Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Baroness Teather Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, these instruments—the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—were laid before the House on 5 March 2026. They relate to the Government’s stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified.
These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse. Noble Lords might be interested in the fact that, as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels. In the financial year 2024-25, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom.
The Government inherited that situation and have to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs. The Government have already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% over that period, and we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer.
One of the instruments before the House today removes the duty to provide asylum support, reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case-by-case decisions and gives the Government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take firmer action against those who do not comply with the rules.
For example, removing Regulation 5 allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas after explicitly confirming, as part of their visa application, that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay. It is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer-funded support.
The same principle applies to those granted permission to work where their asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has the legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute in an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protecting the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.
The other instrument we are debating today focuses on illegal working and makes doing so an explicit reason to discontinue an individual’s asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish that they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support, without the need for protracted fraud investigations.
Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.
Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.
Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.
Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.
This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their places for this debate that were here for the debate last Tuesday. I trust that the Minister is feeling much better.
As with last week, these SIs on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework the Minister just referred to, which would help the House understand the implications. I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I cannot not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service over a nine-year period. They were men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey.
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
Baroness Teather Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Teather (LD)
It is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I am hugely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Dubs, for providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the Government’s changes to the asylum, refugee and settlement system.
I should begin with some context. After I left the other place, I spent nearly a decade working for the Jesuit Refugee Service, first internationally, supporting projects in the Middle East and South Sudan, and then running the UK office for nine years until early last year. JRS UK supports asylum seekers and refugees facing destitution or detention, providing legal advice, accommodation and much more besides. It is this perspective that I bring to this debate.
There is much to regret in the raft of changes announced by the Government to the asylum system, as many other noble Lords have already pointed out in this debate, and of course—as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out—a huge amount that remains profoundly unclear. In the interests of brevity, I will focus my remarks tonight on the one change that I fear will create the most human misery for refugees and will be deeply counterproductive to integration and social cohesion. That is the reduction in the duration of leave to remain for refugees to 30 months and the requirement to reapply repeatedly for up to 20 years before achieving permanent settlement.
My experience of working alongside asylum seekers and refugees suggests that offering only temporary protection, coupled with the requirement to endure regular cycles of jeopardy to apply for renewal, will leave refugees in a near-permanent state of precarity and vulnerability. It is very likely to undermine refugees’ ability to settle, to integrate, to get work, to keep work—as the noble Lord, Lord German, remarked in relation to the Ukrainian scheme—to engage in education and to lay down roots. It is likely to affect their ability to rent housing, to leave them more vulnerable to exploitation and to damage personal relationships.
Children and young people in refugee households will grow up in this instability, which could potentially last the whole of their lives. How will that affect their schooling and educational choices? Concern about the impact of reducing the duration of leave is shared by every refugee charity that has spoken publicly about the changes. It is laid out in detail in submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee by, for example, the Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, ILPA and the Refugee Council. All are also asking why this change has been introduced before making clear other elements of the core protection system and work and study route.
The Jesuit Refugee Service works closely with people with insecure immigration status over many years, giving a window into the likely impacts of temporary forms of protection for refugees. That experience suggests that uncertainty and insecurity over immigration status has a profound and lasting impact on people’s mental health. Indeed, the agony of enduring enforced limbo was an issue that came up repeatedly in JRS research documenting asylum seekers’ experiences of waiting for decisions, with many describing it as wasting their life. The Government are now proposing to extend this misery even beyond the point of grant of status.
Refugees have often experienced significant trauma, including torture and trafficking. Uncertainty and prolonged limbo are not conditions that facilitate healing and recovery. I recall vividly refugees who had attended the JRS UK drop-in for years but felt able to begin trauma counselling and to grieve for what they had lost only once they had papers and knew that they would be safe. This is a point echoed in the evidence submitted by the Helen Bamber Foundation and Freedom from Torture to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Government’s stated aim for this policy change is
“to change perceptions of what the refugee offer is in the UK”.
The pull factors argument is often employed by Ministers as an explanation for making the process more unpleasant, but it has never been shown in practice to make much difference. Furthermore, these rules will be applied to people who are already here, as it is applied retrospectively to anyone who made an asylum application or submitted further submissions to an asylum claim on or after 2 March 2026.
Lastly, I heard the Minister’s answer to my question and to other noble Lords in the Chamber earlier today that renewing leave would be a straightforward process, with reviews supported by AI. I gently suggest that, from all my dealings with the Home Office over a 23-year period, first as a constituency MP responding to immigration casework in my advice surgery in Brent, and then as director of JRS UK, the idea that the Home Office is likely to manage a huge additional volume of decision-making without delays, muddle and error does not bear any contact with reality.
What happens to people’s lives when renewal decisions start to take months to resolve? What will be the ramifications of delay for individuals’ personal decisions on whether to marry or take work or study, invest in volunteering or build relationships in their local community? If people lose work when the bureaucracy slows or because the anxiety makes sustaining that work difficult, will that be held against them in the new work and study route? It is an intolerable burden to place on the shoulders of people who have already suffered enough at the hands of their own country, in the journey to get here and in our byzantine asylum process. We risk crushing often highly gifted individuals, denying them the chance to begin their life again and contribute to Britain, as they are desperate to do. I urge the Minister to think again.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise that the Government wish to reduce migration and that this requires public support. However, like all others who have spoken this evening, I am very concerned about some of the changes to the Immigration Rules, including the reduction in time for refugee status from five years to 30 months, for all the reasons that have been given this evening.
I will focus on the visa ban for students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. I am utterly dismayed that brilliant students who were hoping to come to our universities, following rigorous selection procedures and on fully funded scholarships, have had their hopes, dreams and futures shattered. This has a profound effect on the individuals but also on their countries, on our universities and on our reputation.
The Written Ministerial Statement said of the ban:
“Its key aim is to reduce the strain on the asylum system. It will also strengthen public confidence in the immigration system”.
I believe that the ban poorly serves both purposes. The Home Secretary has spoken of a “surge” of people from the four countries claiming asylum in the UK. There has been a large percentage increase in recent asylum claims from these countries, but the actual numbers of students who have claimed asylum from those four countries is minuscule in the context of overall immigration. This ban is a monumental sledgehammer to crack a nut, which has a disproportionate impact on hugely talented individuals from the most difficult and dangerous parts of the world—young people whose talents are desperately needed to bring about change in our world. As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, all four of these countries are on the International Rescue Committee’s emergency watch list. This means that they are among the 20 most fragile and conflict-affected places on earth, with humanitarian emergencies that are likely to worsen in the next 12 months.
The visa brake will have a specific impact, as has been said, on women and girls from Afghanistan, who suffer such severe restrictions on access to education. I firmly believe that we have a duty to give opportunities to outstanding students from these countries. They would in future make outstanding contributions to democratic renewal, peace, institution building and economic and social reform in their own countries. Importantly, they would also make a fantastic contribution to our own universities. I know this to be the case because at Oxford I have worked with many students from the four countries—courageous young people and leaders of tomorrow, who have come through so much to come to our country. They have had to study so much in their own countries. They are quite extraordinary young people. They are sanctuary students. The concept of sanctuary is one that I firmly espouse. It is a principle that defines our humanity. I believe that the visa ban undermines that principle.
There are countless examples of exceptional young people from the four countries who come to this country on student visas. They excel in their studies, and some of them are now doing stellar research that will literally change the world in, for example, medicine, climate change and environmental policies.
Child Poverty and Homelessness: Asylum and Settlement Policies
Baroness Teather Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend that the aim of these measures is to reduce misuse of support, not to make people homeless or to increase child poverty, which it is a core mission of the Labour Government to eradicate. We will not deny support to those who genuinely need it and who have no way to support themselves. My noble friend will also know that we have consulted on these measures. We have had some 200,000 responses and we are currently assessing them. A full economic impact assessment and equality impact assessment of the regulations will be undertaken in due course, and we will look at the responses to the consultation to inform how we deal with these measures as we go forward.
Baroness Teather (LD)
My Lords, as a former director of the Jesuit Refugee Service, I am concerned that the changes to the duration of refugee protection may create a state of permanent vulnerability and instability for refugee households. What assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact of these changes on the mental health of refugees, and their implications for provision of services by the NHS and others?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness will know and will want to be assured that the whole purpose of these changes is to make both asylum and refugee status quicker in dealing with those outcomes. We have made some changes, and during the 30-month period of protection, if it is granted, refugees will continue to have the sanctuary their protection requires, and it will be renewed if they still require it. But the important thing is to assess claims quickly in order to make sure that we grant status quickly, so that people can earn a living and integrate into society.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Penning
I apologise if I misled the hon. Lady, but I am sure I said that we were taking staff out of the back rooms and putting more on the front line. There are more officers serving on the front line today than there were when the Labour Government left office.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
T5. I understand that the Home Secretary has asked officials to carry out a detailed piece of work on the future requirements of the immigration detention estate, in conjunction with her decision to halt the expansion of Campsfield. What is the remit for that work, what is the timetable for it, and will it be made public? Will the Home Secretary direct the officials to look at the international evidence that was presented in our cross-party report on the immigration detention system, which suggests that we could substantially reduce our need for detention places?
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
Let me take this opportunity to wish the hon. Lady well for the future, as that was probably the last Home Office question she will ask before she leaves the House.
We will certainly look at the all-party parliamentary group report, and I intend to write to the hon. Lady about it before the House rises on Thursday. We are examining the issue of the detention estate internally, but our work will be informed by Stephen Shaw’s review of the welfare aspects. It is important to ensure that we are providing a humane environment for people who are being detained.
Yarl’s Wood
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady talks about having worked in this area for many years, including things she saw eight years ago. I agree that things were wrong and that they need to improve. This Government are proud of the measures we have taken—for example, on stop-and-search and mental health in custody—and the review we have instigated from Stephen Shaw is the next step in a natural progression to ensuring we safeguard people while treating detainees with appropriate dignity. I do not think that the question is about whether that is done through the public sector or the private sector; the question is about how we make sure that people in detention are treated with the dignity that they should rightly have. We are all shocked by what we have seen, and we need to make sure that it is rectified.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
I have chaired a cross-party inquiry on the issue of immigration detention, and our report was published this morning. The panel’s concern is that if the response to the scandal at Yarl’s Wood focuses only on conditions, it is likely to tackle just symptoms, rather than the underlying causes. The Minister says that the question is about how people are treated in detention, but our question is why some of these people are in detention in the first place. Our evidence suggests that most of the problems arise because we detain too many people for far too long and inappropriately.
Will the Minister commit the Government to responding in full to our inquiry? In particular, will she look at the international evidence we have presented, which suggests that there is a cheaper, more humane and more effective way of operating by making better use of community alternatives?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly and ceaselessly on this issue, and I pay tribute to her and her committee for the report. I have a copy of it, and I have to say that it is quite lengthy. I have not had a chance to get through all its points, but I assure her that I will look at it, and I will make sure that we respond to it.
My hon. Friend talks about the fact that more people are detained. It is important to make it clear that we have taken measures so that when people arrive clandestinely in the UK, we can be certain who they are—their nationality and identity—and ensure that they pose no risk to the British public. I do not apologise for putting the safety and security of the British public first and foremost when someone arrives clandestinely by making sure that they are who they say they are, while treating them appropriately.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
I am obviously happy to look at any individual cases that my hon. Friend may wish to highlight and I can examine further. A British passport is not issued to a child born overseas until the Passport Office is satisfied that all the relevant identity, nationality and child protection issues have been identified. I am sure that my hon. Friend would support that.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
10. How many Syrian refugees have been resettled in the UK under the Government’s vulnerable persons relocation scheme to date.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
We remain on track to relocate several hundred people under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme over the next three years. Between the first group of arrivals on 25 March and the end of September, 90 people were relocated to the UK under the scheme. In addition, over 3,400 Syrians and their dependants have been granted asylum or other forms of leave to remain since the start of the crisis.
Sarah Teather
The Minister will no doubt be aware that 2015 has already seen two worrying trends for Syrians fleeing the violence of war: first, an increase in restrictions imposed on those seeking to settle in neighbouring countries such as Lebanon; and secondly, even more refugees boarding boats and taking risky journeys in the Mediterranean. Does he recognise that our unwillingness to offer anything more than tokenistic safe legal routes for resettlement and family reunification of refugees exacerbates both those trends? We have no moral standing when arguing with neighbouring countries that they should keep their borders open, and desperate people will take any route to try to improve their lives when facing violence such as Syria’s.
Resettlement of Vulnerable Syrian Refugees
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Brokenshire
I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that that matter is being raised at international bodies and in international discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the work done by countries such as Jordan and others. We are providing more than £300 million in aid assistance outside Syria to some of the countries on which the displacement of people is most directly having an impact.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
I have visited both Lebanon and Jordan to see projects supporting Syrian refugees, as outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In talking about numbers, it is worth noting—on a day when the Prime Minister is in Turkey—that Turkey has received more Syrians fleeing the war in the past three days than the number resident in the whole of Europe altogether. Will the Minister consider expanding not just the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, for which many colleagues have argued, but other safe routes to travel? For example, family reunification, which Switzerland has done, would be cheaper to administer and would alleviate significant suffering.
James Brokenshire
People subject to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme are also eligible for family reunion under our normal rules. The hon. Lady mentioned Turkey and other countries. Again, it is important to underline that our support has reached hundreds of thousands of people across all 14 governorates of Syria, as well as in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. She is absolutely right to emphasise the impact on other countries.
Oral Answers to Questions
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
In the past few months there has been increasing evidence that the countries surrounding Syria have begun to close their borders to reduce the number of refugees they allow through, leaving many in a desperate situation. I join the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) in urging the Government to step up to the plate at the pledging conference because we have no ability to put diplomatic pressure on other countries if we are doing so pitifully ourselves.
James Brokenshire
The contribution of the UK stands up to scrutiny and our overall contribution bears comparison with any international country. We are providing £700 million in aid, which is assisting hundreds of thousands of people each month. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme deals with the most vulnerable individuals, and I underline the fact that we have granted asylum to 3,000 people from Syria since the start of the conflict.
Mrs May
I agree that we need to be able to intervene earlier, so that we can ensure that predatory behaviour is tackled before children are put at risk. Officials had a further meeting with the NSPCC as recently as last Friday to discuss the matter further. I can assure the hon. Lady and the House that we will complete our consideration of the issue as a matter of urgency, so that we have the opportunity to table an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill should we wish to do so.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
T3. As the Minister will know, over the last few months I have been chairing an inquiry in which a cross-party group of Members of Parliament has been investigating immigration detention and the treatment of detainees. We have heard some very disturbing evidence from detainees themselves about the impact on their mental health, and also from representatives of the Royal College of Psychiatry and the British Medical Association. The panel would like an opportunity to discuss the Minister’s written evidence with him in person. May I encourage him to come and give evidence to our inquiry? We should be very happy to work around all manner of difficulties in his diary.
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I welcome the work of the all-party parliamentary group. Let me emphasise that our priority is to ensure that detention is as short and possible, as well as being safe and secure. Obviously we have made changes in relation to the process for mental health provision, in which Public Health England has been involved, but I will certainly continue to reflect on the recommendations that the inquiry makes.
Modern Slavery Bill
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Burrowes
I rise to commend my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), particularly for his new clause 20, which I support. Many have said that we need to follow the money, but we also need to recover it and ensure that it gets to the right places, not least law enforcement agencies. I am aware from previous discussions about proceeds of crime that it becomes a territorial issue, not least within the Government. It is important, and it is very much in the Minister’s and Department’s self-interest, to ensure that the money is recovered and that it goes where we want it to in law enforcement. So I very much commend the purpose of the new clause.
I will speak briefly to amendments 132, 133 and 134, continuing the debate we had in Committee about the importance of recognising and prosecuting exploitation, whether or not a person has been trafficked, and where the form of exploitation cannot be construed as slavery, servitude or forced labour. I will not go over old ground. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter following the debate, where she sought to reassure the Committee that such situations are covered by the definition of “forced labour” in European Court of Human Rights case law and the Court’s understanding of that as “all work or service.” My concern is that we should not just rely on European jurisprudence and we need to take the opportunity to have clarity in the Bill, not least for front-line officers, who are trying to use all the tools in the box. We will have the guidance that the Minister says is going to come, but we need greater clarity on the wider understanding of “exploitation”.
The Minister also provided reassurance by saying that situations of begging, benefit fraud and petty criminality can be covered by prosecution for other offences. I hear that, but I have concerns relating to those other offences, not least those involving assisting or encouraging another offence, for example, begging or theft. That would mean that to prosecute exploitation we would be relying on construing the victim not as a victim, but as an offender, aided or encouraged by their exploiter. We recognise that the victims are the victims, and we need to ensure that “exploitation” covers the entire range of modern day slavery. Further work can be done on that, perhaps in the other place. She also said that other penalties can be attracted, but I am not convinced that they are sufficient, given the nature of these offences. So I ask for further consideration of a wider construction of “exploitation”. We also need to ensure, as my proposal seeks to do, that that construction covers the nasty exploitation of children. We have the definition of exploitation in clauses 3(5) and 3(6) and this is about widening the construction in the way that the Minister and all of us want, particularly in relation to children.
Finally, I wish to flag up the issue of consent. That is a live issue, where work still needs to be done. We all agree on the law; the issue is whether it should be explicit in the Bill, avoiding the Minister’s concerns about it getting in the way of prosecution and about relying on evidence where consent is an issue, but making it clear that what we all say—
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
We have no time, but I just want to put on the record that I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Burrowes
I thank the hon. Lady very much. I am sure we can find a way of putting in the Bill our understanding that consent is irrelevant here, particularly in relation to children. As for what is in case law, let us get a form of words in the Bill that ensures that we increase the prosecutions for slavery, particularly in relation to children.
Sarah Teather
I wish to comment on new clause 2. This Bill is unique in that it is one piece of Home Office legislation that I warmly welcome. None the less, I was disappointed to find that it did not include any provisions relating to the protection of overseas domestic workers.
Since becoming an MP 11 years ago, I have had many constituency cases involving overseas domestic workers who have managed to escape an abusive or exploitative employer and who were seeking protection. Those women had been made prisoners; their passports had been stolen and they had been made to work extremely long hours for very little pay and with no time off.
In April 2012, the Government changed the rules so that domestic workers would no longer be able to change employer. Instead they have a tied visa, which links their immigration status to their employer. The evidence collected by Kalayaan indicates that the result of the new visas has been an increase in abuse and exploitation. I understand that the Minister disputes those figures, but her own proposals will not address the problem that Kalayaan raises.
Given the levels and types of abuse that are experienced by overseas domestic workers, we should view this Bill as the opportune vehicle to provide extra protection, as it goes to the very heart of protecting victims of modern slavery. There was an extremely short debate on this matter right at the end of the Committee stage. The Minister said then that reintroducing the right to change employers was not the answer to preventing abuse. It was very difficult for us to explore all the issues because we were right up against time. The Minister then showed us a new information card that will be given to overseas domestic workers, and since then she has sent me a draft revised standard template contract, for which I am very grateful. However, I am not convinced that these steps, while welcome, will be enough on their own to prevent abuse while the tied visa system is still in place. This is not a one-or-the-other issue. I accept the Minister’s argument that abuse undoubtedly also took place before the change in the visa system, but I am not convinced that merely giving people more advice will be enough. We need to tackle the tied visa system, which seems to have made the problem worse.
Some 78% of domestic workers who have arrived on a tied visa and then sought assistance from Kalayaan have reported that their passport was confiscated by their employer. What is to stop that same employer taking the information card as well? Moreover, given that many will not have access to a phone, how are they supposed to dial the numbers on the card, assuming that the card is even in a language that they can read in the first place?
In Committee, the Minister criticised the robustness of Kalayaan's figures. It should be remembered that Kalayaan is an extremely small organisation, with very limited resources.
Karen Bradley
Let me make myself clear. I do not dispute Kalayaan’s figures. I was merely pointing out that there was evidence of abuse both before and after the tie of the visa. I therefore believe that we need to tackle the root cause of that abuse and not merely look at the tie on the visa. I do not dispute the figures that Kalayaan has put out.
Sarah Teather
That is a helpful clarification. I agree with the Minister that we have to tackle the root cause of the abuse. I simply think that we need to do both. I am not sure that the solutions that the Minister has suggested will be enough on their own. I wonder whether I could persuade the Minister, especially as Kalayaan is such a small organisation, to consider collecting more data on overseas domestic workers. We know that abuse exists, and it would be helpful in our debates to have more accurate tracking of what happens. It may be that only the Government have the resources to fund such research.
Refugees and Migrants (Search and Rescue Operation)
Baroness Teather Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady has sought to politicise this issue in a way that does not reflect the intent or focus of the Government.
I say to the hon. Lady clearly that the people who are responsible for the deaths of those at sea are the organised traffickers who seek to exploit the vulnerable by putting them in increasing numbers on boats that are entirely unseaworthy. Our judgment is that extending the emergency measures has encouraged that and put more lives at risk. That is our primary focus. Indeed, it is the focus not simply of the UK Government, but the unanimous conclusion of all 28 member states of the EU.
The hon. Lady made an appropriate point about intervening earlier and looking overseas at the flows of people across borders far from the Mediterranean sea. That is why I made the point about the aid, assistance and political leadership that the UK provides in that work. She asked when we would meet other European Ministers. The Italian Government will host a conference in the coming weeks to look at these very issues around the horn of Africa. We look forward to attending and supporting that conference.
The hon. Lady asked about the support that the British Government are providing to Frontex. I want to make it clear that the UK is not a fully participating member of Frontex because it is not in the Schengen area, and Frontex is an EU body that is designed to safeguard that area. However, we have always sought to respond as favourably as we can to any requests that Frontex makes of the UK. Indeed, the expert to whom she referred is being provided as a consequence of the requests that we have received from Frontex to date. We stand ready to look favourably on any further requests that Frontex may wish to make of the UK Government in support of Operation Triton.
I say again that the focus of the Government is not on short-term political issues, but on examining what will make a difference in the region and providing the necessary humanitarian support. Our judgment is that the steps that are being taken are about saving lives, not putting lives at risk.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Claiming that rescuing people from drowning in the sea is somehow a pull factor for people who are fleeing war is an absurd and deeply unethical thing for the Government to do. Can the Government not see that more people are travelling because half of the middle east is burning? Has the Minister not seen the advice of his own Foreign Office? We cannot wash our hands of these people, Pontius Pilate-style. If we are to prevent people from boarding rickety boats and drowning at sea, we will have to work with our European colleagues and find safe routes of travel. Can the Minister not see that he has lost any sense of ethical reasoning here?
James Brokenshire
I entirely reject the analysis that my hon. Friend seeks to proffer in this regard. No one is turning a blind eye to humanitarian issues or needs. The purpose of the actions being taken is to put fewer lives at risk, and I am sorry that she is unable to accept the clear purpose of what we are undertaking. On the idea that boats in need of assistance would simply be ignored, I point her to the head of Frontex who said that if a boat in distress is spotted, rescue is the top priority. I am sure that that is precisely what will happen.