chair. I'm afraid I personally am not convinced that the right. protections are in place in the Home Office . currently under current laws. All through this bill, at the present time, I detect the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for. dismissing this amendment at the.
10:58
10:58
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or that the the the safeguards are properly in place against current and future use of AI around. privacy and the most sensitive personal data. I do hope, and I suspect I've made her think more about this today, that she will seek further. information and. consider the. provision of further measures through this bill as it reaches the next stage. So for now,
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Honourable and right honourable members have drafted these new clauses carefully to be within scope of this Bill, and they would, I think, like to hear the government's view on the moral and economic questions that arise. And actually , having just said that, I believe all members who have put their names to this are right honourable members. The independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that the UK imports more than. £20 billion a year of goods at risk of forced labour.
That figure matters more with every month that passes from.
That figure matters more with every month that passes from.
11:01
11:01
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Products made with forced labour cannot be sold in the European Union, whether imported or made there, the United States already bans them once those two markets are closed. Those goods will look for the next open market, and there is a risk that without action, that market will be the United Kingdom. Goods made with forced labour are artificially cheap. British businesses are already expressing concerns that they are being undercut by cheaper Chinese imports. The risk, surely, is that this problem. intensifies after other. markets close their doors to these goods. Modern slavery already cost the UK up to.
£60 billion a year, and at present it's the taxpayer who pays to deal with. exploitation after it has happened at UK, firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by. 2027 anyway, so there is widespread. concern and a case to consider. New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large.
£60 billion a year, and at present it's the taxpayer who pays to deal with. exploitation after it has happened at UK, firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by. 2027 anyway, so there is widespread. concern and a case to consider. New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large.
11:03
11:03
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Making them responsible for keeping forced labour out of their supply chains. With penalties of up to. 5% of global turnover, new clause 40 is narrower. It would let the government designate high risk goods and require businesses to disclose whether they trade in them. The foundation of any import ban would need, and it. induces a widely shared concern. So I'd like to ask the minister, if I can, to.
explain what the government's policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when it will report its review of .
explain what the government's policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when it will report its review of .
11:04
11:04
11:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Minister, thank you very much. Amendment 39 amends the Modern Slavery Act of. 2015 to impose a duty on businesses with a turnover of. £36 million or more, and all public authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery in their. operations and supply chains, or face criminal and civil penalties. Amendment new clause 40 also amends the Modern Slavery Act to allow the Secretary of State to designate goods as presumed to involve forced labour, and requires that organisations trading in the UK publish a statement, either in their reporting under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act or.
11:06
11:06
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
If they make import or export any such goods. I'd like to thank all the right Honourable members who have put their names to this amendment and, of course, the cross-party nature of this, you know, does give us a reason to continue to explore it in more detail. And I just want to reassure both the honourable members who tabled this amendment and members of this committee. The government is absolutely committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. We recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses take effective action to identify and address risks within their operations and supply chains.
11:07
11:07
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Strengthening the current reporting requirements under section 54 of the act, raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to better. report and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger. consequences for non-compliance. This sits alongside a range of other measures that we have undertaken to address forms of modern slavery, including forced labour for individuals and employers involved in modern slavery. There are already criminal sanctions available. The Procurement Act of. 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts, with suppliers known to use forced labour and the NHS.
Procurement Slavery Human trafficking regulations require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks, take responsible, proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti forced labour provisions in our free trade agreement, while the Developing Countries Trading Scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations. Amendment New clause 39 goes considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise honourable members ambitions to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses.
And I was listening intently, but I didn't hear any sense of the the implications of financial implications this might have to. Business in the honourable gentleman's.
Procurement Slavery Human trafficking regulations require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks, take responsible, proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti forced labour provisions in our free trade agreement, while the Developing Countries Trading Scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations. Amendment New clause 39 goes considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise honourable members ambitions to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses.
And I was listening intently, but I didn't hear any sense of the the implications of financial implications this might have to. Business in the honourable gentleman's.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And I think we'd need to understand. This is quite a. considerable expansion of the duties that we already put on businesses that may have quite a considerable cost to them. And I know that the honourable gentleman and his colleagues will be keen to ensure that we don't place further and disproportionate burdens on our. businesses in this country. To impose such a duty, we need to ensure it is properly considered alongside the wider UK. framework for tackling forced labour and other harms in supply chains. The Department for business, Innovation and Science and Trade has undertaken a review of the UK's approach to responsible business conduct.
This was an evidence based appraisal of the UK's. policy approach, its impact and options crucially to strengthen it further. The government is currently considering the findings and we will set out our position in due course again with amendment new clause 40. The government recognises the right hon.
This was an evidence based appraisal of the UK's. policy approach, its impact and options crucially to strengthen it further. The government is currently considering the findings and we will set out our position in due course again with amendment new clause 40. The government recognises the right hon.
11:13
11:13
11:13
11:13
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And what would be expected of businesses dealing with designated goods. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act and the accompanying statutory guidance, is clear that no industry is immune to the risks of modern slavery. We encourage. organisations themselves to actively identify, monitor and mitigate against any risks pertinent to their operations and supply chains, rather than rely on a presumed risk of at risk goods published by the government. Given the impact of these amendments on UK businesses and public authorities, it will be important to consider these. alongside wider UK policy and regulation. The government remains committed to working with international partners and businesses to ensure global supply chains are free from.
human and labour rights abuses. We continue to strengthen cooperation on tackling forced labour and supply chains with key partners through a number of multilateral fora. And of course, we have had measures within this bill that we have discussed and passed already in this committee that will continue to strengthen understanding and awareness of our supply chains when it comes to modern slavery.
human and labour rights abuses. We continue to strengthen cooperation on tackling forced labour and supply chains with key partners through a number of multilateral fora. And of course, we have had measures within this bill that we have discussed and passed already in this committee that will continue to strengthen understanding and awareness of our supply chains when it comes to modern slavery.
11:16
11:16
11:16
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Mathias to move new clause 41. Thank you. It's a pleasure to serve. Under your chairmanship, I'll set out our rationale for new clauses. 41 and 60. The British people are fair. What they cannot stand is people who break the rules get in the same as or better than people who keep them. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in this bill which we welcome. But time and again, it identifies the right. problem and stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law. New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and.
deportation law, the human. The Human Rights Act has no effect. Our laws would mean what. Parliament wrote, nor office. A court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure, unless a minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 makes part five A of the. 2002 act. The article eight code final courts cannot reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it is not. unlawful just because it clashes with article eight. Let me say why we've tabled these clauses, because this is not about being against human rights. Conservatives believe in the rule of law and in protecting people from.
deportation law, the human. The Human Rights Act has no effect. Our laws would mean what. Parliament wrote, nor office. A court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure, unless a minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 makes part five A of the. 2002 act. The article eight code final courts cannot reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it is not. unlawful just because it clashes with article eight. Let me say why we've tabled these clauses, because this is not about being against human rights. Conservatives believe in the rule of law and in protecting people from.
11:19
11:19
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
But the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament applied as this Parliament intended. Over the last 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament never put there, and the effect has been to move. The most important decision any country makes about who gets to stay away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent. When people see a foreign criminal remain here because a judge felt it could impact on the criminal's family, even though he had abused.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
They do not blame the judge. They blame us. All of us. Every party in this room. They conclude that their votes do not change. anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system, and it hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple. principle that ministers. decide Parliament holds them to account, and the public can hold Parliament to account at the ballot box. And there's a fairness point to the protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most the genuine refugee, the victim of trafficking.
Every time those protections are. stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their. legitimacy and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we've seen. In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex. offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge. decided that. deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them.
When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling, contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally in.
Every time those protections are. stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their. legitimacy and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we've seen. In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex. offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge. decided that. deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them.
When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling, contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally in.
11:23
11:23
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
And sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender using his own children's family life as a shield. And it took an appeal just to get the case reheard. And it's not a one off. Amongst others, there is a Zimbabwean paedophile who was due to be deported in. 2021 and a judge blocked it. Why? Because, amongst other things, his criminal. record for child sex. offences meant he was likely to face. hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in. The very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could steer.
Most people in this country would find that not just wrong, but upside down , a law that turns a conviction for abusing. children into a shield against. deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.
Most people in this country would find that not just wrong, but upside down , a law that turns a conviction for abusing. children into a shield against. deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.
11:25
11:25
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
This House put part five air into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome. 12 years later, the government are back amending the same. sections in clauses 18 to 20. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through through the Human Rights Act and finding . exceptions Parliament never met meant the Law Society told this committee. The government's new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article eight.
Fine, but Mr. want those words to survive their first trip to court. She needs new clause 60 . Look at.
Fine, but Mr. want those words to survive their first trip to court. She needs new clause 60 . Look at.
11:26
11:26
Speaker 6
-
Speaker 6
Adeel Khan and Carrie Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang, convicted in. 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Ralph Trap. trafficked a 15 year old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent. seven years fighting. deportation on article eight. grounds while living in Rochdale, near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the government was still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone seven years of article eight. litigation for men who did that to. children is just not acceptable.
Look at reading Kyrie. Sadler's asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard he'd killed people in Libya before he came here. Yet for years he was in limbo. refused but not removed because of the risk. On return to Libya in.
Look at reading Kyrie. Sadler's asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard he'd killed people in Libya before he came here. Yet for years he was in limbo. refused but not removed because of the risk. On return to Libya in.
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:28
11:29
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
The on the runway. But a new clause 41. That decision would rest with the minister answerable to this House. None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda Act. 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with the Strasbourg interim . Parliament passed it. This government repealed it in full in the Border.
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation. The question is that New clause 41 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much. I thank the honourable members for Croydon South, Stockton West and Mid Bedfordshire for tabling these amendments. These amendments require the government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act. 1998 in immigration decisions. Both amendments seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration.
11:32
11:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation and action taken under it being found to be. incompatible within the Echr. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK's convention obligations. I don't want to. relitigate all the discussions we've already had over many days in this committee.
Honourable members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged and is clear that we are fully committed to the European Commission on Human Rights. That commitment includes our respect for our. obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act, to deliver.
Honourable members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged and is clear that we are fully committed to the European Commission on Human Rights. That commitment includes our respect for our. obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act, to deliver.
11:34
11:34
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And ensure that we have an immigration system which has the consent of the British people. Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and. inconsistency in decision making, while reducing the UK's ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement, and reflects the UK's long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the Echr, which we helped to to. establish while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final. authority to determine how any.
incompatibility is addressed within that system. Our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial. judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review. As set out in the Government's Restoring Order and Control Statement, the balance between the individuals article eight rights and the public interests needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of this bill. The proposals set out here in this bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence.
We will clarify and tighten the application of article eight to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. This can be done while ensuring that article eight protections remain available to those who genuinely need them. The government played a leading role in securing the political. declaration agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe Member states on the 15th of May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure the convention remains.
effective in the face of modern migration.
incompatibility is addressed within that system. Our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial. judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review. As set out in the Government's Restoring Order and Control Statement, the balance between the individuals article eight rights and the public interests needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of this bill. The proposals set out here in this bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence.
We will clarify and tighten the application of article eight to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. This can be done while ensuring that article eight protections remain available to those who genuinely need them. The government played a leading role in securing the political. declaration agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe Member states on the 15th of May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure the convention remains.
effective in the face of modern migration.
11:38
11:38
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And it reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer shared approach to applying the. convention in line with the courts established case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national governments and courts are usually best placed to address the facts before them, including the application of article three protections and the balancing of article eight rights against the public interest. That is how this government is delivering reform, strengthening the system. domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration. challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it.
We need a seat at the table. The UK is committed to complying with international law. This includes implementing judgments of the Echr and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely. Indeed, in the last ten years there has only been one immigration related judgment concerning article eight. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on.
We need a seat at the table. The UK is committed to complying with international law. This includes implementing judgments of the Echr and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely. Indeed, in the last ten years there has only been one immigration related judgment concerning article eight. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on.
11:40
11:40
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including making clear that they should only be used where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome. So for these reasons, we .
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
I call Matt Vickers to move new clause 41. Thank you. Together, these four clauses mean that people who come here illegally are removed cannot block that removal with last minute claims, can never come back lawfully and can never become British citizens. Take a man who lands on a beach in Kent and. the 1st of December this year, having paid a smuggling gang with no visa and no.
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
The day this bill was introduced. So the Home Secretary must remove him to his own country or a safe third country. He claims asylum under New clause 43. That claim is. inadmissible and there is no appeal. A modern slavery claim or judicial review does not stop the duty either. If he later applies for a visa, new clause 55 says never. A new clause 56 says he can never become a British citizen. The message to the next person on the beach in northern France changes from get across and you'll probably stay to get across and you'll be sent back for good.
Members opposite will recognise these. provisions because they voted to scrap them. The Illegal Migration Act. 23 placed a duty on the Home Secretary to remove people who came here illegally, made their asylum claims. inadmissible and barred them from ever getting leave or citizenship.
Members opposite will recognise these. provisions because they voted to scrap them. The Illegal Migration Act. 23 placed a duty on the Home Secretary to remove people who came here illegally, made their asylum claims. inadmissible and barred them from ever getting leave or citizenship.
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:48
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Repeal the Safety of Rwanda Act and repeal the ban on illegal entrants becoming British citizens. I sat on the committee for that bill. We warned then that some of its engines. weakened rather than strengthened our ability to deal with illegal migration. Those people who arrived illegally and were due to go through. And where are they now? These four clauses put back what the government took away. More than. 200,000 people have crossed the channel in small boats since 2018. Last year alone. 41,472 crossings are down this year and I welcome that. But remember, the.
trajectory under the last government crossings fell by a third in.
trajectory under the last government crossings fell by a third in.
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
11:51
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Ahmed Ali tried to murder his housemate in Hartlepool, then went out into the street and stabbed to death Terence Carney, the 70 year old man out for an early morning walk. He was sentenced just up the road from my. constituency at Teesside Crown Court. A lead came into this country without permission in.
11:52
11:52
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Having already tried and failed to get asylum in several other European countries. He was arrested and only then did he claim asylum. His claim was refused. Three years later, he was still here in Home Office. accommodation under New Clause 42. He would have been subject to a duty to remove and under new clause 43, the claim he made after. arrest could not have stopped it. New clause 43 also deals with the claims that stall removal. The Home Office's own analysis found that among small boat arrivals detained for return, the proportion referred into the modern slavery system was from.
52% in. 2020 to 73% in 2021. Figures in this area have been. contested for foreign offenders, but the patterns playing and the bad faith powered this House gave ministers was used to. disqualify six people in the Hall of 2025. Just six new clauses, 55 and.
52% in. 2020 to 73% in 2021. Figures in this area have been. contested for foreign offenders, but the patterns playing and the bad faith powered this House gave ministers was used to. disqualify six people in the Hall of 2025. Just six new clauses, 55 and.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
But guidance can be changed with a written statement on a Thursday. afternoon and normally leaves the door ajar. Abdul Ezedi came here illegally in a lorry, was refused twice, was convicted of sexual. offences and was then granted asylum on his third. attempt before attacking a mother and her two girls in Clapham. When the system has been that generous at every stage, we should not be prepared to leave. citizenship to a word like normally. Let me be clear about our motivation, because it's not cruelty and anyone who says so has not been listening. It's the opposite.
Every crossing is a dangerous journey in an overloaded dinghy organised by criminal gangs who treat human beings as cargo. People have died in the channel. Children have died in the channel. The single most compassionate thing this house can do is end the. incentive that puts them in those boats, and the only thing that ends that incentive is certainty. The certainty that if you come this way, you'll not be allowed to stay. It's also about fairness to those who play by the rules. Think of the nurse who came on the right visa, the family who waited years for resettlement place, the refugee who came through a safe and legal route.
Every time someone jumps the queue by paying a smuggler, it's those people who are let down. A system that rewards breaking the. rules is unfair to everyone who keeps them, and it's about the capacity of the country. Every hotel room, every pound spent on support for someone with no right to be here is a room and a pound not available for those who've chosen to help. Control is not the enemy of compassion. Control is what makes compassion sustainable. So I ask the minister, if not this, what is her plan? To make sure people who come here.
illegally . do .
Every crossing is a dangerous journey in an overloaded dinghy organised by criminal gangs who treat human beings as cargo. People have died in the channel. Children have died in the channel. The single most compassionate thing this house can do is end the. incentive that puts them in those boats, and the only thing that ends that incentive is certainty. The certainty that if you come this way, you'll not be allowed to stay. It's also about fairness to those who play by the rules. Think of the nurse who came on the right visa, the family who waited years for resettlement place, the refugee who came through a safe and legal route.
Every time someone jumps the queue by paying a smuggler, it's those people who are let down. A system that rewards breaking the. rules is unfair to everyone who keeps them, and it's about the capacity of the country. Every hotel room, every pound spent on support for someone with no right to be here is a room and a pound not available for those who've chosen to help. Control is not the enemy of compassion. Control is what makes compassion sustainable. So I ask the minister, if not this, what is her plan? To make sure people who come here.
illegally . do .
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
42 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much. I'd like to thank the opposition for their amendments in this group. The main thrust of these amendments is to restore a duty to remove, which bears a striking similarity. As the honourable gentleman has set out to their failed Illegal Migration Act. In fact, this new clause seems to copy and paste some direct excerpts from that act into the amendment. And I might just take a moment to remind the committee exactly what happened when the Illegal Migration Act received royal assent. Asylum decision making stopped. Not a single decision was made, but arrivals continued.
This led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we are having to overcome and almost completely overwhelmed the whole system. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of this decision. More and more hotels housing, migrants being opened every week, the costs of housing, migrants skyrocketing. This government is ending that chaos. We have restarted decision making. We have removed over. 80,000 people, up over 50%. We've reduced hotel use with less than. 160 currently in operation. We've brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. But incredibly, the opposition wished to take us back there.
This government has made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats down from the highs that we saw under the previous government. As of.
This led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we are having to overcome and almost completely overwhelmed the whole system. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of this decision. More and more hotels housing, migrants being opened every week, the costs of housing, migrants skyrocketing. This government is ending that chaos. We have restarted decision making. We have removed over. 80,000 people, up over 50%. We've reduced hotel use with less than. 160 currently in operation. We've brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. But incredibly, the opposition wished to take us back there.
This government has made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats down from the highs that we saw under the previous government. As of.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Arrivals are down around 40% on 2025. The annual record for crossing remains. 45,774 arrivals in 2022. Organised immigration, crime arrests and other disruptions are at record levels, and I work with Frances prevented over. 50,000 attempted crossings since the general election, and over 60% of small boat events have been prevented this year. Amendment New Clause 42 sets out three conditions that this rehashed duty to remove would apply to. Essentially, the opposition is arguing that any. individual without the legal right to be here should be deported. I would highlight, however, that over 80,000 individuals, as I've said, with no right to remain in the UK, have been returned or removed from the UK since .
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens? Minister, the honourable gentleman knows that we've made. substantial improvements on the removals. We're they're up over 50%. So that's clear our intention behind that. And hopefully he's seen our. announcements here and yesterday that mean that people that arrive under this route will face an extra penalty. So they will not be able to settle as they would have done under his government within five years, but will now be having to wait approximately 30 years for them to be able to settle in this country. In this year ending.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The Home Office have operated. 167 charter flights, alongside tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work being done by the Home Office to tackle illegal immigration. The crux of the argument set out in the amendments comes through with drafting set out New clause.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any. suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned. As honourable members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this government, it's not about to start doing so. It's also interesting that this is essentially copied and pasted, as I've said, from the Illegal Migration Act. If the scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of. 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026. The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and needs to be in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that won't work is no deterrent at all.
We then come to amendment new clause 55, another copy and paste from the act, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act of. 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in New clause 42 from ever entering the UK. Whatever the.
We then come to amendment new clause 55, another copy and paste from the act, which seeks to amend the Immigration Act of. 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in New clause 42 from ever entering the UK. Whatever the.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British. nationality to those entering the UK without leave. I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These do, of course, mirror in part similar provisions which are placed into the Illegal Migration Act. 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort.
The House will recall that on taking office in.
The House will recall that on taking office in.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Steps were taken first to suspend operation of the 23 act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act. I think it will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, I do not think we can accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean, of course, that we do not recognise the concerns which these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. But rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made.
substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area, also successfully defending those changes. When challenged in court, we have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without a valid entry clearance or electronic travel.
substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area, also successfully defending those changes. When challenged in court, we have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without a valid entry clearance or electronic travel.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Having made a dangerous journey, including the small boat. arrivals faces having a British citizenship application refused. This approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, whilst still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case. The committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around.
The government will be rejecting these amendments and will instead get on with the job, bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system. Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact, as we've said, but we are not complacent. We know there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that's why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these.
The government will be rejecting these amendments and will instead get on with the job, bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system. Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact, as we've said, but we are not complacent. We know there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that's why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Strengthening international cooperation against people. smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here. It's pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this bill in light of the inheritance that this government received. The goals of this bill are simple to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair , to provide protection to genuine.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
To offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need, whilst closing loopholes that have too often been abused, and to ensure that the generosity of the British people was not forgotten, and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so. This is a bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities, and making sure we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For these reasons .
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Failed asylum seekers and illegal workers to their home country , or a safe third country. Working with the police and using facial. recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here. I'll give the government credit. Returns are up. But let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since.
2018 have been to Albania. Under the returns arrangement, the last government agreed. The government inherited that and they've built on it. Fair enough. But let's look under the bonnet. In the year to.
2018 have been to Albania. Under the returns arrangement, the last government agreed. The government inherited that and they've built on it. Fair enough. But let's look under the bonnet. In the year to.
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
There were. 9669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000. Many paid up to. £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those taking up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would you believe it? How many of those would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made.
116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%. So tens of thousands of refusals. More than. 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting.
116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%. So tens of thousands of refusals. More than. 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
He detonated a homemade bomb in a taxi outside the Liverpool Women's Hospital. Kyrie Saadallah was refused, convicted and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men. In reading Ahmed Ali. His claim was. refused and three years later he was still in Home Office housing in. Hartlepool when he killed Terrence Khan. Why have we tabled this? Because a law that is not. enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for sure. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa. overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no.
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
It sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch, and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority with its own leadership, its own. budget and its own. accountability to this House so that ministers can be asked a straight question how many of you. removed and have to give a straight answer? Right now, removals are spread across immigration.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Be read a second time. Minister, I thank the honourable member for amendment new clause 44. However, I do not agree that this is necessary. The functions and powers of this removal force already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary. Most of the functions set out by this new removals force are functions which law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself earlier, I'd remind us this committee that we've carried out more than 80,000 returns, a. 52% increase as the honourable gentleman was generous enough to acknowledge.
And we've done this at a time when similar duties were in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act. I'd also like to highlight, again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries which have delivered clear results.
And we've done this at a time when similar duties were in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act. I'd also like to highlight, again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries which have delivered clear results.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
We signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal. migration and to increase returns. In August of this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Just to name a couple of examples. As members will be aware, we've also leveraged our visa system to positive effect earlier this year following threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties. The Home Secretary secured returned cooperation from all three countries, restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, who are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns into one. organisation will be a costly.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
A shifting of the. deckchairs from effective work that is currently being carried out. I've said previously that there is plenty more work to do and government is not complacent. But the measures already debated in this Bill in clause 20 demonstrate a real and material way in which this government can increase the volume of returns for foreign national.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
I call. Mathers to move new clause 46. Thank you. This group is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 sets four simple rules. Make all your claims at once. Back them with real checkable evidence. Do not. contradict what you said. One appeal later claims are. inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in your home country, and claims based on how you've behaved since arriving are disregarded. New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary's decision final with no judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. This builds on what Parliament has already done.
The Nationality and Borders Act. 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced later , without good reason. This government kept that act new. Clause 46 takes the same. principle to its logical conclusion. If it was not raised at the start and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all. Three cases show why Abdul Ezedi only raised his conversion to.
The Nationality and Borders Act. 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced later , without good reason. This government kept that act new. Clause 46 takes the same. principle to its logical conclusion. If it was not raised at the start and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all. Three cases show why Abdul Ezedi only raised his conversion to.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding. On the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women's Hospital, more than six years after he first lost Lauren Jean Abdul Rahim arrived in. 2019 claiming to be a 14 year old orphan. He was in fact, an adult who'd murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov. On his way here, he was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
A false age, a new name or a. conversion after arrival would not get off the ground under new clause 54. Decision made would be a decision that sticks. That's not harsh. It's how most people assume the system already works. Or take Jameel Ahmed, a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in. 2008 of unlawful sexual.
intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16.
intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16.
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
He was convicted again for the same. offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a. teenager and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a. deportation order. He lost his appeals twice and then, after a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal on the basis that reporting of his crimes put him at risk if he went home. Nearly ten years of litigation. But a new clause 54, a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.
What motivates these clauses is a simple belief. A fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It does not serve the taxpayer who picks up the bill for the hotel, the.
What motivates these clauses is a simple belief. A fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It does not serve the taxpayer who picks up the bill for the hotel, the.
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
The lawyers and the tribunal. It does not serve justice because a. decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all. Get it right first time, give people one fair appeal and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than. 90,000 asylum appeals are awaiting, taking around. 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found nearly. 330,000 open cases across our. tribunals earlier this year, and the government already accept the principle of finality.
Clause one of their own bill has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the minister tell the committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary?
Clause one of their own bill has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the minister tell the committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary?
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
46 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much, and I thank the honourable member for Croydon North and the honourable member for Stockton West for tabling this amendment. Let me start by saying this government is committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is. investigated and. swiftly dealt with. I should also say that the core issue, the Right Honourable member's amendment, seeks to address that of all claims being made at the same time, is already well covered in existing policy and legislation. Section eight of the Asylum and Immigration Treatment of Claimants Acts.
2004 sets out that asylum claimants credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late.
2004 sets out that asylum claimants credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence we would expect to see where reasonably available. However, I understand the right honourable member's. frustration with stories, many of which he has detailed there of asylum abuse, with claims being made, for example, on the steps of charter flights. But we cannot support this amendment. This is because it would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full. circumstances of an individual case. As you can imagine, there are very good reasons why relevant information or evidence only becomes available after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be.
considered as drafted. New clause 46 applies to all. applications and claims made to the Home Office, not simply protection claims, and could therefore have far reaching unintended. consequences across the wider immigration system. For example, a person who initially came to the United Kingdom as a student and later became eligible to apply as a skilled worker, could find a subsequent. application treated as. inadmissible because it had not been made at the same time as their original.
considered as drafted. New clause 46 applies to all. applications and claims made to the Home Office, not simply protection claims, and could therefore have far reaching unintended. consequences across the wider immigration system. For example, a person who initially came to the United Kingdom as a student and later became eligible to apply as a skilled worker, could find a subsequent. application treated as. inadmissible because it had not been made at the same time as their original.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which I do not believe is the right honourable member's intentions. This amendment is likely to also be. counterproductive rather than reducing litigation, including claims in this way would risk increasing judicial reviews, as courts would instead be asked to consider whether decision makers had applied the provision correctly in individual cases. The amendment is also not clear on what a material change of. circumstances means in the subject of subsequent claims, as I am sure the Committee will agree, we must grant protection to those who need it and refuse to those who do not. But not all asylum claims are based on objective country conditions.
Indeed, many are based on the existence of immutable inherent. characteristics such as sexuality or belief, and there may be circumstances or individual factors which explain why information was not disclosed at an earlier stage. It is right that all these factors are considered in the round, so that we get to the right decision. Asking all such claims would clearly not uphold the obligations to genuine refugees on which we all agree. Just because a claim is raised late, it does not mean that it is any less well-founded than one made straight away, though. As noted, we are already able to make negative credibility.
inferences in respect of claims raised later than they should have been. I appreciate that engaging in activity that will generate an asylum claim in bad faith while in the UK is not the way the Refugee Convention is intended to work, but these are issues that are routinely assessed in the round by the Home Office against a rigorous credibility framework. We also operate further submissions.
Indeed, many are based on the existence of immutable inherent. characteristics such as sexuality or belief, and there may be circumstances or individual factors which explain why information was not disclosed at an earlier stage. It is right that all these factors are considered in the round, so that we get to the right decision. Asking all such claims would clearly not uphold the obligations to genuine refugees on which we all agree. Just because a claim is raised late, it does not mean that it is any less well-founded than one made straight away, though. As noted, we are already able to make negative credibility.
inferences in respect of claims raised later than they should have been. I appreciate that engaging in activity that will generate an asylum claim in bad faith while in the UK is not the way the Refugee Convention is intended to work, but these are issues that are routinely assessed in the round by the Home Office against a rigorous credibility framework. We also operate further submissions.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which is a well-established and long standing mechanism to deal with any further. information which might be presented by a claimant. If that information does not amount to a fresh claim, then it can be rejected without any further right of appeal. And finally, this government is already taking forward fundamental reform of the immigration and asylum appeals system. The new.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Which we have discussed at length, will deliver a single route for appeal, which must be lodged as early as possible. This will remove the scope for bringing multiple appeals, often. vexatious and at the very last minute before removal, as some claimants do, late claims will be heard under an expedited process, ensuring they cannot be used to frustrate a removal. There will be a right for further appeal to a judge led tribunal only on a point of law.
For those reasons, while I recognise the intention behind the amendment and sympathise with the right honourable member's.
For those reasons, while I recognise the intention behind the amendment and sympathise with the right honourable member's.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
New clause 54. I would like to thank the honourable member for Stockton West for moving this course. New clause 54 would prevent any challenge being brought by way of judicial review in relation to decisions made by the Home Office on any protection or immigration claim. This would leave many people with no judicial redress, even when there was an error made in reaching a decision. The Home Office has the power to certify protection and human rights claims where they are clearly unfounded.
Under section 94 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act.
Under section 94 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act.
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Certification under section 94 removes entirely the right of appeal to ensure there is judicial oversight of refugee claims and other claims in respect of fundamental rights. Certification decisions can be challenged by judicial review, removing the ability of the courts to review certification. decisions would mean that where the Home Office had declared an asylum or human rights claim clearly.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Torture and a risk to life. In fact, so wide ranging as New Clause 54 in preventing any court or tribunal from setting aside a decision that is not clear, there would be any rights of appeal at all. On the face of it, the clause conflicts with the legislation maintaining the right of appeal for immigration asylum decisions made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, not to mention that it conflicts with part one of this bill, which establishes the eye to hear exactly these appeals. If passed, it is something that the courts would no doubt need to.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
As well as risking confusion in the existing IAC, even if the intention is that they do continue to be appeal rights. It is not just protection in human rights claims that would be affected by new clause 54. Decisions made on student or worker applications, or any other type of immigration decision made against which there is no right of appeal, would also have no means of judicial oversight. Not only would this be a draconian step that undermines the rule of law, it goes against the values the UK has always proudly .
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Paying for more than. 64,000 pieces of work, and the government have since added a. £20 million a year uplift to the fees. So under this government it is more taxpayers money for. immigration litigation, not less. Let me put it simply a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their. employer or for their most family court cases, is entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here. illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law. For British citizens.
immigration should not be the exception and it shapes behaviour. More than. 90,000 asylum appeals waiting and over a third of asylum appeals withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there's very little cost to having a go. We've heard in earlier groups what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to. Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be.
immigration should not be the exception and it shapes behaviour. More than. 90,000 asylum appeals waiting and over a third of asylum appeals withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there's very little cost to having a go. We've heard in earlier groups what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to. Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be.
11:53
11:53
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
And right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts when budgets are stretched. I think the public would expect legal aid to go first to British. citizens facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their. children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal. This is not about denying anyone their day in court. It's about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This clause saves money, cuts the last minute. challenges and puts the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not .
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Clause 47 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much. Amendment New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As members will know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse, modern slavery and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically. Applications remain subject to both a means test and a merit test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse. Modern slavery, separated migrant children and those challenging immigration detention decisions.
Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN Refugee. Convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
In response to the honourable.
Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN Refugee. Convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
In response to the honourable.
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
11:53
14:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Everyone for the final furlough. We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast this afternoon. The committee will continue its line by line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. I understand the government wishes to move an amendment to the programme motion.
14:00
14:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. The question is that the order of the Committee, the 15th of September, be varied as follows in paragraph four, leave out 5 p.m. and insert 6:30 p.m.. As many as are of that opinion, say I. I to the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We resume consideration with the debate on New Clause 47. I call the Minister to resume her remarks on new clause 47.
14:00
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Mason, and it's a pleasure to have you back in the chair again. I was actually just concluding. So to round up legal aid helps ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The United Kingdom also has obligations under the UN Refugee Convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
For these reasons, the government cannot support this amendment. I respectfully ask it be withdrawn.
For these reasons, the government cannot support this amendment. I respectfully ask it be withdrawn.
14:01
14:01
14:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Division. On. Sian Berry no J Botterill no. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Foods. Paul Foster, no. Tom Gordon. Melanie on J Robertson. I David Smith, Blake Stevenson I Adam. Thompson, Anna. Turley no. Matt Vickers I. The odds are three then there's a ten seven ayes have it.
The nos have it unlock. We now come to group 65 a new clause 48 I call Blake Stevenson. Thank you very much doctor.
The nos have it unlock. We now come to group 65 a new clause 48 I call Blake Stevenson. Thank you very much doctor.
14:03
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
It's a pleasure to serve in your chairmanship for this final furlong of this final session of this committee. New clause 48 would put a cap on the non visitor visas one number set every year by regulations approved by both houses, with the option of separate caps for individual routes. Let me start with the past net migration peaked at 940 44,000 in the year to March 2023. And we on this side of house do not pretend otherwise. It was far too high. And the British people are right to be angry about it. It fell to 171,000 last year, and it fell because the previous conservative government acted.
We ended the right of most student and care workers to bring dependents, and we raise the salary threshold of skilled workers. Those decisions are what enable Britain to turn the corner. Every one of those changes sits in the immigration rules. They can be reversed by minister with a statement of changes. Without a vote in this House, there is no cap, there is no target. The fall we've seen is not protected by law, and what was done by the stroke of a pen can be undone the same way. That is why this government's approach falls short.
This government promised to reduce net migration significantly, but has failed to put a number on it. Ministers will happily take credit for figures driven by conservative reforms, while refusing to be held to any measure of their own. A promise with no measure means the promises can be broken, so it can never be broken. Our approach is about control who comes here, how many and who must leave. New clause 48 would let Parliament decide the number every year in an open air, in the open, where the public can see it and members must vote on it.
Root caps would allow us to protect the NHS in our universities. Giving them certainty rather than leaving them exposed to sudden swings in policy. Australia and Canada plan their migration in exactly this way, setting levels in advance and debating them openly. Nobody would call those countries closed or unwelcoming. If the government are confident that numbers will stay down, they have nothing to fear from a cap. If they are confident, the House deserves to know why. So I ask the minister a simple question and would be grateful for any simple answer. Does the government have a numerical numerical target for net migration?
Yes or no? Thank you.
We ended the right of most student and care workers to bring dependents, and we raise the salary threshold of skilled workers. Those decisions are what enable Britain to turn the corner. Every one of those changes sits in the immigration rules. They can be reversed by minister with a statement of changes. Without a vote in this House, there is no cap, there is no target. The fall we've seen is not protected by law, and what was done by the stroke of a pen can be undone the same way. That is why this government's approach falls short.
This government promised to reduce net migration significantly, but has failed to put a number on it. Ministers will happily take credit for figures driven by conservative reforms, while refusing to be held to any measure of their own. A promise with no measure means the promises can be broken, so it can never be broken. Our approach is about control who comes here, how many and who must leave. New clause 48 would let Parliament decide the number every year in an open air, in the open, where the public can see it and members must vote on it.
Root caps would allow us to protect the NHS in our universities. Giving them certainty rather than leaving them exposed to sudden swings in policy. Australia and Canada plan their migration in exactly this way, setting levels in advance and debating them openly. Nobody would call those countries closed or unwelcoming. If the government are confident that numbers will stay down, they have nothing to fear from a cap. If they are confident, the House deserves to know why. So I ask the minister a simple question and would be grateful for any simple answer. Does the government have a numerical numerical target for net migration?
Yes or no? Thank you.
14:05
14:05
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The short answer is no. For the longer answer, I would. Appreciate a place. My thanks to the honourable gentleman for moving his amendment. We are committed to the reforms that we set out last year in the restoring and control over the immigration system, White paper, and we've already made substantial progress. We have already delivered a dramatic 80% reduction in net migration, which reached a record high under the last government. I remember. I'm old enough to remember David Cameron promising caps in the tens of thousands on immigration last year. Sorry. This year we our immigration stands at 171,000, which is the lowest since 2012.
And as I said, we've seen we saw a peak in the under the previous government of over nine, nine and a half, sorry. Well, 900,000. So you can see, as I said, an 80% reduction on that figure not needed with an arbitrary number. And we propose that that arbitrary cap is not a workable proposition. The honourable gentleman's amendment would not only restrict access to workers, but also to family members of UK nationals, students and international business people, where the UK has treaty commitments to allow access, including multiple trade agreements signed by the previous government.
A cap across all routes would create the absurdity of trading off places between. A British citizen wanted to bring in their spouse, a specialist engineer needed on a national infrastructure project, or a student wanting to study at one of our top universities. The operation of a cap would be costly and complex to implement. Workforce planning for UK businesses would become highly complex, with workers being allowed one day and then barred the next, impacting their ability to operate and hampering growth. Groups representing different sectors and industries would have to argue their workers are more essential than others.
International sports players would be prevented from playing in UK teams, and world class musicians would be prevented from working with UK based creatives or doing extended tours. Family would have their cases simply determined by whether an arbitrary numerical ceiling has already been reached, rather than their individual circumstances. The previous cap was in place only on the tier two immigration route between 2011 and 2020, and it was removed by the previous government themselves. They will have found it slowed access to the route and generally affected lower paid but vital occupations such as nurses and teachers. The cap was amended on numerous occasions by governments between 2011 and 2020, with many occupations being removed from it, making it less and less likely to be reached.
This government is taking a better approach, linking migration more closely with UK skills and needs, creating a fairer, more effective system, placing our emphasis on contribution, reducing net migration from the record high reached under the last government to strengthen alignment between migration and workforce policy . In July 2025, the government raised the skilled worker threshold to Rqf six and introduced the temporary shortage list, linking access to international recruitment for skilled roles related to the industrial strategy and critical infrastructure with credible workforce plans, which address shortages in the UK market through domestic interventions, which I think we would all agree is the priority.
The Immigration White Paper, alongside the Industrial Strategy, get Britain working and post 16 skills. White papers are intended to lead a more effective domestic labour market taken in the round. These will meet shared objectives of getting 1 million young people not in education, employment or training into that work or training. Demand for priority occupations is expected to rise in the next ten years, and the importance of maintaining immigration system, which prioritises resident workers whilst allowing targeted recruitment of overseas skills to drive growth, is paramount. And as the honourable member will know, our approach is having the desired effect.
As I've said, net migration down by 82% since the grotesque peak of nearly a million people in 2023. It is therefore through effective and sensible reform and not absolute and inflexible limits that this government is bringing down net migration and restoring order and control to our immigration system. I hope this reassures the honourable member that we support the spirit of his amendment and recognise the importance of controlling migration. However, an additional statutory duty and an arbitrary cap is unnecessary.
For these reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendments. Mr..
And as I said, we've seen we saw a peak in the under the previous government of over nine, nine and a half, sorry. Well, 900,000. So you can see, as I said, an 80% reduction on that figure not needed with an arbitrary number. And we propose that that arbitrary cap is not a workable proposition. The honourable gentleman's amendment would not only restrict access to workers, but also to family members of UK nationals, students and international business people, where the UK has treaty commitments to allow access, including multiple trade agreements signed by the previous government.
A cap across all routes would create the absurdity of trading off places between. A British citizen wanted to bring in their spouse, a specialist engineer needed on a national infrastructure project, or a student wanting to study at one of our top universities. The operation of a cap would be costly and complex to implement. Workforce planning for UK businesses would become highly complex, with workers being allowed one day and then barred the next, impacting their ability to operate and hampering growth. Groups representing different sectors and industries would have to argue their workers are more essential than others.
International sports players would be prevented from playing in UK teams, and world class musicians would be prevented from working with UK based creatives or doing extended tours. Family would have their cases simply determined by whether an arbitrary numerical ceiling has already been reached, rather than their individual circumstances. The previous cap was in place only on the tier two immigration route between 2011 and 2020, and it was removed by the previous government themselves. They will have found it slowed access to the route and generally affected lower paid but vital occupations such as nurses and teachers. The cap was amended on numerous occasions by governments between 2011 and 2020, with many occupations being removed from it, making it less and less likely to be reached.
This government is taking a better approach, linking migration more closely with UK skills and needs, creating a fairer, more effective system, placing our emphasis on contribution, reducing net migration from the record high reached under the last government to strengthen alignment between migration and workforce policy . In July 2025, the government raised the skilled worker threshold to Rqf six and introduced the temporary shortage list, linking access to international recruitment for skilled roles related to the industrial strategy and critical infrastructure with credible workforce plans, which address shortages in the UK market through domestic interventions, which I think we would all agree is the priority.
The Immigration White Paper, alongside the Industrial Strategy, get Britain working and post 16 skills. White papers are intended to lead a more effective domestic labour market taken in the round. These will meet shared objectives of getting 1 million young people not in education, employment or training into that work or training. Demand for priority occupations is expected to rise in the next ten years, and the importance of maintaining immigration system, which prioritises resident workers whilst allowing targeted recruitment of overseas skills to drive growth, is paramount. And as the honourable member will know, our approach is having the desired effect.
As I've said, net migration down by 82% since the grotesque peak of nearly a million people in 2023. It is therefore through effective and sensible reform and not absolute and inflexible limits that this government is bringing down net migration and restoring order and control to our immigration system. I hope this reassures the honourable member that we support the spirit of his amendment and recognise the importance of controlling migration. However, an additional statutory duty and an arbitrary cap is unnecessary.
For these reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendments. Mr..
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:10
14:10
14:10
14:11
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
New clause 49 will put a ten year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain into law. For those who are self-sufficient, earn at least £38,700 and have no criminal record. A year ago this month, the government consulted on earned settlement and promised a ten year baseline applying to people already here. They said it would begin in April. In March, that became the autumn. In September, it became later this year. On Thursday, the minister told this committee that settlement was, quote, currently undergoing a lot of discussion. And yesterday the Home Secretary came to the House with the outcome of that discussion.
Not a tougher policy, but a softer one. Once again, this government has buckled after backlash from left wing backbenchers and unions. Care workers who arrived before May last year will keep the five year route on a salary of £25,000. Around 300,000 people will benefit from that change, and the number expected to receive indefinite leave to remain by 2030 has risen to about 1.9 million people, some 300,000 more than the government's own forecast just a year ago. That is what happens when policy is left to rules rather than to law. Every month of delay brings another round of lobbying, and every round of lobbying brings another concession.
This is a pattern that we've seen throughout this bill. The language is tough. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. It must be earned. But the action is soft. When the moment came to apply that principle to the largest cohort in our history, the government blinked. Settlement is permanent. It cannot be undone. It brings access to benefits and to social housing, and it's a gateway to citizenship. A decision of that way should be earned, and the standard should be set by Parliament, not drafted, delayed and diluted without a single vote. That is the approach my right hon.
Friend the leader of the opposition has set out, and it is what new clause 49 delivers a clear threshold in statute that cannot be quietly lowered the next time pressure builds. I would also put a question to the rest of the committee. I would happily give way to either Lib Dem members or the one that's remaining. If they can tell us whether their party supports a ten year qualifying period at all, or whether they welcome yesterday's retreat. And for those who see no problem to solve, I'd say this a country that hands out permanent status on the passage of time alone is not being generous.
It is simply not making a decision. The government now has a choice if it believes its own rhetoric. Here is the clause. Vote for it. So I ask the minister, when will the earn settlement rules actually be laid, which I don't think was answered on the floor of the House yesterday, though I may be mistaken. And of those already here, how many will now face the ten year period and how many will settle after five? Thank you.
Chair.
Not a tougher policy, but a softer one. Once again, this government has buckled after backlash from left wing backbenchers and unions. Care workers who arrived before May last year will keep the five year route on a salary of £25,000. Around 300,000 people will benefit from that change, and the number expected to receive indefinite leave to remain by 2030 has risen to about 1.9 million people, some 300,000 more than the government's own forecast just a year ago. That is what happens when policy is left to rules rather than to law. Every month of delay brings another round of lobbying, and every round of lobbying brings another concession.
This is a pattern that we've seen throughout this bill. The language is tough. Settlement is a privilege, not a right. It must be earned. But the action is soft. When the moment came to apply that principle to the largest cohort in our history, the government blinked. Settlement is permanent. It cannot be undone. It brings access to benefits and to social housing, and it's a gateway to citizenship. A decision of that way should be earned, and the standard should be set by Parliament, not drafted, delayed and diluted without a single vote. That is the approach my right hon.
Friend the leader of the opposition has set out, and it is what new clause 49 delivers a clear threshold in statute that cannot be quietly lowered the next time pressure builds. I would also put a question to the rest of the committee. I would happily give way to either Lib Dem members or the one that's remaining. If they can tell us whether their party supports a ten year qualifying period at all, or whether they welcome yesterday's retreat. And for those who see no problem to solve, I'd say this a country that hands out permanent status on the passage of time alone is not being generous.
It is simply not making a decision. The government now has a choice if it believes its own rhetoric. Here is the clause. Vote for it. So I ask the minister, when will the earn settlement rules actually be laid, which I don't think was answered on the floor of the House yesterday, though I may be mistaken. And of those already here, how many will now face the ten year period and how many will settle after five? Thank you.
Chair.
14:13
14:14
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. I promise, honourable members in this committee they would not have long to wait, and I hope they were able to spend time yesterday and today absorbing the changes that the Home Secretary announced. New clause 49 seeks to require the Secretary of State within six months of the passing of the act, to introduce a ten year qualifying period for applications for indefinite leave to remain for holders of visas as set out, and for partners, parents or dependants of a person who holds UK citizenship. The amendment would also introduce eligibility requirements relating to access to social protection and income requirement and criminality.
I thank the Right Honourable Member for Croydon South and the honourable member for Stockton West for tabling amendment new clause 49 for those who weren't able to attend the Home Secretary's statement yesterday, or tune in this morning to the media round, I would just like to provide honourable members with an overview of what we announced yesterday. Under the previous government, a government who promised time and again to bring down net migration. The number of people who migrated to the UK exploded. This has placed untold pressure on local communities and public services across the country. In 2023 alone, nearly a million people arrived into the UK.
That is near comparable to the entire population of Estonia, nearly two entire Manchesters and nearly the entire population of Devon. In just four years, the UK saw the same number of people arrive as in the previous four decades. In the face of this abject loss of control, this government had to act, and I might remind honourable members opposite that they were in power for a quite a substantial amount of time during which this happened, and had plentiful opportunity to bring in changes that they wanted to see, to ILR and to settlement. We have had to act very rapidly to try and protect people from the surge that we saw in the last four years of their government and for our government and the Home Secretary, as she laid out, our principle guiding factor when formulating these reforms was fairness, fairness towards those who came here legally to play their part, and fairness towards British citizens already here who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.
As I've reiterated throughout this bill committee, we have a proud history of welcoming those who are wholeheartedly and sincerely looking for a better life and have something to contribute. But we must also acknowledge that this requires something back. For those individuals who do come here, they must play their part. They must contribute to the community and become part of our national life. This is not just necessary. It is right if we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public service, then they must know that everyone is contributing their fair share.
The current system of settlement is predicated that someone becomes eligible for settlement when they've been in the UK for five years. This gives an individual access to free education, our NHS and should they fall upon it, the welfare state, amongst other things. Until now, simply time served was enough for people to qualify. Within those five years, as the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met.
Sure.
I thank the Right Honourable Member for Croydon South and the honourable member for Stockton West for tabling amendment new clause 49 for those who weren't able to attend the Home Secretary's statement yesterday, or tune in this morning to the media round, I would just like to provide honourable members with an overview of what we announced yesterday. Under the previous government, a government who promised time and again to bring down net migration. The number of people who migrated to the UK exploded. This has placed untold pressure on local communities and public services across the country. In 2023 alone, nearly a million people arrived into the UK.
That is near comparable to the entire population of Estonia, nearly two entire Manchesters and nearly the entire population of Devon. In just four years, the UK saw the same number of people arrive as in the previous four decades. In the face of this abject loss of control, this government had to act, and I might remind honourable members opposite that they were in power for a quite a substantial amount of time during which this happened, and had plentiful opportunity to bring in changes that they wanted to see, to ILR and to settlement. We have had to act very rapidly to try and protect people from the surge that we saw in the last four years of their government and for our government and the Home Secretary, as she laid out, our principle guiding factor when formulating these reforms was fairness, fairness towards those who came here legally to play their part, and fairness towards British citizens already here who should not be asked to bear a greater burden.
As I've reiterated throughout this bill committee, we have a proud history of welcoming those who are wholeheartedly and sincerely looking for a better life and have something to contribute. But we must also acknowledge that this requires something back. For those individuals who do come here, they must play their part. They must contribute to the community and become part of our national life. This is not just necessary. It is right if we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public service, then they must know that everyone is contributing their fair share.
The current system of settlement is predicated that someone becomes eligible for settlement when they've been in the UK for five years. This gives an individual access to free education, our NHS and should they fall upon it, the welfare state, amongst other things. Until now, simply time served was enough for people to qualify. Within those five years, as the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met.
Sure.
14:17
14:17
14:18
14:18
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With the honourable gentleman. We when people come here, they come here on the terms of their visa. The terms of settlement are entirely separate thing. And they they they undertake those decisions and it is been legally tested in court. That decision is made at the point that they apply for settlement, not at the point at which they come into the country under different visa regulations. So we're very clear on that point. And if we if we had this situation, we wouldn't be able to ever change immigration policy because there'd always be somebody disadvantaged who was in the country when changes happen.
So I'm afraid I do disagree with the honourable gentleman. As the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should be met after responsibility. Sorry should come after responsibilities have been met, after someone has contributed, after they have integrated, after they've bought into what it means to be British and to live as part of the wide and diverse community we have the privilege to live within. Settlement should be earned as the Home Secretary laid out, settlement will now be based on wider contribution, rather than simply just time served in the UK.
In relation to the specific amendment. The opposition will note that under our Earned Settlement framework, the standard qualifying period for settlement will be ten years and that any form of criminality will in general be an absolute bar from an individual ever being able to settle. On the other hand, those who contribute most to our communities through higher earnings, socially important roles and exceptional talent will be recognized and rewarded through a reduced rate of settlement. These are fair changes, they are necessary changes, and they are what the public expects from this government. As the government has now announced our reforms to settlement, I ask the honourable member to withdraw the amendment.
Before I finish. I will respond to his question about when the changes will be made. There will be laid December this year and they'll come into force during 2027. The honourable gentleman asked how many will now be eligible, being now 1.4 million people, down half a million from what would have happened if we hadn't intervened. So it's down from 1.9 million to 1.4 million. People will now be eligible at the five year period.
So with that, I will ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Thank Stevenson.
So I'm afraid I do disagree with the honourable gentleman. As the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should be met after responsibility. Sorry should come after responsibilities have been met, after someone has contributed, after they have integrated, after they've bought into what it means to be British and to live as part of the wide and diverse community we have the privilege to live within. Settlement should be earned as the Home Secretary laid out, settlement will now be based on wider contribution, rather than simply just time served in the UK.
In relation to the specific amendment. The opposition will note that under our Earned Settlement framework, the standard qualifying period for settlement will be ten years and that any form of criminality will in general be an absolute bar from an individual ever being able to settle. On the other hand, those who contribute most to our communities through higher earnings, socially important roles and exceptional talent will be recognized and rewarded through a reduced rate of settlement. These are fair changes, they are necessary changes, and they are what the public expects from this government. As the government has now announced our reforms to settlement, I ask the honourable member to withdraw the amendment.
Before I finish. I will respond to his question about when the changes will be made. There will be laid December this year and they'll come into force during 2027. The honourable gentleman asked how many will now be eligible, being now 1.4 million people, down half a million from what would have happened if we hadn't intervened. So it's down from 1.9 million to 1.4 million. People will now be eligible at the five year period.
So with that, I will ask the honourable gentleman to withdraw the amendment. Thank Stevenson.
14:22
14:23
14:23
14:24
14:24
14:25
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you very much, Doctor Morrison. I was delighted when the minister nearly voted that clause 49. But I appreciate it's been a very long day, and there's been quite a few sessions in the passage of this bill, so I'm sure all will be forgiven. Consider two people, both of whom were granted indefinite leave to remain on the same day. One has worked, paid their taxes, raised a family and never troubled the police. The other has since been convicted of a serious violent offence under the law. Today, the Home Office cannot deport the second person. They keep exactly the same permanent status as the first.
That is not fairness. It is a failure to distinguish between those who honor the privilege of settlement and those who abuse it. New clause 50 would change that. It would allow indefinite leave to remain to be revoked for foreign criminals and for those granted it. After commencement, on terms short of ten years standard in the new clause 49 with Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong schemes protected, our borders plan is clear that all foreign criminals should be deported and never allowed to return to the UK. But where deportation stalls settle, status must not become a shield.
The existing power to revoke under section 76 of the 2002 act is narrow and rarely used. At the end of last year, more than 19,000 national offenders were living in our communities, which I think has since risen to around 21,000, having completed their sentences while still subject to deportation or removal. Every one of them is a case where the system has said they should go, but has not yet made that happen. Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House once again that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We of course, agree with that sentiment, but a privilege that can never be withdrawn, however gravely it is abused, is not a privilege at all.
It is an entitlement by another name. The government's new rules reportedly make criminality grounds for refusing settlement. That's good, but that only works at the front door. It does nothing about the person who obtains settlement and offends afterwards. If the principle is right before the grant, why does it stop applying the day after? New clause 50 also ensures that the concessions announced yesterday do not become permanent by default. If Parliament decides that ten years is the standard, those granted settlement on lesser terms should not be beyond review for the law abiding migrant who has worked here, supported themselves and contributed nothing.
Changes for the serious offender settlement can be lost. That is a line this clause draws, and I believe the overwhelming majority of the British public, including the many settle migrants who. Migrants who play by the rules, would agree with where it falls. So I ask the minister how many grants have indefinite leave were revoked in each of the last three years, and how many foreign national offenders hold indefinite leave today? Thank you. Chair.
That is not fairness. It is a failure to distinguish between those who honor the privilege of settlement and those who abuse it. New clause 50 would change that. It would allow indefinite leave to remain to be revoked for foreign criminals and for those granted it. After commencement, on terms short of ten years standard in the new clause 49 with Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong schemes protected, our borders plan is clear that all foreign criminals should be deported and never allowed to return to the UK. But where deportation stalls settle, status must not become a shield.
The existing power to revoke under section 76 of the 2002 act is narrow and rarely used. At the end of last year, more than 19,000 national offenders were living in our communities, which I think has since risen to around 21,000, having completed their sentences while still subject to deportation or removal. Every one of them is a case where the system has said they should go, but has not yet made that happen. Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House once again that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We of course, agree with that sentiment, but a privilege that can never be withdrawn, however gravely it is abused, is not a privilege at all.
It is an entitlement by another name. The government's new rules reportedly make criminality grounds for refusing settlement. That's good, but that only works at the front door. It does nothing about the person who obtains settlement and offends afterwards. If the principle is right before the grant, why does it stop applying the day after? New clause 50 also ensures that the concessions announced yesterday do not become permanent by default. If Parliament decides that ten years is the standard, those granted settlement on lesser terms should not be beyond review for the law abiding migrant who has worked here, supported themselves and contributed nothing.
Changes for the serious offender settlement can be lost. That is a line this clause draws, and I believe the overwhelming majority of the British public, including the many settle migrants who. Migrants who play by the rules, would agree with where it falls. So I ask the minister how many grants have indefinite leave were revoked in each of the last three years, and how many foreign national offenders hold indefinite leave today? Thank you. Chair.
14:31
14:31
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. The opposition's amendment, New clause 50, aims to enable revocation of a person's indefinite leave where they are liable to deportation. Have not been in the UK legally for at least ten years and are not within defined, defined cohorts set out in the amendment clause 49. The government is absolutely clear that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK when, wherever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. Settlement can already be revoked under section 76 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where a foreign national is liable to deportation but cannot be deported because of our obligations under the Echr or the Refugee Convention.
This amendment would therefore have no practical effect on our ability to deport individuals and or to revoke indefinite leave to remain. As the honourable gentleman has pointed out, we have changed. You know, we announced our policy and our intention to change the rules going forward so that where previously only those with a custodial sentence would have been prevented from settling in this country. Now, everyone who has had any kind of criminal record will now be prevented from settling in this country. So that is a substantial and a wide ranging change to the policy. So going forward, we're absolutely clear that we will ensure that no one is able to settle who has a criminal record.
Yes, I was.
This amendment would therefore have no practical effect on our ability to deport individuals and or to revoke indefinite leave to remain. As the honourable gentleman has pointed out, we have changed. You know, we announced our policy and our intention to change the rules going forward so that where previously only those with a custodial sentence would have been prevented from settling in this country. Now, everyone who has had any kind of criminal record will now be prevented from settling in this country. So that is a substantial and a wide ranging change to the policy. So going forward, we're absolutely clear that we will ensure that no one is able to settle who has a criminal record.
Yes, I was.
14:34
14:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The honourable gentleman makes an important point. As I said, we have there is a difference in that. This amendment would actually not enable us to deport any further people. We. This is about us going forward. We won't allow people to have that settlement, but we cannot. This. This amendment will not allow us to remove any more people than currently is permissible indefinitely, brings certain unconditional entitlements. The freedoms that limited leave do not. For example, the automatic right to work, study or access benefits. No restrictions on where you live, or a requirement to report a person who has acted in a way that warrants revocation of their indefinite leave should not expect to retain it simply because they have been settled in the UK.
And while it may not always be possible or right to remove that person for legal reasons, revocation, which we've talked about during the passage of this bill, does take away those undeserved privileges and advantages, and we do deport people who are settled here in the UK already, or foreign nationals who receive a custodial sentence in the UK are referred by the Home Office, but to the Home Office by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service for consideration of deportation or administrative removal. We also receive referrals from the police and other law enforcement bodies and the security agencies.
A deportation order invalidates a person's leave and prevents an individual from lawfully re-entering the UK whilst it remains in force. So I hope that's clarified the honourable gentleman's questions and I respectfully ask the amendment be withdrawn.
And while it may not always be possible or right to remove that person for legal reasons, revocation, which we've talked about during the passage of this bill, does take away those undeserved privileges and advantages, and we do deport people who are settled here in the UK already, or foreign nationals who receive a custodial sentence in the UK are referred by the Home Office, but to the Home Office by His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service for consideration of deportation or administrative removal. We also receive referrals from the police and other law enforcement bodies and the security agencies.
A deportation order invalidates a person's leave and prevents an individual from lawfully re-entering the UK whilst it remains in force. So I hope that's clarified the honourable gentleman's questions and I respectfully ask the amendment be withdrawn.
14:38
14:39
14:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Chambéry. No. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine . Fuchs, Paul. Foster, John. Gordon, Melanie. On, Jo. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson I. Adam. Thompson no. Anna. Turley no. Matt. Vickers I. Thank you. The eyes are three.
The nos were ten. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. We now come to group 6868. New clause 68. Yes yes yes. And new clause 51 with which it will be convenient to debate new clause 52. I call Blake Stevenson to new new clause 51.
The nos were ten. So the nos have it. The nos have it unlock. We now come to group 6868. New clause 68. Yes yes yes. And new clause 51 with which it will be convenient to debate new clause 52. I call Blake Stevenson to new new clause 51.
14:41
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you again, Doctor Morrison. New clause 51. Sorry. New clause is 51 and 52 . Concern the particular route 58,000 family visas were granted in the year to June, and it remains the one major route to this country with no limits at all. New clause 51 would introduce an annual cap on spouse and partner visas, set after consultation, with no more than 5% from any one country. New clause 52 sets four requirements two years marriage before settlement a sponsor income of £38,700. Both parties to be at least 23 and no first cousin marriages. I anticipate a number of objections may be raised by the committee to these clauses, and I want to try to preempt some of those and talk to them directly.
The first is that this potentially interferes with the right to marry. It does not. British citizens remain free to marry whom they choose. Nothing in these clauses touches that. These clauses consider the conditions on which a partner from overseas comes to settle here permanently. Every country sets such conditions. The only question is whether they're set by Parliament or left to shift with the political winds. The second objection, perhaps, is that £38,700 is too high, that this is not new. This is not a new figure. It was the level the previous government legislated to reach, matching the threshold for skilled workers, so that those who bring a partner here can support them without needing to rely on taxpayers money.
This government paused it pending review. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in June last year that 17 months later, there is still no decision. That is a familiar pattern. Ministers commissioned the review, received the review and then do nothing with it, leaving families, employers and the public in the dark. If the government thinks £29,000 is the right figure, they should say so and defend it. They do not. They should act. The third objection might be on the age, and that the cousin rules are heavy handed. I would ask the committee to consider the evidence. In 2025, the Forced Marriage Unit gave tailored support in more than 400 cases, and 40% of them involved children.
Those are only the cases that came forward. The government's own statistics say they do not reflect the full scale of the abuse. Forced marriage is often tied to the visa system, with a young person pressured into marriage as a route for someone else to settle here. Raising the age is a safeguard. It gives young people time, maturity and independence before decision that could shape their whole life. Denmark, which has been referenced I think in previous sessions, went further still, setting the age at 24 for exactly that reason. The cousin rule applies to everyone equally on safeguarding and health grounds, and reflects concerns that clinicians have raised for many years.
These are serious questions about protection, fairness and the public finances. They deserve clear answers in statute decided by this House rather than settled quietly in the immigration rules. So can I ask the minister, when will the government decide on the minimum income requirement, and will it restore £38,700? Thank you, doctor Mason.
The first is that this potentially interferes with the right to marry. It does not. British citizens remain free to marry whom they choose. Nothing in these clauses touches that. These clauses consider the conditions on which a partner from overseas comes to settle here permanently. Every country sets such conditions. The only question is whether they're set by Parliament or left to shift with the political winds. The second objection, perhaps, is that £38,700 is too high, that this is not new. This is not a new figure. It was the level the previous government legislated to reach, matching the threshold for skilled workers, so that those who bring a partner here can support them without needing to rely on taxpayers money.
This government paused it pending review. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in June last year that 17 months later, there is still no decision. That is a familiar pattern. Ministers commissioned the review, received the review and then do nothing with it, leaving families, employers and the public in the dark. If the government thinks £29,000 is the right figure, they should say so and defend it. They do not. They should act. The third objection might be on the age, and that the cousin rules are heavy handed. I would ask the committee to consider the evidence. In 2025, the Forced Marriage Unit gave tailored support in more than 400 cases, and 40% of them involved children.
Those are only the cases that came forward. The government's own statistics say they do not reflect the full scale of the abuse. Forced marriage is often tied to the visa system, with a young person pressured into marriage as a route for someone else to settle here. Raising the age is a safeguard. It gives young people time, maturity and independence before decision that could shape their whole life. Denmark, which has been referenced I think in previous sessions, went further still, setting the age at 24 for exactly that reason. The cousin rule applies to everyone equally on safeguarding and health grounds, and reflects concerns that clinicians have raised for many years.
These are serious questions about protection, fairness and the public finances. They deserve clear answers in statute decided by this House rather than settled quietly in the immigration rules. So can I ask the minister, when will the government decide on the minimum income requirement, and will it restore £38,700? Thank you, doctor Mason.
14:48
14:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, doctor Mason. The government's position is clear. Net migration must come down. We support the right to family life and value the contribution migrants make to our society. But this must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whoever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate they should do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.
However, a numerical cap is not the right way to control family migration. It would have a detrimental impact on British citizens seeking to bring their immediate family members to the UK, and raises concerns about compatibility with our international obligations. The proposed nationality cap an additional partner requirements raised significant , excuse me, raised significant equalities concerns, requiring a couple who have been married or in a civil partnership for two years could disadvantage people in long term relationships who cannot marry or form a civil partnership in their home country, including some same sex couples. A minimum age of 23 would go beyond the legal age for marriage in the UK.
It should also be noted that in 2011, the Supreme Court found that changes made to the immigration rules to increase the age requirement for partner visas to 21 were unlawful. The provisions governing whether family members may come to or stay in the UK are set out in the immigration rules. This bill is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for prescribing detailed requirements for the partner route. As we've made clear, the government will reform the family visa system. The current system has become too complex, inconsistent and open to abuse, with British citizens facing the stricter requirements. Our new family policy will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, settled on work routes or refugees seeking to bring family members to the UK.
It will include clear relationship requirements and appropriate level of English language skills, and will ensure the family unit has sufficient means to support any dependants without relying on the taxpayer. The honourable gentleman asked about when that would come into force. We've made clear in the Immigration White Paper that family migration will be reformed to tackle the overly complex family immigration arrangements. Changes to these requirements must sit alongside wider reform of settlement integration and article eight. It's important the changes work together as part of a coherent system. To ensure financial independence. Applicants on a family route must currently meet either the minimum income requirement or adequate maintenance test.
The Migration Advisory Committee has reviewed the minimum income requirement currently set at 29,000. We are considering their recommendations in detail alongside the work that has been carried out as a result of the Immigration White Paper. Changes to family migration requirements must sit alongside wider reforms to settlement, and taken together, these reforms will enable us to control family migration through clear and robust eligibility requirements while ensuring a coherent immigration system. The honourable gentleman asks about cousin marriage, which I just wanted to respond to. Cousin marriage is permitted under the UK law and the immigration rules reflect that position.
Thank you.
However, a numerical cap is not the right way to control family migration. It would have a detrimental impact on British citizens seeking to bring their immediate family members to the UK, and raises concerns about compatibility with our international obligations. The proposed nationality cap an additional partner requirements raised significant , excuse me, raised significant equalities concerns, requiring a couple who have been married or in a civil partnership for two years could disadvantage people in long term relationships who cannot marry or form a civil partnership in their home country, including some same sex couples. A minimum age of 23 would go beyond the legal age for marriage in the UK.
It should also be noted that in 2011, the Supreme Court found that changes made to the immigration rules to increase the age requirement for partner visas to 21 were unlawful. The provisions governing whether family members may come to or stay in the UK are set out in the immigration rules. This bill is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for prescribing detailed requirements for the partner route. As we've made clear, the government will reform the family visa system. The current system has become too complex, inconsistent and open to abuse, with British citizens facing the stricter requirements. Our new family policy will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, settled on work routes or refugees seeking to bring family members to the UK.
It will include clear relationship requirements and appropriate level of English language skills, and will ensure the family unit has sufficient means to support any dependants without relying on the taxpayer. The honourable gentleman asked about when that would come into force. We've made clear in the Immigration White Paper that family migration will be reformed to tackle the overly complex family immigration arrangements. Changes to these requirements must sit alongside wider reform of settlement integration and article eight. It's important the changes work together as part of a coherent system. To ensure financial independence. Applicants on a family route must currently meet either the minimum income requirement or adequate maintenance test.
The Migration Advisory Committee has reviewed the minimum income requirement currently set at 29,000. We are considering their recommendations in detail alongside the work that has been carried out as a result of the Immigration White Paper. Changes to family migration requirements must sit alongside wider reforms to settlement, and taken together, these reforms will enable us to control family migration through clear and robust eligibility requirements while ensuring a coherent immigration system. The honourable gentleman asks about cousin marriage, which I just wanted to respond to. Cousin marriage is permitted under the UK law and the immigration rules reflect that position.
Thank you.
14:55
14:55
14:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Right to the honourable gentleman, because the only information I have is that as it's permitted under law, the immigration rules reflect that position. I know there has been a lot of discussion, debate on the floor of the House on this issue, so I wouldn't want to mislead the committee with an incorrect position, but I will undertake to write to him to clarify that. The we mentioned about the level of the visa as well. That was previously set, 18,600 rose to 29,000 in April 2024, and the honourable gentleman asked if we would implement a further rise to 38,700.
The Emir and Family immigration rules was raised, as we've already said, and this government has been clear, that the Emir needs to balance a respect for family life, whilst also ensuring the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained to help ensure we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future change. On 10th September 2024, the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, who have now reviewed the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. There is no set date for when we will publish a response to the Mac report. However, the recommendations are being considered in detail alongside the work being carried out as a result of the Immigration White Paper, which made clear that family migration would be reformed to tackle the over complex family immigration arrangements, including those financial arrangements.
This is a more effective and proportionate approach than imposing an arbitrary numerical cap and prescribing individual requirements through this bill. So I'm afraid the government cannot support the amendment.
The Emir and Family immigration rules was raised, as we've already said, and this government has been clear, that the Emir needs to balance a respect for family life, whilst also ensuring the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained to help ensure we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future change. On 10th September 2024, the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee, who have now reviewed the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. There is no set date for when we will publish a response to the Mac report. However, the recommendations are being considered in detail alongside the work being carried out as a result of the Immigration White Paper, which made clear that family migration would be reformed to tackle the over complex family immigration arrangements, including those financial arrangements.
This is a more effective and proportionate approach than imposing an arbitrary numerical cap and prescribing individual requirements through this bill. So I'm afraid the government cannot support the amendment.
14:58
14:58
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you, doctor Morrison, can I thank the Minister for offering to follow up with more detailed response in relation to the question around cousin marriage? I think that would be helpful, certainly for us, but perhaps for the rest of the committee, the committee will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the government's argument. So I beg to move.
14:59
15:00
15:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sian Berry gave no. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fuchs, no. Paul Foster, no. Tom Gordon no. Joe Robertson. I David Smith, Blake Stevenson, I Adam Thompson, Anna Turley , no. Matt Vickers I. Q the outer three the nos were nine so the nos have it. The nos have it. We now come to new clause 52 which has just been debated.
Does anyone wish to move the clause for. No. The question is that new clause 52 be read a second time. As many as that. Can you say I, I got no.
Does anyone wish to move the clause for. No. The question is that new clause 52 be read a second time. As many as that. Can you say I, I got no.
15:02
15:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Dear vision. Sian Berry J Bottrill, Jonathan Brash, Catherine . Poots, Paul. Foster, Tom. Gordon. Joe. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake . Stevenson I Adam. Thompson, Anna. Turley no. Matt . Vickers I. Thank you. The three the nos were. Nine so the nos have it.
The nos have it unlock. We now come to. We now come to group 69 and new clause 53. I call Blake Stevenson to move new clause 53. Thank you very much.
The nos have it unlock. We now come to. We now come to group 69 and new clause 53. I call Blake Stevenson to move new clause 53. Thank you very much.
15:04
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
We're becoming very familiar. We're losing 3 to 10 this afternoon, but there's a few more to go. New clause 53 would put into law the ban on care workers bringing dependents, which the previous government introduced in March 2024. It's worth reflecting on the past to understand why this is necessary. In 2023, around 100,000 In March 2024. It's worth reflecting on the past to understand why this is necessary.
15:04
15:04
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Around 100,000 care workers came to this country, accompanied by around. 120,000 dependents more dependents than workers. A route designed to staff our care homes had become one of the largest drivers of into Britain, and it was being. exploited on an industrial scale. 1 in 5 licensed care. sponsors could not even be matched on the CQC registration. Some were not real care providers at all.
Workers were brought here under false pretenses, charged thousands of pounds for jobs that did not. exist and left in debt and at risk of exploitation.
Workers were brought here under false pretenses, charged thousands of pounds for jobs that did not. exist and left in debt and at risk of exploitation.
15:06
15:06
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Care sponsor licences have since been revoked. The route was badly abused and it was the people it was meant to help who often paid the price. The previous government did act. We ended the right of care workers to bring dependants and required sponsors to be registered with a regulator. That rule was part of a package of reforms that helped bring net migration down by three quarters of a million. It worked. The Minister will no doubt tell the committee that the government have gone further, closing the care worker route to new overseas. recruitment last year. If so, accepting new clause 53 costs the government nothing but the closure sits in the immigration rules.
Both can be reversed by a statement of changes without a vote and without a House having any say. And, as we saw yesterday, how quickly settled policy can shift under pressure. The Home Secretary told the House that settlement must be earned and in the same statement, exempted care workers already here from the ten year standard qualifying period for ILR. This should be highlighted to the committee that when lobbying.
Both can be reversed by a statement of changes without a vote and without a House having any say. And, as we saw yesterday, how quickly settled policy can shift under pressure. The Home Secretary told the House that settlement must be earned and in the same statement, exempted care workers already here from the ten year standard qualifying period for ILR. This should be highlighted to the committee that when lobbying.
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:09
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Because a route with clear and stable rules is far harder for unscrupulous sponsors to exploit than one that changes with every. announcement the government believe. This rule was right. They should be willing to defend it in statute. They are privately considering relaxing it. The committee deserves to know now. So I ask the minister, does the government have any intention of relaxing the restriction? And if not, would .
15:10
15:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
53 be read a second time. Minister. Thank you. I'd like to thank the honourable member for moving his amendment. And while I acknowledge that the previous government restricted care workers who applied on or after. the 11th of March 2024 from bringing dependents with them to the UK, this was not before, however, over a million health and care workers and their dependants had come to the UK between 2021 and 2024. Even then, the government at the time opted not to extend this restriction to people who came to the UK before 11th of March 24. As the Right Honourable member was a Home Office Minister at the time, they were a member who laid this amendment.
He would be better placed to explain the motivations behind that decision than most. While the opposition may take credit for the premise of this restriction. It is a disgrace that we were put in this position in the first place. Absent of the reforms, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, around. 1.9 million people would have been forecast to reach settlement between 2026 and 2030. This is almost three times the number granted settlement between 2021 and 25. Around 1.6 times the population of Birmingham, comparable to the entire population of Estonia. Since the government came to power in.
He would be better placed to explain the motivations behind that decision than most. While the opposition may take credit for the premise of this restriction. It is a disgrace that we were put in this position in the first place. Absent of the reforms, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, around. 1.9 million people would have been forecast to reach settlement between 2026 and 2030. This is almost three times the number granted settlement between 2021 and 25. Around 1.6 times the population of Birmingham, comparable to the entire population of Estonia. Since the government came to power in.
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The government restricted people working in medium skilled. occupations from applying with dependants. This and other measures in the White Paper has seen net migration continue to fall. This clause would go beyond just preventing dependent family members from joining their care worker, partner or parent, but also mean that dependants already in the UK would need to leave as well when they need to make their next visa application. This would either break up families or force people delivering vital care services to leave the UK. This legislation is also not required. Section three, subsection two of the Immigration Act.
15:14
15:14
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Already allows the Secretary of State to lay rules setting out the practice to be followed in the administration of this act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom. The former government could have used the existing power of this act to make this change, but chose not to. The immigration rules are adjusted and amended regularly. They allow quicker adjustments to be made, and the proposed changes to primary. legislation are not to be required. I just want to remind the honourable gentleman that we have. He talks quite rightly about some of the abuses in the care sector, which have been a real concern to us since we came to power as well.
We've revoked now 1800 licences for fraudulent and. non-compliant care businesses. We now have a rule that to get a licence they have to be CQC registered and and he'll have seen that we have tried not to blame the individuals, many of whom came here with good. intentions to undertake the obligations of their visa and our announcements yesterday. They will be entitled to a second chance to apply for another care visa, with a properly registered and.
We've revoked now 1800 licences for fraudulent and. non-compliant care businesses. We now have a rule that to get a licence they have to be CQC registered and and he'll have seen that we have tried not to blame the individuals, many of whom came here with good. intentions to undertake the obligations of their visa and our announcements yesterday. They will be entitled to a second chance to apply for another care visa, with a properly registered and.
15:16
15:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
To have a further five years to fulfill the. obligations they thought they were coming here to do. I think it's clear from what we've seen yesterday, we've tried to take a fair approach to care workers, particularly those who answered the government's call during Covid. So we've tried to take a fair and balanced approach, both for those who are involved in this sector and the British public. So the right the honourable member will therefore be reassured that we recognise the importance of .
15:17
15:17
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
And for those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment. Mr. speaker, thank you, Doctor Morrison. And can I thank the Minister for that detailed response? I may have missed part of it, so I just want to make sure it's absolutely clear that I was not an immigration minister in the past government. I was happily getting on with my life in the private sector before I came here. But that said, I'm not .
15:18
15:18
15:18
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Of that opinion, say I. I to the contrary. No, no, dear vision. Sian Berry. No, no. Kathryn Fuchs, no. Paul Foster, no. Tom Gordon, no. Melanie on Joe Robertson a David Smith, Blake Stevenson, a Adam Thompson, Anna Turley nope. Matt Vickers I. And. The eyes of three the nos were nine.
So the nose have it the nose have it unlock. Can we take these as a group or it's just anyone wants to move things if no one has to move. We now come to new clauses 54, 55, 56 and 57 which have already .
So the nose have it the nose have it unlock. Can we take these as a group or it's just anyone wants to move things if no one has to move. We now come to new clauses 54, 55, 56 and 57 which have already .
15:21
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Beg to move all. And I'd be happy to do them on block if that helps. The chair. We can touch that. Can we do that? If the committee is content. Cool. Yes. New clause 54. Finality of decisions. New clause 55. Entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom. New clause 56 limit on grants of British citizenship.
New clause 57 publication of data on failed claims for asylum. So the question is that new clauses 54, 55, 56 and 57 be read a second time. As .
New clause 57 publication of data on failed claims for asylum. So the question is that new clauses 54, 55, 56 and 57 be read a second time. As .
15:22
15:22
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Are of that opinion, say I, I to the contrary. No. No division. Ten. Shall very. Jonathan. Brash. No. Catherine fruits. No. Paul Foster, no. Tom. Gordon. Melanie. John. Joe. Robertson I. David. Smith, no.
Blake Stevenson I Adam Thompson, no. Anna. Turley, Matt. Vickers I. The eyes of three the nos were ten. So the nos have it knows how it unlock. We now come to group. 70 a new clause 58. I .
Blake Stevenson I Adam Thompson, no. Anna. Turley, Matt. Vickers I. The eyes of three the nos were ten. So the nos have it knows how it unlock. We now come to group. 70 a new clause 58. I .
15:24
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Call Blake Stevenson to move because 58. Thank you, Doctor Morrison. New clause 58 is a modest but important proposal. It would require the Home Office to publish every quarter, each license, sponsor's headcount and a number of worker visas it sponsors. Sponsorship is a privilege granted by the state for business that holds a sponsor license, is trusted to bring people into this country, to vouch for them, and to meet obligations on pay, conditions and compliance. When the state extends that trust, the public is entitled to. scrutinise how it is being used. At present, they cannot. The Home Office publishes a register of licensed.
15:25
15:25
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
But it tells us almost nothing about scale. We cannot see which employers depend on a handful of overseas workers and which depend on hundreds. We cannot see whether a business with ten staff is sponsoring 50 visas, and we cannot see which sectors are training British. workers and which have simply stopped bothering. That matters because the system is under strain, as we've heard endlessly during the passage of this bill in the 12 months to June, the Home Office revoked.
By my.
By my.
15:27
15:27
15:27
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Or left without a job. Every one of those failures was visible in the data before it became a scandal. A care. provider sponsoring far more workers than it could plausibly employ, a business whose headcount bore no relation to its visa numbers. Employer level data would help spot those warning signs. earlier before the damage is done. There is a second purpose. The government have said.
15:28
15:28
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
That the economy must reduce its reliance on overseas recruitment and invest in the British workforce. Their own White Paper promised to link immigration to skills and training at home. I agree with that ambition. We all, on this side of the House agree with that ambition. But an ambition without measurement is just a slogan.
15:29
15:29
15:29
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
They should welcome a tool that lets Parliament and the public test whether it is happening. Employer by employer and sector by sector. Some may say that this place is a burden on business. It does not. This is information the Home Office already holds through the sponsor management system. The clause simply asks that it is published. Others will raise commercial sensitivity. But a business that relies heavily on the public grant.
A sponsorship should expect a degree of public. scrutiny in return.
A sponsorship should expect a degree of public. scrutiny in return.
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. Upon obtaining a licence, all sponsors, irrespective of the route which they are licensed, are bound to perform sponsor duties and meet certain standards. These duties are commensurate with the privileges being licensed. Being a licensed. sponsors confer. We will not hesitate to take appropriate action where organisations fail to correctly perform their duties or adhere to those standards, including where they seek to abuse the sponsorship or immigration system via sponsoring workers for roles which are not eligible for the relevant route. We continue to examine ways to strengthen the system.
Having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences. The hon. Gentleman asked for that figure. Well, last year alone we revoked. 3299 sponsor licences, compared with just.
Having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences. The hon. Gentleman asked for that figure. Well, last year alone we revoked. 3299 sponsor licences, compared with just.
15:32
15:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
An increase of 950%. So I acknowledge the broad rationale behind this amendment. The government does not consider this new clause to be necessary. As the honourable member will be aware, the government already publishes a list of organisations that hold a sponsor licence, which allows us to adequately oversee. compliance in this space. We assess that any changes made to require this additional information would be. unnecessary and be an additional burden upon businesses. And again, I'm not sure whether the calculations have been done behind this amendment to assess what the burden would be. The financial burden would be on businesses to comply with the honourable gentleman's amendment.
Furthermore, it would not be sensible to publish the numbers of workers sponsored by each licensed sponsor and for companies sponsoring small numbers of overseas workers, as it could create data protection issues under our GDPR. obligations in the event that the government deems it appropriate to request further data from licensed sponsors. We already have the powers and the mechanism to do so under the existing sponsor guidance.
Furthermore, it would not be sensible to publish the numbers of workers sponsored by each licensed sponsor and for companies sponsoring small numbers of overseas workers, as it could create data protection issues under our GDPR. obligations in the event that the government deems it appropriate to request further data from licensed sponsors. We already have the powers and the mechanism to do so under the existing sponsor guidance.
15:35
15:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Creating an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation would be a. disproportionate step. That being said, the government continues to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsored licences, as I've mentioned, in terms of the broad skilled worker route. Members from across the committee will be aware that in.
15:35
15:35
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The previous Home Secretary announced that we would be increasing the skill threshold of the skilled worker route from Rqf level three to Rqf level six. That's from a level to degree level. Through this, the government is fundamentally refocusing the system on higher skilled migration. Not only this, but we have also cut more than 100 occupations from overseas recruitment, which the previous government allowed access to when it brought in the 2020 skilled worker route in businesses like vape shops, barber shops and takeaways. It is also worth mentioning that many businesses appearing on the register may have obtained.
licences before changes to the immigration system introduced last year. Their presence on the register does not mean they would qualify under the current rules. Overall, this government's reform and. continuing tightening of the visa sponsorship system is already bearing fruit, as we brought down net. migration down by 82%. This was after the previous government allowed migration to balloon to nearly 1 million people in the year ending March 2023.
licences before changes to the immigration system introduced last year. Their presence on the register does not mean they would qualify under the current rules. Overall, this government's reform and. continuing tightening of the visa sponsorship system is already bearing fruit, as we brought down net. migration down by 82%. This was after the previous government allowed migration to balloon to nearly 1 million people in the year ending March 2023.
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Are of that opinion, say I. I to the contrary. No. No division. Shall. No. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine. Poots, Paul. Foster, Tom. Gordon. Melanie. On. Jo. Robertson. David. Smith, Dave. Stevenson. Hi. Alan.
Thompson. No. Anna. Turley. No. Matt. Vickers. The eyes are three. The nose for nine. So the nose knows. Have it unlock. We now come to Group.
Thompson. No. Anna. Turley. No. Matt. Vickers. The eyes are three. The nose for nine. So the nose knows. Have it unlock. We now come to Group.
15:40
15:40
15:40
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
I call Blake Stevenson to move new clause 59. Thank you very much, chair. This group contains new clause. 59 and new clause 69. In the name of my hon. Friend the member for Rutland and Stamford and in my own name both address the same weakness a sponsorship system with. loopholes and those who abuse it know how to exploit. Take new clause 59. First. It would make revocation of a sponsor licence mandatory where there has been visa fraud with an indefinite ban on reapplying. Consider how the system works. Today. A sponsor is caught committing visa fraud, its license is revoked and then faces a cooling off period of around 12 months, after which it can apply again.
If that is even too long to wait, the people behind it can simply wind up the company, form a new one and start afresh a different name on the paperwork. The same individuals behind the desk that is not enforcement. It is a mild. inconvenience and we should be clear about what visa fraud means in practice. It's not a technical breach of. paperwork in the care sector, people paid thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist. They arrived to find no work, no wages and debt they could not repay. Some were housed in overcrowded. accommodation controlled by those who bought them here.
Visa fraud is very often a gateway to modern slavery. Those who commit it should not be given a second chance to do it again. A new clause 59 ensures they will not. New clause. 69 deals with a different loophole, but one that is harder to defend. Actually, it would require the. revocation within seven days of any sponsor licence held by a person or company subject to UK.
If that is even too long to wait, the people behind it can simply wind up the company, form a new one and start afresh a different name on the paperwork. The same individuals behind the desk that is not enforcement. It is a mild. inconvenience and we should be clear about what visa fraud means in practice. It's not a technical breach of. paperwork in the care sector, people paid thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist. They arrived to find no work, no wages and debt they could not repay. Some were housed in overcrowded. accommodation controlled by those who bought them here.
Visa fraud is very often a gateway to modern slavery. Those who commit it should not be given a second chance to do it again. A new clause 59 ensures they will not. New clause. 69 deals with a different loophole, but one that is harder to defend. Actually, it would require the. revocation within seven days of any sponsor licence held by a person or company subject to UK.
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Complicit in aggression abroad or involved in serious corruption or human rights abuses. We freeze their assets. We bar them from our financial system. Yet there is no automatic requirement that they lose the privilege of sponsoring workers into the United Kingdom. It is. extraordinary that this is not already the law. The clause is also fair to the workers involved. They're not the ones who have been sanctioned, and they should not be punished for the conduct of their employer. That is why the clause gives them time to find another sponsor and continue working lawfully in the UK.
Neither of these clauses, in our opinion, should be remotely controversial. Neither should divide this committee. They close gaps that should never have existed, frankly, and they both protect the integrity of our immigration system and the people most at risk of. exploitation within it. I hope the government will accept them, if not today, perhaps at report, and if not. explain clearly why they cannot. Can I ask the Minister in closing, does any person or company subject to UK sanctions hold a sponsor licence today, and how many revoked.
sponsors have .
Neither of these clauses, in our opinion, should be remotely controversial. Neither should divide this committee. They close gaps that should never have existed, frankly, and they both protect the integrity of our immigration system and the people most at risk of. exploitation within it. I hope the government will accept them, if not today, perhaps at report, and if not. explain clearly why they cannot. Can I ask the Minister in closing, does any person or company subject to UK sanctions hold a sponsor licence today, and how many revoked.
sponsors have .
15:47
15:48
15:48
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, doctor Mason. While I recognise the intention behind these new clauses, the government will not support them as the effect sought by these amendments can already be achieved under the existing sponsor licensing regime. To use the honourable gentleman's words, this is already the law. The sponsorship system already provides powers to revoke a sponsor licence, where an organisation or persons controlling that. organisation become subject to UN or UK sanctions. It is therefore unnecessary to create an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation. Moreover, prescribing this matter on the face of the Bill would remove the.
flexibility that is deliberately provided through the existing sponsor licensing.
flexibility that is deliberately provided through the existing sponsor licensing.
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But will again reiterate, sponsorship is a privilege and not a right. This government will not allow individuals and companies to abuse the sponsorship system, particularly as we have heard, those who are subject to sanctions. Businesses, individuals and sponsor visa applications remain subject to rigorous checks. Licences will be refused, investigated and. revoked where necessary. Again, this government has already taken substantial action. As I've said, in.
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In. Chambéry . Jade Bottrill. No. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fuchs, Paul . Foster, Tom . Gordon I. Melanie. On. Joe. Robertson I David. Smith, Luke. Stephenson I . Adam. Thompson. No. Anna. Turley, Matt. Vickers I. The eyes of four of the nos eight.
So the nos have it nos have it unlock. We now come to new clauses. 6061 and. 62 which have already been debated.
So the nos have it nos have it unlock. We now come to new clauses. 6061 and. 62 which have already been debated.
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Is the committee happy that we deal with them en bloc? Nodding assent. Neutral six new clause six the application of the Human Rights Act. 1998 to part five of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. New clause 61 removal of persons within article 332 of the Refugee Convention. Disapplication of section six of the Human Rights Act, 1998. New clause 62 Asylum Support Payments Annual Report. The question is that new clauses 60.
61 and. 62 be read a second time.
61 and. 62 be read a second time.
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:57
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
I call Blake Stevenson to move new clause 63. Thank you very much, Doctor Morrison. This new clause is on the topic of English language testing. And the Minister will be aware that I have tabled many questions to the Home Office on this topic. So New Clause. 63 can stop the immigration rules allowing fully remote English language tests unless Parliament. authorizes them in an act. This government has made much of raising English language requirements. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary confirmed that settlement would require English to A-level standard. She said that it's unacceptable for migrants to come here without learning our language.
I agree with absolutely every word of that, but at the very moment the government seem to be raising the.
I agree with absolutely every word of that, but at the very moment the government seem to be raising the.
15:58
15:58
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
They're lowering the guard on testing . The Home Office plans to move its English test online or , quote, digital by. default without in-person invigilation from late. 2027 under a contract worth up to £816 million. In answer to my written questions. ministers acknowledged the, quote. challenges posed by AI assisted cheating. They also confirmed that they intend to pursue remote testing for the life in the UK test as well.
The warnings could not be clearer. In March, the.
The warnings could not be clearer. In March, the.
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
16:00
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Warning that a fully remote test quote would rely on unproven. technologies and practices. Research by Cambridge University Press has shown that remote testing creates more opportunity for identity fraud, proxy test taking and organised criminal exploitation. The professional accountancy body A A, has moved away from remote exams because of cheating. The body that runs America's law school admissions test is ending remote testing over.
16:01
16:01
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
AI enabled cheating in Mexico. The country's leading. university ordered. 58,000 students to resit their entrance exams in person after remote round was riddled with cheating, and Australia and Canada have both rejected remote language testing for visa purposes. And we need not look abroad. We remember the.
16:02
16:02
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
, when organised cheating in supervised centres. invalidated tens of thousands of results if fraud on the scale was possible. If fraud on that scale was possible with an invigilator in the room, what does the minister think will happen when there is no room at all? Consider the. absurdity of where this leaves us. A teenager sitting a GCSE is.
16:03
16:03
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
A learner driver sitting a theory test must attend a test centre and prove their identity. Yet a test that can unlock a visa and in time, permanent. settlement here in the UK would be set at home in front of a laptop, with nobody checking who is really answering the questions. And the stakes are rising . And English. requirements as English requirements for .
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Pass the Shadow Minister? I will gladly give way. Just listening to the Shadow Minister, not only now, but throughout the course of the day. Even if the government doesn't agree with the new clauses that he's trying to get through. It's just how. revealing the. deficiencies in this entire bill are in. tackling the fundamental problems we have with immigration and asylum in this policy.
And I'd invite the minister, perhaps I should have intervened on her at some point to address a wider point the shadow
And I'd invite the minister, perhaps I should have intervened on her at some point to address a wider point the shadow
16:05
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or anywhere else that the government is trying to say that it's acting. Yeah. Can I thank my hon. Friend for that really helpful intervention? If the Minister can't say so today, I think when we get to report stage, we really need to widen this debate and think about the cumulative aspect, the cumulative impact of the holes that exist throughout the legislation. Criminal gangs, as we know, follow value. A government that promises to smash the. gangs should not be opening a new market for them, which is what they will be doing by removing by moving to English online testing.
Ministers say the change would deliver a net benefit to the public purse. Any short term saving will be swallowed many times over by the cost of fraud. enforcement and. eventually rebuilding a system that should never have been weakened in the first place. Early proposals for this contract included physical test centres somewhere along the way.
Ministers say the change would deliver a net benefit to the public purse. Any short term saving will be swallowed many times over by the cost of fraud. enforcement and. eventually rebuilding a system that should never have been weakened in the first place. Early proposals for this contract included physical test centres somewhere along the way.
16:07
16:07
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Parliament deserves to know why and it deserves to say it deserves a say before a control, but before a control. This important is quietly dismantled by the government. Integrity in testing is. integrity in the immigration system. I ask the minister, does the. government still intend to allow fully remote testing, and will it publish its assessment of the fraud .
16:08
16:08
16:08
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much. Doctor Merson, amendment new clause 63 seeks to prevent the immigration rule from permitting any fully remote English language test to satisfy a. requirement to demonstrate knowledge of English, unless it's expressly permitted by an Act of Parliament. And I just want to give him some reassurance, which I'll come on to during my statements, that the short answer, again, is no, we are not looking to fully remote. The contract of the service are coming to an end. The current service, the Secure English Language Testing Service and the Home Office is currently looking at the next iteration of service to ensure that policy, intent and customer needs can be supported and met.
But myself and other ministers are in discussion on this issue because we share the honourable gentleman's view that fully remote testing is not appropriate. So we'll be making sure that this is at the heart of this. I'll come on to say why I don't think this should be on the face of the bill, but I hope he's reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does. The immigration rules exist to set out the detailed requirements of the immigration system, including the means by which an applicant may demonstrate knowledge of English. This allows the government to adjust those requirements through a well established procedure, subject to parliamentary oversight, through the existing scrutiny arrangements for the rules, without requiring a new Act of Parliament.
Each time an operational or technical change is needed. What I of course, acknowledge and I share and have sympathy with the point the member is trying to make. And as I said, it's at the heart of our discussions that are ongoing at the moment. As a matter of general principle, the government resists amendment amendments of this kind, regardless of the specific subject matter, because they remove operational and technical matters from the rules and place them instead under the control of primary legislation. The honourable gentleman raised the fact that there's things missing from the bill. This is part of the reason why the vast majority of immigration rules are done in in the rules and in the secondary.
legislation where primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation, Parliament often requires an affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny as it will allow any legal changes to be debated and. authorized by Parliament. If this new clause were accepted, it would remove the flexibility that the government needs to make technical and operational changes to English language testing requirements as circumstances evolve, rather than being able to respond through the established procedure for amending the rules. Any such change would instead require primary.
But myself and other ministers are in discussion on this issue because we share the honourable gentleman's view that fully remote testing is not appropriate. So we'll be making sure that this is at the heart of this. I'll come on to say why I don't think this should be on the face of the bill, but I hope he's reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does. The immigration rules exist to set out the detailed requirements of the immigration system, including the means by which an applicant may demonstrate knowledge of English. This allows the government to adjust those requirements through a well established procedure, subject to parliamentary oversight, through the existing scrutiny arrangements for the rules, without requiring a new Act of Parliament.
Each time an operational or technical change is needed. What I of course, acknowledge and I share and have sympathy with the point the member is trying to make. And as I said, it's at the heart of our discussions that are ongoing at the moment. As a matter of general principle, the government resists amendment amendments of this kind, regardless of the specific subject matter, because they remove operational and technical matters from the rules and place them instead under the control of primary legislation. The honourable gentleman raised the fact that there's things missing from the bill. This is part of the reason why the vast majority of immigration rules are done in in the rules and in the secondary.
legislation where primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation, Parliament often requires an affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny as it will allow any legal changes to be debated and. authorized by Parliament. If this new clause were accepted, it would remove the flexibility that the government needs to make technical and operational changes to English language testing requirements as circumstances evolve, rather than being able to respond through the established procedure for amending the rules. Any such change would instead require primary.
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
16:13
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Dependent on the. availability of parliamentary time. The minister give way. Yes. Can I thank the Minister for giving way, and I totally. understand why she would be making arguments for this not to be on the face of the bill. But if I just go back to some earlier. statements that she made. Could I ask her to unpack a little bit? I appreciate there are commercial.
16:14
16:14
16:15
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
That are in. contemplation are being discussed in more detail. It is it is the latter. And I can say I'm sorry that I can't give more information at the moment, because these are things that are under discussion. But I think myself and other ministers are clear that we do not want to move to a fully online, fully digital service. That would not be appropriate.
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:16
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Evidence of fraud or security risks, or the need to improve accessibility for applicants. In turn, this delay could have an adverse impact on the immigration system itself and on the applicants who rely on it, who would be left using a testing approach that the government may have already. identified as needing to change, simply because the mechanism to do so had become. unreasonably slow and burdensome. As I said, I can absolutely give the honourable member my assurance that any delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements and principles including data security, cyber.
16:17
16:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Fraud, risk and. prevention to ensure compliance with Home Office policy. And as I've said, we're very clear that in person it must form a key part of that. We cannot have fully online assessments. So this is to ensure the service delivers on the fundamental principles underpinning our immigration policies and our visa journey. We take this matter very seriously in compliance against these requirements will be assessed through the tender process to ensure the strictest compliance with Home Office security parameters. I also note that any form of English language test, remote or otherwise, must also meet rigorous standards on identity, identity.
16:18
16:18
16:19
16:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Reasons, I ask the honourable member to withdraw the new clause. Mr. Stevenson, thank you very much. Doctor Nelson, can I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the additional assurances that she provided from the despatch box, if indeed, that's called a despatch box in a committee room? I don't know, but I've asked a lot of questions on this subject and the answers to those together with the response we've received today, I think, doesn't provide sufficient assurance.
So the minister will forgive me if we push this to a vote to ensure that this is .
So the minister will forgive me if we push this to a vote to ensure that this is .
16:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
On the face of the bill. So with that chair, I beg to move. New clause 63, as on the amendment paper, the question is that clause be read a second time, as many as are of that opinion, say I. I the contrary, no division. No Jade, no Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fuchs, no. Paul. Foster. Tom. Gordon. Melanie. On , Joe. Robertson I David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson I Adam. Thompson. No. Anna. Turley no. Matt. Vickers I. Two votes. Thank you. Eyes are for nose and eyes. The nose have it nos have it. unlock right. We now come to new clauses 64, 65, 66 and.
67 which have already been debated. Does .
67 which have already been debated. Does .
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:23
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Many as are of that opinion , say I, I the contrary. No. No. Division. Sean. Bury. Jonathan Brash, Catherine Fuchs, Paul Foster, Tom. Gordon I, Melanie. John J. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson I. Catherine. Thompson. No. Anna. Turley, no.
Matt. Vickers. The eyes of five. The nos were eight. So the nos have it the nose have it unlock.
Matt. Vickers. The eyes of five. The nos were eight. So the nos have it the nose have it unlock.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
As many as are that being, say I I contrary no. No. Division. Sian Berry abstain. David Bottrill no. Jonathan brash no. Catherine Poots, Paul. Foster, Tom. Gordon, Melanie on no. Joe. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson, Adam. Thompson no. Anna.
Turley no. Matt. Vickers I. Thank you. The answer for the nos for eight. So the nos have it nos have it. unlock six. New clause. 66 automatic deportation, forced marriages forced marriage offences. The question is that new clause 66 be read a second time.
Turley no. Matt. Vickers I. Thank you. The answer for the nos for eight. So the nos have it nos have it. unlock six. New clause. 66 automatic deportation, forced marriages forced marriage offences. The question is that new clause 66 be read a second time.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Many as are of that opinion say I to the contrary. No. No division. Sian Berry J Bottrill no. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Foulkes, Paul Foster, no. Tom Gordon, Melanie on no. Joe Robertson I David Smith, Blake Stevenson I Adam Thompson, Anna . Turley no. Matt Vickers I. The ice are three the nos rates are the nos have it.
The nos have it unlock 67. New clause 67 particularly serious crime National security National Security Act. 2023 offences. The question is that new clause. 67 be read a second time .
The nos have it unlock 67. New clause 67 particularly serious crime National security National Security Act. 2023 offences. The question is that new clause. 67 be read a second time .
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Many as are I that opinion, say I I the contrary no division. Sean Berry no. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fookes, Paul. Foster, Tom. Gordon, Melanie John, Jerry. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson, Adam. Thompson, Anna. Turley. No. Matt. Vickers, I. The age of three. The. Nos. Eight.
So the nose have it nos have it unlock. We now come to group. 73 a new clause.
So the nose have it nos have it unlock. We now come to group. 73 a new clause.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Issued a strong, sorry, a public espionage alert warning our. universities that the China General Technology Research. Institute was a front for Chinese intelligence. Its primary purpose, MI5 said, was to fund research that directly improves the espionage. capabilities of China's Ministry of State Security. More than 100 researchers linked to UK. institutions had. contributed to its. projects in artificial.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Cyber security and covert communications. The very. capabilities that are used against our own country. It is. unprecedented for our intelligence services to make an intervention of this kind, and we should be clear about what it tells us. Many of those academics did not know who was fully funding their work. The front was designed to be hidden, but that is precisely the point. If our. universities lack the.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Are with bodies embedded in China's defence research system , and four hold top secret military research clearance. And. The threat is not only to research. Last November, it was reported that Sheffield Hallam University halted its. research into Uyghur forced labor after alleged intimidation by Chinese authorities. When a hostile state can silence academic work on this country's own.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The problem goes far beyond intellectual property. New clause 68 would place a new. responsibility on higher education bodies. Universities that sponsor international students and researchers would be required to report to the Home Office within five working days. Any suspicion that funding or research linked to a. sponsored person poses a national security risk. Reports made in good faith would be protected. Those who choose to ignore the warning signs would face. significant fines. So why is a legal duty necessary? Because our universities depend heavily on international fees and partnerships. That creates a conflict of. interest when concerns arise.
An institution under financial. pressure may be reluctant to raise an alarm that could cost its.
An institution under financial. pressure may be reluctant to raise an alarm that could cost its.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Or a valuable collaboration. A clear legal duty removes that dilemma. It tells every. university that reporting is not optional and protects those who do the right thing. Existing schemes vet researchers and. students at the point of entry. That matters. But risks do not stop at the border. Funding changes, hands, partners change and projects evolve.
New clause. 68 deals with. This deals with the risks that emerge.
New clause. 68 deals with. This deals with the risks that emerge.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Doctor Pearson, and I thank the honourable member for tabling this amendment. As all members will know and agree, the defence of the realm and national. security of the UK is the first priority for any government. Well, I hope the opposition members will understand that I am unable to provide precise insight into all that we have in place to uphold the UK's national security on this issue, not only within the education sector, but across all of the threats that we face today. I can assure them that the UK already operates a range of robust.
safeguards designed to manage national security risks associated with international study, research. collaboration and sensitive technologies. These include the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, under which certain international students and researchers seeking to study sensitive. subjects must obtain approval before commencing their studies. As they can imagine, we also work closely with the higher education sector and relevant departments to ensure national security risks are. appropriately identified and managed. A prime example of this comes earlier this year, when senior leaders from over 70 universities attended a security briefing delivered by MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and National Cyber Security Centre CEO Richard Horne, to increase the understanding of how foreign interference can.
safeguards designed to manage national security risks associated with international study, research. collaboration and sensitive technologies. These include the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, under which certain international students and researchers seeking to study sensitive. subjects must obtain approval before commencing their studies. As they can imagine, we also work closely with the higher education sector and relevant departments to ensure national security risks are. appropriately identified and managed. A prime example of this comes earlier this year, when senior leaders from over 70 universities attended a security briefing delivered by MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and National Cyber Security Centre CEO Richard Horne, to increase the understanding of how foreign interference can.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Including attempts to shape and censor research or teaching, along with how to resist and report it. This action took place against the backdrop of. £3 million being invested in a package of measures to tackle the issue in our world class universities. The new academic interference reporting route will enable senior leaders at. universities to report concerns directly to the government, including security services. This will enable individual concerns to be acted on more quickly, whilst also building a bigger picture of threats facing UK institutions. And while I of course agree with him that universities are already playing an important role in maintaining research integrity and identifying potential.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
I would say that national security. assessments can require specialist. expertise and information, which may not be available to individual sponsors. This statutory amendment would place broad reporting obligations on higher education. providers and require them to make potentially complex national security judgments about what. constitutes a national security risk, without necessarily having the relevant information or .
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Forward to deal with the concern that we've raised? As I mentioned, I'm not at liberty to discuss all the individual actions that we are undertaking. But as I've set out, as I've said already, that some of the substantial investment that we've put in, including. £3 million to tackle this issue, including the new academic interference reporting route. But this measure would introduce enforcement measures, including licence actions and civil. penalties linked to reporting obligations that may be difficult for sponsors to apply consistently in practice. The government also considers it important that reporting arrangements can adapt as risk and operational requirements evolve.
Placing detailed sponsor reporting duties in primary. legislation would reduce that flexibility. The amendment would also likely create significant and assessment and reporting burdens and enforcement controls. Sponsors may need to establish new government governance.
Placing detailed sponsor reporting duties in primary. legislation would reduce that flexibility. The amendment would also likely create significant and assessment and reporting burdens and enforcement controls. Sponsors may need to establish new government governance.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
As many as are of that being, say I, I contrary. No. No. Division. No. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fuchs, Paul. Foster, Tom. Gordon, Melanie. On, Jo. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson I. Adam. Thompson. No. Anna. Turley no.
Matt. Vickers I. Thank you eyes are three the nose rate. So the nose habit nose habit unlock. We now come to new clause. 69 which has already been debated. Opposition indicated they want to press this clause.
Matt. Vickers I. Thank you eyes are three the nose rate. So the nose habit nose habit unlock. We now come to new clause. 69 which has already been debated. Opposition indicated they want to press this clause.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. As many of you say, I, I contrary no division. Sean Berry no. Jonathan Brash, no. Catherine Fuchs, Paul Foster, Tom Gordon, Melanie on, Jo. Robertson, David. Smith, Blake. Stevenson, Adam Thompson, Anna. Turley no. Matt Vickers I. Thank you I three nos eight. So the nos have it unlock.
We now come to group. 73 Alpha and New clause 70 with which it would be convenient to debate new clauses. 71 and 72.
We now come to group. 73 Alpha and New clause 70 with which it would be convenient to debate new clauses. 71 and 72.
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I call Mr. Stevenson to move new course 70. Thank you very much, Doctor Harrison. I raised to speak to clauses. 7172 and the. The aim here is pretty simple. When a business is caught employing. People have no right to work here. The people who run it at the time should pay and should not be able to walk away without consequences. Illegal working is a pull factor to the UK. The promise of cash in hand work in a car wash or a corner shop or a barbers is what the smuggling gangs sell before people get into the boats in the first place.
It undercuts honest employers and exposes vulnerable people to exploitation. That is why the last conservative government tripled the fines up to. £60,000 per worker. And why my right hon. Friend the member for Croydon South has pledged more raids on the car washes and the vape shops, where illegal working is concentrated. In the first half of last year alone, nearly. 1300 penalties were issued worth almost £70 million. Which is a good thing . Ministers would like to talk about record numbers of raids and arrests, and I welcome every single one of them. But a raid is just the beginning.
The deterrent is what happens.
It undercuts honest employers and exposes vulnerable people to exploitation. That is why the last conservative government tripled the fines up to. £60,000 per worker. And why my right hon. Friend the member for Croydon South has pledged more raids on the car washes and the vape shops, where illegal working is concentrated. In the first half of last year alone, nearly. 1300 penalties were issued worth almost £70 million. Which is a good thing . Ministers would like to talk about record numbers of raids and arrests, and I welcome every single one of them. But a raid is just the beginning.
The deterrent is what happens.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And a fine is only a. deterrent if indeed it is. collected under section 15 of the. 2006 act. The penalty is a debt of the employer, usually. accompanied and of nobody else. So after a raid, the director resigns. A nominee living abroad with no assets here appears at companies House or the company is dissolved and a new one opens the following week in the same shop under a slightly different name.
The penalty dies with the old company. This is not a. hypothetical scenario, chair. A BBC. investigation last November.
The penalty dies with the old company. This is not a. hypothetical scenario, chair. A BBC. investigation last November.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Quote, ghost. directors behind a network of corner shops. People paid. £250 to £300 a month to put their names on. businesses they did not run. One was the registered director of more than 50 businesses. Many of the companies were. dissolved after about a year and reopened with small changes to the paperwork. The Insolvency Service tells the same story. A Highland takeaway was fined £45,000. One director resigned five days after the raid and the fine was never paid. A Suffolk car wash was fined. £180,000 when its directors were banned. When its director was banned last year, every penny.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
A Lincolnshire car wash went into. liquidation with its. £20,000 fine outstanding. Now successive governments have raised the fines, but none have closed the escape route. This clause would, and I would encourage the government to take it up. If not today, then perhaps a report. New clause 70 closes the loophole as it makes the people in charge of the time of the offence, meaning directors, partners, registered persons with significant control and shadow. directors jointly and severally liable for the penalty. Liability is fixed at that moment. So appointing a new director, bringing in an overseas owner, renaming the company or dissolving it makes no difference at all.
A Phoenix business run by the same. people or from the same premises. inherits the penalty. And if your name not yours, chair. But if one's name was on a companies House register at the time, one is treated as holding that role. This delivers fairness, which I know the. government wishes to deliver through its immigration system. A director who took all reasonable steps, or a genuine buyer who paid full value without knowing of the penalty , is protected.
New clause. 71 deals with criminal.
A Phoenix business run by the same. people or from the same premises. inherits the penalty. And if your name not yours, chair. But if one's name was on a companies House register at the time, one is treated as holding that role. This delivers fairness, which I know the. government wishes to deliver through its immigration system. A director who took all reasonable steps, or a genuine buyer who paid full value without knowing of the penalty , is protected.
New clause. 71 deals with criminal.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Comparable regulatory offence adds or neglect new clause. 71 adds it so that the director, who never asks where the right to work checks are done and is careful not to know, can no longer escape. Clause 72 allows the Secretary of State to seek the. disqualification of directors, whose company leaves a penalty unpaid for six months, so the same people cannot simply start again and go on the merry go round. So can I ask the. Minister how much of the illegal working penalty income issued in each of the last five years? And I appreciate she may not have this on the tip of her tongue has actually been collected.
And how much written off how much was written off because the company was dissolved. These are important questions. And if she accepts the.
And how much written off how much was written off because the company was dissolved. These are important questions. And if she accepts the.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
70 be read a second time. Minister, thank you very much. And again, I agree with the honourable member that illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts legitimate wages and fuels the industry of immigration crime, and I am determined to clamp down on illegal activity in every sector. I will continue to pursue rogue employers, protect vulnerable workers, and ensure that those who break our immigration laws face the consequences. We've expanded efforts across government and law enforcement to target, investigate and enforce. penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK. I might just beg the committee's indulgence, just to give a bit more of a detailed background on the work that we currently do undertake.
At the moment, immigration enforcement have had a very busy year, in particular this year between 1st of January and 30th. 30th of June this year alone. 7220 illegal working visits were carried out, resulting in. 4756 arrests, a 31% increase on visits and a 20% increase on arrests compared to.
At the moment, immigration enforcement have had a very busy year, in particular this year between 1st of January and 30th. 30th of June this year alone. 7220 illegal working visits were carried out, resulting in. 4756 arrests, a 31% increase on visits and a 20% increase on arrests compared to.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The most successful start to a year on. record for illegal working enforcement activity. Over this period, more than. 1200 businesses found to be employing people illegally have been issued with a civil penalty, which means they face significant fines of over £74 million. All employers in the UK are required to carry out prescribed right to work checks prior to employing someone of any nationality. The Right to work scheme is underpinned by civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliance.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Employers who fail to comply with their legal responsibilities. To give way. I will thank the Minister for giving way, and I appreciate the numbers that the Minister has stated . In order to. demonstrate the work of the Home Office and enforcement. But does the minister and the government. accept that the loopholes that I've outlined are very real loopholes, and that .
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
An employer's legal duty to prevent illegal working is a key element of our enforcement framework. Section 15 of the immigration, nationality, Asylum and Nationality Act. 2006 provides for this civil penalty where an employer employs an individual who is disqualified from carrying out the work in question by reason of their immigration.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So that's your Uber drivers and just eating these delivery drivers. So subcontracting an online matching. services extended civil liability also applies to certain non-direct contractual arrangements for the provision of work or services. Employers must ensure that individuals are permitted to carry out the work in question. Right to work checks establish whether an individual is permitted to undertake that work, including any restrictions on the type of work or hours they may work, depending on the. circumstances and the applicable legal requirements. Illegal working may result in the sanctions we've discussed, or some of the. consequences below. A civil penalty of up to.
£60,000 per illegal worker in criminal cases, a conviction for illegally employing a person which carries a sentence of up to five years and or an unlimited fine. Those exploiting migrants could face criminal convictions for for. facilitation or trafficking offences and a maximum sentence of life.
£60,000 per illegal worker in criminal cases, a conviction for illegally employing a person which carries a sentence of up to five years and or an unlimited fine. Those exploiting migrants could face criminal convictions for for. facilitation or trafficking offences and a maximum sentence of life.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Closure of the business and a compliance order issued by the court. Disqualification is a director not being able to sponsor migrants to travel to the UK. Seizure of earnings made as a result of illegal working, and the review and possible revocation of a licence in the alcohol and late night refreshment centre, and the private hire vehicle and taxi sector. I've done that slightly lengthy sort of background just to try and set the context. I think the honourable gentleman's point that he's trying to make in these amendments is right. One, that we have to ensure that we enforce this.
But as I said, there is a really clear and. comprehensive legal working system here with a whole range of. penalties that can be.
But as I said, there is a really clear and. comprehensive legal working system here with a whole range of. penalties that can be.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And we are expanding our efforts to ensure that we are. enforcing those penalties to target, to investigate and to enforce those penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work. In the UK, we've introduced significant changes to strengthen the the legal working regime and extended the right to work scheme. But as I said, our immediate priority is to ensure that these changes, which we've just.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Consider whether further steps are needed to strengthen the regime. And of course, the honourable gentleman has made important points here on the record in this committee, which I'm sure will continue to to look at and review. But alongside these changes, as I've said, we've introduced a range of sanctions to tackle illegal working. We want to ensure that we make effective use of the powers that we've got, rather than introducing additional provisions. proposed in these new clauses. And I would also just point to our track record, which I've outlined in this speech, to just show how seriously we are taking the issue of illegal working.
Immigration enforcement activities increased.
Immigration enforcement activities increased.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
As are of that opinion, say I, I to the contrary. No, no division. Sian Berry. No. Jonathan Brown, no. Catherine Foods. Paul Foster, no. Tom Gordon, Melanie John, Jerry Robertson, David. Smith, Blake Stevenson, I Adam. Thompson, Anna. Turley. No. Matt. Vickers I. The eyes were five.
The no's were eight. So the nos have it unlock. We now come to clauses 71 and. 72 which have just been debated to me. New clause 71 offensive employing an illegal worker.
The no's were eight. So the nos have it unlock. We now come to clauses 71 and. 72 which have just been debated to me. New clause 71 offensive employing an illegal worker.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Berry to move amendment 69. Mr. close today I have tabled amendments. 69 in relation to clause 50 and part one. Yes, it is my one and this is the area of the bill that gives the Secretary of State quite a broad power to make. regulations that are. consequential to the Bill. and there are quite a range of.
implications for this bill as it stands now on Scottish. trafficking laws and how they are carried out. And so my amendment. 69 aims to ensure that the government receives consent from the Scottish. Ministers before.
implications for this bill as it stands now on Scottish. trafficking laws and how they are carried out. And so my amendment. 69 aims to ensure that the government receives consent from the Scottish. Ministers before.
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Slavery and human trafficking. The amendment, particularly, I think, refers to clause. 11 of the Bill. This creates a new legal procedure for claim notices requiring people to notify the Home Office of any reasons or grounds why they should be allowed to enter, remain or not be. removed from the UK. And in this respect, the Bill tries to shift the burden of. responsibility on. survivors by creating this. obligation to treat a failure to disclose relevant details at the earliest opportunity as damaging to one's credibility. The way these things are looked at in Scottish law seems to be different to within the English approach.
And so this kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK does seem to. contradict the. commitment in Scotland to the UN Refugee Convention. The UK's. obligations under Iccat, which require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. So it does seem that.
And so this kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK does seem to. contradict the. commitment in Scotland to the UN Refugee Convention. The UK's. obligations under Iccat, which require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. So it does seem that.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Specifically within that Scottish Act, section nine requires Scottish Ministers to secure necessary support and assistance for adult. assistance for adult victims of human trafficking, and gives Scottish ministers their own statutory duty. This duty is triggered by a reasonable grounds decision, so therefore, clause. 11 of the bill's new.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Statutory duties in Scotland. I obviously have been working with the Scottish Refugee Council on this amendment, and they recommend that Scotland should maintain its greater. flexibility to provide secure immigration status for trafficking survivors, its goals of supporting recovery and reducing risk of re trafficking. And so to do this, the Bill should explicitly. protect the operation of the Human Trafficking and. Exploitation Scotland Act.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Preserve Scottish Ministers. discretion to provide. support and therefore this. amendment is needed to make sure that UK immigration measures do not impede the. fulfilment of devolved trafficking duties. So, while I don't intend to push this amendment to a vote today, I hope that the. government will look closely at this again. Go back and discuss this matter further with the Scottish.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Extent and commencement. These clauses are often treated as housekeeping. But how and when the bill comes into force, decides whether anything in. It actually happens. And here the government's amendments tell a revealing story. Government amendment. 134 would mean that regulations made under the core protection powers are subject to the affirmative.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Where they amend primary legislation. That is right where ministers change acts of Parliament. Parliament should vote. Only wish the government had applied that principle consistently. My amendment. 142 would have done the same for regulations exempting further categories of people from. contributing to the cost of their asylum support. As drafted, ministers can widen those exemptions by negative. procedure without a single vote.
If the principle is good, is good enough for amendment. 134 is good enough there, too. Government amendments.
If the principle is good, is good enough for amendment. 134 is good enough there, too. Government amendments.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And with aligning commencement dates with the provisions, they amend their technical and. We on this side will not look to divide the Committee on that. You'll be pleased to hear. But Government Amendment. 135 deserves the committee's attention. As the bill was introduced, part three on core. protection would have come into force. automatically two months after Royal Assent. Under this.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
It will come into force only when the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations. A fixed date of. implementation has become an open ended discretion. An amendment 46 gives the Lord Chancellor a new power to rewrite tribunal rules around the start of the new Appeals Authority, again by negative. procedure with no vote.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
The government can move quickly when they want to. Their amendment 47 brings the new deportation provisions into force on royal assent. So the question is not whether ministers can set a firm date. It is why, on the central reforms of the asylum system, they are now choosing not to. The government's message on asylum has been urgency. The system is broken and must be fixed. Yet when it comes to the. provision that they're meant to fix up, fix it. Sorry. When it comes to the. provisions that are meant to fix it, the start date slips from a certainty to a maybe.
We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago, delayed from April to the autumn, then softened when it finally arrived. Tough language, but the government is quietly kicking the can down the road.
We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago, delayed from April to the autumn, then softened when it finally arrived. Tough language, but the government is quietly kicking the can down the road.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
In the name of the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, which we've just heard about, would require the Secretary of State not only to consult Scottish Ministers, but to obtain their. consent before making any. regulations under this Bill that affect the. identification or support of victims of modern slavery in Scotland, or the duties of Scottish public authorities.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And consent are very different things. Indeed, consent is a veto. immigration is a reserved. matter and the national referral mechanism is a UK wide system, one that is too often used by those facing removal to delay it, handing the Scottish Government a block on changes to that system would create precisely the kind of divergence that people smugglers and those rigging our laws are quick to exploit. There's been an obvious pattern throughout this committee. The Green Party have tabled. amendments to leave out clause after clause of this bill. Amendment 69 is another attempt to slow down a system that already moves far too slowly, and we will oppose it.
Earlier in this committee, we sought to put deadlines in the bill requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being.
Earlier in this committee, we sought to put deadlines in the bill requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Shows why they were needed without dates in law. There is nothing to hold ministers to. I therefore ask the minister two questions. First, will she set out a timetable for commencing each part of this bill and in. particular when she expects part three to come into force? Second, why has the government moved halfway from automatic commencement to commencement by.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
They should be willing to say when, as this is likely to be the last time I speak in this committee. May I thank you, chair and the previous chairs. During the other sessions, the clerks for their very patient work indeed, and what has been a substantial amendment. Paper, and the Minister and Members on all sides for this debate. We have disagreed, often sharply but politely, and the Committee has given these issues the scrutiny it deserves.
We will return to .
We will return to .
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Chair Minister. Yeah, yeah. Thank you very much. I'll turn first to amendment 69. As we've heard, this would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and obtain their. consent before exercising any. regulating regulation, making powers in the Bill in a way that relates to the identification of support victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland, or affects any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and trafficking. I want to thank the honourable member for tabling this amendment, but I want to reassure that we are very cognizant of the Scottish Ministers powers in this area.
We've been working closely with Scottish Government throughout the development of these provisions, and we are committed to working. closely throughout the further courses of this bill. My predecessor and I both engaged our devolved counterparts on the measures in the bill, and we are seeking legislative consent for any of the provisions, as are.
We've been working closely with Scottish Government throughout the development of these provisions, and we are committed to working. closely throughout the further courses of this bill. My predecessor and I both engaged our devolved counterparts on the measures in the bill, and we are seeking legislative consent for any of the provisions, as are.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It would not be appropriate to support this amendment. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult or to consult Scottish Ministers on all regulations in part five, even those on which both the UK and Scottish Government agree are reserved. The provisions in the Bill are framed to reflect our understanding of the devolution settlement in Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland in Wales, and I think it's. important to clarify that that this is an issue where it's not appropriate to give any kind of veto to the Scottish Government on an issue like this, because we are talking about.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The decision making process here has significant. impacts with regard to the operation of the immigration system, including protection from removal, which arises from the recovery period. So seeking to devolve the entire. identification process would be in direct conflict with the Home Secretary's immigration.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which are reserved. And the bill does not change that position. So I'm afraid we will be. disagreeing and. Opposing the amendment from the honourable Lady. Moving on to clauses 50 to 53. These contain general provisions which are typical housekeeping elements in this kind of legislation. Clause 50 allows for the Secretary of State to make. consequential or minor provisions. Forgive me in.
In this act by.
In this act by.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Clause 51 confirms that the extent of the act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 52 confirms the Secretary of State's ability to specify through. regulations when the Bill will come into force confirms that the measures listed under clause 52, subsection three, will come into force on the date of Royal assent, and those listed under. 524 will come into force two months following Royal Assent. It also specifies when certain elements of part one can come into force. including their. interdependencies with previous pieces of legislation. And just to respond to the hon.
Gentleman's point about time frames. It's not normal to commence provisions earlier than two months after royal assent. The measures of the Bill to commence on Royal Assent are those where we consider there is. justification for their early.
Gentleman's point about time frames. It's not normal to commence provisions earlier than two months after royal assent. The measures of the Bill to commence on Royal Assent are those where we consider there is. justification for their early.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Such as the allowance of. preparatory work by. HMRC to establish the new repayment mechanism. The Bill is drafted so that some other measures will start commencing from two months after Royal Assent, namely the core protection measures. The remaining measures will be will need to be commenced by regulations and this will be done at the earliest practicable opportunity. Clause 53 confirms. The act may be cited in short form as the Immigration and Asylum Act. The amendment standing my name in this group are largely. consequential on amendments previously made to the bill, including to the core protection measures ensuring that commencement happens by regulation.
Government amendment one, two seven provides powers for other provisions of the bill to be. extended to the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man. And before I just finally conclude, I'd like to echo the honourable gentleman's thanks to. everybody in this.
Government amendment one, two seven provides powers for other provisions of the bill to be. extended to the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man. And before I just finally conclude, I'd like to echo the honourable gentleman's thanks to. everybody in this.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
To you yourself, chair, and to all of the chairs that have supported us in this process, to all the clerks, for all the hard work and preparation, to all civil servants and everyone involved in drafting the bill and their support for me in this committee, and also to all honourable members, I'm disappointed the honourable member for Wimbledon isn't here because he came. He powered into this committee with a rage of. cynicism about his.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And actually, I don't know how he's found the experience, but I personally have found it extremely important and very reassuring in terms of the process that we undertake in our democracy for scrutinising legislation. I found the questions and challenges thought provoking in many areas. They've, you know, paused us to go away and think about other and further activity and work that we could and should be doing. And I hope honourable members feel that. Why, while we haven't agreed with amendments on the face of the bill in this.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Devastating challenge, but no, I, I hope I remember to deal with the intentions of which we listened and absorbed the discussion and debate and many things. This committee will go for. I think a lot of our thinking and going forward. So to conclude, I just want to say a few more things on the bill. Finally, with with Crown, the protection that we provide in this country to those fleeing war and peril. However, we also know we must bear down on abuse and restore order and control of our borders. This bill provides protection to those in need while bearing down on abuse of the system.
It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal. protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with. responsibilities and. expectations on those who receive it. Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all.
This bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people who are open, tolerant and .
It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal. protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with. responsibilities and. expectations on those who receive it. Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all.
This bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people who are open, tolerant and .
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Standing in my name. Thank you, Sean Berry. Many thanks, chair. And I do want to echo some of the comments, if I may, of the other members of the committee and thank the Minister for engaging with the many, many members I have put forward, because I do think they are needed to. This bill. I do believe that this bill doesn't. reflect very long held British values of welcoming, welcoming refugees.
And I think this is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I don't think that obstructive and unfair.
And I think this is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I don't think that obstructive and unfair.
16:24
16:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And downgrading human rights will stop the criminal gangs or the boats, or tackle the lack of safe routes that feeds the market for that kind of organised crime. However, I do believe we've had a very constructive debate about many of these things, and I think that the that. Parliament will hopefully convince the minister and the Home Secretary to think again. I very much appreciate the excellent chairing that we've also had.
But finally, I also want to thank the many different.
But finally, I also want to thank the many different.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Continue to be . faithful from it. Is everyone pretend for a moment. 69 a member by leave withdrawn. Government amendment one, three four to clause 50 has already been debated. I call the minister to move the amendment for me. Move for government amendment one, three, four to clause 50. As on the amendment paper, the question is that the amendment be made as many as are of that opinion, say I, I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to amendment. 142 to clause 50, which has already been debated. Does anyone wish to push this to an amendment.
Note? Are. We now come to the question of clause 50, as amended, stand part of the bill with which has already been debated? The question is that clause 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill? As many as are that opinion, say I, I country no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment one, two, seven to clause.
Note? Are. We now come to the question of clause 50, as amended, stand part of the bill with which has already been debated? The question is that clause 50, as amended, stand part of the Bill? As many as are that opinion, say I, I country no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment one, two, seven to clause.
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Been debated. I call the Minister to move the amendment formally move formerly government amendment 127 to clause 51. As on the amendment paper, the question is that the amendment be made. As many as are that opinion say I see no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause 51, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is that clause 51, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many as are of that opinion, say I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it.
The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment one, two, eight to clause 52. With the leave of the committee. I shall put a single question on government amendments.
The ayes have it. We now come to government amendment one, two, eight to clause 52. With the leave of the committee. I shall put a single question on government amendments.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Six and 46 be made as many as that opinion, say I. I say no. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question that clause 52, as amended, stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is the clause 52, as amended, stand part of the Bill, as many as are of opinion, say I, I, I the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to the question of clause 53 stand part of the bill, which has already been debated. The question is clause 53 part of the bill, as many as are that opinion, say I.
I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report the bill, as amended, to the House. I would just like to reflect on the comments that have been made by everyone.
I contrary no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. The final question I must put is that I do report the bill, as amended, to the House. I would just like to reflect on the comments that have been made by everyone.
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24
16:24