Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
Home Office quarterly statistics show that there were 103,426 individuals in asylum accommodation on 30 December 2025, compared with 108,085 on 30 September 2025 and 96,642 on 30 June 2024. Of course, these time periods are not like-for-like comparisons, but for reference colleagues will be interested to note that in the final September under the previous Government there were more than 119,000 asylum seekers in accommodation, so the comparable figure from September 2025 is well down on that level.
David Simmonds
The figures published by the Home Office show around a 7% rise in the asylum and dispersal accommodation numbers. My Hillingdon constituents would know, because we have the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority area in the country, and it is putting huge pressure on the supply of temporary accommodation. My local Conservative council argues that it should put the housing needs of long-standing local residents ahead of the needs of those who have newly arrived as asylum seekers. Does the Minister agree?
Alex Norris
I wish that the previous Government—I suspect that the hon. Gentleman would say the same—had used their time to build some houses, because that is the root of our housing crisis. However, it is undoubtedly true that the estate is running hot, which is why he will be pleased to hear of the figures falling from September to September. Without running ahead of its publication, future data is likely to show that trend—one we all support—continuing.
Sarah Bool
Since Labour came to power, the number of people in asylum accommodation—be it in hotels or dispersal accommodation—is up by more than 6,000. With figures like that, no South Northamptonshire resident believes that the Government are tackling this issue, especially given the continued operation of the migrant hotel in my constituency. With better weather coming, boat crossings will increase, so what will the Government do differently to stop the boats, as they promised they would?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will know that the statement on asylum policy set out the most significant reforms to the asylum system, certainly in my lifetime. We have already introduced the reduced protection period, we are making quicker and better decisions that ever before, and removals have increased by 30% on our predecessors. Together, such measures are decreasing those numbers—that is from September to September—with perhaps future good news to come.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
May I thank the Minister for the work he is doing to close asylum hotels, including the Crewe Arms hotel, and encourage him to go further still and close the Royal hotel in my constituency? Will he join me in reminding Conservative Members that it was under the Tory Government—prominent members of which now sit on the Benches with the turquoise Tories—that the concept of asylum hotels was invented? Indeed, they presided over the opening up of the business model for small boat crossings in the first place.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is right. Reform Members say they are a new voice in politics, but they look very similar to the old voice if you ask me. The important thing, which his constituents will know, is that the Tories opened those hotels when in government, and it will be Labour that closes them.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
On 30 June 2024, 96,642 people were in asylum accommodation. Latest figures show that there are now more than 103,000, so despite the creative interpretation, that number has gone up, not down. There is a distinct lack of gang-smashing, crossings are up by 45%, and the Government’s new border security commander has already given up and quit. When will the Government accept that their approach is making things significantly worse?
Alex Norris
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that creativity is pointing at different dates in the calendar for a profile that he knows has seasonal elements to it, and trying to compare them as like for like—he knows that that does not work. He was, however, kind to give me the opportunity to say that work on tackling organised immigration crime is at its record level, with a 37% increase under this Government and 5,000 disruptions. That is serious work. Conservative Members will throw rocks from the sideline, but that is what they do, isn’t it?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Home Secretary’s authoritarian tendencies often please the Reform party and the Tories, but some Labour Members are apparently less happy with that approach to immigration and asylum. In particular, changes to indefinite leave to remain risk busting efforts at social cohesion while harming public services and the economy, and creating unworkable bureaucracy in the Home Office. Liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about those proposals, and many Labour Back Benchers are reportedly very unhappy. Does the Home Secretary feel comfortable that she might be reliant on support from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and the Tories to force through her flagship project?
Alex Norris
I am slightly concerned if the hon. Gentleman thinks that people who come as part of economic migration schemes are in some way in the asylum population, as those two things are significantly different. Nevertheless, we have made significant proposals in that space, including increasing the main basis time to settlement to 10 years, with the ability to earn based on working, not committing crimes, and learning the English language—all sensible changes. Our consultation, which closed last month, had more than 200,000 responses, and we are looking at them closely.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The hon. Gentleman knows that we work very closely with our European counterparts, especially France, our nearest neighbour. He mentions the important work that we do together, which has prevented 40,000 crossings since we took office; we want that work to continue. We are having those conversations with France at the moment, and I do not think he would expect me to negotiate from the Dispatch Box.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Small boat returns run at around 6% of the total numbers arriving in this country, but the Home Secretary denies that this is anything to do with the European Convention on Human Rights. If not the ECHR, which part of the Government’s flawed policy is responsible for that feeble rate?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that under this Government, removals have now reached 60,000. That is up by 31% on our predecessors, so I cannot accept the argument that we are not removing people at pace and at scale. The routes by which people come generally depend on which country they come from and how likely they are to have their claim accepted.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent was just 13 months old when she came to this country. As a teenager, she was taken into care. She was then groomed and exploited in county lines and is now serving time in prison. Why are this Government deporting her, when she has only known this country? Will they instead look at giving her proper rehabilitation and getting her life back on track?
Alex Norris
The Secretary of State has a strict legal liability to remove anybody who gets a sentence of a year or more and, from today, anyone who gets a suspended sentence of a year or more. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has raised an important case. If she sends the details, I will look at it closely.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government are making top-up payments to asylum support enablement cards, but have refused to answer my written parliamentary questions regarding how many payments have been made and how much is being spent. That is even though that is information the Department must have. It is held digitally, and the accounting officer under chapter 3 of “Managing Public Money” has a duty to demonstrate that such payments constitute value for money. Can the Home Secretary say why she is covering up this information?
Alex Norris
If the right hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I answer an awful lot of questions from colleagues on a daily basis. I seek to give the fullest available information, so that we can have the best and most based in fact debate on what is a very contentious issue. I will have to look more closely at the element he raises, but he will know from his time in government that cost and person time are factors in what we can and cannot pull together to release.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In the past few weeks, the Home Secretary has announced a whole swathe of new restrictive asylum and immigration policies which, as we know from over the weekend, are at best contentious. When will we have a vote on them?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman secured and hosted a good debate on this subject only last week. It was well subscribed, and we had a very good conversation. As he is well experienced in this place, he will know that when we need primary legislation, there will be primary legislation. When we need secondary legislation, there will be secondary legislation. If things are a matter for policy, they will be a matter for policy.
Immigration Reforms
Alex Norris Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Hayes
Not the Minister, of course—I except him from that general description. It is time that the political establishment faced up to the fact that what they have perpetuated for too long is at odds with the intuition, experience and will of the British people. We need to cut migration of all kinds, and we need to cut it now, or they will dispense with us and elect people who will.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer; I shall certainly follow that direction. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate, on a topic he clearly feels very passionate about. He spoke with great power, while also providing a forum for colleagues to do the same and raise interesting and important global, national, regional and local issues.
I will seek to cover the wide range of issues that have been raised in this debate, but I start by saying this, because I did not hear it enough in the hon. Gentleman’s contribution: the system at the moment is disorderly and uncontrolled. The people with the most agency in the system now are human traffickers. I appreciate the power and the anger with which he spoke, but I know that he has the same power and anger towards those individuals.
Personally, I would like to have heard more on that, because we know what the consequences are across the country. Public confidence on this issue is subterranean. The hon. Gentleman made a lot of points about politics, but actually this is much bigger than party politics. Public confidence in the mainstream to deliver meaningful change in this space is subterranean. This is the last go for the mainstream to do this. We know that public order, as a result, is in jeopardy. We must be really careful; I appeal to all hon. Members that there must be no progressive defence of the status quo—they would never hear that from the Government Front Bench. There is only the absolute need to act.
That is set against the instincts of the British people. I know from my own community, in which it is no secret that the immigration conversation is difficult, that those same people who raised those concerns with me about the disorder and lack of control are the same people who leant into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme—for which we have one of the biggest populations in the country—and Homes for Ukraine, in which people are literally opening their homes. That showed that when there was control in the system and order, and when we knew those coming forward genuinely needed protection, the community would lean into it. That is an awful lot to build on.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the edges of the argument, but I say to him that the edges of the argument at the moment embody, on one side, a nightmarish vision of a Britain that closes its borders, puts up high walls and offers sanctuary to no one; and on the other, a fairytale that pretends that we can do it in all circumstances with all people. That is not right, and the public know it.
I will cover the points that the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members have made, but I do want to address some of the things the hon. Gentleman said in opening that are simply wrong, starting with the idea that the Home Secretary has changed refuge rules overnight from being permanent to temporary. That is not the case. It used to be a five-year grant of settlement; it is now a two-and-a-half-year one. I will explain shortly how that will work in practice, but that is not the change he described.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the Home Secretary will arbitrarily, at the stroke of a pen, overturn individuals’ protection needs. Again, that is not true. Everybody’s protection need will be individually assessed. I am a white, middle-aged, cisgendered, heterosexual man, but someone who looks like me—just as good looking, Mr Stringer—could be gay, and they would not be safe in certain contexts. That principle will always be the case under this Government, and it is an established principle in this democracy.
The hon. Gentleman talked about it making it impossible to find work. Again, that is not at all the intention, which I will cover when I talk about core protection. He talked about the contraction of safe and legal routes. I am proud that, through our asylum policy statement, this Government were willing to stand up when it was politically difficult to do so, and say that we want to break the model of the traffickers who transport people to this country illegally, while providing safe and legal routes.
I cannot accept, however, that time-limited university schemes designed for an individual to come for one, three or four years—an agreement made between that individual with the state and the university—should act as a de facto asylum system. That cannot be right, which is why we are replacing it. However, I heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues that I found heartening with regards to the desire to provide sanctuary, for everyone to have an opportunity to contribute to this country and for integration, because we share those desires, too.
I will now turn to some of the points on illegal migration. First, on core protection, the 30-month permission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), is there because, if individuals come to this country and get refuge, but then sit at home without learning the language or contributing to society, we believe that is no life. It is not good for the individual or the collective. If they switch to the protected work and study route, which means they are either working or learning, and are learning the language, not committing crimes, and taking part in society, they can take themselves out of that 30-month renewal regime. It is exactly designed to give people the opportunity to contribute, which is what colleagues have wanted. I think that that is the right balance between the individual and the collective.
The issue of visa brakes was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, and by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) when he talked about “back doors”. It is a really important point. From the four countries for which we implemented visa brakes—Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan—asylum applications had risen to more than 470% of their 2021 level. In the case of Afghanistan, 93% of those students—all of whom said they had come to the country for a time-limited period—claimed asylum. If that, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire posits, demonstrates that there is a need for an asylum-linked study route, I agree, actually. He knows that the Home Secretary has already announced that we intend to bring that in. But this Parliament and this Government should be the ones to set the terms of that, rather than universities themselves. That must surely be the right balance.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), talked about our commitment to people from Afghanistan. He knows that in the past few years, we have brought 35,000 people over via safe and legal means. Again, we will offer those protected visa routes, but that should be a decision for this country’s democracy, rather than a decision for universities.
My hon. Friend the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Alloa and Grangemouth and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) talked about values —something I think about a lot. First, the idea of an orderly system—one that takes the agency away from the traffickers, closes down illegal routes into the country and opens up safe and legal ones—sits squarely within the mainstream of Labour’s traditions. The idea that we incentivise by making the best route to settlement by working and contributing, being a good neighbour and not committing crime, is also rooted in the values of our movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) covered that point very well. I am proud that we are part of a Government who have been willing—even when it is politically difficult—to say that we intend to pivot the model in that way.
Brian Leishman
I appreciate it, and I will be quick. I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but could he clarify what he thinks, with regard to Labour values, about the horrendous social media posts that we have seen, showing people being bundled into the backs of vans?
Alex Norris
That is a very important point. If people are failed asylum seekers or foreign national offenders, and have no right to be in the country, they should be removed. There is a challenge: public confidence, as I have said, is so, so low. It must be demonstrated that that takes place—I have that conversation with constituents, and they do not always believe me. If my hon. Friend thinks that it is too route one, I accept that challenge, but I cannot accept that we do not need to tell that story, because we absolutely do.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a meeting about fishing; I will make sure that it happens with me or with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp). For sheep shearers, we have announced the one-year extension.
A number of colleagues raised settlement issues—I will not name them all—including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is no longer in her place. We will retain existing safeguards around domestic violence and abuse. On earned settlement, again, it is about ensuring that people’s contributions are recognised, so that working and earning, learning the language and not committing crimes can accelerate a person’s route to settlement. That is why we brought it in.
On the point about retrospection, it has always been the case that the rules apply at the point of application, not at the point of entry. Nevertheless, colleagues know that we consulted—the consultation only recently closed, and it had 200,000 contributions. We are looking very carefully at it—transitional protection was an element of it, and we will return to it. The hon. Member for Woking asked me what I thought of what the Law Society has said about a lack of clarity. I defend the principle that we are consulting and thereby creating clarity. I think that that is the right balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) made interesting points about common sponsorship, and I am talking to the union movement about that. We are looking at it closely. I have covered a number of points that were made in what has been an interesting debate.
Immigration Policy
Alex Norris Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate 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
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on her recently announced immigration policy.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
The British public expect and deserve an immigration system with order and control. In November, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, and last week the Government took concrete steps to implement those necessary changes. I hear clearly the strong message from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course we would never mean any discourtesy to you or to your colleagues.
Features of the steps taken last week include that refugee status will now be reviewed every 30 months. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need for protection will have that protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home.
Further, we are introducing targeted measures known as a visa brake to help protect the integrity of the UK immigration system. As such, from 26 March we will refuse applications for specific visa routes from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, where evidence shows a consistently high number and proportion of visa-linked asylum claims. This is the beginning; other nationalities may face similar measures in the future.
Due to the number of asylum claims from nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia, we have also introduced visit visa requirements and direct airside transit visa requirements on those countries to prevent visitor visa misuse. Those came into force on 5 March.
We have tabled further legislative changes to revoke the current legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, instead restoring it to a power to provide support so that those who can support themselves do so. We are also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support when an asylum seeker is working illegally.
We have started a consultation on our approach to family returns, exploring reforms to the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the approach used when enforcing the returns of families who have not departed voluntarily.
After years of chaos and crisis, it has fallen to this Government to fix the broken systems we inherited. I know this country, and I know the protection that people want to provide to those who need it—we have seen that with the Syrian scheme, Afghan resettlement, Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders and Homes for Ukraine—but we can do that only when there is confidence that the system has order and control. These reforms restore order and build the system that the British people deserve.
Chris Philp
It is disappointing the Government did not come here voluntarily to announce their policies, and I notice that there was no apology, but given the scale of their failure, this is not surprising. Since the election, 67,000 people have entered the UK illegally, a 45% increase compared with the same period before the election. Many of those 67,000 have since committed serious crimes, including murder and rape. In the last six days alone, 900 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. The Government’s promises lie in tatters: the gangs are not smashed; the French are not intercepting boats near the shores, as we were promised last year; and the so-called one in, one out deal saw 41,000 illegal immigrants come in across the channel last year and only 300 go out.
The Government are now resorting to bribing illegal immigrants with £40,000 per family to leave—that is more than most working people here earn in a year. British workers should not have to pay record high taxes for this Government to give their money away to illegal immigrants. It is frankly disgraceful. Instead, the Government should now agree to our plan to leave the European convention on human rights, which would enable them to rapidly deport all illegal immigrants. The crossings would then quickly stop and there would be no need to bribe illegal immigrants to leave.
Let me turn now to indefinite leave to remain. When we proposed a 10-year path, the Government voted against it, but I am delighted that they have now done yet another U-turn and adopted our policy. We do not agree with every detail in their plans, but we agree with the substance. However, I am sorry to hear that some of the Minister’s own MPs are apparently unconvinced, so let me help him. Given that the Government appear to need our votes to pass these ILR changes, we will support them. Will the Minister confirm whether the ILR changes will be made in primary legislation or via the rules? If the Government use primary legislation, that will take some time to pass, by which time the 2021 and 2022 arrivals will have ILR, so we would also support him to pass emergency legislation if he will accept that offer—
Alex Norris
It is a challenge to be lectured on the need for apologies from the architects of the Trussonomics that mean my constituents are paying more on their mortgages month on month. However, we have seen more of that mathematics from the right hon. Gentleman, because he says that spending an average of £158,000 on families in hotel accommodation who now have no right to be here because they have finished making their way through the asylum system is better value than spending £40,000 in order for them to return home and to build their lives again. I am not surprised.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about gangs, but he will know that there has been a record level of interventions—more than 4,000. He talked about our work with the French, but he will know that 40,000 crossings have been prevented. He also mentioned returns. He will know that 60,000 people have been returned under this Government, a 31% increase on his time in the Home Department. He offers criticism, but the only answer that he offers in lieu is to tear up international agreements with no sense of what change that would drive. It would merely set back that returns work and lead us back to years of debate and no action. I will not do that.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ILR, but of course that was not the nature of the announcement last week. That related to the closing of an important consultation on earned settlement in this country. We will be having those conversations with Parliament, and measures will be laid in the usual way in the weeks and months ahead.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Could the Minister update us on the discussions about people who arrived in this country pursuing leave for five years, or whatever period their visa stated, to get status in the UK, and who are approaching the end of that period? I have a number of constituents who will reach that point in April, and they are concerned that they will have to start all over again under a new process. Could he update the House on their position?
Alex Norris
I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to earned settlement. It has always been the case that the immigration rules in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry to the country, are the ones that are germane to the conditions an individual has to meet. Nevertheless, she will know that we consulted on what transition protections there could be, and that consultation closed last month. There is an important reality for all colleagues to wrestle with here. In the first five years of this decade we saw unprecedented levels of migration through legal means as a result of the Conservatives’ open borders experiment, which means that one in 30 people in this country came in during that window. That means that those people will become eligible for social housing and other benefits at the same time, which represents a significant challenge to the taxpayer and to public services. Nevertheless, that consultation took place and we will be coming back to respond in the usual way.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?
Alex Norris
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the statement in November on these very issues. I can assure him that one of his Front-Bench colleagues remembers it well and thinks about it quite a bit.
On the 30 months, let me be clear about how the system will work. We do not want people to come to the country and get that good news of their claim for refuge being accepted, and then be at home and not take part in British life. We are saying that if people do that, their claims will be assessed every 30 months. However, they will be offered the chance to move to a protected work and study route, which means that if they are taking part in work or study, learning the language and not committing crimes, they are outwith that. I do not recognise the points on how many decisions would have to be made or the spend—that is not accurate.
The hon. Gentleman talks about quicker decisions. Last year was the best year since records began on initial decisions, so we are operating that system effectively. Nevertheless, significant demand issues mean that applications are down significantly across the EU and up significantly in the UK. Until and unless those issues are addressed, any process changes would simply be overwhelmed.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As other colleagues have said, some people came here under one system, but now the system is changing, so have the Government done any assessment of where those people are working? In my constituency, a large number of people are now in their fourth year before their cases were about to conclude, hopefully, to secure status. They work in the care sector and without them, to be frank, the care sector in my constituency would collapse.
Alex Norris
We know where these people are working because they came to this country on work visas, so we are clear on where they are. On the assessment, that was the point of the consultation that ended last month. We got more than 200,000 responses—that shows the strength of feeling. We are looking at that in the usual way, and we will come back with our plans after that in the usual way.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I quote approvingly the remarks of my constituency neighbour and Labour MP, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)? She said that if Labour is to win its battle against Reform, it has to do much more on illegal boats. I am sorry that she is not here, but I have warned her that I was going to ask this question. Specifically, she makes the good point that people should only be allowed to claim asylum abroad. If that were the case, surely there is an argument that if people arrived here illegally, they would not be able to claim asylum and would not be covered by the convention, and they could be detained and deported.
Alex Norris
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that I always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). I have known her for a very long time, and have found that being disagreeable to her is a bad idea. The third chapter of our November statement is about safe and legal routes. The Home Secretary has talked about our first foray in that endeavour being a study route, to provide options for people to seek sanctuary in this country—to the degree to which our communities can sustain that—from outside the country, so that they do not make dangerous journeys and we do not see people crossing the channel. I think that is in everybody’s interests, and I am glad to see it drawing consensus.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My constituent came to this country after leaving a very good job and uprooting his whole family, including young children, on the promise that he would be allowed to work and contribute to our NHS, which he has done for the past four years. However, because of the Government’s harsh and hostile policies, not only is his future now uncertain, but his children may not even be able to go to university. Does the Minister not understand the hostility and unfairness of this?
Alex Norris
I think we all recognise the absolutely important role that people from outside the UK have played in the NHS for decades. My hon. Friend will know that our proposals set out that working in the NHS and other public services was one proposed way in which people could earn that route to settlement. As I have said to other colleagues, we are looking at the consultation closely. We must understand that there is a real challenge beneath this, and that the immigration rules have always been applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that he and other hon. Members have made with vigour.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Has the Home Office made an assessment of the number of people who will be affected, and of the amount that will be saved, by moving from a statutory duty to support asylum seekers to a discretionary power?
Alex Norris
The overall supported population is 107,000. The decisions of approximately half of those people are now more than a year old, so they can access work in many cases. Similarly, a smaller proportion retain the right to work because they have overstayed their work visas. We are now doing the work of considering all those people individually to see who could work and therefore pay towards their own support costs, on the basis that if people can pay for their own support, they ought to—like our constituents—so that the cost does not fall on the taxpayer and we can reduce the burden.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In my constituency, people of all faiths and backgrounds live, learn and work next to each other. Unlike many other European countries, the UK has a good reputation on integration, so can the Minister reassure me that these reforms will not lead to the UK becoming like our European neighbours with much poorer records?
Alex Norris
I absolutely can. I saw my own community in my hon. Friend’s description of hers. All our reforms seek to promote integration. With regards to illegal migration, for example, when people seek refuge and have their claim accepted, they should enter work or study, and learn the language, which is crucial for integration. We also have important work to do across Government on social cohesion, of which the Home Office has a significant component. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will make a statement later about the important cohesion work to make this a brilliant, integrated and multicultural place, like Hounslow, Nottingham and the rest of the country.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
There are thousands of Ukrainians in this country—most of them women and children—who are effectively stateless. They did not come here as asylum seekers; they came as refugees. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They cannot return to their country, and there is no prospect of them being able to in the short or medium term. They need to be able to determine accommodation, education and employment, so what will the Government do to create some sort of proper settled status for Ukrainian refugees?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. It is really important that colleagues appreciate that the Homes for Ukraine scheme—the way by which people came to this country from Ukraine—was never intended as a settlement scheme. That was part of our engagement with the Government of Ukraine at the time. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have extended that period of protection for longer, in line with the challenges that people are facing. We want those people to live fully while they are here, and I hear the challenges that he describes, but, as I said, that scheme was never designed as a settlement scheme.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?
Alex Norris
I absolutely recognise the characterisation offered by my hon. Friend. We know there was abuse of that scheme by unscrupulous employers. We have been working with trade unions—indeed, I met their representatives only this morning—on what a future model could look like to avoid such abuse, so that if people come to this country, they are not so precariously reliant on one employer, who therefore has a very unhelpful amount of power over them and their lives—it is an imbalance. We are looking at that closely.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
In Afghanistan, women and girls are being persecuted on grounds of their gender. They cannot work, they cannot study, and by law their husbands can punish them however they see fit. Last year the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women to come to the UK, and last week it closed the door for both professionals and students. The work of the Linda Norgrove Foundation means that a number of female medical students are currently studying at Scottish universities, including St Andrews. What hope is there for others to complete their studies and support the maternal healthcare crisis that is under way in Afghanistan?
Alex Norris
We take our obligations and commitment to Afghans very seriously; since 2021, over 37,000 have come here via resettlement schemes. The change last week is because we have a student visa system that is being used as a de facto immigration system, which cannot be right. Of the 3,730 visas issued to students from Afghanistan, there were 3,454 claims for asylum. That is not an orderly system. I feel the power and passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but to accept that premise is to say that we believe universities ought to set our asylum system, which cannot be right. I hope she will recognise that, taken in concert with what we have announced about a safe and legal study route, these measures must be a much better way, so that we as a Government accountable to Parliament know who is coming, what their protection need is, what their institution is and what they are learning while they are here. I think that is the right balance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile has found that restrictive policies have had an insignificant effect on the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Denmark. Instead, the discrimination and constant uncertainty make it harder for young refugees to learn, build relationships or plan for their futures. Will the Minister commit to keeping permanently the five years’ leave for unaccompanied children, to create stability for the most vulnerable asylum seekers?
Alex Norris
I can give my hon. Friend succour in that regard. Our 30-month protection announcement last week does not include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and we take our responsibilities to children very seriously. I have optimism in our new system. We need those children to study and then get into work, as well as to learn the language, as they have the most to benefit so that, so the protected work and study route will be particularly important for them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister and the Government are to be commended for trying to wrestle with this issue, and where there can be cross-party consensus, let us build on and foster it. Lots of groups of people who come to this country generate complaints, but one group that does not are those who come from New Zealand and Australia to help our sheep farmers at shearing time. May I urge the Minister to rethink the measure in this regard, as not a single rural Member of Parliament is calling for it? Those people should be allowed in. This is an animal welfare issue, and it is important for our food security and agricultural sector.
Alex Norris
The announcements about illegal migration that we made in November were the most sweeping since the second world war, and they were unpacked last week as well, but they were not so sweeping or broad as to include sheep shearing, although I know that that has become a pertinent point for some. The Minister for Migration and Citizenship and I are having conversations with rural MPs, and we have heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s words.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
In response to the urgent question, the Minister did not mention the announcement last week that people from four countries—Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Cameroon—will no longer be able to apply for a student visa. Many students who applied for such visas and came to study here subsequently found that the situation in their country had materially changed, so they then applied for asylum. I am very concerned that when things materially change, we will change the policy on student applications. We are seeing a war in the middle east now, and the situation in Ukraine, and I am concerned that this is now the Government’s policy. We should take it in good faith that people who come here to study do so—that they study and contribute, and that they can go back to their countries to contribute there when things have settled. We should not be cutting off student visas for people from countries in conflict.
Alex Norris
I hate to correct my hon. Friend, but I did mention those countries. No matter what reforms we announced in November and the impact of any element, everybody will have their claim individually assessed on the basis of their own individual circumstances. If someone has come here for a three-year course, I accept totally that the circumstances at home could have materially changed during that period. I say gently to my hon. Friend that when that is happening, in virtually every case, those systems cease to be merely a study route and become a de facto asylum route, and it is better that these routes are organised and co-ordinated by the Government rather than academic institutions.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?
Alex Norris
I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I am not unhappy at all. The way I look at it, I get to give the answers, and right hon. Members and hon. Members get to ask the questions—I do not get to do both—so colleagues can raise whatever issues they wish to raise. On her point about scrutiny of the policies, as she will be aware, there has been a public consultation that with very good participation. There were two statements in November, one relating to restoring order and control—our asylum policy statement—and one relating to earned settlement, and colleagues had the opportunity for debate then. She will know that there has subsequently been at least one debate in Westminster Hall; I am sure there will be more. I have no doubt that colleagues will find parliamentary opportunities to debate these policies and any others of the Home Department.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
On the issue of indefinite leave to remain, the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that there will be “close consideration” of the public consultation that concluded last month, and yet last week the Home Secretary said that she is determined to push ahead with those changes to retrospective indefinite leave to remain. Which is true? This is about people who are working here and people who are contributing in many ways, not just financially.
Alex Norris
At the outset of the consultation, we were very clear that there were certain non-negotiable elements that we had decided prior to the consultation, including moving to a system with a default 10 years that could be reduced to five on the basis of the people’s contribution to their community and in relation to speaking English. Within the consultation, there were also questions about transitional protections. We are looking at all those issues in the round and I do not see an inconsistency in the two positions.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Where will we send an illegal entrant with no right to remain but whose country of origin is unsafe?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have removed 60,000 people with no right to be in this country—a 31% increase on our predecessors. It is not possible to effect return in every case; everybody knows that. There are certain countries to which we are unable to do so. In those cases, we are not effecting returns, but we have to have a system that has a backstop of removal. I think that is an accepted principle.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I acknowledge the considerable challenge that the Government have in winning back public confidence in the asylum system. The Home Office published a report last year concluding that there was insufficient evidence that restrictive asylum policies reduce claims, so will the Home Office publish evidence to show that cutting refugee leave from five years down to 30 months will deter claims in the UK? Does the Minister accept that a substantial settlement pathway of 20 years-plus is also unlikely to deter those claims?
Alex Norris
My hon. and learned Friend knows that we bring forward our impact assessments alongside the policies as we publish them, and as we seek to debate or implement them. He knows about the case that we made in our document in November as well. With regard to whether these policies work, I would gently say that Germany and Denmark have a similar period of time for protection, and both are seeing reductions in asylum claims. In the UK, there have been over 80,000 asylum claims for the last two years; for the previous decade, claims averaged 27,500. I do not think we can say that no change is an option.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My constituent is a hard-working taxpayer, but his wife and daughter remain in Iran because the family reunion route has effectively been closed since September. Does the Minister accept that failing to provide controlled, safe and legal routes not only lets down families like this one, but fuels the use of dangerous routes?
Alex Norris
That route is paused for now. The hon. Lady will know that over the last four or five years, we have seen a huge increase—fivefold, I think—in the use of that route. Given the significant changes, it is right that the Government ensure that the system is effective. We are looking at it closely and we appreciate the importance of family reunion. She will have heard what I said about safe and legal means.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Given these changes, what changes to the national referral mechanism in relation to modern slavery does the Minister expect to see? What does the switch from a duty to a power for housing people waiting for asylum mean for the national dispersal method, including for places that have routinely had more people than was agreed, such as Stoke-on-Trent—and, if there are no changes, will he look at funding integration work in those places?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend will know about my work on modern slavery over my years in this place. We know that is a constantly moving picture. We want to make sure that the protections for victims of slavery are robust—I think there is a consensus here on that—and that the system is being used properly. I also take his point on dispersal. The Department’s view is that there should be full dispersal, meaning that communities share the challenge across their means. With regard to payments, we pay £1,200 per head to help that integration work.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Paying illegal asylum seekers £40,000 to leave the United Kingdom is a kick in the teeth for my hard-working constituents. Why are we not using that money to build a detention centre so that we can detain and immediately deport those who arrive in this country illegally?
Alex Norris
See, this is funny, Mr Speaker: when the hon. Gentleman was in my office saying he wanted the hotel in his constituency closed, he was saying, “Make sure we get a grip and get them closed”, but then when he sees the proposals to do so, he does not want them. He cannot have those two things together.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
We see reports of armed criminal gangs operating with confidence along the northern coastline of France. My constituents ask what the French authorities are actually doing to deal with the issue. Can the Minister give an update on the ongoing discussions that he is having with his French counterparts? What will change on the back of these reforms?
Alex Norris
This is an important point. The gangs are well embedded; they had a head start of a good six-plus years on this Government. It is not easy for the French authorities, which we work very closely with. Through the Sandhurst agreement, we have seen 40,000 preventions, but we are in active negotiations about where we go next to tackle that pernicious threat.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Aside from the cruelty of asking people who have fled war and persecution to re-justify their already-recognised refugee status every 30 months, how does the Minister plan to pay for this huge additional administrative burden? As we have heard, the Refugee Council has estimated that it will cost £725 million over 10 years, but he contests that estimate. Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks it will cost, and why—when our NHS and schools are crying out for funding—he is spending taxpayers’ money on scapegoating migrants instead.
Alex Norris
I gently say to the hon. Lady that we will not be asking those who come to this country, have a protection need, enter into work and study, learn the language and do not commit crimes to re-justify their protection need. I think that strikes the right balance between the taxpayer and the individual, and I do not recognise or accept the figures that she cites. Turning to the issue of cost, we must recognise that we in this country support a significantly bigger supported population than we have traditionally. That number needs to reduce—we need to break that attractiveness—which is why we have proposed these reforms.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary mentioned that our immigration policy needed to be based on the idea of fairness. Is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. On fairness, the applicable rules have always been those in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry, so I do not accept that that in itself represents a lack of fairness. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have made, which is why we carried out the consultation in the way we did.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
There have often been occasions on which somebody has leaked in advance the contents of a statement that they are going to make to the House of Commons, or part of its contents, but this is the first time I have seen a total revelation in the press of something that the Government had no intention of making a statement about to the House of Commons. Why is that, and what will these measures do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally, with it then being impossible to deport them?
Alex Norris
On the deterrence point, as I have said, we are receiving applications at an unprecedented level, and at a time when our European Union counterparts are seeing fewer applications. There is an attractiveness to this country, which is why we are changing the protection package and carrying out record levels of enforcement against illegal working. Those are the changes we are making to break those pull factors to this country.
Turning to announcements, we would of course mean no discourtesy to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the apology I made at the outset. However, we stated our policy in November, and what we are now doing is building it out.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
South Norfolk expects our immigration system to be fair, open and transparent. The one problem we have come across, unfortunately, is that there is a lot of confusion online, as has been expertly shown by the shadow Home Secretary today. Can the Minister clarify that the process we are looking at will save the taxpayer £20 million, instead of spending money to keep open asylum hotels?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is exactly right. With regard to family returns, I hear from Conservative Members that they would rather pay a family with no prospect of staying in the country an average of £158,000 to stay in a hotel, rather than pay that £40,000. There are 150 families in the pilot; if we were to be successful with all of them, that would save the British taxpayer £20 million. I think we would be doing right by them in doing so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Yesterday we marked International Women’s Day with the statistic that women hold fewer than two thirds of the rights enjoyed by men globally. Afghan women are already barred from secondary and higher education, and they now face further violence and discrimination under the Taliban’s new criminal regulations. What is the Secretary of State doing? She is stopping them from applying to study at our universities. Does the Minister not agree that the aim of ending violence against women and girls extends beyond borders, and that his Government have a moral duty to help women fulfil their potential in safety?
Alex Norris
I totally agree, which is why we have offered sanctuary to over 37,000 Afghans via resettlement schemes since 2021, as well as those who have come via the asylum system. I do not think that the point of difference between the right hon. Lady and me is about the substance; it is about whether those sorts of routes to provide sanctuary to people who want to study and have their protection needs met should be run by universities on our behalf, without the scrutiny of Parliament, or by the Government themselves. I cannot agree with her on that.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his updates. The Home Secretary was absolutely right last week that the public expect a controlled and orderly immigration system. I fully support her plans, but can the Minister say more about how quickly the measures announced will be implemented, and how the Home Office will ensure that they are properly enforced in practice?
Alex Norris
I know that the public are eager to see change. We were able to make some immediate changes in November when we announced the policies, and last Thursday we tabled statutory instruments that we hope will effect further changes. Similarly, we made changes to the immigration rules last week, and we will do so at future opportunities when the need arises. Of course, where there is the need for primary legislation—particularly on important appeals reform—that will come in front of the House in the usual way.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?
Alex Norris
I follow the hon. Gentleman’s work. He always says no to large sites and no to hotels, and then proposes fantastical third countries that he is not capable of naming. Ultimately, this is the choice: do people want fantasy, more empty rhetoric and argument, or do they want change and action with this Government? I know what I choose.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Along with Home Affairs Committee colleagues, I spent time in northern France last year seeing the challenges of intercepting small boats. The French maritime doctrine has clearly been an obstacle to adopting the more assertive tactics that my constituents wish and expect to see. Can the Minister outline the progress in getting the French to change their tactics, and will he make the continuation of Sandhurst funding dependent on that?
Alex Norris
From my perspective, with regards to action in northern France, what works is what works. It is a matter of record that we have enthusiasm about maritime doctrine-type tactics, but there are other things prior to that which need to work as well, particularly our work with the French to disrupt organised crime, which is having a significant impact. My hon. Friend mentions Sandhurst, which we are in the process of negotiating. I can absolutely assure him that all of that will be seen through the prism of bringing forward effective action.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
If the Government are serious about stopping dangerous small boats crossings and smashing the gangs, there must be safe routes for those fleeing war and persecution. I remind the House that bombs are falling right now in the Gulf and in the middle east. What progress has the Home Secretary made in establishing safe and legal routes for refugees, so that people do not risk their lives crossing the channel?
Alex Norris
The hon. Lady will know from our announcements in November that we believe in safe and legal alternatives. She will know that the “one in, one out” work with France is itself a safe and legal route. She will also know of the announcements we have made about a refugee study route. We are getting on with those things, alongside the difficult decisions we have made in front of Parliament in relation to the balance in disrupting that model and changing those behaviours from irregular and dangerous to safe and legal.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Like many towns, Long Eaton is home to an asylum seeker hotel. It was gifted to us by the last Tory Government, but I know the Minister is doing everything in his power to close it as soon as possible. A secondary effect of the Tories’ hotels, however, is illegal work associated with the exploitation of local asylum seekers. Can the Minister elaborate on how measures announced recently will help to end illegal work in Erewash?
Alex Norris
We know from the materials of the traffickers that illegal working is one of those advertising features used to suggest to people that they should try to come to the UK. The impact of that is then felt in communities such as Long Eaton, and it means that we have got hotels open, but we are changing that equation. We have extended the powers around illegal working to the gig economy in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which is now coming into force. The message is clear: people will not be able to employ people illegally, and people will not be able to work illegally.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We learn from the press, if not from the Minister, that up to £40,000 of taxpayers’ money will be used to reward illegal activity. Does that not make a mockery of the law? Would it not be far better to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, so that we can deport people who have no basis to be here?
Alex Norris
It is tricky, because the right hon. Gentleman talks with power and vigour that was lacking from his colleagues in their 14 years in government. Indeed, he may well know, as colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench certainly know, that they paid people to leave the country, because it is in the taxpayers’ interest. There are choices between measures that work and measures such as leaving the ECHR, which are fantastical and would just lead to years and years of arguing, disruption and no impact.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Some say that this Government are controlling our borders in spite of our progressive values, but no, we are securing our borders because it is in line with our Labour values. In my constituency, residents want to feel safe, and they do not feel safe with our borders not yet controlled. In wanting to tackle illegal ads, will the Minister set out what this Government are doing to stop illegal working, particularly within Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats??
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend is right, and I make exactly the same assessment of the position in Nottingham that I make of the position in Bournemouth. Those are people who leant into the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but who are rightly fed up about the three hotels in Bournemouth and the impact on their community. My hon. Friend’s vigour in working for the closure of those hotels is well known. As for the question of illegal workers, to prevent them from using those facilities we have introduced new punishments. People who work in the gig economy and are using the substitution of labour to circumvent legal working rules will be caught and punished, and we are doing that at record levels.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
At lunch time today I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, during which we heard about existential threats to the fishing industry across these islands. Will the Minister agree to attend a meeting of the APPG so that he can hear at first hand about some of the threats posed by his party’s immigration policies?
Alex Norris
I am sure that the subject of that meeting was not how to help people to work illegally in the fishing industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are discussing today, but of course I am always open to meetings with colleagues to hear about their important work and what they want to see from the Government.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s focus on closing the hotels, and I am delighted that the last remaining hotel in my constituency that was opened by the Conservatives will be closing in the coming weeks, but will the Minister recommit the efforts of the Home Office to recovering the excess profits made by the providers of the contracts that were so badly negotiated by the last Government?
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend has timed his question perfectly, enabling me to say, just as the Chancellor joins me, that we have recouped tens of millions of pounds from those contracts, not to mention reduction amounting to hundreds of millions as a result of our improvement in relation to hotels. Nevertheless, all those hotels will be closed—opened by the Tories, closed by Labour.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Raising that point was useful, because many of the migrants are going into houses in multiple occupation, which is a real problem in my constituency. Along with my Liberal Democrat-run council, I have raised concerns not only about the impact on our community, but about where people are being placed. Those concerns have been raised with Serco, which is ignoring them. Will the Minister meet me so that I can discuss them with him? Those in my community are extremely concerned.
Alex Norris
Of course I will. I want to see equitable dispersal, and I am desperately trying to close the gap between the Home Office and local government so that there is better information sharing. Local authorities should not be surprised: there should be an early conversation about possible sites in their communities, not because they will have a veto but because they may have a better way of doing things.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that the Minister will agree that it is important for us to have a working and fair immigration system, but that, sadly, is not what we inherited. Constituents of mine in Harlow are rightly concerned that people who come to settle here should be law-abiding. Does the Minister agree that if they are not law-abiding, they will not be settling here?
Alex Norris
I totally agree. My hon. Friend can assure people in Harlow that every element of our system will incentivise people to come here and follow the rules, and if they do not, that will be a bar to citizenship. It will bar them from getting what they want from our settlement system. That is the right balance for the British people to ensure that our generosity is not abused.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I am very perplexed, and indeed I suspect that most Brits will be perplexed. We have more than 650,000 job vacancies, of which more than 165,000 are for unskilled workers. Why are we not dealing with the refugees—processing their applications, giving them training, putting them into jobs and enabling them to earn some money, rather than paying their hotel costs?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier that we in the Home Office are making decisions faster than ever without affecting the grant rate. We are making those quick decisions so that those who need protection can build their lives in this country. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard Question Time earlier today, when we were talking about the number of young people in Britain who are out of work. I cannot accept that so many young people in Britain can be out of work and the Government can have no aspiration for them to fill roles.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
My constituents want the Government to get off their back and get on their side, rather than using their hard-earned taxpayers’ money to spend up to £40,000 on removing illegal asylum seekers. Will the Minister rule that out?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said to his colleagues: the choice is between paying £158,000 for those families to live in hotels and paying £40,000 for them to leave the country. I do not know whether he needs a calculator, but I think that is a good equation.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Can the Minister tell us what modelling those in the Home Office have done in respect of whether these visa bans will actually affect the backlog of refugee and asylum seekers? Have they looked at the impact on local services in constituencies such as mine? People running care homes have told me that they are losing vital workforce members and may not be able to stay open.
Alex Norris
Of course we take a lens on reform. The hon. Lady will know that those seeking asylum cannot work in such environments, so they would not be germane to that conversation. We look very closely at the impacts of our policies and publish reviews at the appropriate moments.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The concept of paying someone who has come here illegally £40,000 to leave will stick in the throats of all taxpayers in this country. Notwithstanding the arguments that the Minister has put forward, what assessment has he made that making an offer of 40 grand will not act as a huge pull factor and cause more people to come here to collect our cash?
Alex Norris
First of all, I can offer the hon. Gentleman some degree of comfort: this is a targeted pilot at this stage. It cannot act as a pull factor, because people will not be eligible for it. Other countries that offer money, including Denmark, are seeing their numbers go down, which can also give him a degree of comfort.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The Minister failed to answer the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). In the absence of a third-country scheme, to where do we remove people when their countries are not safe or there are no returns agreements?
Alex Norris
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Rwanda scheme would not have removed those people; it would have removed a tiny proportion, at an eye-watering cost. We are ramping up removals of those who have no right to be here. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that he wants to rip up the ECHR because he wants to send people back to countries that are not safe, he should name which ones.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Alongside last week’s announcements was the most welcome announcement that BNO passport holders will not be required to hold B2 language qualifications, but Hongkongers resident in Wimborne are really concerned about the income threshold. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also being exempted?
Alex Norris
As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Over 330,000 people have signed a petition urging the Government to scrap the plan to increase the ILR period from five years to 10 years, especially the retrospective nature of it. This will have a detrimental effect on the core of our society, especially the NHS, and will exploit workers, who will be vulnerable to exploitative bosses. Does the Minister agree with many of his Back Benchers that the Government must stop this cruel proposal taking effect?
Alex Norris
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Some time ago, there was a debate on fisheries in this Chamber. The Minister who replied for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she would meet those of us who represent fishing villages. There is a need for visas for fishing crews, and it will not cost this country any money to have them here, as they contribute to it. Will the Minister please agree to a meeting?
Alex Norris
Whether it is with me or the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, I will ensure that a meeting on fisheries takes place.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
My constituents are deeply alarmed that retrospective changes to ILR could leave long-term residents living in fear of deportation. Does the Minister accept that leaving families across this country in a state of profound uncertainty risks undermining the very sense of security and fairness that our immigration system is supposed to uphold?
Alex Norris
I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we were very clear in our settlement consultation that coming here, working hard, contributing, paying taxes, learning the language, taking part in the community and not committing crimes will get someone the best route to settlement. I think that gives people the security they need.
Mr Speaker
I believe the Minister had a telling-off earlier, and I just want to reiterate the problem. The scrapping of the communications grid may be of benefit to the Government, but it is not beneficial to this House. This House does not want to be drip-fed for seven days via the news; the Government should come here first. We have got it the wrong way round. I hope the message goes back that this should happen no more.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
We were elected on a commitment to close all asylum hotels, and that is what we will do. In June 2024, there were 29,561 asylum seekers in hotels, which later peaked at 38,054 in the following December, thanks to the awful legacy of the Conservatives. As we started to grip the crisis in asylum accommodation, those numbers had reduced to 36,273 by September 2025. The next release of statistics is coming at the end of this month, and I have absolutely no doubt that the number will have fallen significantly even further.
Charlie Dewhirst
The Minister has just made it quite clear that since the general election the number of individuals in asylum hotels has risen by 22%. That is clearly at odds with his party’s manifesto pledge. What further action is he taking to reduce the number of individuals in migrant hotels? Can he guarantee to the House that there will be no new migrant hotels in this country?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman is undertaking an adventure in statistics. He compared one statistic from before the season of crossings with one statistic from the end of that season, so let us compare like for like. In September 2023, the last time that his colleagues were in government, there were more than 54,000 people in asylum accommodation. By September 2025, that number had reduced to 36,000—a reduction of a third. That is what has happened. We want to go further, because one person is frankly too many. That is why we have introduced the asylum policy statement and are introducing the use of large sites, which is opposed by Opposition Front Benchers. The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to ensure that no hotels are opened. We will not open new hotels, but if he thinks that that can be done without opening large sites, he is wrong, and Members on the Opposition Front Bench will soon have to learn.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
A number of my constituents have written to me requesting details on the future of the George hotel, which is one of the asylum hotels in Solihull town centre. Given the statistics that the Minister has just provided, can he provide some clarity to my constituents on when the George hotel will close?
Alex Norris
I have seen previous contributions that the hon. Gentleman has made; I know that it is exceptionally important to his community that that hotel is closed, and it will be. I will not give a running commentary in the Chamber on when each individual asylum hotel will be closed, but my message to Solihull—and to any community that has an asylum hotel—is that these hotels were opened by the Conservatives, and they will be closed by Labour.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
Trust and confidence are the cornerstones of a functioning asylum system, yet both were damaged in Wrexham recently due to an unclear and poorly communicated proposal for large houses in multiple occupation to be used for asylum accommodation. Following years of Tory failure, we have inherited a chaotic system and wasteful contracts which were signed by the previous Government that frequently bypass local input. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Department is finally moving away from this inherited mess and reforming its strategy to ensure that local communities are fully informed and respected?
Alex Norris
I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I know from my own community and across the country that when a system is orderly and controlled, the British public lean into it; we saw that with the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, Homes for Ukraine and British national overseas passports. When systems are not orderly and controlled, people get frustrated. One aspect, exactly as my hon. Friend says, is better engagement between the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that local authorities know where HMOs may be opened, in this case, and to know what populations need to be supported so that the community can lean in. I can give him an absolute assurance that we will work much more closely with local authorities to ensure that they have that information.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
While we are on the issue of immigration statistics, when the previous Conservative Government signed the contracts that led to those hotels opening, the average cost per asylum seeker was £17,000 a year. By the time of the election, that cost had risen to almost £50,000 per asylum seeker per year. This Government have been locked into the contracts signed by the previous Government. What is the Minister doing to drive down this appalling waste of public money? What is his view on the break clause that created these hotels in the first place?
Alex Norris
I am pleased that during our time in government we have already been able to reduce by a third the amount of money that the British taxpayer is spending on hotels, but the right level is zero. As my hon. Friend says, we also have the asylum contract. That is an eyewatering contract which, to be as kind as possible to Opposition Front Benchers, does not reflect any system that was intended to be procured. We are in those conversations with suppliers now. Crucially, with a break clause coming up and the end of the contract in 2029, we are looking at that closely to get the best possible system at the best possible financial level for the British people.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his community. He has raised the issue of these hotels with me on multiple occasions and I know that he will continue to do so until they are closed. He is exactly right; for the reasons he mentions, hotels are a very bad place to accommodate those seeking asylum. He will have heard the commitment from myself and the Home Secretary: we will get them closed, and we will do so within this parliamentary term.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
What action is my right hon. Friend taking to disrupt the finances of the organised crime groups facilitating illegal migration to the United Kingdom, and what steps is her Department taking with international partners to prosecute those who are funding those operations, both domestically and internationally?
Alex Norris
I can report to the House that we have made 4,000 such disruptions of organised immigration crime. We are working with partners on all flows of illicit trafficking of peoples across the world, at every stage. We are of course working closely with our French neighbours, as well as all the way round the world, to disrupt those flows, and to send a clear signal to those who traffic in persons that their time is up.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I was at the Westminster Hall petition debate on indefinite leave to remain. Some 60 Labour MPs turned up and unanimously rubbished and disparaged the Home Secretary’s proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to support them, so can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for debate and a vote?
Draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application To Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials In Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026
Alex Norris Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in Northern Ireland) and Consequential Amendments Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 December. They apply certain provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to customs officials and immigration officers in Northern Ireland, thereby fulfilling a commitment made by the previous Labour Administration in 2009 during the passage of Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, and replacing stop-gap measures that have been used subsequently.
By way of background, section 22 of the BCIA was intended as a temporary measure to ensure that customs officials transferring to the former UK Border Agency from HM Revenue and Customs had access to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 powers they needed to do their jobs. The ultimate intention at the time was to replace that measure in due course with separate regulations that applied the relevant provisions of PACE to customs officials and immigration officers investigating crime. That was achieved for England and Wales in 2013 through the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Application to Immigration Officers and Designated Customs Officials in England and Wales) Order 2013.
However, it was not possible to make the same provision for Northern Ireland at the time. Immigration officers have hitherto relied on statutory powers in subsequent and preceding immigration Acts to discharge their duties, but those do not provide adequate powers, nor do they allow for the level of interoperability and co-operation that is essential in the modern law enforcement environment.
That brings me to the two principal reasons for bringing forward the regulations that are before us today. The first is to replace the temporary application of PACE powers in respect of customs officials with a permanent legislative solution in Northern Ireland that grants those officers greater legitimacy and assurance in their use of PACE powers. As I say, they have been operating under a supposedly temporary fix from the BCIA. There will not—I think it is reasonable to say—be significant practical changes, but this puts them on a more solid legislative footing.
The second purpose is to bring immigration officers in Northern Ireland, specifically those engaged in criminal investigation work, into line with their counterparts in the police and the National Crime Agency and, indeed, in England and Wales. That will remove the reliance on the incomplete powers afforded to them by various immigration Acts. It will also reduce the need for multiple briefings for the same operation, and minimise confusion about which officers are empowered to fulfil which functions. It will support interoperability with An Garda Síochána counterparts working in cross-border operations. Again, in substance, the regulations will not significantly change the powers available to those individuals, but rather will ensure that the regime they are working under is effective, so that, as I say, they do not need multiple briefings and the like.
By addressing these dual needs, the regulations will provide the legislative framework needed for customs and immigration investigations conducted by both Border Force and immigration enforcement in Northern Ireland. The powers conferred on immigration officers and customs officials by virtue of these regulations will be limited to the exercise of their functions in relation to immigration and customs matters where a criminal prosecution is realistically in prospect. Only officers who have been trained in connection with the exercise of these powers will be permitted to use them. We are committed to tackling immigration and border-related crime throughout the United Kingdom. The regulations will aid us in that critical effort, and I commend them to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. The rather shrewd assertion of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West, about the similarity of the country mix seen at the common travel area border to that seen at Kent shows that we need to have those common powers across the piece. I want to assure colleagues about our commitment to the protection of the common travel area. It is of course a very different challenge from protecting the channel itself, but it is nevertheless just as important. For obvious reasons, much focus is given to efforts in the channel, but it is crucial that we do not forget the importance of the CTA.
That speaks to the point that the hon. Member for South Antrim raised about our work with An Garda Síochána. The work between the UK and the Republic of Ireland to ensure a balance between freedom of movement and trade and not making ourselves more vulnerable to organised immigration crime is important. We are having those conversations and we intend for the powers to work exactly as the hon. Gentleman said: in a way that promotes the good movement of goods and trade, but keeps a protected border. I think that is what his constituents would expect.
Operation Comby is a good example of our work across UK and Irish police services, and with the National Crime Agency, to target smuggling gangs. It is taking cash off the table, generating arrests and showing the criminals who think that this is a different way of perpetuating their horrendous trade how seriously we take it. The powers and alignment of powers in the regulations do that. I hope that addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point about An Garda Síochána and customs.
The shadow Minister also raised accountability. The accountability regimes in Northern Ireland will be unchanged and will remain as were, so that the regime remains robust. The powers can only be used by trained individuals, so we will make sure that those using the powers have all the right training and guidance to be able to do their jobs properly.
On the shadow Minister’s point on engagement, he will know that I am not always able to say how the sausage gets made in policy term. However, I give him a commitment, just as I have given a commitment to the hon. Member for South Antrim in the Chamber, about how seriously I take our engagement with the Northern Ireland Executive on these and other matters—including communities matters, in connection with which I had a joyful visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency with him last year—so that the decisions we make in this building are effective, and they include, as in this case, decisions affecting what is a very important land border, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Those conversations, on all issues relating to immigration—which is of course a matter for this Parliament—happen as a matter of course. I have those conversations with the devolved Governments and their leaders. They are often very difficult conversations, but they are important in making sure we get it right, so we will of course do that in the usual way.
The regulations are a series of sensible changes to make sure that the right powers are in the right places to keep our borders secure.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Norris Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
This Government will close every asylum hotel. We are making progress with spend in this area reduced by a third. We are restoring order and control to the system, speeding up case working, maximising the use of our estate, including ex-military sites, and continuing to increase returns.
Lewis Cocking
This is my ninth question about the asylum hotel in my constituency, and I am still waiting for a clear answer. The Prime Minister said yesterday that we would see “evidence” of hotels being closed soon, but plans to move asylum seekers into new council housing would solve nothing and be an insult to millions on the waiting list. My constituents want the asylum hotel in my constituency of Broxbourne closed immediately. Will the Minister meet me to explain how and when this asylum hotel will close?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows—I am sure he remembers with a degree of pain from the general election—the commitment we made to close the hotels. Of course, the vast majority of them were opened by Opposition colleagues. We will close those hotels within this Parliament. Colleagues will always want specific dates, but it is right that we bring these things forward when we are ready and able to do so. I am of course happy to meet him.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Bliadhna mhath ùr—happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Minister update the House on Cameron barracks in Inverness and plans to move some asylum seekers to that town?
Alex Norris
As has been said from this Dispatch Box by myself and the Home Secretary, we are looking at ex-military sites, of which my hon. Friend names one. We are doing all the feasibility assessments there and at Crowborough training camp. When we have made that final decision, we will announce that in the right way, but this approach has to be the right one. Moving people away from very public accommodation often on high streets, which has a significant impact on cohesion and the local economy, and pivoting to larger military sites is clearly a better option.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Those protesting at hotels are usually there because they have been served misinformation and far-right political rhetoric by those with sinister political agendas. One way we found to tackle that is to give proper information—tell the stories of what drove people to this country and the real conditions in their homelands. Will the Minister consider doing a similar type of initiative to dampen down some of the misinformation and terrible political rhetoric that we get at these asylum hotels?
Alex Norris
I have absolutely no truck with those who seek to exploit the vulnerabilities of others for their own ends. I know my country; I know my city of Nottingham—when the system is ordered and controlled, our communities step up to meet the moment and provide shelter for people who need it. But that simply cannot be done while the system is disordered, lacks that control and has public manifestations of failure, such as hotels being used for that purpose.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Cresta Court hotel in my constituency has been used to house asylum seekers for just over a year. That is bad for the taxpayer, bad for my community and bad for those going through the system. As I have said to the Minister on many occasions, the Cresta—like all hotels housing asylum seekers—must be returned to normal use as soon as possible. As we seek to build a fair, safe and just immigration and asylum system out of the wreckage left to us by those on the Opposition Benches, could he provide an update on the Government’s work to make that happen?
Alex Norris
I know my hon. Friend’s constituency well and of where he speaks. We are clear that that hotel and all hotels being used for this purpose must shut. I know colleagues will want information as soon as possible. They may not have to wait too much longer, but it is right that we do this in an orderly and controlled way to ensure that the system works.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. I am not surprised that the Home Office thought that Wealden, a Green and Lib Dem-run council, would be a soft target to move asylum seekers to, considering that the co-leaders previously seemed more concerned with Calais than they did about Crowborough, but moving asylum seekers into Crowborough training camp in Madam Deputy Speaker’s neighbouring constituency will displace the cadets who are making good use of that facility and, as I understand it, will not save any money. Given that it will not save any money, what is the benefit of moving asylum seekers there?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not purely a financial arrangement. We know that hotels have a profound social and economic impact on communities in this country. We believe that big military sites are better places to house asylum seekers. I appreciate that that is a point of difference, but the hon. Gentleman needs to know that when he advocates against our proposals to use larger military sites, he is saying yes to the use of hotels across the community. To say otherwise simply does not stand up—that is the choice. His view is very clear, as is ours.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I recently visited an asylum hotel in my constituency and have spoken separately with people living there and in the community surrounding the hotel. It is clear that ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers is in the best interests of not only asylum seekers, but the neighbouring community and the taxpayer. The Minister and I have had many conversations about this. Can he confirm when the Government will begin ending the use of asylum hotels in Bournemouth?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I can assure his constituents and hon. and right hon. colleagues that he persists with me on this issue on virtually a daily basis, including over the Christmas period, which was very welcome indeed. I could not be clearer: we do not want to see hotels in Bournemouth used for this purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, that is part of the wreckage that was left by the previous Government. We want that to change. I know that colleagues want information as soon as possible. I am asking them to be a little bit patient. It may not be too much longer before they start to hear news in this space.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. It is all well and good closing these asylum hotels, but they have to go somewhere else. The latest madcap idea that we hear from the Labour Benches is to build council houses for illegal migrants crossing the channel. Does the Minister think that will help to smash the gangs?
Alex Norris
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman should spend less time reading newspapers and more time listening to what is said in this Chamber. He will have heard from me and from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary through our asylum policy statement about the most significant change to our asylum system in a generation—certainly in my lifetime. It is not just about managing those who need support in the here and now; it is about reducing numbers. The number of people seeking sanctuary in this country is up significantly at a time when it is down significantly across the European Union—we are seen as the golden ticket.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman shouts at me from long range—having been near him at the football, I know he has a pair of pipes on him when he wants to use them. There is a reason he does not want to hear me answer the question: he knows he will get not a three-word answer, but a serious one that says that we are going to reduce the numbers of people who need support in this country. That is how we will close the hotels.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
A happy new year to you and your team, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to closing the Tory asylum hotel in Gloucester by the end of this Parliament. I have raised with him in the past the plight of families who live next door to that hotel, who are having to deal with an increase in antisocial behaviour, constant protests at their front door, and YouTubers turning up and trying to get a vox-pop reaction at 11 o’clock at night. What support can we give to those families, who are having to deal with a hotel on their doorstep that they did not plan for when they moved in?
Alex Norris
We are very mindful that, whatever the nature of the supported accommodation, it should tread as lightly as possible on the community and on its neighbours. I would say to my hon. Friend that we are standing up capacity within the Home Office to make sure that local police are sharing information, and that we are sharing information with local police, about possible vulnerabilities, particularly in some of the cases he is talking about. If he is able to share that information with us, we can make sure that local authorities and local police, alongside the national Government, are supporting the community to the fullest degree possible.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. The Minister keeps saying that he intends to end the use of asylum hotels, but the most recent figures show that there are now more illegal immigrants in asylum hotels under this Government than there were at the time of the election. The numbers are going up: 41,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel last year, a 40% increase on 2023. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s admission in an astonishing letter to President Macron that this Government have no deterrent to stop these crossings? Is it not the truth that this Government have no control of illegal immigration and the only way to stop the crossings is to leave the European convention on human rights and deport anyone arriving here illegally within a week?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Gentleman was, I remember, sat right there in that seat—well, the Leader of the Opposition had moved him down one—to hear my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary talk about building this country’s deterrent factor. He was there because he was opposing our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which passed only in the last few days of the previous year. It is part of our deterrent—he knows that, because he opposed it. The idea that we should instead leave international agreements, which would mean all our returns agreements would need to be entered into again, is, I am afraid, for the birds. We are getting on with serious action; the Conservatives are just getting on with their press releases.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in this area and to the Select Committee for its work and its recent visit. My experience of working with France is that it wants to solve the shared challenge. There is no silver bullet, but my hon. Friend has mentioned ways in which it can be solved. That is why we have the “one in, one out” pilot, as well as our ordinary day-to-day intelligence co-operation. We want to do more with our neighbours and solve this problem together.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Does the Home Secretary agree that British citizens should be prioritised over asylum seekers in the allocation of publicly funded housing under the £100 million pilot scheme?
Alex Norris
The hon. Member may have heard me say earlier that we have started the process of hotel exit, which means we have reduced the amount of money we are spending on that. We want all British citizens to be adequately housed, which is why we released the homelessness strategy at the end of last year. Beyond that, we want order and control in our asylum system, so that the British people’s proud record of providing shelter can continue, and so that people can have confidence in that order and control.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank the Government for maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders. In my constituency I have over 2,500 BNO visa holders. Will the Minister explain how the Department will continue to support our Hong Kong residents, now and in the future? Will he agree to meet me and my Hong Kong visa holders in Broxtowe to hear about the challenges that they continue to face?
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
In relation to the changes, announced at the end of last year, to indefinite leave to remain, my constituent Dr Matthew Hewitt advises on an issue relevant to his family and many other families across the country: that the information being put out by the Government is ambiguous as to whether or not the shorter five-year route will remain for those currently on partner visas, or whether the baseline changes to 10 years will apply to those currently on those partner visas. I would be grateful for some clarity on that, please.
Alex Norris
The consultation document released under the settlement proposals is very clear about what deductions apply in what context and what other hurdles people may have to clear. Maybe my hon. Friend and I should have a conversation to get to the bottom of the particular example he mentions.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Rural life, particularly for those in farming communities, is more typically based on traditional roles, which can often see women marginalised in their role within the family and, sadly, more likely to be victims of abuse. Can the Minister assure me that with any new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, women who live rurally will be able to access the support they need?
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
We continue to await a Home Office decision on the future of the Gaza student scholarship scheme. While thinking about that, will the Government commit to honouring the visas of the small number of students and their families who already have funded places to come here but have not yet been permitted to leave Gaza?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that question. As my hon. Friend says, this Government have supported Chevening scholars and those with fully funded scholarships in Gaza to come to this country to study during the 2025-26 academic year. I have heard from my hon. Friend on multiple occasions that there is demand for more support, and we are aware of that; it is, as she knows, a fluid situation on the ground, and we are looking at it closely and seeing what may be done in the future.
Manston Asylum Facility: Inquiry Terms of Reference
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
On 12 February 2025 the Government announced the establishment of a non-statutory inquiry to investigate and report on the decisions, actions and circumstances that led to the conditions encountered by those detained at the Manston short-term holding facility between 1 June 2022 and 22 November 2022.
A copy of the terms of reference for the inquiry was placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Since then, at the request of the senior coroner for Kent and Medway, HM Senior Coroner Patricia Harding, and after consulting the chair of the inquiry, Sophie Cartwright KC, the Home Secretary has agreed to expand the terms of reference for the inquiry to expressly include addressing how, and in what circumstances, Hussein Haseeb Ahmed came by his death on 19 November 2022.
In order to comply with section 6(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005, I will place a copy of the amended terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1213]
Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been very interesting. Colleagues have spoken with real passion and purpose, which reflects how strongly they and their constituents feel about the UK being a nation that is able to provide people with sanctuary, treating them with dignity and ensuring a fair balance so that we can sustain our obligations in the long term. That has been a theme throughout the debate. She and colleagues raised many points, which I will seek to cover shortly. I just want to set out where we are starting from today and perhaps demonstrate the objectives of the reforms that we are pushing.
I think it is a point of consensus that the system we inherited in 2024 was a broken one. Reflecting on that any further in the time available is probably undesirable, but it is understood. It is an expensive system and, for the individuals in it, not a good one. It helped and pleased nobody, so fixing it is a top priority for us. That is why we have doubled the rate of decision making, which has resulted in a record high number of decisions. We have already reduced the number of people awaiting initial decision by 39% in the last year alone.
Hotels are a very visible sign of failure. We have reduced the cost of those by some £500 million, and £1 billion overall has been taken out of the system in the process of improving it. That is really crucial for public confidence. Parliament recently passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which will give us more tools to make sure our border is strengthened, improving our asylum and immigration system. In the last 12 months alone we have removed 37,000 people who have no right to be here, including 5,000 foreign offenders. That degree of pace shows our intent, but this is a big piece of work. We still live with the signs of failure, which is why last month we published “Restoring Order and Control”, our blueprint for the asylum system.
I will talk about that in due course, but in simple terms, the heart of the plan is to do what the public expect, which is to reduce the number of those coming here illegally and increase the removal of those who have no right to be here. That is vital for public confidence and the only way to have a fair, effective and functioning system that maintains our long and proud tradition of helping those fleeing peril.
A theme of the hon. Member’s contribution was a fear that in our plans the Government are insufficiently reflecting on protected characteristics. I know that she will need to see in concrete terms that our policies pass her test, but I think she will find that they do. There is no system of Government more concerned, at its root, with protected characteristics than this one; it is the whole point of assessing someone’s claim for asylum.
The hon. Member said that I might not be able to give her the assurances she sought on safe countries. I can, actually, in the sense that an individual’s case will always be assessed on its individual merits. Syria, which colleagues have mentioned, is a good example: the grant rate in relation to Syria has gone from about 90% to about 10% because of significant and profound changes there. Nevertheless, a country changing from unsafe to safe will not mean that a blanket decision is made about a collective group of people and their claims. Every claim, and any reassessment of a claim, will be based on the individual’s circumstances. I am aware, as a white and probably now middle-aged cisgender heterosexual man, that parts of the world might be safe for me but would not be safe for a colleague who might look, sound and be like me in every way except for, say, their sexuality. The system will always have that at its heart.
The hon. Member is right to remind us that the Home Office is very much within the scope of the public sector equality duty. We are very mindful of that, and it is considered throughout the policymaking process. We will always comply with that duty; similarly, we will always comply with our responsibilities with regard to equality impact assessments. As we bring forward the concrete policies that sit within the frame of “Restoring Order and Control”, colleagues will have access to that information so that they can be part of Parliament’s crucial role of scrutinising the plans of the Government of the day.
The point about appeals is really important. Many colleagues have talked about effective and swift decision making, of which appeals are a big part. At the moment, the average wait is about 54 weeks. As is to be expected, as we have rapidly increased the initial decision making, more stress is being created in the appeals system because there are more cases in which decisions are being appealed. Our intent, in the policy package that we set out, is to have the most streamlined system possible.
As a trade unionist who has sat countless times with members and helped them with their issues at work, I know that the fullest statement of case as early as possible is always in their interests, because that is the best way to get the treatment that they are afforded under the law. I accept the hon. Member’s point that that is sometimes hard for an individual; if the basis of a claim relates to sexuality, say, that is a very individual journey in respect of what someone is or is not comfortable saying.
The challenge, which I hope the hon. Member accepts, is that we can only make assessments based on the information in front of us. We cannot foresee future disclosures. As a result, we have a system in which a lot of extra information appears later in the process. I accept that there can be good reasons for that, but there is a danger that the system may be gamed with the constant addition of new material. It is about trying to find the balance whereby we get the fullest information as early as possible, but an individual has opportunities to disclose later in the process.
I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Member and other colleagues have made about work. We know—not least because we see it in the marketing materials of the traffickers—that the sense that people can work illegally in Britain is already a significant factor in people finding it an attractive country to come to illegally. Simply allowing that would only turbocharge it, so that is not something that we plan to do.
The hon. Member and others also made an important point about core protection status. I will return to that point once I have dealt with some other issues raised.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I always listen to what he says about the issue, because I know that he and his community are at the sharp end of it. He speaks with a lot of experience, informed by the experience both of the individuals who come to this country and of the communities who live with the impact, so I listened very carefully. He said that he wants a system with safer routes, faster processing and better integration. Actually, we can have that system. The ability to have that system, with safe and legal routes and community sponsorship, is there in the policy document—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made thoughtful remarks about that, to which I will return shortly—but I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot have one without the other.
We have to be intolerant on dangerous journeys across continents and across channels for children. The right number for that is nil. The right number of children in hotels is nil. The one thing missing from this debate—
Alex Norris
I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend before I go off on a tangent.
John McDonnell
It is nice to be buttered up, but that usually means that the Minister is ignoring me. On safer routes, the Government have put forward sponsored routes. Those are different from some of the proposals put forward by the PCS and others for specific visa routes, but we can debate the detail of that.
One issue that I did not raise, because I got an answer from the Secretary of State, was the detention of children. I gave the example of how I used to visit Harmondsworth to see children there, which was distressing, and the Secretary of State gave an assurance that there would be no detention of children. There needs to be more clarity on the removal of families in particular and on how that process will be dealt with. That was happening under the previous Government, and at one point it drifted into the detention of children for long periods.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the Minister that Kirsty Blackman needs time to conclude the debate.
Alex Norris
Thank you, Dr Huq. I have a lot of things to say today, but I am basically not going to say any of them. I will try to respond instead to what colleagues have said, because I think it makes for a more interesting debate.
There are no children in detention. We have no intention to detain children. I take pelters in the main Chamber when I say what I am about to say, which is that the best level for voluntary returns is 100%. I would happily have every return be voluntary, and that is particularly true in the case of families—that is why we are seeking to improve the support for that—but detention is not in our plans. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend a degree of assurance.
What I am most surprised not to have heard in this debate is that the people who have the most agency in our system at the moment are human traffickers. The worst people on the planet—the people who have the most callous indifference to harm, the people who will exploit any pain to monetise it—have the most agency over who comes to this country. We should be really angry about that, and we should be resolute in changing it. Of course our important work around organised crime and the provisions in the Act will help us in that regard, but we have to change the demand. That is at the root of the changes to the protection model, which I will come to momentarily.
The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point about the 20-year period. I will come back to that point, because my carriage is going to turn into a pumpkin shortly.
The hon. Member for Strangford made an interesting contribution about the experience of people in Newtownards. I know only a little about Newtownards, mostly from our conversations about it, but I know that it is not that dissimilar to my community, and that it can therefore be at the crunchy end of the immigration conversation. What he points out is exactly the same for my community. When the schemes were ordered and controlled—be that the Syria scheme, as in his example; Afghan resettlement, which other colleagues have mentioned; Homes for Ukraine, as the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said; or the Hong Kong BNO scheme—my community leaned into them because they were confident that we knew which people were coming and that they needed our protection. They stepped up.
We want to capture that spirit outside individual country circumstances, because there are other people around the world who would benefit from such protection. I think my community will step up to that, but they will not do that while they feel that the people with the greatest agency are human traffickers and there is a lack of control over who comes and crosses our borders. I think that that is right, which is why I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and to colleagues that we cannot have one without the other.
We cannot have a new, orderly, humane, dignified system with safe and legal routes and maintain public confidence if we are not willing to say that we have zero acceptance of people coming through trafficking routes and across the channel on dangerous journeys, and that the right number for that is nil. That informs our point around protection in “Restoring Order and Control”.
The 20-year route is for a person who comes to this country illegally and then chooses not to learn the language and not to work or contribute. We want everybody to switch out of that core offer and on to a protected work and study route. If people learn the language, work or contribute, they will be able to earn a reduction in that period to 11 years. Moreover, if they enter the system through safe and legal means, their starting point is 10 years, and they can earn a reduction to five years. Those numbers are not coincidental. At all points, the goal is to dissuade people from making dangerous irregular journeys and instead ensure that doing the right thing—whether that is contributing in-country or coming via regular means—is always in their best interests.
Alex Norris
I am happy to give way, but I remind the hon. Lady that we are very short on time.
Carla Denyer
I just want to inquire exactly what the Minister meant when he spoke about those who “choose” not to contribute. How does that relate to disabled people, for example, who the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised in her opening speech?
Alex Norris
That is a really important point, which I was coming to. There will be cases in which, whether because of the nature of the trauma that people have suffered on their journey or because of other issues such as disability, they are not able to work in those ways. There are other ways to contribute, and that is reflected in our earned settlement consultation, which is ongoing. That will look at how to do that right, but of course there will be protection for people in those cases.
What I cannot agree with in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is that because some people will struggle to make that contribution and will need a different type of support within the system, nobody should therefore have to contribute. Under the system we have at the moment, no matter what someone does, they can come to this country and get protection. No matter whether they break the law or sit at home instead of going to work or learning the language, they are treated exactly the same as someone who goes to work, learns the language and integrates into their community. I do not think that is right. I accept that that may well be a point of difference, but I do not believe that it is right.
I hope that what hon. Members have heard from me today, and from the Home Secretary when she introduced this package, is that individual policies will come forward, with all the equality impact data that colleagues would expect, but that there is time and space to shape it. If we had published our final policy position some four weeks ago when the Home Secretary stood up, colleagues would rightly have said, “Who did you talk to? Why did you not have people helping to craft it who are experts by experience, or organisations that work with them?” It is slightly challenging to have people say, “There’s not enough detail here.” That is the whole point of developing policy and seeking to work with people in doing so. It is right that we have set our framing for what we are seeking to achieve, but we will have those conversations in this place and I will be very happy to engage with any and all colleagues who are interested in telling us how they feel about the issue.
I hope that I have given a degree of comfort to colleagues on some points. There is a lot more to do, and I have no doubt that we will have many more opportunities to discuss it. I will always do so with the fullest candour.
Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre
Alex Norris Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I am today announcing that Campsfield immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire has opened. Detention plays a crucial role in maintaining effective immigration control and securing our borders. It is right that those with no right to remain in the UK are removed if they do not leave voluntarily.
Campsfield IRC will be operated in line with the statutory framework established by the Immigration Act 1971 and the Detention Centre Rules 2001. The centre will provide safe and secure accommodation for up to 160 men. Healthcare provision has been procured by NHS England, and there will be no impact on primary healthcare services provided within the local community. Further expansion will provide an additional 240 male beds.
Campsfield IRC is the first of several new detention facilities planned under this Government, with expansions at this site and Haslar IRC to provide 1,000 additional bed spaces. Every additional detention bed space translates to more offenders and illegal migrants removed from our country as we restore order and control to our borders while providing sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing danger. This expansion will mean thousands more enforced returns of foreign national offenders and failed asylum seekers per year, sending a clear message: if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay.
The Home Office has dramatically intensified enforcement action since July 2024. Returns and deportations of illegal migrants have soared to the highest levels in nearly a decade, with nearly 50,000 returns and enforced returns up 24%. It comes alongside the sweeping asylum reforms, which include resetting article 8 to prioritise the deportation of foreign criminals, and introducing a streamlined appeals process to stop endless legal challenges.
We are committed to ensuring the proper protection and treatment of vulnerable people in detention. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of residents is at the forefront of the new facility. The new contract to operate the centre takes into account the findings of all external reports and reviews of standards in detention, including increased staffing levels.
[HCWS1135]
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
Alex Norris ExcerptsWednesday 19th November 2025
(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 View all Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 November 2025 - large print - (19 Nov 2025)
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 1 to 36 and 38 to 42.
Alex Norris
The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has returned to this House in good order. A number of amendments were made in the other place, with all but one made by the Government. Throughout the passage of the Bill to date, the strength of feeling about the importance of a properly functioning immigration system that is controlled and managed so that it is fair and works for the people of this country has been evident. Proper enforcement and respect for the rules is crucial to that.
As we discussed in this House on Monday, the Government’s new asylum policy statement sets out significant reforms to the UK’s asylum and illegal migration system to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system. That statement builds on the measures in the Bill, our consideration of which returns our focus to the core objectives of the Bill.
This Bill will strengthen UK border security. It is part of a serious, credible plan to protect our borders that sees the Government working closely with our international partners upstream and in our near neighbourhood. It is a plan that sees this Government bringing to bear the powers and impact of the system as a whole, under the leadership of the Border Security Command, against those who seek to undermine the UK’s border security. It is a plan that delivers for our law enforcement partners by creating the new powers that they need to intervene faster and earlier against more of those involved in serious and organised immigration crime activity, providing for better data-sharing and creating stronger intelligence to inform enforcement activity. It is a plan that disrupts the sales pitch spun by the gangs by preventing illegal working in sectors that are not currently required to confirm whether a person’s immigration status disqualifies them from working.
Turning to the Lords amendments, I will start with the non-Government amendment passed by the other place. Lords amendment 37, tabled by the Opposition, is in our view unnecessary. It would mandate the Home Secretary to collate and publish statistics on the number of overseas students who have had their student visa revoked as a result of the commission of criminal offences, the number of overseas students who have been deported following the revocation of their student visa and the number of overseas students detained pending deportation following the revocation of their student visa.
It is first worth emphasising that the Government strongly value the vital economic and academic contribution that international students make in the UK. They enrich our communities, including my own in the city of Nottingham. The immigration rules provide for the cancellation of entry clearance and permission to enter or stay where a person has been convicted of a criminal offence in the UK or overseas. Where a student’s permission is cancelled, as a person without leave to enter or remain they are liable to administrative removal from the UK. Foreign nationals who commit a crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and that, where appropriate, we will pursue their deportation.
On the specifics of the amendment on publishing data on these topics, the Home Office already publishes data on a vast amount of migration statistics, including information on visas, returns and detention. The official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs and the resources required to compile those numbers, as well as the quality and availability of data. This ensures that we balance the production of high-quality statistics against the need for new ones to support public understanding on migration.
I want to be clear, however, that we recognise that there has been heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in learning more about the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals in the UK and about what happens to foreign national offenders—FNOs—after they have been convicted, and after they have completed their sentences. The Home Office is looking closely at what more can be done both to improve the processes for collating and verifying relevant data on the topic of FNOs and their offences, and to establish a more regular means of placing that data into the public domain alongside the other Home Office statistics that I have talked about. When this work progresses, the Home Office proposes to publish more detailed statistical reporting on FNOs subject to deportation and those returned to countries outside the UK. I hope that, on that basis, right hon. and hon. Members will support the Government motion relating to Lords amendment 37.
The Lords amendments introduced by the Government further strengthen and expand the powers and offences that target organised immigration crime groups. The most significant is Lords amendment 7, which introduces a new offence that criminalises the creation or publication of material relating to unlawful immigration services online, on internet services including social media, and on messaging platforms. Such material will be considered criminal when a person knows or suspects that the material will be published on an internet service and it has the purpose, or will have the effect, of promoting unlawful immigration services. I hope that the policy objective is clear to Members: it is crucial in order to tackle the facilitation of organised crime online, and to ensure that law enforcement has the appropriate tools to break down organised crime groups’ exploitation of the online environment, including social media.
Lords amendments 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 work alongside this new offence, providing intermediary liability protections for internet service providers, meaning that they will not be impacted by this offence and the actions of those being targeted in this offence—namely, individuals who are promoting unlawful immigration services online. The offence will have extraterritorial effect and therefore may be applied to online material created or published anywhere in the world and by a person or body of any nationality.
I turn now to the amendments to the core immigration crime offences set out in clauses 13 and 14, which concern the supply and handling of articles used in immigration crime. Lords amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 enable us to disrupt the actions of not only those who commit offences directly, but those who facilitate them through the provision of tools, materials or services. That sends a clear and unequivocal message: those who enable immigration crime, whether through direct action or indirect facilitation, will face consequences.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them?
Alex Norris
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is horrified by our attempts to crack down on organised immigration crime, which is the ultimate industry in profiting from misery and desperation, and which leads to vulnerable people losing their lives and has such impact on public confidence domestically. If he waits a little longer, I hope I can give him a degree of succour on the point he makes.
The amendments seek to criminalise those who are concerned in the supply of relevant articles for use in immigration crime and will bring into scope possession with intent to supply, or the making of an offer to supply, such an article. The amendments will also bring into scope those who are concerned in the handling of a relevant article for use in immigration crime.
Lords amendments 16 to 32 strengthen the powers of search and seizure in relation to electronic devices. Lords amendment 16 seeks to expand the definition of “authorised officer” to include officers of the police services of Scotland, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Lords amendments 17 to 32 ensure that those officers have the relevant safeguards, protections and legal clarity when utilising the powers, and make the required consequential changes.
Lords amendments 5, 6 38, 39 and 40 were tabled in response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill and debate in the other place, and ensure that proportionate, robust and appropriate safeguards are in place. Lords amendments 5 and 6 introduce additional safeguards to the offences set out in clause 13, and exempt from these offences any item or substance designed for personal cleanliness or hygiene. This includes items such as soap, toothpaste, sanitary products and other essentials that individuals may carry for personal dignity and wellbeing. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) a degree of comfort. Limitations to this exemption are set out where certain items present a heightened risk of being repurposed as weapons or used in ways that endanger others. That strikes the appropriate balance on this important point.
Clause 43 enables stronger conditions to be placed on those who pose a threat pending their removal. Lords amendments 38, 39 and 40 do not alter the original intention of the clause, but ensure that the Bill sets out the limited circumstances in which an individual could have conditions such as electronic monitoring or curfews placed on their leave to enter or remain. This includes cases where the Secretary of State considers that the person poses a threat to national security or public safety, or where they have been convicted of a serious crime or a sexual offence.
The Government made a number of small amendments in the other place that seek to clarify the provisions to which they relate. Lords amendments 33, 34 and 35 are minor and technical changes to remove references to data protection legislation that are redundant following the enactment of section 106 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025.
Lords amendment 36 amends the consultation requirements to require the Secretary of State to consult the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the relevant Scottish Ministers prior to making regulations that determine the purpose for which trailer registration information may be shared with the police. The amendment does not affect the Secretary of State’s discretion to consult representatives of police bodies.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has just walked in, and I do not think he has heard everything that has been said. That is rather unfair, and I do not expect people to do that. He should know better.
Alex Norris
I can assure Members, especially those from Northern Ireland, that we are talking closely with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows well from our many discussions on the topic how much I value my relationships with them. I met several of them on Monday and I will continue to do so to make sure that the application of this provision and beyond is as good as possible and works seamlessly across all parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that provides a degree of comfort.
Lords amendments 41 and 42 relate to clause 62, the commencement clause, and the commencement of clause 42, which provides legal clarity for EU citizens and their family members with EU settlement scheme status—those who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement and have that as the source of their rights in the UK. The amendments change the commencement provision so that clause 42 will be brought into force on Royal Assent, to provide legal certainty as soon as possible for all EU citizens and their family members with EUSS status as to their rights in the UK.
This is a really important Bill. The work done in the other place was excellent, and I commend Lord Hanson of Flint especially on his work. Colleagues in the other place worked hard to improve the legislation, which we appreciate, and I ask the House to support our amendments today.
Alex Norris
With the leave of the House, I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions and to those who took this legislation through all its previous stages.
Let me address some of the points made today. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) made some important points around online advertising and the responsibilities falling not on the providers, but on those sending those messages or putting out those advertisements. We think that is the current gap in provisions that we need to fill, but providers have a really important responsibility too. There are provisions in the Online Safety Act 2023 that relate to that work, but I reassure him that we talk to providers and will continue to engage with them to ensure that their platforms are not being used for what is the ultimate trade in human misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) mentioned that issue as well.
I share the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen made about conflict resolution. We talk about upstream working, and that is the ultimate upstream working—it is very much Britain’s place in the world. British Aid works to tackle famine and disease and also works on education, particularly for women and girls, which we know can be transformative around the world. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s point about our work overseas, which the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), also talked about. That work and that international co-operation are crucial, and I assure colleagues that we are doing that day in, day out, as I always say.
We had the pleasure of hosting the Berlin process in recent weeks. I said to all my counterparts that we are dealing with these shared challenges, and they agreed. The organised immigration crime networks, which we are talking about and which are addressed in this legislation, are by definition sophisticated and global, and we are engaging with them in different ways. We have to ensure that we have as good a co-ordinated approach as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, given his long professional work in this space and his work on the Home Affairs Committee. I am grateful to him for enhancing the process of this Bill’s passage and other processes, and he is right: at the root of this issue are death and misery, which is exploited by criminals. We must tackle that, but those criminals’ networks are sophisticated, so as their capabilities increase, so must ours. That is the purpose of this legislation—both being able to tackle where those criminals advertise their services, and giving Border Security Command and others the tools they need to tackle them. I totally agree with his point about the value of data in its collective form, rather than any one strand, which I will address when I respond to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers).
I thought that the Lib Dem spokesperson was slightly unfair—which is not in his nature—in his characterisation of what happened on Monday. Everything we talked about on Monday builds on what we are putting in place through this legislation; it is all part of the same approach to tackling both organised crime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, and the supply and demand challenges in this area. I know that the Lib Dem spokesperson thinks the work on safe routes that we announced is really important. He and his colleagues are going to want to take part in that process, and of course they will have an opportunity to do so.
That brings me to the Opposition spokesperson. He has a terribly difficult job—the word I wrote down was “desperate”, but I am not going to use that word in this context. “Difficult” is what I will say to the hon. Member for Stockton West, because he wants people in this place and those watching us to believe that there is in some way anger among Conservative Members at the circumstances we find ourselves in today regarding hotels and small boat crossings, as if these are not phenomena that can be dated to within much less than a decade and started on the Conservatives’ watch. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday, and as I will say again, any contribution from the Conservatives that does not start with an apology will not wash with the British public.
Matt Vickers
Is the Minister aware that in the nine months up to the election, the number of people in hotels fell by 47%? It has now gone up, and the number of people arriving in this country has gone up by 55%, while the number of those arriving in small boats and being removed has gone down. It is just not on—it is a car crash.
Alex Norris
Again, I know that the hon. Gentleman has to try hard to desperately defend the previous Government’s record and their failure. He knows as well as I do that the original sin in this area was the six-year head start that he and his colleagues gave to organised crime, and he will now chirp from the sidelines while we break that cycle. We are getting on with the job while the Conservatives talk about it.
Let us talk about the removal of the deterrent—that is not quite within the scope of the amendments made in the other place, but the hon. Gentleman talked about Rwanda, as his colleagues did the other day. I would gently say that from the day that the Rwanda deal was signed to the day it was scrapped, 84,000 people crossed the channel, so the idea that it was in some way a deterrent is for the birds. Until and unless colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench enter the real world, they are going to struggle for credibility.
Matt Vickers
Those people who arrived in this country illegally were going to Rwanda. Where are they now?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will know that in this Government’s 16 months in office we have removed 50,000 people who had no right to be here.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman can ask the questions, but he cannot give the answers as well. I am afraid that I will not give way again—I am going to finish my point. When it comes to removing people with no right to be here, our record in office is a 23% increase on what the Conservatives managed to do.
On Monday, we heard something very interesting from the Leader of the Opposition. She committed Opposition Front Benchers to co-operating with what she said was such an important shared endeavour, and we have an opportunity to test that today, because the hon. Member for Stockton West heard what I said in my opening speech. He heard about my belief in transparency in this area and building public confidence through transparency in the statistics, which he also expressed in his contribution.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman really does have to let me finish my point before I give way. He heard about this Government’s commitment to that, and about the work that is under way. Having known each other for as long as we have, I hope he will take it in good faith that we are committed to publishing stats that will mean people know what is going on in this area. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman does not really need to support the Lords amendment, but I will let him make his case.
Matt Vickers
People out there are really concerned about people arriving illegally in this country claiming to be children, and the impact that that can have on our education and care settings. This Bill removes our ability to scientifically age-verify some of those people, but more than that, since this Government came to office, they have stopped publishing the data on age disputes on arrival. What do they have to hide? Why will they not publish that data?
Alex Norris
We want to bring forward a whole set of data on this issue that helps people get a picture of what is going on—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) heard me say that, but the hon. Member for Stockton West certainly did. I have made that commitment from this Dispatch Box, and that is what we will do.
Alex Norris
I will not give way, as the hon. Gentleman has more than had the opportunity to make his case. We have said that that is what we will do, and that is what we will do. On that basis, there really is no need for Lords amendment 37, but as I say, we will test the co-operation of Conservative Front Benchers. Will it last even 48 hours? From the hon. Gentleman’s demeanour, I suspect it will not.
It is so important that this legislation reaches the statute book quickly. The need for these powers is urgent, and we are down to one point of disagreement with the other place. This Bill is central to the Government’s actions to strengthen border security. It includes new, transformative measures to deliver on our manifesto commitment to identify, intercept, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences, expanded data-sharing capabilities and improved intelligence. It will disrupt the business models of organised crime groups and reduce unlawful migration to the UK.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that despite his opening remarks and his words about Northern Ireland, the reality and the understanding of people in Northern Ireland is very different, given that we are subject to EU law in this space? This is a very real issue for people in Northern Ireland. They want zero tolerance of illegal entry and fast removal of those who are blocking up our public services, which are already stretched to capacity, so will the Minister go further and have this sovereign UK Parliament legislate for Northern Ireland to protect our borders?
Alex Norris
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She may have heard me say before that it is not in the interests of anyone, anywhere in the UK, for the work of establishing order and control at the United Kingdom’s southern border to create displacement challenges with regard to the common travel area. That is something we are very concerned about, and it is something that I talk to colleagues across the UK and beyond about. Of course, we have had very successful interventions in this area, such as Operation Comby.
Turning to her question about future legislation, she will have heard what the Home Secretary had to say the other day. There will be plenty of opportunities within that process to have those sorts of conversations, but our resolution is to make sure that we have a system that establishes order and control. That is what this legislation is in service of, and it is what the work set out on Monday is in service of.
Alex Ballinger
Could the Minister talk more about the data that we already have, how we are properly tracking the number of refugees already, and why Lords amendment 37 is not appropriate?
Alex Norris
As I said in my opening speech, it is right that we take our time to develop the right package of data, so that we can publish it and the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) and I can sit down and discuss it in great detail. [Interruption.] As always, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley wants it now, but as I suspect he is learning, opposition does not always work on a “now” timeline. The Conservatives may well have some time in which to find that out.
Chris Murray
Does the Minister agree that we have a very strong ecosystem of data on migration in this country? For example, the Home Office publishes enormous amounts of data every quarter. The ONS publishes a lot of data, and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration publishes and analyses lots of the data that the new occupant of that role collects. We also have an ecosystem of think-tanks, research organisations and universities—for example, the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford does amazing work in this space. The challenge is not that data on immigration is not available; it is that people interpret it selectively for their own purposes.
Alex Norris
That is always the challenge, because we live in a world of misinformation, disinformation and, I am sad to say, occasionally bad faith. However, my antidote to that is the same as my hon. Friend’s: better transparency is the best way to see our way through. He is exactly right that we already publish a vast amount, including on visas, returns and detention. He is exactly right that we keep things under review in line with the code of practice for statistics.
I say gently to Opposition colleagues that we have made a commitment. Many of them did not see my opening speech, so it perhaps bears repeating. We understand the heightened interest from parliamentarians, the media and members of the public in the number and type of criminal offences committed by foreign nationals and what happens to them. It is in everybody’s interest for that to be known. It is also in everybody’s interest for that dataset to be as good as possible.
Matt Vickers
People out there are concerned about 30-year-olds trying to get into classrooms with 13-year-olds. They want to know how often it is being tried. Why have the Home Office and the Government stopped publishing the data around age verification?
Alex Norris
It is getting to the point where I might not be able to help the Opposition spokesperson, because I have answered the question. It is in nobody’s interest, as I say, for important information to not be available. We are preparing it as a whole dataset. I said that in opening, and I have said it in response to him at least once, and I have said it again. [Interruption.] I hear the question, “When?” As soon as we can accurately publish it, that is what we will do.
There is a danger that we are down to the narcissism of small differences on this Bill. I do not really think that this is the hon. Gentleman’s principal objection, but I know that he has committed from the Opposition Front Bench, as did the Leader of the Opposition, to co-operation in ensuring that we tackle the pernicious crime of organised immigration crime and that we have order and control at our borders. I look forward to their co-operation.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 37.