Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

This afternoon, the Committee will continue its line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. We resume with the debate on new clause 47. I call the Minister to resume her remarks.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

It is a pleasure to have you back in the chair again, Dr Murrison. I was actually just concluding my remarks.

To round up, legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice, and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The United Kingdom also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.

For the reasons I have given, the Government cannot support this new clause. I respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dr Murrison, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for this final furlong—this final sitting of the Bill Committee. New clause 48 would put a cap on the non-visitor visas, with one number set every year by regulations approved by both Houses, with the option of separate caps for individual routes.

Let me start with the past: net migration peaked at 944,000 in the year to March 2023, and we Conservatives do not pretend otherwise. It was far too high, and the British people are right to be angry about it. It fell to 171,000 last year, and it fell because the previous Conservative Government acted. We ended the right of most students and care workers to bring dependants, and we raised the salary threshold for skilled workers. Those decisions are what enabled Britain to turn the corner.

Every one of those changes sits in the immigration rules. They can be reversed by a Minister with a statement of changes, without a vote in this House. There is no cap. There is no target. The fall we have seen is not protected by law, and what was done with the stroke of a pen can be undone in the same way.

That is why this Government’s approach falls short. This Government promised to significantly reduce net migration, but have failed to put a number on it. Ministers will happily take credit for figures driven by Conservative reforms, while refusing to be held to any measure of their own. A promise with no measure is a promise that can never be broken.

Our approach is about control: who comes here, how many, and who must leave. New clause 48 would let Parliament decide the number every year in the open, where the public can see it and Members must vote on it. Route caps would allow us to protect the NHS and our universities, giving them certainty rather than leaving them exposed to sudden swings in policy. Australia and Canada plan their migration in exactly that way, setting levels in advance and debating them openly—nobody would call those countries closed or unwelcoming.

If the Government are confident that numbers will stay down, they have nothing to fear from a cap. If they are confident, the House deserves to know why. I ask the Minister a simple question, to which I would be grateful for a simple answer: do the Government have a numerical target for net migration—yes or no?

[Anna Turley]

The short answer is no—I will also give the longer answer.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for this new clause. We are committed to the reforms we set out last year in the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper, and we have already made substantial progress. We have delivered a dramatic 80% reduction in net migration, which reached a record high under the last Government. I am old enough to remember David Cameron promising caps in the tens of thousands on immigration. This year, immigration stands at 171,000, the lowest figure since 2012. We saw a peak under the previous Government of more than 900,000, so we have seen an 80% reduction on that figure, and it did not need an arbitrary number. We propose that an arbitrary cap is not a working proposition.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause would restrict access not only for workers but also for family members of UK nationals, students and international businesspeople, to whom the UK has treaty commitments to allow access, including in multiple trade agreements signed by the previous Government. A cap across all routes would create the absurdity of trading off places between a British citizen wanting to bring in their spouse, a specialist engineer needed on a national infrastructure project or a student wanting to study at one of our top universities.

The operation of a cap would be costly and complex to implement. Workforce planning for UK businesses would become highly complex, with workers allowed one day and barred the next, impacting their ability to operate and hampering growth. Groups representing different sectors and industries would have to argue that their workers are more essential than others. International sports players would be prevented from playing in UK teams, and world-class musicians would be prevented from working with UK-based creatives or doing extended tours. Families would have their cases determined simply by whether an arbitrary numerical ceiling has already been reached, rather than their individual circumstances.

The previous cap was in place only on the tier 2 immigration route between 2011 and 2020, and it was removed by the previous Government. They would have found that it slowed access to the route and generally affected lower paid but vital occupations such as nurses and teachers. The cap was amended on numerous occasions by Governments between 2011 and 2020, with many occupations being removed from it, making it less and less likely to be reached.

This Government are taking a better approach by linking migration more closely with UK skills and needs, creating a fairer and more effective system, placing an emphasis on contribution, and reducing net migration from the record high it reached under the last Government. To strengthen alignment between migration and workforce policy, the Government raised the skilled worker threshold in July 2025 to regulated qualifications framework level 6 and introduced the temporary shortage list, which linked access to international recruitment for medium-skilled roles related to the industrial strategy and critical infrastructure with credible workforce plans that address shortages in the UK labour market through domestic interventions, which I think we all agree is the priority.

The immigration White Paper, the industrial strategy and the “Get Britain Working” and post-16 skills White Papers are intended to lead to a more effective labour market. Taken in the round, they will meet the shared objectives of getting one million young people who are not in education, employment or training into that work or training. Demand for priority occupations is expected to rise in the next 10 years, and the importance of maintaining an immigration system that prioritises resident workers while allowing for the targeted recruitment of overseas skills to drive growth is paramount.

As the hon. Member will know, our approach is having the desired effect. As I have said, net migration is down by 82% since the grotesque peak of nearly 1 million people in 2023. Through effective and sensible reform, not absolute and inflexible limits, this Government are bringing down net migration and restoring order and control to our immigration system. I hope that reassures the hon. Member that we support the spirit of his amendment and recognise the importance of controlling migration. However, an additional statutory duty and an arbitrary cap are unnecessary. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s arguments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain into law for those who are self-sufficient, earn at least £38,700 and have no criminal record. A year ago this month, the Government consulted on earned settlement and promised a 10-year baseline applying to people already here. They said it would begin in April. In March, that became the autumn. In September, it became later this year. The Thursday before last, the Minister told the Committee that settlement was

“currently undergoing a lot of discussion.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2026; c. 338.]

Yesterday the Home Secretary came to the House with the outcome of that discussion: not a tougher policy, but a softer one. Once again, the Government have buckled after backlash from left-wing Back Benchers and unions. Care workers who arrived before May last year will keep the five-year route on a salary of £25,000. Around 300,000 people will benefit from that change. The number of people expected to receive indefinite leave to remain by 2030 has risen to about 1.9 million—some 300,000 more than the Government’s own forecast just a year ago.

That is what happens when policy is left to rules rather than to law. Every month of delay brings another round of lobbying, and every round of lobbying brings another concession. That is a pattern that we have seen throughout the Bill. The language is tough—“Settlement is a privilege, not a right; it must be earned”—but the action is soft. When the moment came to apply that principle to the largest cohort in our history, the Government blinked. Settlement is permanent. It cannot be undone. It brings access to benefits and social housing and it is a gateway to citizenship. A decision of that weight should be earned and the standard should be set by Parliament, not drafted, delayed and diluted without a single vote. That is the approach my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has set out, and it is what new clause 49 delivers: a clear threshold in statute that cannot be quietly lowered the next time pressure builds.

I put a question to the rest of the Committee. I will happily give way to the one remaining Lib Dem Member present, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, if he can tell us whether his party supports a 10-year qualifying period at all or welcomes yesterday’s retreat. For those who see no problem to solve, I say this: a country that hands out permanent status on the passage of time alone is not being generous; it is simply not making a decision.

The Government now have a choice. If they believe their own rhetoric, here is the clause—let them vote for it. When will the earned settlement rules be laid? I do not think that was answered on the Floor of the House yesterday, though I may be mistaken. Of the people already here, how many will now face the 10-year period and how many will settle after five?

[Anna Turley]

I promised Committee members that they would not have long to wait; I hope that they have been able to spend time absorbing the changes announced by the Home Secretary yesterday. New clause 49 would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the passing of the Act, to introduce a 10-year qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain applications for holders of the visas set out in the new clause, and for the partners, parents or dependants of a person who holds UK citizenship. The new clause would also introduce eligibility requirements relating to access to social protection, income and criminality. I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling the new clause.

For the sake of hon. Members who could not attend the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday, or tune into the media round this morning, I will provide an overview of what was announced. Under the previous Government, who promised time and again to bring down net migration, the number of people migrating to the UK exploded, placing untold pressure on local communities and public services across the country. In 2023 alone, nearly 1 million people arrived in the UK—comparable to the entire population of Estonia, of nearly two Manchesters, or of Devon. In just four years, the same number of people arrived in the UK as had done in the previous four decades.

In the face of such abject loss of control, this Government had to act. I remind Opposition Members that the Conservatives were in power for a substantial amount of the time during which the increase in migration happened, so they had plentiful opportunity to introduce the changes to ILR and settlement that they want to see. This Government have had to act rapidly to try to protect people from the surge that happened in the last four years of their Government.

As the Home Secretary laid out, when formulating the reforms, the Government’s principle guiding factor was fairness: fairness for those who came here legally to play their part, and fairness for British citizens, who should not be asked to bear a greater burden. As I have reiterated throughout the Committee’s scrutiny, we have a proud history of welcoming those who are wholeheartedly and sincerely looking for a better life, and who have something to contribute, but we must acknowledge that that requires something back. Individuals who come here must play their part, contribute to the community and become part of our national life. That is not just necessary; it is right. If we are to ask our fellow citizens to buy into a system of shared taxation and universal public service, they must know that everyone is contributing their fair share.

Under the current settlement system, it is predicated that an individual becomes eligible for settlement when they have been in the UK for five years. Among other things, settlement gives an individual access to free education, to our NHS and, should they fall upon it, the welfare state. Until now, having simply served time—those five years—was enough for people to qualify. As the Home Secretary laid out, the current system does not represent true fairness. Those considerable rights should come after responsibilities are met.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The Minister has mentioned fairness a number of times, but the blanket retrospective changes to ILR seem unfair to those who have been working and contributing here. Will she not reconsider?

[Anna Turley]

I am afraid that I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. When people come here, it is on the terms of their visa; the terms of settlement are entirely separate. As has been legally tested in court, decisions are made at the point at which a person applies for settlement, not at the point at which they come into the country under different visa regulations. That point is clear. If we had the situation he asks for, we would never be able to change immigration policy, because somebody who is in the country when changes come into place will always be disadvantaged.

As I said, the Home Secretary laid out that the current system does not represent true fairness. These considerable rights should come after responsibilities have been met: after someone has contributed, integrated, and bought into what it means to be British and to have the privilege of living in our wide, diverse community. Settlement should be earned. As the Home Secretary laid out, settlement will now be based on wider contribution, rather than simply time served in the UK.

On new clause 49 specifically, the Opposition will note that under the Government’s earned settlement framework, the standard qualifying period will be 10 years and any form of criminality will be an absolute bar to an individual ever being able to settle. On the other hand, those who contribute most to our communities, through higher earnings, socially important roles and exceptional talent, will be recognised and rewarded through a reduced-rate settlement. These fair and necessary changes are what the public expect from this Government.

As the Government have now announced our reforms to settlement, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his new clause, but I will just respond to his question about when the changes will be made. The regulations will be laid in December this year and will come into force in 2027. He also asked how many people will now be eligible; at the end of the five-year period, 1.4 million people will be. That number is half a million down from the 1.9 million it would have been had we not intervened. Given that, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I was delighted when the Minister nearly voted with us on new clause 49, but I appreciate that it has been a very long day and there have been quite a few sittings on this Bill, so I am sure all will be forgiven.

Consider two people, both of whom were granted indefinite leave to remain on the same day. One has worked, paid their taxes, raised a family and never troubled the police; the other has since been convicted of a serious violent offence. Under the law today, the Home Office cannot deport the second person, who will keep exactly the same permanent status as the first. That is not fairness; it is a failure to distinguish between those who honour the privilege of settlement and those who abuse it. New clause 50 would change that. It would allow indefinite leave to remain to be revoked for foreign criminals and for those granted it after commencement on terms short of the 10-year standard in new clause 49, with the Ukraine, Afghan and Hong Kong schemes protected.

Our borders plan is clear that all foreign criminals should be deported and never allowed to return to the UK, but where deportation stalls, settled status must not become a shield. The existing power to revoke under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is narrow and rarely used. At the end of last year, more than 19,000 national offenders were living in our communities—I think that has since risen to about 21,000, with some having completed their sentences—while still being subject to deportation or removal. Every one of them is a case in which the system has said that they should go but has not yet made that happen.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House once again that settlement is a privilege and not a right. We agree with that sentiment, but a privilege that can never be withdrawn, however gravely it is abused, is not a privilege at all; it is an entitlement by another name. The Government’s new rules reportedly make criminality grounds for refusing settlement. That is good, but it only works at the front door. It does nothing about the person who obtains settlement and offends afterwards. If the principle is right before the grant, why does it stop applying the day after?

New clause 50 would also ensure that the concessions announced yesterday do not become permanent by default. If Parliament decides that 10 years is the standard, those who are granted settlement on lesser terms should not be beyond review. For the law-abiding migrant who has worked here, has supported themselves and has contributed, nothing changes. For the serious offender, settlement can be lost. That is the line that our new clause draws, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of the British public, including the many settled migrants who play by the rules, would agree with where it falls. I ask the Minister how many grants of indefinite leave were revoked in each of the last three years, and how many foreign national offenders hold indefinite leave today.

[Anna Turley]

The Opposition’s new clause 50 aims to enable revocation of a person’s indefinite leave where they are liable to deportation, have not been in the UK legally for at least 10 years and are not within defined cohorts set out in new clause 49.

The Government are absolutely clear that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK wherever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. Settlement can already be revoked under section 76 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where a foreign national is liable to deportation but cannot be deported because of our obligations under the European convention on human rights or the refugee convention. The new clause would therefore have no practical effect on our ability to deport individuals and/or to revoke indefinite leave to remain.

As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire pointed out, we have announced our intention to change the rules of the policy, so that, where previously only those with a custodial sentence would have been prevented from settling in this country, now everyone who has had any kind of criminal record will be prevented from settling. That is a substantial and wide-ranging change to the policy. We are clear that we will ensure that no one is able to settle who has a criminal record.

[Blake Stephenson]

I have caught the Minister just in time, before she sits down. If the Government accept the principle of the new clause, why do they not accept that it would be helpful to have it in the Bill?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I say, the difference is that the new clause would not enable us to deport any more people. Going forward, we will not allow people to have that settlement. The proposed measure would not allow us to remove any more people than is currently permissible.

Indefinite leave brings certain unconditional entitlements and freedoms that limited leave does not bring, such as the automatic right to work, study or access benefits, no restrictions on where a person lives, and no requirement to report. A person who has acted in a way that warrants revocation of their indefinite leave should not expect to retain it simply because they have been settled in the UK. While it may not always be possible or right to remove that person for legal reasons, revocation, which we have talked about during the passage of the Bill, takes away those undeserved privileges and advantages.

We already deport people who are settled in the UK. All foreign nationals who receive a custodial sentence in the UK are referred to the Home Office by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service for consideration of deportation or administrative removal. We also receive referrals from the police, other law enforcement bodies and the security agencies. A deportation order invalidates a person’s leave and prevents an individual from lawfully entering the UK while it remains in force. I hope that has clarified the issues raised by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. I respectfully ask him to withdraw new clause 50.

[Blake Stephenson]

I wish to press the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

These are serious questions about protection, fairness and the public finances. They deserve clear answers, set in statute and decided by this House, rather than being settled quietly in the immigration rules. I ask the Minister: when will the Government decide on the minimum income requirement, and will they restore it to £38,700?

[Anna Turley]

The Government’s position is clear: net migration must come down. We support the right to family life and value the contribution that migrants make to our society. However, that must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whomever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate that they do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society.

However, a numerical cap is not the right way to control family migration. It would have a detrimental impact on British citizens seeking to bring their immediate family members to the UK, and it would raise concerns about compatibility with our international obligations. The proposed nationality cap and additional partner requirements raise significant equalities concerns. Requiring a couple to have been married or in a civil partnership for two years could disadvantage people in long-term relationships who cannot marry or form a civil partnership in their home country, including some same-sex couples. A minimum age of 23 would go beyond the legal age for marriage in the UK. It should also be noted that in 2011 the Supreme Court found that changes made to the immigration rules to increase the age requirement for partner visas to 21 were unlawful.

The provisions governing whether family members may come to or stay in the UK are set out in the immigration rules. The Bill is therefore not the appropriate vehicle for prescribing detailed requirements for the partner route. As we have made clear, the Government will reform the family visa system. The current system has become too complex, inconsistent and open to abuse, with British citizens facing the strictest requirements.

Our new family policy will cover all UK residents, including those who are British, those settled on work routes and refugees seeking to bring family members to the UK. It will include clear relationship requirements and an appropriate level of English language skills, and it will ensure that the family unit has sufficient means to support any dependants without relying on the taxpayer. The hon. Gentleman asked when that would come into force. We have made it clear in the immigration White Paper that family migration will be reformed to tackle the overly complex family immigration arrangements. Changes to these requirements must sit alongside wider reform of settlement, integration and article 8. It is important that the changes work together as part of a coherent system.

To ensure financial independence, applicants on the family route must currently meet either the minimum income requirement or the adequate maintenance test. The Migration Advisory Committee has reviewed the minimum income requirement, which is currently set at £29,000. We are considering its recommendations in detail alongside the work carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper. Changes to family migration requirements must sit alongside wider reforms to settlement. Taken together, those reforms will enable us to control family migration through clear and robust eligibility requirements while ensuring a coherent immigration system.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about cousin marriage. Cousin marriage is permitted under UK law, and the immigration rules reflect that position.

[Blake Stephenson]

Could the Minister elaborate on the legal prohibition, or otherwise, and the position around cousin marriage and the rights to bring cousins into the UK to marry?

[Anna Turley]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman, because the only information I have is that, as it is permitted under law, the immigration rules reflect that position. I know that there has been a lot of discussion and debate on this issue on the Floor of the House, so I would not want to mislead the Committee with an incorrect position. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify that.

It was also mentioned that the income level for a visa, which was previously set at £18,600, rose to £29,000 in April 2024. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would implement a further rise to £38,700. The minimum income requirements in the family immigration rules were raised, as I say, and this Government have been clear that we need to balance a respect for family life with ensuring that the economic wellbeing of the UK is maintained.

To ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future change, on 10 September 2024 the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules, and it has now done so. There is no date set for when we will publish a response to the MAC report. However, the MAC’s recommendations are being considered in detail alongside the work being carried out as a result of the immigration White Paper, which made it clear that family migration would be reformed to tackle the over-complex family immigration arrangements, including financial arrangements. This is a more effective and proportionate approach than imposing an arbitrary numerical cap and prescribing individual requirements through this Bill. I am afraid that the Government therefore cannot support the new clause.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for offering to follow up with a more detailed response in relation to the question on cousin marriage. That would be helpful, certainly for the Opposition and perhaps for the rest of the Committee.

The Committee will not be surprised to hear that we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument, so I wish to press new clause 51 to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We are becoming very familiar with losing three to 10 this afternoon—but there are a few more to go. New clause 53 would put into law the ban on care workers bringing dependants that the previous Government introduced in March 2024. It is worth reflecting on the past to understand why it is necessary.

In 2023, around 100,000 care workers came to this country, accompanied by around 120,000 dependants—more dependants than workers. A route designed to staff our care homes had become one of the largest drivers of migration into Britain, and it was being exploited on an industrial scale. One in five licensed care sponsors could not even be matched on the Care Quality Commission register. Some were not real care providers at all. Workers were brought here under false pretences, charged thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist, and left in debt and at risk of exploitation. Some 1,400 care sponsor licences have since been revoked. The route was badly abused, and often it was the people it was meant to help who paid the price.

The previous Government did act. We ended the right of care workers to bring dependants and required sponsors to be registered with a regulator. That rule was part of a package of reforms that helped bring net migration down by three quarters of a million—it worked. The Minister will no doubt tell the Committee that the Government have gone further by closing the care worker route to new overseas recruitment last year. If that is so, accepting new clause 53 would cost the Government nothing, but the closure sits in the immigration rules. Both can be reversed by a statement of changes, without a vote and without the House having any say.

We saw yesterday how quickly settled policy can shift under pressure. The Home Secretary told the House that settlement must be earned and in the same statement exempted care workers who are already here from the 10-year standard qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain. It should be highlighted to the Committee that when lobbying intensifies, Ministers bend. If the sector or the Government’s own Back Benchers press next for dependants to be readmitted, what will stand in their way? At present, nothing but a Minister’s resolve.

New clause 53 would replace that with the law. That matters to the public, who were promised that the numbers would come down and stay down; it matters for local services, schools and housing, which absorbed much of the growth; and it matters for care workers themselves, because a route with clear and stable rules is far harder for unscrupulous sponsors to exploit than one that changes with every announcement. If the Government believe this rule is right, they should be willing to defend it in statute. If they are privately considering relaxing it, the Committee deserves to know now. Do the Government have any intention of relaxing the restriction—and if not, will they accept new clause 53?

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for moving his new clause. While I acknowledge that the previous Government restricted care workers who applied on or after 11 March 2024 from bringing dependants with them to the UK, that was not before over 1 million health and care workers and their dependants had come to the UK between 2021 and 2024. Even then, the Government at the time opted not to extend the restriction to people who came to the UK before 11 March 2024. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South, who tabled the new clause, was a Home Office Minister at the time, he would be better placed than most to explain the motivations behind that decision.

While the Opposition may take credit for the premise of that restriction, it is a disgrace that we were put in this position in the first place. Absent the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, around 1.9 million people would have been forecast to reach settlement between 2026 and 2030. That is almost three times the number granted settlement between 2021 and 2025, around 1.6 times the population of Birmingham and comparable to the entire population of Estonia.

Since the Government came to power in 2024, we have brought net migration under control and it has fallen dramatically. In July 2025, the Government restricted people working in medium-skilled occupations from applying with dependants. That and other measures in the White Paper have seen net migration continue to fall.

The new clause would go beyond just preventing dependant family members from joining their care worker partner or parent; it would also mean that dependants already in the UK would need to leave when they needed to make their next visa application. That would either break up families or force people delivering vital care services to leave the UK.

The new clause is also not required. Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 already allows the Secretary of State to lay rules setting out

“the practice to be followed in the administration of this Act for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom.”

The former Government could have used that existing power to make this change, but they chose not to. The immigration rules are adjusted and amended regularly. They allow for quicker adjustments to be made, and the proposed changes to primary legislation are not required.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire talked, quite rightly, about the abuses in the care sector, which have been a real concern to us since we came to power. We have revoked 1,800 licences of fraudulent and non-compliant care businesses. We now have a rule that, in order to get a licence, a business has to be CQC-registered. He will have seen that we have tried not to blame the individuals, many of whom came here with good intentions to undertake the obligations of their visa. As we announced yesterday, they will be entitled to a second chance to apply for another care visa with a properly registered and licensed organisation, giving them a further five years to fulfil the obligations they thought they were coming here to meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 58 is a modest but important proposal. It would require the Home Office to publish, every quarter, each licensed sponsor’s headcount and the number of worker visas it sponsored. Sponsorship is a privilege granted by the state. A business that holds a sponsor licence is trusted to bring people into this country, to vouch for them and to meet obligations on pay, conditions and compliance. When the state extends that trust, the public are entitled to scrutinise how it is being used. At present, they cannot.

The Home Office publishes a register of licensed sponsors, but it tells us almost nothing about scale. We cannot see which employers depend on a handful of overseas workers and which on hundreds. We cannot see whether a business with 10 staff is sponsoring 50 visas, or which sectors are training British workers and which have simply stopped bothering. That matters because the system is under strain, as we have heard endlessly during the passage of the Bill.

By my calculations, in the 12 months to June, the Home Office revoked 4,403 sponsor licences, up 141%. Behind each of those revocations is a business that was trusted but should not have been and, in too many cases, workers who were exploited, underpaid or left without a job. Every one of those failures was visible in the data before it became a scandal: a care provider sponsoring far more workers than it could plausibly employ, or a business whose headcount bore no relation to its visa numbers. Employer-level data would help to spot those warning signs earlier, before the damage is done.

The new clause has a second purpose. The Government have said, rightly, that the economy must reduce its reliance on overseas recruitment and invest in the British workforce. Their White Paper promised to link immigration to skills and training at home. I agree with that ambition—as do all of us on this side of the House—but an ambition without measurement is just a slogan. If Ministers want to be judged on reducing reliance on migration, they should welcome a tool that lets Parliament and the public test whether that is happening, employer by employer and sector by sector.

Some may say that the new clause places a burden on business. It does not. This is information that the Home Office already holds through the sponsor management system; the new clause would simply require its publication. Others will raise commercial sensitivity, but a business that relies heavily on the public grant of sponsorship should expect a degree of public scrutiny in return. Honest employers have nothing to fear from transparency; it is the abusers who rely on the system staying opaque.

This is not about penalising business; it is about delivering accountability and early warning of abuse, and giving the House the evidence it needs to hold the Government to their word. In closing, I ask the Minister: how many sponsors have more than 100 sponsored workers, and how many licences were revoked last year, by sector?

[Anna Turley]

Sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. Upon obtaining a licence, all sponsors, irrespective of the route for which they are licensed, are bound to perform sponsor duties and meet certain standards. Those duties are commensurate with the privileges that being a licensed sponsor confers. We will not hesitate to take appropriate action where organisations fail to perform their duties correctly or to adhere to those standards, including where they seek to abuse the sponsorship or immigration system by sponsoring workers for roles that are not eligible for the relevant route.

We continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences. The hon. Gentleman asked for that figure: last year alone, we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences, compared with just 347 in 2023—an increase of 950%. I acknowledge the broad rationale behind the new clause, but the Government do not consider it necessary. As he will be aware, the Government already publish a list of organisations that hold a sponsor licence, which allows us adequately to oversee compliance in this space. We assess that any changes to require that extra information would be unnecessary and an additional burden on businesses. I am not sure whether the calculations have been done to assess the financial burden on businesses of complying with his new clause.

Furthermore, it would not be sensible to publish the numbers of workers sponsored by each licensed sponsor, particularly for companies sponsoring small numbers of overseas workers, as that could create data protection issues under our GDPR obligations. In the event that the Government deem it appropriate to request further data from licensed sponsors, we already have the powers and the mechanism to do so under the existing sponsor guidance framework. Creating an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation would be a disproportionate step. That being said, as I have mentioned, the Government continue to examine ways to strengthen the system, having already revoked a record number of sponsor licences.

More broadly, Members across the Committee will be aware that in March 2025 the previous Home Secretary announced that we would increase the skill threshold of the skilled worker route from RQF level 3 to RQF level 6, or from A-level to degree level. In so doing, the Government are fundamentally refocusing the system on higher-skilled migration. Not only that, but we have cut from access to overseas recruitment more than 100 occupations to which the previous Government allowed access when it brought in the 2020 skilled worker route, in businesses such as vape shops, barber shops and takeaways. It is also worth mentioning that many businesses that appear on the register may have obtained licences before changes to the immigration system introduced last year. Their presence on the register does not mean they would qualify under the current rules.

Overall, this Government’s reform and continued tightening of the visa sponsorship system is already bearing fruit. We have brought net migration down by 82%, after the previous Government allowed it to balloon to nearly 1 million people in the year ending March 2023. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

While I recognise the intention behind the new clauses, the Government will not support them, as the effect they seek can already be achieved under the existing sponsor licensing regime—to use the hon. Gentleman’s words, this is already the law. The sponsorship system already provides powers to revoke a sponsor licence where an organisation, or the person controlling that organisation, becomes subject to UN or UK sanctions. It is therefore unnecessary to create an additional statutory requirement in primary legislation. Moreover, prescribing this matter on the face of the Bill would remove the flexibility deliberately provided through the existing sponsor licensing arrangements.

As I have already outlined, but will again reiterate, sponsorship is a privilege, not a right. The Government will not allow individuals and companies—particularly those subject to sanctions—to abuse the sponsorship system. Businesses, individuals and sponsor visa applications remain subject to rigorous checks, and licences will be refused, investigated and revoked where necessary.

The Government have already taken substantial action. As I said, in 2025 we revoked 3,299 sponsor licences—an increase of 950%. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. If the Minister cannot answer today, we need to widen the debate on Report and think about the cumulative impact of the holes in the legislation.

The stakes are rising. As English requirements for settlement go up, so does the value of a fraudulent pass. Criminal gangs follow value. A Government who promise to smash the gangs should not be opening a new market for them, which is what moving to English online testing will do. Ministers say that the change will deliver a net benefit to the public purse, but any short-term saving will be swallowed many times over by the cost of fraud, enforcement and, eventually, rebuilding a system that should never have been weakened in the first place.

Early proposals for this contract included physical test centres. Somewhere along the way, they disappeared. Parliament deserves to know why, and it deserves a say before a control this important is quietly dismantled by the Government. Integrity in testing is integrity in the immigration system. I ask the Minister, do the Government still intend to allow fully remote testing and will they publish their assessment of the fraud risk before they do so?

[Anna Turley]

New clause 63 seeks to prevent the immigration rules from permitting

“any fully remote English Language test to satisfy any requirement to demonstrate knowledge of English,”

unless that is expressly permitted by an Act of Parliament. I want to give the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire some reassurance: the short answer is no, we are not looking to go fully remote.

The contracts for the current secure English language testing service are coming to an end and the Home Office is looking at the next iteration of the service to ensure that policy intent and customer needs can be supported and met. I and other Ministers are discussing this issue because we share the hon. Member’s view that fully remote testing is not appropriate. I will be making sure that this matter is at the heart of those discussions. I will come on to why I do not think the new clause should be on the face of the Bill, but I hope he is reassured that we take this issue as seriously as he does.

The immigration rules exist to set out the detailed requirements of the immigration system, including the means by which an applicant may demonstrate knowledge of English. That allows the Government to adjust those requirements through a well-established procedure, subject to parliamentary oversight, through the existing scrutiny arrangements for the rules, without requiring a new Act of Parliament each time an operational or technical change is needed.

While I of course acknowledge, share and have sympathy with the point the hon. Member is trying to make—it is at the heart of our ongoing discussions—as a matter of general principle, the Government resist amendments of this kind, regardless of the specific subject matter, because they remove operational and technical matters from the rules and place them instead under the control of primary legislation. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East raised the fact that things are missing from the Bill; this is part of the reason why. The vast majority of immigration rules are made through secondary legislation. Where primary legislation is amended by secondary legislation, Parliament often requires the affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, as it will allow any legal changes to be debated and authorised by Parliament.

If this new clause is accepted, it will remove the flexibility the Government need to make technical and operational changes to English language testing requirements as circumstances evolve. Rather than being able to respond through the established procedure for amending the rules, any such change will instead require primary legislation, which inevitably takes longer to prepare and is dependent on the availability of parliamentary time.

[Blake Stephenson]

I totally understand why the Minister is making arguments for new clause 63 not to be on the face of the Bill, but can I ask her to unpack some of her earlier statements? I appreciate that there are commercial sensitivities, but are the Government considering not moving away from in-person testing, or are they still planning to move away from in-person testing, and just discussing the model used and contemplating the safeguards in more detail?

[Anna Turley]

It is the latter. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more information at the moment because those things are under discussion, but I and other Ministers are clear that we do not want to move to a fully online service. That would not be appropriate. The correct model is under evaluation and discussion at the moment.

Putting this matter in primary legislation would significantly slow down the Government’s ability to make necessary changes quickly, whether in response to developments in testing technology, evidence of fraud or security risks, or the need to improve accessibility for applicants. In turn, that delay could have an adverse impact on the immigration system and on the applicants who rely on it, who would be left using a testing approach that the Government may have already identified as needing to change simply because the mechanism to change it had become unreasonably slow and burdensome.

I can absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my assurance that any delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements and principles, including data security, cyber-security, accessibility, and fraud risk and prevention, to ensure compliance with Home Office policy. As I have said, we are clear that in-person tests must form a key part of that; we cannot have fully online assessments. That will ensure that the service delivers on the fundamental principles underpinning our immigration policies and our visa journey.

We take this matter seriously. Compliance with those requirements will be assessed through the tender process to ensure the strictest compliance with Home Office security parameters. Any form of English language test—remote or otherwise—must also meet rigorous standards of identity verification, security and integrity. As I said, the Government are reviewing the suitability of any testing format, and any future changes to the rules in this area will be subject to the usual scrutiny arrangements. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for her detailed response and the additional assurances that she has provided from the Dispatch Box—if indeed it is even called the Dispatch Box in a Committee Room. I have asked a lot of questions on this subject, but the answers—together with the response we have received today—do not provide sufficient assurance, so the Minister will forgive me if I press the new clause to a vote to ensure that the measures are included in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will speak to new clause 68, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford. In September, MI5 did something that it had never done before: it independently issued a public espionage alert, warning our universities that the China General Technology Research Institute was a front for Chinese intelligence. Its primary purpose, MI5 said, was to fund research that directly improves the espionage capabilities of China’s Ministry of State Security. More than 100 researchers linked to UK institutions had contributed to its projects in artificial intelligence, cyber-security and covert communications—the very capabilities that are used against our own country.

It is unprecedented for our intelligence services to make an intervention of that kind, and we should be clear about what it tells us. Many of those academics did not know who was fully funding their work. The front was designed to be hidden, but that is precisely the point. If our universities lack the systems, the duty and the incentive to spot these warning signs and report them, hostile states will keep exploiting that gap.

This will not be the only example. The absence of clear guidance or regulation from this Government has left our higher education sector vulnerable to Chinese front organisations. UK universities have 34 cyber-security and telecoms partnerships with Chinese institutions, which is roughly equivalent to all 27 member states of the European Union combined, and it is considerably more than even Russia. Of those 34, 13 are with bodies embedded in China’s defence research system, and four hold top secret military research clearance.

The threat is not only to research. Last November, it was reported that Sheffield Hallam university halted its research into Uyghur forced labour after alleged intimidation by Chinese authorities. When a hostile state can silence academic work on this country’s own campuses, the problem goes far beyond intellectual property.

New clause 68 would propose a new responsibility on higher education bodies. Universities that sponsor international students and researchers would be required to report to the Home Office, within five working days, any suspicion that funding or research linked to a sponsored person poses a national security risk. Reports made in good faith would be protected and those who choose to ignore the warning signs would face significant fines.

Why is a legal duty necessary? Our universities depend heavily on international fees and partnerships, which creates a conflict of interest when concerns arise. An institution under financial pressure may be reluctant to raise an alarm that could cost its students funding or a valuable collaboration. A clear legal duty removes that dilemma. It tells every university that reporting is not optional, and it protects those who do the right thing.

Existing schemes vet researchers and students at the point of entry. That matters, but risks do not stop at the border; funding changes hands, partners change and projects evolve. New clause 68 deals with the risks that emerge afterwards, which is exactly where the MI5 alert shows that the danger lies.

The current situation is, in our view, untenable. International collaboration is one of the great strengths of British academia, and nothing in the new clause threatens legitimate partnership at all. However, we cannot accept British universities, knowingly or otherwise, working to increase China’s intelligence, cyber and defence capabilities. The new clause gives the sector the clarity it needs and the Home Office the information it lacks. Finally, I ask the Minister how many higher education sponsor licences have been suspended or revoked on national security grounds.

[Anna Turley]

As all Members will know and agree, the defence of the realm and the national security of the UK is the first priority for any Government.

While I hope that the Opposition Members will understand that I am unable to provide precise insight into all that we have in place to uphold the UK’s national security on this issue, not only within the education sector, but across all the threats that we face today, I can assure them that the UK already operates a range of robust safeguards designed to manage national security risks associated with international study, research, collaboration and sensitive technologies. These include the academic technology approval scheme, under which certain international students and researchers seeking to study sensitive subjects must obtain approval before commencing their studies.

As Opposition Members can imagine, we also work closely with the higher education sector and relevant Departments to ensure that national security risks are appropriately identified and managed. A prime example of that came earlier this year, when senior leaders from over 70 universities attended a security briefing delivered by MI5 director general Sir Ken McCallum and National Cyber Security Centre CEO Richard Horne to increase the understanding of how foreign interference can manifest, including attempts to shape and censor research or teaching, along with how to resist and report it.

That action took place against the backdrop of £3 million being invested in a package of measures to tackle the issue in our world-class universities. The new academic interference reporting route will enable senior leaders at universities to report concerns directly to the Government, including security services. That will enable individual concerns to be acted on more quickly, while also building a bigger picture of threats facing UK institutions.

Although I agree that universities are already playing an important role in maintaining research integrity and identifying potential concerns, I would say that national security assessments can require specialist expertise and information that may not be available to individual sponsors. This statutory amendment would place broad reporting obligations on higher education providers and require them to make potentially complex national security judgments about what constitutes a national security risk without necessarily having the relevant information or expertise to do so.

[Blake Stephenson]

If the Government believe that it is inappropriate to put the burden on the universities, what other solutions might they bring forward to deal with the concern that we have raised?

[Anna Turley]

As I mentioned, I am not at liberty to discuss all the individual actions that we are undertaking. However, as I have set out, we have put in substantial investment, including £3 million, to tackle this issue along with the new academic interference reporting route.

The new clause would introduce enforcement measures, including licence actions and civil penalties linked to reporting obligations that it might be difficult for sponsors to apply consistently in practice. The Government also consider it important that reporting arrangements can adapt as risk and operational requirements evolve. Placing detailed sponsor reporting duties in primary legislation would reduce that flexibility.

The new clause would also likely create significant assessment and reporting burdens and enforcement controls. Sponsors may need to establish new governance arrangements, monitoring processes and reporting mechanisms without the expertise to make those assessments. The Government are therefore not persuaded that a new statutory duty of the type proposed is necessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

The aim of the new clause is pretty simple. When a business is caught employing people who have no right to work here, the people who run it at the time should pay and not be able to walk away without consequences. Illegal working is a pull factor to the UK. The promise of cash-in-hand work in a car wash, corner shop or barber’s is what the smuggling gangs sell before people get into the boats in the first place. It undercuts honest employers and exposes vulnerable people to exploitation. That is why the previous Conservative Government tripled the fines up to £60,000 per worker and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has pledged more raids on car washes and vape shops where illegal working is concentrated.

In the first half of last year alone, nearly 1,300 penalties were issued, worth almost £70 million, which is a good thing. Ministers would like to talk about record numbers of raids and arrests, and I welcome every single one of them, but a raid is just the beginning. The deterrent is what happens afterwards, and a fine is only a deterrent if it is collected. Under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the penalty is a debt of the employer, usually a company, and of no one else, so after a raid, the director resigns and a nominee living abroad, with no assets here, appears at Companies House, or the company is dissolved and a new one opens the following week in the same shop under a slightly different name. The penalty dies with the old company.

That is not a hypothetical scenario. A BBC investigation last November exposed “ghost directors” behind a network of corner shops. People were paid £250 to £300 a month to put their names on businesses that they did not run. One was the registered director of more than 50 businesses. Many of the companies were dissolved after about a year and reopened with small changes to the paperwork. The Insolvency Service tells the same story. A highland takeaway was fined £45,000. One director resigned five days after the raid and the fine was never paid. A Suffolk car wash was fined £180,000. When its director was banned last year, every penny remained unpaid. A Lincolnshire car wash went into liquidation with its £20,000 fine outstanding.

Successive Governments have raised the fines, but none has closed the escape route. The new clause would, and I encourage the Government to accept it, if not today, perhaps on Report. New clause 70 would close the loophole, as it would make the people in charge at the time of the offence—the directors, partners, registered persons with significant control and shadow directors—jointly and severally liable for the penalty. Liability would be fixed at that moment, so appointing a new director, bringing in an overseas owner, renaming the company or dissolving it would make no difference at all. A phoenix business run by the same people or from the same premises would inherit the penalty. If one’s name were on a Companies House register at the time, one would be treated as holding that role. The new clause would deliver fairness, which I know the Government want to deliver through their immigration system. A director who took all reasonable steps or a genuine buyer who paid full value without knowing of the penalty would be protected.

New clause 71 deals with criminal liability. Today, a director is personally guilty of employing an illegal worker only where the company’s offence was committed with their “consent or connivance”. Almost every comparable regulatory offence adds “or neglect”. New clause 71 would add neglect so that a director who never asks whether right to work checks are done and is careful not to know can no longer escape. New clause 72 would allow the Secretary of State to seek the disqualification of directors whose company leaves a penalty unpaid for six months so that the same people cannot simply start again on the merry-go-round.

I ask the Minister: how much of the illegal working penalty income from each of the last five years has actually been collected, and how much was written off because the company was dissolved? I appreciate that she may not have that on the tip of her tongue, but those are important questions. If she accepts the principle but does not accept the new clauses, will she table her own amendment on Report? A fine that is never paid is no deterrent. A loophole this well known is an invitation to do the wrong thing. I commend new clause 70 to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I agree that illegal working undermines honest employers, undercuts legitimate wages and fuels the industry of immigration crime. I am determined to clamp down on illegal activity in every sector. I will continue to pursue rogue employers, protect vulnerable workers and ensure that those who break our immigration laws face the consequences. We have expanded efforts across Government and law enforcement to target, investigate and enforce penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK.

I beg the Committee’s indulgence: I want to give a bit more detail on the work that we are undertaking at the moment. Immigration enforcement has had a very busy year. Between 1 January and 31 June, 7,220 illegal working visits were carried out, resulting in 4,756 arrests—a 31% increase on visits and a 20% increase on arrests, compared with 2025. It has been the most successful start to a year on record for illegal working enforcement activity. Over that period, more than 1,200 businesses found to be employing people illegally were issued with a civil penalty, which means that they face significant fines of more than £74 million.

All employers in the UK are required to carry out prescribed right to work checks prior to employing someone of any nationality. The right to work scheme is underpinned by civil and criminal sanctions for non-compliance. In February 2024, the civil penalty levels for illegal working increased. The starting point increased from £15,000 to £45,000, and for repeat offenders it went up from £20,000 to £60,000 per illegal worker. That helped to strengthen the deterrent effect of the civil penalty scheme, and increased the consequences for employers who fail to comply with their legal responsibilities.

[Blake Stephenson]

I appreciate the numbers that the Minister is stating in order to demonstrate the Home Office’s enforcement work, but do she and the Government accept that the loopholes I outlined are very real, and that they ought to be closed somehow in legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points, and I will come to them; I was just setting out the background and what is currently being done.

An employer’s legal duty to prevent illegal working is a key element of our enforcement framework. Section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 provides for a civil penalty where an employer employs an individual who is disqualified from carrying out the work in question by reason of their immigration status. An employer may establish an excuse against civil penalty liability by complying with prescribed requirements. Those include compliant right-to-work checks or where extended liability applies the relevant prescribed requirements for those arrangements.

From October 2026, the right-to-work scheme was extended to specify additional working arrangements, including engagement under a worker’s contract, and individual subcontracting and online matching service—such as for Uber drivers or Just Eat and other delivery drivers. Extended civil liability also applies to certain non-direct contractual arrangements for the provision of work or services. Employers must ensure that individuals are permitted to carry out the work in question. Right-to-work checks establish whether an individual is permitted undertake that work, including any restrictions on the type of work or hours that they may work.

Depending on the circumstances and any applicable legal requirements, illegal working may result in the sanctions we have discussed or the following consequences: a civil penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker, or, in criminal cases, a conviction for illegally employing a person, which carries a sentence of up to five years and/or an unlimited fine. Those exploiting migrants could face criminal convictions for facilitation or trafficking offences and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, closure of the business and a compliance order issued by the court, disqualification as a director, not being able to sponsor migrants that travel to the UK, the seizure of earnings made as a result of illegal working and the review and possible revocation of a licence in the alcohol and late-night refreshment sector or private hire vehicle and taxi sector.

I have given that lengthy background to set out the context. I think the point that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire is making in the new clauses is the right one. We have to ensure that we enforce this, but as I said, there is a clear and comprehensive illegal working system with a whole range of penalties that can be used. We are expanding our efforts to ensure that we target, investigate and enforce those penalties on unscrupulous employers who illegally employ individuals with no right to work in the UK. We have introduced significant changes to strengthen the illegal working regime and extended the right-to-work scheme. As I said, our immediate priority is to ensure that these changes, which we have just implemented, are applied effectively. We will continue to assess how they work in practice and, in the light of that evaluation, consider whether further steps are needed to strengthen the regime.

The hon. Gentleman has made important points in Committee that I am sure we will continue to consider and review, but, alongside the changes in the Bill, we have already introduced a range of sanctions to tackle illegal working. We want to make effective use of the powers that we have, rather than introduce the additional provisions proposed in the new clauses.

I would also point to our track record, which I have outlined, to show how seriously we are taking the issue of illegal working. Immigration enforcement activity has increased significantly since we came to power. There has been a 122% increase in arrests relating to illegal working, on the two-year period immediately prior to the election, and a 111% increase in visits to businesses across the UK suspected of using illegal workers, with 25,000 visits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand the urgency and determination with which we are undertaking that activity. I am afraid that we cannot accept the new clauses.

[Blake Stephenson]

The new clause is about the substance in law, not necessarily enforcement. We think that the substance in law needs to be tightened up, so I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

We have reached the final provisions of the Bill—“Hurrah!”, I hear everyone say. These provisions cover regulations, extent and commencement. Such clauses are often treated as housekeeping, but how and when the Bill comes into force decides whether anything in it actually happens. And here the Government’s amendments tell a revealing story.

Government amendment 134 would mean that regulations made under the core protection powers are subject to affirmative procedure where they amend primary legislation. That is right; where Ministers change Acts of Parliament, Parliament should be able to vote. I only wish that the Government had applied that principle consistently. My amendment 142 would have done the same for regulations exempting further categories of people from contributing to the cost of their asylum support. As drafted, Ministers can widen those exemptions by negative procedure without a single vote. If the principle is good enough for Government amendment 134, it is good enough for amendment 142.

Government amendments 127 to 129 and 136 deal with extent to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and with aligning commencement dates with the provisions that they amend. They are technical amendments, and you will be pleased to hear, Dr Murrison, that we do not intend to divide the Committee on them.

Government amendment 135 deserves the Committee’s attention, however. As the Bill was introduced, part 3—on core protection—would have come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent. Under Government amendment 135, it will come into force only when the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations. A fixed date of implementation has become an open-ended discretion. Government amendment 46 gives the Lord Chancellor a new power to rewrite tribunal rules around the start of the new appeals authority, again by negative procedure and with no vote required.

The Government can move quickly when they want to. Government amendment 47 brings the new deportation provisions into force on Royal Assent. The question, then, is not whether Ministers can set a firm date, but why, on the central reforms of the asylum system, they are now choosing not to. The Government’s message on asylum has been about urgency: “The system is broken and must be fixed.” Yet when it comes to the provisions that are meant to fix it, the start date slips from a certainty to a maybe. We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago; it was delayed from April to the autumn; and when it finally arrived, it was softened. There is tough language, but the Government are quietly kicking the can down the road.

Amendment 69 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion would require the Secretary of State not only to consult Scottish Ministers, but to obtain their consent before making any regulations under the Bill that affect the identification or support of victims of modern slavery in Scotland or the duties of Scottish public authorities.

I recognise that victim support in Scotland operates within a devolved framework. Ministers should talk to their Scottish counterparts, but consultation and consent are very different things indeed. Consent is a veto. Immigration is a reserved matter and the national referral mechanism is a UK-wide system—one that is too often used by those facing removal to delay it. Handing the Scottish Government a block on changes to that system would create precisely the kind of divergence that people smugglers and those rigging our laws are quick to exploit. There has been an obvious pattern throughout the Committee where the Green party has tabled amendments to leave out clause after clause of the Bill. Amendment 69 is another attempt to slow down a system that already moves far too slowly, and we will oppose it.

Earlier in the Committee, we sought to put deadlines in the Bill, requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being established and limiting how long cases could be routed back to the first-tier tribunal. The Government did not accept them. Amendment 135 shows why they were needed. Without dates in law, there is nothing to hold Ministers to. I therefore ask the Minister two questions. First, will she set out a timetable for commencing each part of the Bill? In particular, when does she expect part 3 to come into force? Secondly, why have the Government moved part 3 from automatic commencement to commencement by regulations, and will she commit to publishing that date before Report? If the Government are serious about fixing the system, they should be willing to say when.

As this is likely to be the last time I speak in this Committee, I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Chairs of previous sittings; the Clerks, for their very patient work indeed on a substantial amendment paper; and the Minister and Members on all sides for this debate. We have disagreed—often sharply, but politely. The Committee has given these issues the scrutiny they deserve and we will no doubt return to many of them on Report.

[Anna Turley]

As we have heard, amendment 69 would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers and obtain their consent before exercising any regulation-making powers in the Bill in a way that relates to the identification or support of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland or affects any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and trafficking.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the amendment. I want to reassure her that we are cognisant of Scottish Ministers’ powers in this area. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government throughout the development of these provisions and are committed to working closely throughout the further stages of the Bill. My predecessor and I have both engaged our devolved counterparts on the measures in the Bill and we are seeking legislative consent for any of the provisions as appropriate. We will continue to engage the Scottish Government throughout the legislative process to resolve any issues relating to devolution.

While we continue to have those discussions, it would not be appropriate to support the amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers on all regulations in part 5, even those both the UK and Scottish Government agree are reserved. The provisions in the Bill are framed to reflect our understanding of the devolution settlement in Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland and Wales. It is important to clarify that it is not appropriate to give the Scottish Government any kind of veto on an issue like this, because we are talking about immigration. The decision-making process here has significant impacts on the operation of the immigration system, including protection from removal, which arises from the recovery period. Seeking to devolve the entire identification process would be in direct conflict with the Home Secretary’s immigration functions, which are reserved. The Bill does not change that position, so I am afraid we will oppose the amendment.

Clauses 50 to 53 contain general provisions that are typical housekeeping elements in this kind of legislation. Clause 50 allows for the Secretary of State to make consequential or minor provisions under the Act by regulations. Clause 51 confirms that the extent of the Act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 52 confirms the Secretary of State’s ability to specify through regulations when the Bill will come into force, confirms that the measures listed under clause 52(3) will come into force on the day of Royal Assent and those listed under 52(4) will come into force two months after Royal Assent. It also specifies when certain elements from part 1 can come into force, including their interdependencies with previous pieces of legislation.

To respond to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire’s point about timeframes, it is not normal to commence provisions earlier than two months after Royal Assent. The measures of the Bill to commence on Royal Assent are those where we consider there is justification for their early commencement, such as allowing preparatory work by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to establish the new repayment mechanism. The Bill is drafted so that some other measures will start commencing from two months after Royal Assent, namely the core protection measures. The remaining measures will need to be commenced by regulations, and this will be done at the earliest practicable opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I will indulge the hon. Gentleman one final time.

[Tom Gordon]

I will relay the Minister’s remarks to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon, and I echo her sentiments and those of the Opposition spokesperson about the way in which this debate has been conducted throughout.

[Anna Turley]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to pose another devastating challenge. I hope hon. Members feel the intentness with which we listened and absorbed the discussion and debate. Many things from this Committee will influence a lot of our thinking.

To conclude, I just want to say a few more things on the Bill. We are proud of the protection that we provide in this country to those fleeing war and terror. However, we also know we must bear down on abuse and restore order and control to our borders. This Bill provides protection to those in need while bearing down on abuse of the system. It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with responsibilities and expectations on those who receive it.

Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all. This Bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people, who are open, tolerant and generous, but rightly expect that we restore order and control to our borders.

[Siân Berry]

I echo some of the comments from other hon. Members on the Committee and thank the Minister for engaging with the many amendments I have tabled to the Bill, because I think they are necessary. I believe that the Bill does not reflect the long-held British value of welcoming refugees, which is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I do not think that obstructive and unfair processes, damaging attitudes and downgrading human rights will stop the criminal gangs or the boats, or tackle the lack of safe routes, which feeds the market for that kind of organised crime. However, I believe that we have had a constructive debate about many of these things, and Parliament will hopefully convince the Minister and the Home Secretary to think again. I also very much appreciate the excellent chairing that we have had.

Finally, I want to thank the many different charities, grassroots support networks, non-governmental organisations and independent experts who have helped and supported the scrutiny I have given to the Bill, not least the Refugee Council—an amazing organisation that rightly essentially won “The Traitors” last week, after Romesh Ranganathan gave his well-deserved prize money to support their work. May they long continue to be faithful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 134, in clause 50, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) regulations under section (Core protection: amendments) which amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of that section);”.—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment is consequential on NC36. The effect of it would be that regulations made under the power in the new clause inserted by NC36 would be subject to the affirmative procedure if they amended primary legislation, and otherwise subject to the negative procedure.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Extent

Amendment made: 127, in clause 51, page 52, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 (and section 1(3) so far as relating to that paragraph) also extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (see section 50(1) of that Act).

(4) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide—

(a) for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modification, to the Isle of Man, and

(b) for any of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4, and this Part so far as relating to Parts 3 and 4, to extend, with or without modification, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised—

(a) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;

(b) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Jersey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2 or 5 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;

(c) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Guernsey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2, 3 or 4 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.

(6) Those provisions are—

(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971;

(b) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;

(c) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

(d) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

(e) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004;

(f) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;

(g) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007;

(h) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;

(i) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016;

(j) section 86(4) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;

(k) section 64(4) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment provides for the consequential amendment of the British Nationality Act 1981 in paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Bill to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. The amendment also provides powers for other provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Commencement

Amendments made: 128, in clause 52, page 52, line 23, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5B)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 129 and 136.

Government amendment 47, in clause 52, page 52, line 30, at end insert—

“(ba) section (Liability to deportation of certain residents despite section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971);”.

This amendment would mean that the new clause inserted by NC5 would come into force on Royal Assent.

Government amendment 135, in clause 52, page 52, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would change the way in which Part 3 (core protection) is commenced, so that instead of it commencing automatically two months after Royal Assent it would be commenced by regulations.

Government amendment 129, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—

“(5A) Section (Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner) comes into force at the time when paragraphs 9 and 14 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 come fully into force.”

This amendment makes provision about the commencement of the new clause inserted by amendment NC33.

Government amendment 136, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—

“(5B) In Schedule (Core protection: amendments)—

(a) paragraph 9(c) comes into force at the same time as paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016;

(b) paragraph 28 comes into force at the same time as section 59(3) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes fully into force;

(c) paragraph 51 comes into force at the same time section 135 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force.”

This amendment would delay the commencement of three amendments made by the new Schedule inserted by NS1, so that they come into force only when provisions being amended are brought into force.

Government amendment 46, in clause 52, page 53, line 25, at end insert—

“(11) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with regulations under subsection (1) that bring Part 1 into force.

(12) Before making rules under subsection (11), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.

(13) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (11) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment would give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with the commencement of the powers of the IIAA. This may be especially needed if commencement regulations make the kind of provision mentioned in clause 52(8). (See also amendment 43.)

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry]

It is great to have you back in the Chair today, Mrs Barker.

I am speaking today in support of new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which I tabled and which address the issues faced by non-statutory first responder organisations. As we know, people suffering from modern slavery cannot self-refer themselves into the national referral mechanism. These new clauses are a vital part of making sure that we fulfil our duties towards victims of modern slavery.

We have designated statutory and non-statutory organisations that are known as first responders. Those organisations have a duty to refer potential survivors of trafficking and modern slavery into the NRM when they identify indicators of trafficking that suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping. That does not mean a lack of demand, but rather a lack of capacity; it means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism. I believe that the Government need to take action on this, hence these new clauses.

Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will, for example, prioritise criminal investigations over the survivor’s safety and that these FROs might have information-sharing policies with other Government agencies, as we have discussed when debating earlier amendments.

These organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders. We can see in the evidence that the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM. That suggests higher quality service and referrals, along with support to gather the evidence provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred in to the support that they need.

Between the second quarter of 2025 and the second quarter of 2026, referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases. The rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, while it was 62% for police referrals and just 47% for the other Government agencies. That suggests a lack of capacity in those organisations, but also systemic issues around collecting evidence and making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.

Higher-quality referrals of the kind made by non-statutory first responders also make the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, which in some cases leads to potential victims being turned away. In many cases, potential victims have also given up looking for a non-statutory first responder at that point. As an MP, I am not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery, and I found it hard to find the right first responder organisation and to reassure that person that they would be able to get hold of them. For my casework, I would love to have more non-statutory first responders available in my area.

The evidence underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open tender and transparent application process to deal with increased demand for referrals, reduce the postcode lottery in access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and reduce the stigma around referrals. That is the ultimate call of new clause 25: to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations.

I have also tabled new clause 26, which asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. We need high-quality and specialised training for first responders. That is integral to successful victim identification and would ensure better quality and more efficient decision making. Statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and non-first responder organisations have said that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers in statutory first responder organisations are unaware that they are first responders, which means that Home Office toolkits and information hubs alone are ineffective. My new clause would ask for a review of the quantity, quality and content of training, ensure that such training reaches the organisations who need it, and make a report on the review available to the Houses of Parliament.

New clause 27 would, again, tackle the issues that I have outlined. It asks for a review of the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders highlight their lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors who need them. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively. In practice, it can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff, undertake first responder duties and ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand and to respond to the people referred to them and other organisations that raise cases with them.

Accordingly, there have been many calls for the further allocation of resources to non-statutory first responders and the need to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. We are asking for a review of current resourcing for first responders, to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, identify gaps in capacity of service provision and assess how that affects the identification of and support for potential victims. Such a review would also help to determine what actions, resources or structural changes are needed to address those gaps and ensure that first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It would also ensure that we, as a country, are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

As always, Mrs Barker, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish a good morning to honourable colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which seek to introduce statutory reviews relating to first responder organisations. Modern slavery is a brutal crime that strips people of their dignity, and the Government remain unwavering in their commitment to tackling this abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the right protections and support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government recognise the vital role that first responders play in identifying potential victims of modern slavery and referring them into the national referral mechanism. Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the Bill to ensure a robust end-to-end system.

However, the Government do not consider these new clauses necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation would duplicate existing activity, reduce operational flexibility and create additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.

We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the first responder toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders, under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels that were attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.

I reiterate that, since taking office in 2024, this Government have demonstrated their commitment not only to improving identification and support for modern slavery victims, but to tackling modern slavery in all its forms. That includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, which helps them with their recovery. We have improved support for adult victims through the procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery contract, replacing the current modern slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking guardianship service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims.

We have introduced a change to support skilled workers leaving exploitative employers and moving to new, safe employment. We have provided a more cohesive response to labour exploitation, by introducing stand-alone offences for child criminal exploitation and cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and by creating the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act 2025. Those changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes and more supportive of those affected by them.

I will refer to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. She is right that the overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, a 5% increase compared with the year ending March 2026. Of those, 93% of were made by statutory first responders and 4% were made by non-statutory first responders. Our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification and that the operation of the first responder system should be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.

The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I mentioned, we recently introduced the updated referral form, first responder e-learning and the first responder toolkit. The recent call for evidence on victim identification gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office continues to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and calls for evidence.

I think I have responded to the hon. Member’s points. We continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have set out, we do not support these new clauses, and they should not be added to the Bill.

[Siân Berry]

I appreciate the detail in the Minister’s response, and I am content to withdraw the new clause. However, I would very much like the points around resourcing to be tackled, and I do not think that that was covered in the Minister’s response. She might agree to write to us with more about the resourcing of non-statutory first responders and the future plans for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 28

IIAA: publication of data

“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the publication of data relating to the work of the IIAA.

(2) The data required by this section must be updated and published at least every three months.

(3) The data to be published under this section must include—

(a) the number of appeals submitted to the IIAA;

(b) the number of decisions made by the IIAA;

(c) the outcomes of decisions made by the IIAA;

(d) the proportion of people submitting appeals to the IIAA who had legal representation;

(e) the number of appeals waiting to be processed by the IIAA;

(f) the length of time taken for a decision to be made on an appeal by the IIAA;

(g) the number of appeals that were withdrawn before being heard by the IIAA;

(h) the number of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6; and

(i) the outcomes of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6.

(4) The data published must, where possible, be broken down by—

(a) the type of appeal;

(b) the nationality of the person submitting the appeal;

(c) the gender of the person submitting the appeal; and

(d) the age of the person submitting the appeal.”—(Siân Berry.)

This new clause would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter (as is the case for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal), of data relating to the work of the IIAA.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire completely, but I want to make a separate point. I have some sympathy for the Minister. Last week, we rightly criticised the Government’s approach on hotels; now, we are rightly criticising their approach on large sites. The argument might be, “Well, what are the Government expected to do?” I urge them to take a wholly different approach.

A few weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee went to Denmark. Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues, but it is far subtler than that. Their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire Graham King millions, if not billions, Denmark uses non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross runs the asylum centres rather than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not-for-profit basis. If they make a profit, the money goes back into the asylum centre or is given back to the Government.

That wholly changes the tone. In Denmark, we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres, but volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers to deliver the accommodation—accommodation that I accept is needed, although the Government must improve and speed up their processing of claims.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the contributions this morning. As Members across the House will know, when the Government entered office in 2024, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. That was clearly impacting the confidence that the public had in the Government to run an efficient and cost-effective asylum system.

Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous Government’s failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities act as lightning rods for social unrest. They represent the removal of a lever that the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interest in the area and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community.

That is why we are working relentlessly to house asylum seekers fairly across the country, and we have a manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the public expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number of hotels down to, I think, fewer than 160. I look forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.

Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels; it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of that commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites.

To answer the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, two sites are already operational: Wethersfield, which was opened under his Government, and more recently, Crowborough. Three more are in the pipeline, undergoing various reviews and planning permissions. Those sites provide basic and safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on-site services such as health and safeguarding services, which lessen reliance on overstretched local facilities.

In terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety. Specialist security will also be on site 24/7, with CCTV and strict sign-in procedures for residents.

To be extremely clear, although I understand that there is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area, I categorically reject that. In September, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.

As I hope I have outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities while giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision-making process. Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to make use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. That approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK.

[Tom Gordon]

Let me press the Minister a little further. In my speech in support of the new clauses, I spoke about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage and electricity and the lack of consultation with local government. Will the Minister not acknowledge that and try to empathise with those individuals and authorities on the inappropriate nature of these sites? Will she look again?

[Anna Turley]

When we apply for planning permission or urgent Crown development, all these issues are taken into account as part of that planning process and decision making by the Secretary of State.

[Tom Gordon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I have some responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round. I will give way.

[Tom Gordon]

Can the Minister explain and outline why she thinks that both the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council and her Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire have got it wrong in their opposition to these sites?

[Anna Turley]

As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will know clearly that “nimbyism” gets used quite a lot. It is important that local authorities quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas, and we would expect that as part of the planning processes. All those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made.

I will respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, going back to the engagement with local authorities. As I said, we recognise their importance, but a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, planning routes and stages of development that apply to individual sites. It could duplicate existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal.

A point was also raised about publishing costs and assessments. We will be as transparent as we possibly can, whenever we can. We have to balance publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data and site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. As hon. Members can imagine, that is all extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance.

The reforms that we are looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control at the border. This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and, in particular, handing our hotels back to the communities.

To give some statistics behind the Government’s reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was 46% lower than when the Government entered office. There are 71% fewer people staying in hotels compared with the peak in September 2023. As I mentioned, that has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently in operation.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I am listening to the Minister talking about taking people out of hotels, which of course we all support and want the Government to be successful at. Can she provide any justification, because I cannot see one, for housing a large number—more than 1,000 asylum seekers or refugees—in a community that is smaller? How can that ever be right? It does not even matter that those people are refugees and are not from this country—1,000 extra people on the side of a smaller settlement seems to me crazy. It seems to be something that should not be able to happen.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are not housing them in the community. They are being housed on a specific site that is self-contained and away from the community. All their needs are met on that site. Where they are not met, they are transported usually to larger places—cities or towns. That is certainly the situation at the two sites we have at the moment at Wethersfield and Crowborough. They are taken specifically for their needs and requirements, but it is very rare, as a whole, that those individuals leave the camp of their own volition. They have to sign in and out. The sites are self-contained. They are not in the village; they are separate, on a self-contained site.

This Government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero. We stick by that. That is how we will restore public confidence in the system.

As Members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we are restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster case progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention of reducing the overall demand for accommodation.

[Mr Kohler]

Just in case it is not going to happen, could I press the Minister on changing the tone of the debate to our choice of who runs those asylum centres? That is critical.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know he has a long-standing interest in delivery and delivery partners. We have protocols and agreements with those organisations. They have high standards to fulfil and, if they do not do so, we will review their contracts. We keep that under review all the time.

I turn to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and specifically to new clause 30, which

“would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities and other public bodies considered appropriate, and to prepare and publish a site suitability assessment before a site is used to accommodate 300 or more people as part of the asylum support system.”

Similarly, new clause 64 would require the Home Secretary to

“prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment”

before designating a high-capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity.

I thank hon. Members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The Government agree with that objective. Site selection and mobilisation already involve assessment of safety, safeguarding, service capacity and local impacts, supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, the police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the new clauses would impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded. That would create significant overlap with existing planning processes, which would delay delivery and reduce the Government’s ability—

[Blake Stephenson]

If the Government are not willing to concede that there should be a rigid statutory process, would they accept that those safeguarding risk assessments should be made available, so that there is transparency for the local community? I know the Minister said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, that those asylum seekers are effectively not living in the community because they are in a camp outside, but they are free to come and go into their local communities. It is important that the Government commit to providing safeguarding impact assessments to the local community.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We take safeguarding very seriously. That is all undertaken as part of the process when we make those decisions and contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I refer to the point I made earlier: the police, particularly at Wethersfield, have said that there has been no discernible impact on crime. I just wanted to reiterate that, but I take his point.

New clause 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact. A smaller site may require intensive engagement, whereas an increase of 100 places at a larger, established site may not create the same pressures. The Government consider that existing operational assessment and engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.

[Tom Gordon]

I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, which outlines the Government’s views. I do not think it adequately addresses the issues that Crown development routes pose in bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The Minister also made the point that the Government want to be as transparent as possible. I do not think that this place should let them off the hook on these issues. The questions about the suitability of sites were not adequately answered, so I will not withdraw the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

The purpose of my new clauses is to ensure that the Government stop using artificial intelligence systems to shape life-changing—and, in some cases, life-or-death—decisions about people’s protection, liberty and removal until they can show that they are lawful, accurate and open to challenge.

This debate is not solely about the future, because that goes on in the present: the Home Office already deploys two AI tools in asylum casework. The asylum policy search tool has operated since July 2025, and the asylum case summarisation tool was rolled out to all decision makers in April 2026. Both tools use OpenAI’s GPT-4.

According to the Department’s own impact assessment, those tools summarise around 17,500 asylum cases every month, including interviews in which people share traumatic experiences relating to torture, persecution, their sexuality, faith and politics. A machine condenses those detailed accounts into the summary, which a decision maker reads before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake.

The Home Office and the Minister need to deal with those issues—particularly the legality of that practice. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing those tools. Neither is listed on the algorithmic transparency register, there is no independent audit and testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. As far as I can see, the Government’s only justification for using those tools is speed, rather than quality or someone’s human right to have their evidence in a life-or-death case considered in full by another human. When the cost of an error is a person being returned to danger, speed is not a safeguard and does not equal justice. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its working or justify its decisions. The Minister must deal with those points if she wishes to dismiss the new clauses.

New clause 37 is simple, but it is also comprehensive and precise. It says that no decision with a legal or a similarly significant effect on a person and relating to protection, leave detention, removal, support or trafficking may be made by, or with the help of, an AI system that processes their personal data. Subsection (3) makes it clear that any “summary, transcript, translation,” or “search result” generated by AI and given to a decision maker counts as assistance.

A human who reads a machine’s summary of an interview is already seeing the case through the filter of that machine. If the summary omits a detail that shows an account’s credibility, the decision maker may never know to look for it. That is unacceptable when a person’s life or freedom is at stake. Subsection (6) matters, as the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 currently lets the Home Office set aside people’s data rights. That subsection ensures that the exemption cannot be used to involve AI in those decisions.

New clause 38 protects the data itself. Asylum interviews hold the most sensitive information that the state collects, about health, sexuality, religion, political opinion, criminal allegations and details of children. The Department’s own impact assessment for the ACS and APS tools ticks every one of those categories. People give that information to claim protection; they do not give it to train commercial AI. New clause 38 would set out that the data may not be used to build, train or test AI systems, and that suppliers must not keep or reuse it.

Subsection (3) closes an obvious loophole. An asylum account does not stop being personal just because the name is removed. In so many cases, the story itself identifies the person because of the detail that must be included. The impact assessment for the asylum case summarisation tool records that no other party is involved in processing and names no processer, even though the model is supplied by OpenAI and is hosted on Microsoft’s Azure platform. Parliament is entitled to know what those contracts say. New clause 38 would put the answer to that beyond doubt.

Relatedly, I am also concerned about the appeals systems set up by schedule 3 and clause 13, which we have debated. Under the new appeals authority, if an adjudicator cannot see whether AI shaped the decision under appeal, the appeal cannot correct it. Changes need to be made to schedule 3 to require the Home Office to say, in every appeal, whether AI was used in the original decision, and to produce any output that was relied on. The legislation, through amendments that I hope the Government will introduce, needs to state that an adjudicator may not use AI to decide an appeal, judge credibility or write reasons. Credibility is a human judgment about a human being, and such decisions are about people’s human rights. To ensure that the conditions stay that way, restrictions on AI must be added to the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clauses 37 and 38, which address an important issue. It is right that, as technology develops, we continue to monitor it and do everything we can to use it effectively and responsibly.

New clause 37 would effectively bar the use of AI systems in immigration and modern slavery decisions in all but a small number of highly limited circumstances. It would apply to any decision made by or with the assistance of AI systems. That would include the prohibition of summaries, transcripts or search results being relied on or made available to a decision maker. The Government are fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations, which we take seriously. We have in place robust policies and frameworks that guide our approach to adoption of AI systems. All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and insurance, and we have in place measures to ensure that staff who use such tools are provided with clear guidance and ongoing training on how to use them responsibly. We also have in place measures to ensure that where AI systems are used, they are adopted in a transparent way, with clear mechanisms for accountability.

The UK general data protection regulation, or GDPR, already sets out robust safeguards to protect the rights of an individual who is subject to a solely automated decision that has no meaningful human involvement. For example, under article 22C of the regulation, safeguards are required where a significant decision is based solely on automated processing and based entirely or partly on personal data. Those safeguards include measures that

“provide the data subject with information about decisions...enable the data subject to make representations…enable the data subject to obtain human intervention”

and

“enable the data subject to contest such decisions.”

Together, those existing legal, ethical and governance safeguards already require careful consideration of the rights and interests of individuals when deploying artificial intelligence. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Government remain committed to ensuring that AI systems are adopted in a fair, responsible and ethical way.

However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. AI has the potential to greatly transform the way in which the Government carry out functions and provide services. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister said that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, and that we will bring the right people together to deliver on the potential for AI to be used for good, while guarding against the risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and consistency across our services, providing a better experience for those who interact with them.

[Siân Berry]

The Minister mentions speed and consistency, but I am worried about quality and bias. Given that AI is trained on what is currently on the internet, and given the biases that exist in society, is she confident that credibility decisions and recommendations will not be subject to racial or gender bias, for example?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point—we have all seen issues of ingrained bias in the media—but we are ensuring that we have safeguards in place. AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. The Government are committed to responsible and evidence-based AI adoption guided by robust policies, ethical frameworks and transparent governance. That includes mandatory evaluation and assurance for all new AI tools, including ongoing staff training in responsible AI practices and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that every deployment of AI upholds public trust and meets our legal and ethical obligations.

Operational efficiency time savings, as measured during the pilot, are set out in the pilot evaluation. A high volume of detailed information is gathered during the asylum decision-making process and interviews. Decision makers who have had access to the case summary are able to effectively identify areas of review to aid the decision-making process. We will continue to review and improve the tool’s outputs for the benefit of decision makers. The output of the tool is deliberately designed not to provide enough information for the decision maker to make their decision. It is there to aid them in the decision-making process and direct them to the information that they need to do that more efficiently.

I want to re-emphasise the mitigations we are putting in place to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. They include new offences targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse materials and the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, and the extension of the paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated material. We are also working with industry and the AI Security Institute to understand and address AI-enabled harms. We have introduced measures that will enable authorised organisations to safely and easily test AI systems for harmful and illegal outputs, which will help to identify vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, improve safeguards and prevent criminal misuse.

To reiterate, data protection law applies to any processing of personal data, including personal data processed by or for the development of AI systems related to immigration functions. Where solely automated decision making—any decision taken by automated means and without meaningful human involvement—has taken place for a decision that has legal or similarly significant effects, there are specific provisions in place. The Home Office does not undertake solely automated decision making, but uses AI in various roles across the system, such as translation, summarisation and other assistive roles. The use of those AI systems is governed by data protection law where personal data is processed, and by the Home Office’s internal AI use policy. The Information Commissioner has also published guidance on how to apply data protection law to AI, which is reflected in the Home Office’s processes and policies.

As I have said, AI can support our decision-making process, particularly by reducing the time that decision makers spend on basic, time-consuming tasks, allowing them to focus their attention and human expertise, to which the hon. Lady referred, where they are most beneficial. AI tools are already assisting asylum decision makers. The asylum case summarisation and asylum policy search tools are already in operation. Our evaluation of those tools shows that their use can reduce the time taken to carry out some decision-making tasks, creating new efficiencies. The Home Office published those evaluations, demonstrating our commitment to transparency.

It is right that we work to harness those opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. The Government’s position is that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring that the immigration system remains fair and sustainable in the future, while not placing unnecessary burdens on UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place, but it does significantly restrict our ability to realise the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I do not believe that that it is proportionate or desirable.

New clause 38 seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models, to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data except to fulfil their obligations in providing the service, and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data for immigration purposes. AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real-world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective. By prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for those purposes, the new clause would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data. Taken alone, it risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated.

[Siân Berry]

As I said in my speech, the impact assessment for the summarisation tool states that no other party is involved in the processing of people’s personal data. I think the Minister has confirmed that data is passed back into OpenAI and Microsoft systems for training by the tools. Would she be prepared to put that in writing for us so that we can look at it again?

[Anna Turley]

Yes, I am happy to respond and clarify. I reiterate that by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these purposes, new clause 38 would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data.

Taken alone, new clause 38 risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated. The Government are committed to responsible AI adoption, so that is not tenable. In conjunction with new clause 37, however, the cumulative effect would be that AI could not be developed using, or deployed within, immigration and other related functions. That would prevent the use of AI to improve the efficiency and security of the immigration system and to protect the vulnerable, even where it is effective, efficient and ethical to do so.

The use of any personal data in the development of AI systems related to immigration and related functions is also governed by the UK GDPR, as I have said. Existing GDPR obligations impose rigorous processes to ensure that the processing of personal data is lawful, proportionate, secure and transparent. They also require those processing personal data to consider whether anonymous or pseudonymised data could be used to achieve the same result.

The Home Office manages AI suppliers through procurement, contractual and assurance controls designed to protect personal and Government data. Our AI policies have introduced appropriate contractual provisions. Contractual controls, including non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses, expressly restrict how any Home Office data is processed and used—for example, Home Office contract material requires authority data to remain within the supplier’s secure environment.

Lastly, the intent of new clause 38(3) is already covered by data protection legislation, which provides the legal definition of personal data. The test for determining whether data is categorised as personal data requires a holistic assessment as to whether that data can be used to identify an individual, and does not rely solely on whether direct identifiers are included within it. Altering that definition through new clause 38 would have wide-ranging impacts, including on the definition of personal data offered in new clause 37.

For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clauses and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.

[Siân Berry]

I am afraid that I am not convinced that the Home Office has the right protections in place under current law or through the Bill. I detect that the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for dismissing the new clauses, or that safeguards are in place for privacy and the most sensitive personal data in current and future use of AI.

I suspect that I have made the Minister think more about this today, so I hope that she will seek further information and consider introducing further measures to the Bill in its next stages. For now, pending further debate, I am happy not to press these two new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 39

Further provisions relating to the prevention of slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains

“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—

‘54A Duty to prevent slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains

(1) A relevant organisation must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking arising or occurring in—

(a) its own operations;

(b) the operations of any franchisee or subsidiary undertaking; and

(c) the operations, products or services of any person in its supply or value chain or other business relationship.

(2) In determining what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section, regard must be given to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section within 12 months of passing of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate an enforcement authority with responsibility for ensuring that relevant organisations comply with the requirements of this section.

(5) The enforcement authority may, where it is satisfied that a relevant organisation has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this section—

(a) issue a public censure notice;

(b) require the organisation to take specified compliance, prevention, restoration or remediation steps within a specified period;

(c) require the organisation to compensate any persons adversely affected by the noncompliance;

(d) impose a monetary penalty of up to 5% of the organisation’s global turnover;

(e) exclude the organisation from participation in public procurement procedures for a period determined by the Secretary of State.

(6) For the purposes of this section—

“relevant organisation” means—

(a) a body corporate or partnership, wherever incorporated or formed, which carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom, supplies goods or services, and has, inclusive of any subsidiary undertaking, total turnover of £36 million or more;

(b) a public undertaking within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Procurement Act 2023;

“value chain” includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the commercial organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.

54B Responsibility for slavery or human trafficking in organisations and value chains

(1) Where slavery or human trafficking occurs or is identified in the supply or value chains of a relevant organisation (“O”), O is responsible for such slavery or human trafficking if—

(a) any activity of O causes or contributes to the occurrence of the slavery or human trafficking, or

(b) the occurrence of slavery or human trafficking is directly linked to O’s operations, products or services by O’s business relationships.

(2) O is not responsible for the slavery or human trafficking if it is proved that O had taken reasonable and proportionate steps under section 54A.

(3) Where O is responsible for slavery or human trafficking, O commits an offence.

(4) Where an offence under subsection (3) is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, partner or other senior officer of O, that person also commits the offence.

(5) A party guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) in the case of a relevant organisation, and any director, manager, partner or other senior officer of that organisation who commits an offence under subsection (4), to an unlimited fine;

(b) in the case of an individual—

(i) on summary conviction, to an unlimited fine, with such a fine being proportionate to the degree to which they were responsible for slavery or human trafficking;

(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to an unlimited fine, or to both.

(6) A person adversely affected by any slavery or human trafficking for which a relevant organisation is alleged to be responsible may bring civil proceedings against that organisation, whether or not criminal proceedings have been commenced or concluded in respect of the same conduct.

(7) Civil proceedings under this section may be brought by the person who claims to have been adversely affected by slavery or human trafficking (a “victim”), the Secretary of State, or any person acting on behalf of a victim.

(8) For the purposes of this section, “relevant organisation” has the meaning given in section 54A.’”—(Blake Stephenson.)

This new clause would require organisations to take steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking in their operations, and make organisations or individuals responsible for slavery or human trafficking liable to fines or imprisonment unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

New clauses 39 and 40 raise an issue about which there is strong feeling across the House: goods made with forced labour, including in Xinjiang, entering British supply chains. Experienced and well-respected right hon. and hon. Members have drafted these new clauses carefully to be within the scope of the Bill, and they would, I think, like to hear the Government’s view on the moral and economic questions that arise—actually, having just said that, I believe that all those who have put their names to the new clause are right hon. Members.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that:

“The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 12, Q13.]

That figure matters more with every month that passes. From 14 December 2027, products made with forced labour cannot be sold in the European Union, whether they are imported or made there. The United States already bans them. Once those two markets are closed, those goods will look for the next open market, and there is a risk that, without action, that market will be the United Kingdom.

Goods made with forced labour are artificially cheap. British businesses are already expressing concern that they are being undercut by cheaper Chinese imports. Surely the risk is that the problem intensifies after other markets close their doors to such goods. Modern slavery already costs the UK up to £60 billion a year, and at present it is the taxpayer who pays to deal with exploitation after it has happened. UK firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by 2027 anyway. There is widespread concern and a case to consider.

New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large businesses, making them responsible for keeping forced labour out of their supply chains, with penalties of up to 5% of global turnover. New clause 40 is narrower. It would let the Government designate high-risk goods and require businesses to disclose whether they trade in them—the foundation that any import ban would need—and addresses a widely shared concern. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when they will report their review of responsible business conduct?

[Anna Turley]

New clause 39 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose a duty on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more and all public authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains or face criminal and civil penalties. New clause 40 would also amend the Modern Slavery Act, to allow the Secretary of State to designate goods presumed to involve forced labour, and to require organisations trading in the UK to publish a statement, either in their reporting under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act or otherwise, if they make, import or export any such goods.

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses. Their cross-party nature gives us reason to explore them in more detail. I want to reassure the Members who tabled the new clauses and members of the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. We recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses take effective action to identify and address risks within their operations and supply chains.

Clauses 44 to 49 of the Bill strengthen the current reporting requirements under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to better report and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger consequences for non-compliance. They sit alongside a range of other measures that we have taken to address forms of modern slavery, including forced labour.

For individuals and employers involved in modern slavery, there are criminal sanctions. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers known to use forced labour. The National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks and take responsible and proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti-forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and the developing countries trading scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations.

New clause 39 would go considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), in whose name it was tabled, to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses. I was listening intently to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire but did not hear any sense of the financial implications of the new clause for businesses. We need to understand that this would be quite a considerable expansion of the duties that we put on businesses, which may have quite a considerable cost for them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be keen to ensure that we do not place further and disproportionate burdens on businesses in this country.

To impose such a duty, we would need to ensure that it is properly considered alongside the wider UK framework for tackling forced labour and other harms in supply chains. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has undertaken a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct. That was an evidence-based appraisal of the UK’s policy approach, its impact and, crucially, options to strengthen it further. The Government are considering the findings and will set out our position in due course.

On new clause 40, the Government again recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. However, the proposed designation mechanism raises important questions about the evidence and the threshold required to designate goods, how decisions will be made fairly and consistently, and what would be expected of businesses dealing with designated goods. Section 54 of the 2015 Act and the accompanying statutory guidance are clear that no industry is immune to the risks of modern slavery. We encourage organisations to actively identify, monitor and mitigate any risks pertinent to their operations and supply chains, rather than rely on a list of at-risk goods published by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

The British people are fair, but what they cannot stand is people who break the rules getting the same as or better than people who do not. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that we welcome, but time and again it identifies the right problem but stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law.

New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and deportation law, the Human Rights Act 1998 would have no effect. Our laws would mean what Parliament wrote. No officer, court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 would make part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—the article 8 code—final. Courts would not be able to reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it would not be unlawful just because it clashes with article 8.

Let me say why we tabled the new clauses. This is not about being against human rights. The Conservatives believe in the rule of law and protecting people from persecution, but the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament, applied as this Parliament intended. Over the past 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament did not put there, and the effect has been to move the most important decision that any country makes—about who gets to stay—away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent.

When people see a foreign criminal who abused children remain here because a judge felt that removing him could impact his family, they do not blame the judge; they blame all of us—Members of every party. They conclude that their votes do not change anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system and hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple principle that Ministers decide, Parliament holds them to account, and the public holds Parliament to account at the ballot box.

There is a fairness point, too. The protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most: the genuine refugee and the victim of trafficking. Every time those protections are stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their legitimacy, and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we have seen.

In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge decided that deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them. When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable, and sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender used his own children’s family life as a shield, and it took an appeal just to get the case reheard.

That was not a one-off. A Zimbabwean paedophile was due to be deported in 2021, but a judge blocked it. Why? Because, among other things, his criminal record for child sex offences meant he was likely to face hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in: the very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could stay. Most people in this country would find that not just wrong but upside down. A law that turns a conviction for abusing children into a shield against deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.

In 2014, this House put part 5A into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome; 12 years later, the Government are back amending the same sections through clauses 18 to 20 of this Bill. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through the Human Rights Act and finding exceptions that Parliament never meant. The Law Society told this Committee that the Government’s new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article 8. Fine, but if the Minister wants those words to survive their first trip to court, she needs new clause 60.

Look at Rochdale. Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang convicted in 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Rauf trafficked a 15-year-old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent seven years fighting deportation on article 8 grounds, while living in Rochdale near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the Government were still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone. Seven years of article 8 litigation for men who did that to children just is not acceptable.

Look at Reading. Khairi Saadallah’s asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard that he had killed people in Libya before he came here, yet for years he was in limbo, refused but not removed, because of the risk on return to Libya. In June 2020, he murdered three men. The coroner found their deaths were “probably avoidable”.

Remember, too, June 2022, when a rule 39 indication issued late in the evening by a judge whose name was not then disclosed grounded a removal flight already on the runway. Under new clause 41, that decision would rest with a Minister, answerable to this House.

None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with a Strasbourg interim measure. Parliament passed it. This Government repealed it in full through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent last December.

The question for the Minister is not whether this can be done; it is why her Government chose to undo it. Meanwhile, at the end of June, 21,294 foreign offenders due for deportation were living in our communities, up more than 2,000 in a year. If the Minister agrees that Parliament should decide who stays in this country, she should support the new clauses, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling the new clauses, which would require the Government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in immigration decisions.

Both new clauses seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration legislation and would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation, and action taken under it, being found to be incompatible with the ECHR. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK’s convention obligations.

I do not want to relitigate all the discussions we have had over many days in Committee, but hon. Members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged. We are clear that we are fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That commitment includes respect for our obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act to deliver meaningful reform and ensure that we have an immigration system that has the consent of the British people.

Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and inconsistency in decision making while reducing the UK’s ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement and reflects the UK’s long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the ECHR—which we helped to establish—while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final authority to determine how any incompatibility is addressed. Within that system, our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review.

As set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the balance between the individual’s article 8 rights and the public interest needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of the Bill. The proposals set out in the Bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence. We will clarify and tighten the application of article 8 to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. That can be done while ensuring that article 8 protections remain available to those who genuinely need them.

The Government played a leading role in securing the Chişinău political declaration, which was agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe member states on 15 May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure that the convention remains effective in the face of modern migration challenges, and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer, shared approach to applying the convention in line with established European Court of Human Rights case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national Governments and courts are usually best placed to assess the facts before them, including the application of article 3 protections and the balancing of article 8 rights against the public interest. That is how this Government are delivering reform: strengthening the system domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it. We need a seat at the table.

The UK is committed to complying with international law, including by implementing judgments of the ECHR and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely; indeed, in the last 10 years there has only been one immigration-related judgment concerning article 8. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on justice, such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The Court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including by making it clear that they should be used only where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome.

For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clauses. I respectfully invite the shadow Minister to withdraw them.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Control is not the enemy of compassion; control is what makes compassion sustainable. I ask the Minister: if not this, what is her plan to ensure that people who come here illegally do not stay? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the Conservatives for their new clauses in this group. The main thrust of the new clauses is to restore the duty to remove, which as the hon. Gentleman set out bears a striking similarity to their failed Illegal Migration Act 2023. In fact, new clause 42 seems to copy and paste direct excerpts from that Act.

I will take a moment to remind the Committee exactly what happened when the 2023 Act received Royal Assent: asylum decision making stopped. Not a single decision was made, but arrivals continued. That led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we have to overcome in order to prevent the system from being completely overwhelmed. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of that decision. More and more hotels housing migrants opened every week, and the cost of housing migrants skyrocketed.

This Government ended that chaos, restarted decision making, removed more than 80,000 people—up by more than 50%—reduced hotel use, with fewer than 160 now in operation, and brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. Incredibly, however, the Opposition want to take us back.

This Government have made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats, down from the highs we saw under the previous Government. As of 13 October, arrivals are down around 40% on 2025, and the annual record for crossings remains 45,774 arrivals in 2022; the number of organised immigration crime arrests and other disruptions are at record levels; our work with France has prevented more than 50,000 attempted crossings since the general election; and more than 60% of small boat events have been prevented this year.

The new clause sets out three conditions that this rehashed duty to remove would apply to. In essence, the Opposition argue that any individual without the legal right to be here should be deported, but I highlight what I said, that more than 80,000 individuals with no right to remain in the UK have been returned or removed from the UK since the 2024 election.

[Matt Vickers]

Does the Minister think that fewer than one in 10 of those people who arrive illegally being removed is the right thing? Does she believe that people who arrive illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made substantial improvements on the removals, which are up more than 50%. Our intention is clear. I hope he has heard our announcements, here and yesterday, that mean that people who arrive on that route will face an extra penalty. They will not be able to settle within five years, as they would have been able to under his Government; they will now have to wait approximately 30 years to be able to settle in this country.

In the year ending July 2026, there were 12,412 voluntary and enforced asylum-related returns, 10% more than in the previous year. In support of those outcomes, between July 2024 and July 2026, the Home Office operated 167 charter flights, alongside the tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work of the Home Office to tackle illegal migration. The crux of the argument set out in the new clauses comes through with the drafting set out in new clause 43. It states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned.

As hon. Members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment, exploitation, political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this Government, it is not about to start doing so. It is also interesting that the new clauses are essentially copied and pasted from the Illegal Migration Act. If this scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026? The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that will not work is no deterrent at all.

New clause 55 is another copy and paste from the Illegal Migration Act. It seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in new clause 42 from ever entering the UK—whatever the circumstances. This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British nationality to those entering the UK without leave.

I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These new clauses mirror in part similar provisions that were placed into the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort. The House will recall that on taking office in 2024, steps were taken first to suspend the operation of the Illegal Migration Act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

It will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, we cannot accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean that we do not recognise the concerns that these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. However, rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area and have also successfully defended those changes when challenged in court. We have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. That approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, while still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case.

The Committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the Members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around. The Government reject these new clauses, and will instead get on with the job of bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system.

Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact but we are not complacent. We know that there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that is why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these crossings, strengthening international co-operation against people smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here.

It is pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this Bill in the light of the inheritance that this Government received. The goals of this Bill are simple: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees and to offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need and close loopholes that have too often been abused so as to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so.

This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities and make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For the reasons outlined, I invite Members to withdraw the new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We can pass all the laws we like, but if nobody carries out the removals, nothing changes. New clause 44 would require the Home Secretary to set up a dedicated UK removals force within six months. Its job would be clear: remove foreign offenders, illegal entrants, visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and illegal workers and return them to their home country or a safe third country, and work with the police and use facial recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here.

I will give the Government credit: returns have gone up, but let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been to Albania under the returns arrangement the last Government agreed. The Government inherited that and built on it, which is fair enough, but let us look under the bonnet. In the year to June 2026, there were 9,669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000, many paid up to £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those who took up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would the Committee believe it? How many of those people would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made 116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%—tens of thousands of refusals. More than 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting deportation, and fewer than 6,000 foreign offenders were returned in the year.

Failure to remove has a human cost. Emad al-Swealmeen had his asylum appeal dismissed in 2015, and he was not removed. Six years later, he detonated a home-made bomb in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital. Khairi Saadallah was refused, convicted, and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men in Reading. Ahmed Alid’s claim was refused, and three years later, he was still in Home Office housing in Hartlepool when he killed Terence Carney.

Why have we tabled the new clause? Because a law that is not enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for show. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no consequences, it sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority, with its own leadership, budget and accountability to this House, so that Ministers can be asked a straight question, “How many have they removed?”, and they have to give a straight answer. Right now, removals are spread across immigration enforcement, escort contractors and the police, who all have other priorities. The new clause would create one body with one mission and the resources and powers to do the job. That is how we would stop a refused claim turning into permanent residence by default. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 44, but I do not agree that it is necessary. The functions and powers of the removal force proposed in new clause 44 already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary.

Most of the functions set out for this proposed new removals force are functions that law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself, I reminded the Committee earlier that we have carried out over 80,000 returns, which is a 52% increase, as the hon. Member was generous enough to acknowledge. We have done so at a time when similar duties were already in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

I will highlight again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries, which has delivered clear results. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and to increase returns. In August, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time required to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. They are just a couple of examples.

As Members will be aware, we have also leveraged our visa system to positive effect. Earlier this year, after threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties, the Home Secretary secured returns co-operation from all three countries. Restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, which are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns, into one organisation would also be a costly distraction—a shifting of the deckchairs—from the effective work that is already being carried out.

I have said previously that there is plenty more work to do and that the Government are not complacent. The measures in clause 20, which has already been debated, demonstrate a real and material way in which the Government can increase the volume of returns of foreign national offenders. Simply moving around powers and creating new organisations at great public expense is not a credible way to achieve that. For those reasons, I reject the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

This group of new clauses is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 would set four simple rules: someone should make all their claims at once; they should back them with real, checkable evidence; they should not contradict what they have said; and there is only one appeal. Later claims are inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in someone’s home country, and claims based on how someone has behaved since arriving are disregarded.

New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary’s decision final, with no possibility for judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. That builds on what Parliament has already done. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced late without good reason. This Government kept that Act. New clause 46 takes the same principle to its logical conclusion: if something was not raised at the start, and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all.

Three cases show why that should be so. Abdul Ezedi raised his conversion to Christianity only on his third attempt. The Home Office warned he was using religion for his own ends; he could not answer basic questions about the faith. A judge granted him asylum anyway. In January ’24, he attacked a mother and two little girls with a corrosive substance in Clapham.

Emad al-Swealmeen came here on a visit visa claiming he wanted a holiday, and then claimed asylum as a Syrian. The judge rejected his account in its entirety in 2015. He converted after his appeal rights were exhausted, made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding on the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women’s hospital—more than six years after he first lost his case.

Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai arrived in 2019 claiming to be a 14-year-old orphan. He was in fact an adult who had murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov on his way here. He was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school. In March ’22, he stabbed a 21-year-old to death.

Under new clause 46, a claim built on a false identity, a false age, a new name or a conversion after arrival would not get off the ground. Under new clause 54, a decision made would stick. That is not harsh; it is how most people assume the system already works.

Jamil Ahmed is a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. In 2013, he was convicted again for the same offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a teenager, and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a deportation order and lost his appeals twice. After a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal—on the basis that the reporting of his crimes would put him at risk if he went home. That took nearly 10 years of litigation, but under new clause 54 a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.

These new clauses are motivated by a simple belief that a fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It also does not serve the taxpayer, who picks up the bill for the hotel, the support, the lawyers and the tribunal, and it does not serve justice, because a decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all.

We should get it right first time, give people one fair appeal, and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works, and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, each taking around 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that there were nearly 330,000 open cases across our tribunals earlier this year.

Furthermore, the Government already accept the principle of finality. Clause 1 has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the Minister tell the Committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling these new clauses. The Government are committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is investigated and swiftly dealt with. The core issue that new clause 46 seeks to address—that all claims related to an asylum case should be made at the same time—is already well covered in existing policy and legislation.

Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 sets out that an asylum claimant’s credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late. Similarly, verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence that we would expect to see where reasonably available.

I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Stockton West with stories of asylum abuse—many of which he has detailed—such as claims being made on the steps of charter flights, but we cannot support the new clause. It would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full circumstances of an individual case. As he will be able to imagine, there are good reasons why relevant information or evidence might become available only after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 47 is one line long, and would abolish legal aid for applications or claims about a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK. Immigration and asylum legal aid cost £59 million in 2024-25, which paid for more than 64,000 pieces of work. The Government have since added a £20 million-a-year uplift to the fees. Under this Government, more taxpayer money goes to immigration litigation, not less.

Let me put it simply: a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their employer or for most family court cases are entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law for British citizens, and immigration should not be the exception. It shapes behaviour: more than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, and more than a third of asylum appeals are withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there is very little cost to having a go. We have already heard about what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to.

Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be justified. Right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts. When budgets are stretched, the public expect legal aid to go first to British citizens who are facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal.

This is not about denying anyone their day in court, but about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This new clause would save money, cut last-minute challenges and put the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not an unreasonable expectation. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

[Anna Turley]

New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As hon. Members know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and applications remain subject to both a means test and a merits test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, separated migrant children, and those challenging immigration detention decisions.

Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked why we continue to fund legal aid for immigration matters specifically. As I said, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters, particularly for those involving vulnerable individuals, victims of domestic abuse—

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control.

The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels.

The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank hon. Members for tabling the new clause and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that deeper international co-operation is important. That is why the Home Secretary is in regular contact with her counterparts across Europe, including in France, Germany and Belgium, and we are continuing to establish a more comprehensive relationship with Europe as a whole. However, I remind him that irregular migration is not an issue limited to EU nation states. That is why we as a Government are looking even wider and being even more ambitious: not only tackling the issue when it emerges within European territories, but working upstream to prevent the vile trade of organised immigration crime in the first place.

For example, in August 2025 we signed an agreement with Iraq to bolster efforts to deter small boat arrivals. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and increase returns. In August this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. Those are just some examples of the importance of that broader co-operation and partnership. My hon. Friend the Minister for Migration and Citizenship also attended this year’s Berlin process meeting of Interior Ministers in Montenegro in September. It was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen international police co-operation and develop a joint response to cross-border security challenges not only with our EU counterparts but with representatives from the western Balkans.

I agree that international co-operation is an essential strand of our overarching strategy to tackle illegal migration, and one that I am keen to highlight is bearing fruit. As hon. Members will know—I will say it again, just for the record—small boat arrivals have decreased by more than 40% compared with this point last year. I am not claiming that the job is done—far from it—but we are taking a holistic approach to this issue, of which the Bill is one part. However, the Government will not support the new clause.

I want to pick up on a couple of the points the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised about the impact on returns and about Eurodac. We continue to work with our European partners on the shared challenge, including on returns, but joining the pact would not guarantee increased returns, and our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers real returns outcomes.

Eurodac is a matter for the EU, not a unilateral UK decision. Eurodac is one example of a pact measure where our participation is not legally possible without EU agreement, and the Eurodac legislation makes that clear. Access to asylum data could, of course, help identify individuals who have previously claimed protection in an EU member state before travelling to the UK, but it is for the EU to decide whether it wishes to extend access to third countries. In the meantime, we are strengthening practical co-operation with European partners, including through intelligence sharing and our observer status in the European Migration Network, which delivered on a key PM commitment from the UK-EU summit, and I will come on to say a bit more about the work we are doing on that.

Going back to the new clause, participation is not a straightforward proposition. The pact is not a single agreement that third countries can simply choose to join. It is complex collection of EU legislative measures, many of which are designed specifically for EU member states and Schengen countries. There is no established model for third-country participation, so any form of UK participation would require agreement from the EU and significant EU and operational change before extensive negotiations could commence. The pact is still being implemented across the EU and has been in application only since June this year. Member states are working to implement it, with the EU rightly focused on making it work for its own member states. That is a significant challenge, particularly for frontline countries that are facing the greatest migration pressures.

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. Does she know whether the migration pact will be discussed in the forthcoming summit with the EU?

[Anna Turley]

I would not want to get ahead of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be having at that summit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are clear that greater co-operation and international partnership are crucial for us to manage the big global challenges that we face of immigration, migration and illegal migration. We believe that co-operation is the solution, not the problem, but it is about making sure that we do that in the right way that works for this country within our sovereign powers.

We should also recognise that irregular migration still existed while the UK was part of the EU. Closer co-operation with our European partners is important, but experience shows that no single agreement or institutional framework can solve this challenge on its own. Under previous Dublin arrangements when in the EU, the UK become a net recipient of transfers between EU member states, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, largely as a result of family reunification provisions, so we cannot pretend that UK participation in EU frameworks solves all migration challenges.

However, we will of course continue to work closely with our European partners. As I have said, illegal migration is a shared challenge, and co-operation is essential, but it would be a mistake to suggest that simply signing up to the pact would provide a quick or automatic solution. There is no silver bullet, and I am afraid that the new clause is unworkable in practice. It would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union, but Parliament cannot legislate for the EU to agree to such negotiations with us. Whether discussions take place, and on what basis, ultimately depends on both parties and is not for the UK to unilaterally dictate. It is therefore right that the UK retains the flexibility to pursue the forms of co-operation that best serve our national interest and respond to rapidly evolving migration challenges.

The Government’s approach is clear: we will pursue practical co-operation with European partners wherever it advances the UK’s interests and delivers operational results. As the Prime Minister set out, we are already working with the EU to strengthen co-operation on migration, border security, data sharing and tackling the criminal gangs that profit from human misery. Our objective is not to focus on a single mechanism but to build a stronger and more effective long-term partnership with the EU on shared challenges, including illegal migration. That builds on the progress we have already made since the UK-EU summit in 2025, and I am looking forward to further partnership and co-operation with this year’s summit. For those reasons, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

[Mr Kohler]

I am saddened by the responses from both the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who do not see that this is a collective problem that we must work on collectively to address. Beginning negotiations would help us to start that process and to not sit in isolation, as we do now. I will press the new clause to a vote, because it is important to make it clear that we think the Government should be negotiating with the EU. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate on many issues. This is a particularly important issue and, let us remember, one that was caused by Brexit, as the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also one that can be solved by closer collaboration with Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wimbledon be so supportive of rejoining the EU—I think we have all learned something this morning. We have also learned that the Liberal Democrats feel that that would be a silver bullet to fix all these issues. Yet still the hon. Member comes forward to ask for a cost-benefit analysis to prove it. His statutory duty to benchmark every bilateral agreement against the EU pact is designed to build a case for joining the pact, not to improve returns, and for that reason, the Conservatives oppose it.

[Anna Turley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his new clause. I understand the case that he is trying to make. He is trying to build his evidence base to persuade us to join the EU pact, but, despite his earlier efforts, I am afraid we will not support his new clause.

We agree that migration co-operation should deliver clear operational benefits, represent value for money and be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, that is already the case. Relevant spending and significant proposals are assessed under the established appraisal, assurance and accounting officer requirements. Ministers rightly expect officials to demonstrate that policies are deliverable, affordable and capable of achieving their intended objectives. I remind colleagues that we have already published an impact assessment for the Bill. I appreciate that there are details still to be refined, but colleagues will find in the impact assessment information that I hope will support their understanding of the Bill.

I want to be clear that the value of migration co-operation is complex. Some agreements help to deter irregular migration, and some help to change behaviour and prevent dangerous journeys from happening in the first place. Those benefits can sometimes be difficult to measure directly, but they are no less important when considering the overall value of an agreement. Equally, the Government are not lacking in transparency. We regularly publish information on major migration partnerships—for example, we have published details of UK-France co-operation under the broader framework of the Sandhurst treaty and subsequent agreements, including funding commitments, operational activity and strategic objectives. UK-France co-operation is also subject to regular strategic review by the French Government and the UK Government.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause goes considerably further, however. It would require the Government to publish an annual assessment comparing our existing bilateral migration agreements against a wholly hypothetical model of UK participation in the EU migration and asylum pact. We do not believe that that is a sensible or proportionate requirement. The pact is an internal EU framework comprising 10 separate legislative measures. The UK is not seeking to participate in it, and there is no established mechanism through which non-EU, non-Schengen countries such as the UK can do so.

That means that there is no settled understanding of what the legal route to participation might be, what obligations it might entail, what operational arrangements would be required, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said, what costs might arise, yet the new clause would require the Government to produce an annual assessment based on assumptions and theories about all those issues, about which we would have no information. Any such exercise would be inherently speculative. It would require officials to assess a theoretical arrangement that does not exist, using assumptions that cannot be verified and for which there is no established evidence base.

The new clause also appears to rest on the assumption that participation in the pact would somehow replace the UK’s existing network of bilateral migration arrangements and partnerships. There is no reason to believe that that would be the case. EU member states, operating within the EU’s common asylum and migration framework, continue to maintain bilateral arrangements with third countries to support returns, migration management and broader co-operation. The need to engage directly with countries of origin and transit does not disappear because a country participates in the EU system.

At the same time, many of our migration partnerships are about far more than asylum processing or returns. They sit within broader bilateral relationships, helping us to tackle migration pressures at source, disrupt organised immigration crime, strengthen returns co-operation and support wider foreign policy objectives. Participation in the pact would not remove the need for many of the agreements that the new clause seeks to assess. In practice, the UK could find itself maintaining a significant proportion of its existing partnerships, while also incurring additional costs associated with participation in the pact itself.

The new clause also takes no account of the cost of pursuing that proposed participation. As I have already highlighted, negotiating any bespoke arrangement with the EU would require significant official resource, extensive discussions with EU institutions and member states, and potentially substantial legislative and operational change. At the same time, the pact is still being implemented across Europe. Its impacts, costs and benefits are still emerging, and it will take time before there is a clear and reliable evidence base from which lessons can be drawn.

Against that backdrop, requiring officials to construct and maintain an annual assessment of theoretical policy that the Government are not pursuing would not represent good value for money. As I said—and I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon understands my values and intentions here—the Government are committed to deeper co-operation with European partners on tackling illegal migration. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Prime Minister has set out that Europe is our neighbour and that stronger co-operation with our European partners is essential to tackling these shared challenges. That is why we will be using our engagement with the EU, including the forthcoming summit on 20 November, to pursue practical co-operation on border security, organised immigration crime and improved information and data-sharing, where that supports our national interest. However, none of that requires participation in the pact. We reject the suggestion that joining the pact is the only route, or the necessary route, to achieving these objectives. Our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers results, not a hypothetical arrangement whose terms, costs and obligations cannot be known. For those reasons—

[Melanie Onn]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is just in time.

[Melanie Onn]

I am sorry for interrupting the Minister’s flow. Does she recognise that we have managed various agreements with the EU without signing up to various pacts?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are proud of those arrangements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referenced agreements with Belgium; we are co-operating with all our partners on the frontline of illegal migration.

[Mr Kohler]

Does the Minister know how many migrants were sent back under the one in, one out deal?

[Anna Turley]

I think the number is around 1,200, but I would have to check the exact figures. That deal was a really important opportunity to pilot the idea of safe and legal routes. We learned a lot from that pilot, and it was disappointing that it could not continue, but we are taking what we learned from it further in our discussions and conversations with other countries.

[Mr Kohler]

Does that not show that these bilateral arrangements are not sufficient and we need a collective approach? That deal cost a lot of money, but not many people went back via that route. We need to take a collective approach to this issue, because the problem is shared across Europe.

[Anna Turley]

I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said today, but he is right on that point. There is opportunity for broader co-operation on many of these fronts, which is why we will continue to explore co-operation. However, signing up to these restrictive pacts would limit that opportunity. I think we have the best of all worlds here: not only can we have direct negotiations with other countries, but we can scale up things such as the one in, one out deal when we think there is potential to do so with other countries. On that note—

[Blake Stephenson]

I caught the Minister just in time. She described the one in, one out scheme as a “pilot”. I do not recall it ever being described as a pilot when it was launched. Can she unpack what the expectations were, what was delivered and why the scheme has been cancelled?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I think we ought to stick to the new clause.

[Anna Turley]

I will abide by the Chair’s ruling, but I am happy to pick that up with the hon. Member later and send him plenty of information backing up the statement that it was a temporary arrangement.

On that note, I will not detain the Committee any further. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

[Mr Kohler]

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was surprised that I want to rejoin the EU. Has he not been listening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart.

I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea.

I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities.

The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that

“A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration”

should be

“taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.”

On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have

“joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services”

to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says:

“The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”.

Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms.

The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were

“designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”,

and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do.

The current work and remit of the Home Office

“covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”.

I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that

“the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.”

Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future.

Despite repeated attempts at reform,

“the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,”

with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes:

“The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”.

It says:

“The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”.

I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.

[Anna Turley]

New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, sets out the desire for a new Government Department for immigration and border security to be established, and for the transfer of all the Home Secretary’s immigration, asylum and border security functions to that new office. I have to say that I really admire the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Wimbledon for attempting to reshape Whitehall through an amendment to a Bill—it is impressive, and I will do my best to respond to it. I appreciate that it is a thought-provoking new clause that of course warrants broader discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that. The root of the pressure is the number of people arriving and the time that they spend in the system. Fewer arrivals and faster outcomes would do far more for councils than any taskforce.

We will not support the new clause, but let me ask the Minister a question, building on the one that the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked. What is the current move-on period after a grant of protection, and what assessment have the Government made of the cost of refugee homelessness to local authorities throughout England?

[Anna Turley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority.

As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce.

Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face.

We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days.

We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.

[Mr Kohler]

On my specific question, though, has the Home Office studied whether the move from 56 days to 42 days made the situation of homelessness worse for those granted refugee status?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that there is sometimes a lag in us being able to publish statistics on that, but I am hopeful to be able to share statistics with hon. Members shortly. In June this year—these are the latest published figures—there were 99 people sleeping rough in this country who had left asylum support in the last 85 days. Our internal data suggests that the numbers of people leaving asylum support are extremely low, but, as I said, information on that will be published.

We are working closely with other partners and charity organisations, including Migrant Help, which offers positive move-on advice to all supported newly granted refugees through the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract. That includes guidance on accommodation, finances and employment, and support for individuals to integrate into the UK when Home Office support ends.

As we have discussed a lot during the Bill’s passage, it builds on the “Restoring Order and Control” statement that the Home Secretary made, and it is essential if we are to restore control to our immigration system. As the Committee will know, core protection is a key part of that, and will simplify the current system of protections. That will of course be shared in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work.

As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim.

It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other.

More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape.

The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees.

Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high.

Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work.

Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening.

In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work.

Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP.

Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety.

In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clauses, and I am grateful for the discussion. As we have heard, new clauses 10 and 24 would significantly change the Government’s policy on the period before asylum seekers can seek permission to work from the Home Office, reducing that period to three months and six months, respectively. New clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would go much further and grant asylum applicants and their adult dependants an automatic and unrestricted right to employment and self-employment after six months of waiting for a decision on their asylum claim—a right that would continue until the claim and any appeal had been finally determined.

Hon. Members will know that those who claim asylum are not normally allowed to work while their claim is considered. They may instead receive accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. Under our current policy, asylum seekers may be eligible to apply for permission to work in the UK where their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. Where permission is granted, employment is restricted to jobs on the skilled worker occupations at regulated qualifications framework level 6 or above.

To respond to the question of the hon. Member for Wimbledon about legal entrants, it is important to flag that all legal entrants are prohibited from working. Some individuals who claim asylum after being here legally retain the right to work throughout their claim. An asylum seeker is allowed to apply for permission to work after 12 months, as I said, if they have not received a decision and will be employed in a high-skilled job. On the statistics he asked about, the Home Office publishes a vast amount of statistics regularly. The numbers for those who have permission to work will fluctuate constantly, as people move in and out of the system quite rapidly. Our focus has been on ensuring that people receive an initial decision on their claim as quickly as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

New clause 11 would require the Government to restore refugee family reunion within six months, but I understand that it also widens definitions to include children up to the age of 25, which was not in the hon. Member’s opening remarks, so I hope I am not mistaken.

We oppose this measure. Family reunion, as proposed in new clause 11, would add a further reward to a successful illegal crossing. Every grant would bring the prospect of encouraging a wider family member, and it would create a well-known incentive for families to send one member ahead, sometimes a child, on the most dangerous journey of all. We all want to stop and limit dangerous journeys. Safe and legal routes should be for people from regions of conflict who we choose to help, as we have done for Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. There should not be a reward for illegal and very dangerous crossings. We will not support the new clause, but can I ask the Minister to tell us when the Government intend to publish their replacement for the suspended family reunion route, as I think she intimated they would in the previous debate, and whether the intention is for it to be capped?

[Anna Turley]

New clause 11, tabled by the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, seeks to reopen the refugee family reunion route and greatly expand eligibility to wider family members. The Government took the difficult decision to suspend the refugee family reunion route in September 2025. That was done in response to immediate pressures placed on local authorities and public services by the rapid rise in arrivals in recent years.

The family reunion route had grown exponentially, placing significant and unsustainable pressures on local authorities and public services. Grants rose from approximately 5,500 per annum between 2015 and 2022 to more than 20,000 in the year ending September 2025. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we cannot have a situation where families are sending men on dangerous journeys, through other safe countries, to reach these shores with the intention to bring their families. We are extremely keen to prevent that. We want to ensure that there is a sustainable route for families that are genuinely fleeing war and persecution to come to this country, and that was not it.

Suspension remains in place while we are developing the wider reforms to the family migration system. I know that colleagues are on tenterhooks, and I wish I could expand on that further, but I can assure them that they do not have very long to wait at all—as I am sure they can see from the increased media frenzy around these issues. I will not pre-empt the Home Secretary’s announcements, but I reassure colleagues that those announcements are well on their way and they do not have long to wait.

The system we want to see will be fair, controlled and sustainable. The Government recognise the importance of family unity and the distress that separation can cause. We also recognise the contribution that families can make to helping refugees integrate. However, we must ensure that our approach takes account of the capacity of communities to support those arriving.

I want to be clear that suspension does not mean that family members have no way of applying to come to the UK. Other family routes remain available where people meet the relevant requirements, with provisions such as fee waivers available, and a consideration of any exceptional circumstances where an individual may not meet the criteria set out in those routes. In addition, applications under the suspended route that were submitted before the suspension came into force continue to be processed.

New clause 11 would go considerably further than simply restoring the previous arrangements. It would require the Government to establish a new and expansive refugee family reunion scheme within six months, and prescribe a significantly wider group of qualifying family members, including parents, siblings, unmarried adult children and siblings up to the age of 25 and other unspecified family members. This is highly likely to lead to considerably more people arriving than ever before, without any necessity for their sponsor to support them.

The new clause would also cut across established routes that already make specific provision for these relationships, including Appendix Child Relative for vulnerable children joining a close relative with protection status, and the Adult Dependant Relative route for adults requiring long-term, personal care. Those routes contain carefully designed eligibility, dependency, care, maintenance and accommodation requirements. The new clause risks creating an overlapping route for the same cohorts without specifying any safeguards that would apply, potentially undermining the workings of our wider family migration system.

The new clause would further enable children to sponsor their parents and siblings, which is something that was not possible under the previous route. We must consider the incentives that such a change would create. If a child reaching the UK alone could subsequently provide a route for other family members to join them, there is a real risk that smuggling gangs could exploit that expectation, leading to more children being sent on dangerous journeys, including on small boats. That would put children at greater risk of abuse and death.

The proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should also be considered together. Amendment 54 would have provided that requirements being imposed must demonstrate that arriving family members could be suitably supported and accommodated by their sponsor. Together, these proposals, if accepted, would pre-empt the Government’s ongoing work that I have mentioned on our future family migration framework by constraining our ability to consider refugee family reunion alongside the wider reforms that we are making. It would be premature to prescribe the outcome of that work in the Bill. They are also likely to lead to a large increase in arrivals, which would further exacerbate existing pressures on local authorities and public services.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should consider how the consequences of such a surge in arrivals, if these proposals were enacted, would be managed. Where would families live if suitable accommodation had not been secured? Who would meet their immediate needs if their sponsor could not support them? Do we expect already stretched local authorities and public services to support those arrivals? If children are allowed to sponsor, as he proposes, a child cannot be expected to obtain a sufficient income or secure suitable accommodation for an arriving family, so who would meet those needs? What assessment has he made of the additional resources that would be needed, and how does he propose these costs should be met?

Those responsibilities simply cannot be left for local authorities to resolve after families arrive. They have practical consequences for homelessness services, temporary accommodation, children’s services and school places, as well as the local people who rely on those services. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.

[Tom Gordon]

I welcome the Minister’s words about us hopefully seeing something coming forward soon. I gently suggest that if we had something a little more concrete, we might not have needed to table new clauses such as this. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Minister has said. As I said before, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we will hopefully invite someone from the Minister’s Department to speak to us. I am sure I can press the point further there, so with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)

New Safe and Legal Sponsorship Routes for Refugees

Anna Turley Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

In November 2025, the Government published the restoring order and control statement, which committed to tackle the vile smuggling gangs who seek to exploit our borders with no regard for human life and to reform the asylum and immigration system. Alongside bringing order and control to the immigration system, we must do this fairly by providing sanctuary to those in genuine need and reducing the pull factors for illegal and dangerous journeys.

The UK has a long-standing history of providing sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution from around the world. The UK is a compassionate country, that lives up to its international obligations and saves the lives of those fleeing war and persecution.

The Government are continuing this tradition by creating new safe and legal sponsorship routes. New named community sponsorship, refugee work and refugee study routes will create safe and legal pathways for refugees to come to the UK, enabling communities, universities and employers to identify refugees they wish to sponsor. By connecting refugees with communities, universities and employers that are ready to support them, the routes are being designed to promote successful integration from arrival.

These routes will be capped and controlled, with the number of arrivals based on community capacity to sponsor refugees. The Government expect arrivals of UNHCR-approved refugees across the new routes and the existing UK resettlement scheme to number in the hundreds at first, but this will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall.

Applications will open today for organisations to be accredited as lead sponsors for the named community sponsorship and refugee study routes. Applications for the refugee work route will open in spring 2027. Lead sponsors will play a key role in the new routes, acting as intermediaries between the Home Office and sponsor groups and providing assurance that sponsor groups are delivering positive outcomes for refugees, communities and our country. Lead sponsors will be responsible for engaging and onboarding sponsors, assessing the suitability of proposed sponsorship arrangements, submitting applications to the Home Office and providing ongoing support to sponsor groups. The Home Office will continue to conduct appropriate security checks on individual refugees and make all immigration decisions.

To be accredited as a lead sponsor, organisations will be required to demonstrate that they are a registered UK charity or community interest company based and operating in the UK and have appropriate policies and procedures in place to undertake the lead sponsor role. They will also be required to demonstrate they have the capability, resources and networks to deliver the lead sponsor role.

The routes will initially operate from Bangladesh, Egypt, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan and Uganda. To be eligible, refugees will need to be outside their country of nationality, and to have been present and registered with relevant authorities or UNHCR in one of these seven countries before 1 October 2026. The Government are introducing the new routes in phases, starting in a limited number of countries to establish effective delivery arrangements.

The first arrivals through these routes are expected in autumn 2027. The new routes will enable refugees to come to the UK and provide them with an opportunity for a better life. However, it is imperative that these routes are only used to support refugees with a genuine need for protection to resettle in the UK. This is why we will work in partnership with the UNHCR who will assess refugees through established processes. All refugees who are identified will be required to meet identity, security and eligibility requirements and have suitable sponsorship arrangements in place to be granted status.

Further details of the new routes, including refugee and sponsor eligibility requirements, will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS434]

Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026

Anna Turley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2026 General Committees

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I will set out to hon. Members what this draft statutory instrument will do in broad terms before turning to the why. The regulations are made under section 36(8) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. They specify the meaning of “purposes related to policing”.

The draft regulations enable the Secretary of State for Transport—in practice, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency acting on her behalf—to share trailer registration information with the police for use for policing purposes. Where the 2025 Act permits, the regulations also enable the onward disclosure of trailer registration information by police and Home Office recipients to a person exercising public functions for use in connection with the same policing purposes. In short, the instrument gives full effect to the information-sharing framework established by Parliament, enabling trailer registration information to be shared and used for the full range of specified policing purposes.

I now turn to the wider context in which the draft regulations sit. The overarching aim underpinning them is to strengthen the use of data in support of policing and border security. In 2018, Parliament enacted the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018, establishing the trailer registration scheme administered by the DVLA on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. For the avoidance of doubt, the trailer registration scheme does not collect biometric information.

Hon. Members will recall the tragic deaths of 39 Vietnamese nationals who were found in a lorry in Essex in October 2019. The police faced challenges in their response, because of obstacles to identifying who the trailer belonged to. Subsequently, the 2025 Act created an information-sharing gateway for trailer registration information to be supplied to specified law enforcement bodies. The Act allows the DVLA to supply trailer registration information to the police for specified purposes related to policing, and its onward disclosure by the police and the Home Office for the same purposes. However, Parliament also required the meaning of “purposes related to policing” to be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. That requirement has brought this draft instrument before the Committee.

Before I get into the specifics, I will make two important points. First, without the draft regulations, the relevant provisions that I referred to would not be fully operable. Secondly, in practice, police use of trailer registration information would remain confined to law enforcement and national security purposes.

Let me now turn to the detail. The draft regulations define “purposes relating to policing” by reference to well-established policing functions. They specify that the purposes include: first, protecting life and property; secondly, preserving order; thirdly, preventing the commission of offences; fourthly, bringing offenders to justice; and, finally, any other police duty or responsibility arising from common or statute law. That means that trailer registration information can be used where it is operationally necessary, ensuring that the DVLA can give forces timely access when they need it to carry out their vital functions. That might, for example, be in a safeguarding context. Other potential uses include roads policing or the response to serious incidents, as well as criminal investigations.

I should clarify what the regulations do not do: they do not create new powers, nor do they expand the categories of information that may be shared. They simply define the scope within which existing statutory powers may be exercised. Clearly, the sharing and use of information must be supported by appropriate safeguards. I therefore say to the Committee that the draft regulations are limited and proportionate. They do not impose new duties on the police or the Home Office. They do not alter the wider legal framework in which they sit. Existing protections continue to apply, including under the Data Protection Act 2018, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the relevant public law principles. The Information Commissioner’s Office has been consulted and has expressed no concerns in respect of this legislative change. Taken together, the safeguards are there to ensure lawful and proportionate use of trailer registration information.

Under section 36(9) of the 2025 Act, the Home Office consulted Scottish Ministers, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and policing bodies across the UK. Responses indicated broad agreement that the proposed definition reflects all policing functions. Where consultees suggested refinements, the Government concluded that these matters were already encompassed within the proposed definition, and that the approach aligns with the established policing codes of practice and information-handling frameworks. In Scotland, the Scottish policing principles will continue to apply and did not need to be separately referenced in the draft regulations. The draft regulations will apply across the UK, and they are expected to be implemented through existing operational and IT processes without the need for new systems or additional funding.

The draft regulations are necessary to give full effect to the trailer registration information-sharing provisions in the 2025 Act. They are designed to bring clarity and consistency to processes that, subject to appropriate safeguards, will support the police and the Home Office in their vital work. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I have a message to the Whips: if they put the Chair of the relevant Select Committee on a Delegated Legislation Committee, they may find that it takes slightly longer than they were expecting—[Interruption.] I am fine for now, but the Whips might want to think about that.

I want to take the opportunity put a few questions to the Minister. First, will this measure be used purely for immigration offences? When I was invited by the Metropolitan police to join the policing operation for Notting Hill carnival, I was very struck that the majority of the offenders who were picked up by the facial recognition technology being deployed were actually wanted for sexual and domestic abuse offences.

I thought that such an event was a very good way to attract those offenders, as it is one where people are scantily clad and therefore might attract those who are more inclined that way—[Interruption.] I can see Members’ looks of shock, but that is the point the police made to me. The Notting Hill carnival is an occasion that people want to attend purely for the opportunity to offend and sexually abuse those taking part, which is absolutely wrong. The facial recognition technology was picking up sexual offenders, not drug offenders or the other things that we might think of with Notting Hill carnival. This legislation could be used beyond just immigration enforcement—for violence against women and girls and other offences—and I hope the Minister can confirm that it will be.

I am also curious to know whether “policing” will include immigration enforcement. Again, from the work we have done in the Select Committee I have been struck by the number of people who have arrived, claimed asylum and do not have the right to work but do continue to work, and immigration enforcement should be able to share information on trailers and other vehicles if people who are here without the right to work are trying to work, so that we can stop that and remove that incentive.

My final point is wider. I wonder whether the Government are looking at extending the registration scheme to boat engines, perhaps in a Europe-wide scheme. If we had a Europe-wide register of boat engines, law enforcement across the continent might have more traceability of those boats that are trying to leave northern France, Belgium and other places. I wonder whether there may be scope to further the measure.

4.41 pm

[Anna Turley]

I thank all Members for their thoughtful consideration of the statutory instrument. I welcome them—that is why we are here. I will start by mentioning some of the broader context, which I hope will address some of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands.

The statutory instrument is in the context of our broader work to strengthen border security and tackle organised crime, which we take extremely seriously. I am grateful to Opposition Members for their engagement through the Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee. We are looking through the border security plan to target the whole criminal model, as the right hon. Lady says, from smugglers to the supply of boats, engines, international routes used, criminal finance and online advertising.

We know that by the time people get to the beaches of France, it is almost too late. We are working throughout the whole process to try to address the causes, the supply chains and the organised crimes behind this. International co-operation is central to that effort, and we are strengthening co-ordination with France and other European partners while disrupting organised criminal networks, equipment and facilitators further upstream. To reassure the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, that effort is producing results, as he knows: small boat arrivals down by over 40%, more than 6,500 organised immigration crime disruptions and over 80,000 removals. But these gangs are highly adaptable; they change launch locations, vessels, supply routes and operating methods when pressure is applied. We are therefore ensuring the system can identify those changes quickly, assign responsibility and respond when new methods become established.

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, I can confirm that the instrument will apply to all relevant policing purposes, which include immigration enforcement operations, the issue that she mentioned of sexual offending and other policing uses. Its purpose is far broader than purely immigration. It is to support the police to have access to trailer information that, by some anomaly, they have not had access to historically.

I am grateful to colleagues for their thoughtful and constructive questions and points, and for their support for the draft regulations. They are proportionate and focused, and do not introduce new powers to collect information, nor do they create new policing functions. They provide clarity and consistency, ensuring that trailer registration information can be used in support of legitimate policing activity, subject to the safeguards and protections that Parliament has already put in place. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I wish to speak briefly against clause 38. Public order disqualification, in the way it has been applied so far, has exacerbated ongoing systemic issues arising from failures in identification and safeguards within the criminal justice system. Available evidence shows that this provision has disproportionately affected individuals subjected to criminal exploitation.

As we heard when discussing previous clauses, many survivors of criminal exploitation were forced to commit offences as part of their exploitation. They are often prosecuted for those crimes as a result of gaps in the application of the non-punishment principle in the UK, including defences under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Those who have criminal convictions are at heightened risk of exploitation, too. The criminalisation of survivors has been used time and again as a tool to control people and keep them in exploitation. The clause is an unnecessary extension of existing harms and should be dropped.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank colleagues for their contributions to the discussion of the clause.

Clause 38 strengthens and clarifies the public order and bad faith disqualification frameworks due to long-standing challenges in their practical operation, especially in cases involving foreign national offenders. It expands the grounds on which an individual can be disqualified if they pose a threat to national security or public order by including suspended sentences to reflect the changes in the Sentencing Act 2020. It provides clarity in statute as to what is meant by bad faith, ensuring that those who seek to misuse the system with false and fabricated claims, or by raising information for the first time only after removal directions have been set, can be disqualified, ensuring that they are not able to take advantage of the generosity of our system.

The clause also makes it clear that no further modern slavery decision making is required should someone become disqualified. Finally, it exempts child victims from disqualification on public order grounds and makes the exemption for all victims where the risk of re-trafficking is clear. The clause provides a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions and strengthens the Government’s ability to respond where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system.

I shall respond to some of the points that hon. Members made. The shadow Minister asked for case studies or examples of where the clause would be implemented. Suppose that individual C is convicted and receives an 11-month custodial sentence for common assault, battery or breach of a restraining order, which are not covered by public order disqualifications; when they raise modern slavery grounds, that is considered by the national referral mechanism. Where they are a victim, the individual will proceed through the decision-making stages, gaining protection from removal and access to support, and on to a conclusive grounds determination. Where they have ongoing needs and no right to remain, they would get a temporary permission to stay consideration.

Under the new system, even if individual C is a modern slavery victim, a foreign national offender who has received any custodial sentence, including a suspended sentence, will fall within scope of public order disqualification. Where the disqualification is applied, they will be disqualified from support and no further decision making on modern slavery will take place unless an “immediate and significant” risk of re-trafficking in the UK is identified. That means they will not receive a conclusive grounds decision and will not therefore be eligible for temporary permission to stay. British nationals are subject to a different threshold; they will be disqualified on the basis of a public order threat where they have committed one of the crimes set out in section 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The shadow Minister also asked why children are still in scope of the national security limit disqualification. It is right that we can withhold modern slavery protections where an individual poses a threat to national security. That principle should apply regardless of age. Retaining the power to disqualify a child on national security grounds exists solely as a backstop for the rare circumstances in which an individual under 18 poses a significantly serious national security threat and disqualification from the national referral mechanism is therefore appropriate. The exception to disqualification where there is a risk of re-trafficking in the UK will still apply and require decision makers to consider the facts of each case.

This approach intends to strike an appropriate balance between safeguarding children and ensuring that national security considerations are prioritised where necessary. In parallel with our modern slavery response, the UK has one of the most robust counter-terrorism frameworks in the world. Prevent is one of the four pillars of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy; it operates in the non-criminal space and is designed to support people away from radicalisation before they commit an offence. The Home Office is testing new approaches to better spot and refer individuals at risk of radicalisation online, and testing how those insights can be translated into timely, proportionate interventions. That is particularly important considering the rise in children being arrested for terrorism-related activity, much of which is carried out online.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked about how we will ensure people who are exploited in criminal activity will not be unduly penalised for the exploitation that they have suffered. It is important to flag that the criminal justice system contains safeguards against penalising victims of exploitation, including under section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That provides a defence in criminal proceedings for people who have been forced or compelled to commit crimes through slavery or exploitation. Clause 38 also expressly sets out that disqualification will not apply where a person is considered to be at “immediate and significant risk” of exploitation in the UK.

I hope I have responded to all of the questions that hon. Members had and provided clarification. I commend amendments 114 to 118 and clause 38 to the Committee.

Amendment 114 agreed to..

Amendment 115 to 118 agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 39

Removal of duty to grant leave to remain to assist recovery

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 39, page 43, line 13, at end insert—

‘(za) in subsection (1)—

(i) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a),

(ii) in paragraph (b), after “leave to” insert “enter or”, and

(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert

“, and

(c) who does not have a right of abode in the United Kingdom”,’

This amendment will clarify that the duty to grant limited leave to remain to a victim of slavery or human trafficking does not apply if the victim already has leave to enter the United Kingdom or a right of abode in the United Kingdom.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 29—Changes to leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking—

“(1) Section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (2), substitute—

‘(2) The Secretary of State must grant the person—

(a) leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a period lasting no less than 60 months,

(b) recourse to public funds, and

(c) the right to work.’

(3) After subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) A person granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom under subsection (2) is eligible for settlement in the United Kingdom after residing, with any form of leave, in the United Kingdom for a period of five years.”

(4) Omit subsections (4) and (5).’”

This new clause is a redrafted version of Clause 39 and would, if that clause is omitted, give limited leave to remain to all victims of slavery or human trafficking and prevent such leave being withheld if the Secretary of State believes a victim’s needs can be met elsewhere.

[Anna Turley]

Through the Bill, the Government are seeking to simplify and clarify protection and leave routes while ensuring fairness and public confidence in the system. The modern slavery system and the associated temporary permission to stay provision are not intended to be a broad route to immigration status for victims of modern slavery. Instead, the UK offers comprehensive protection and leave routes for individuals who would otherwise be at risk upon return or who need to remain in the UK for broader reasons.

The modern slavery-specific provision is intended for very particular purposes, which clause 39 clarifies. The clause will end the provision of a specific form of modern slavery leave to remain in the UK to assist victims in their recovery from physical or psychological harm arising from their exploitation. The Government’s view is that granting temporary permission to stay on recovery grounds goes beyond what is necessary to meet our international obligations, and we simply need to restore the right balance to the system. Temporary permission to stay will remain available for victims who need to remain in the UK to seek compensation or to support police investigations to bring perpetrators to justice.

I want to be extremely clear up front that this Government remain absolutely committed to supporting victims of modern slavery. This change does not alter the support entitlements for victims while they are in the UK. Access to modern slavery support in the UK is not dependent on the grant of temporary permission to stay. This Government provide a comprehensive support package while individuals are in the UK. Confirmed adult victims will continue to access specialist support where they have ongoing needs through the adult victim support contract and wider state services. Confirmed child victims will continue to receive statutory safeguarding support via local authorities, healthcare and the independent child trafficking guardian service.

Both currently and following this change, individuals not granted temporary permission to stay will continue to have access to other routes to remain in the UK, depending on their circumstances. Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy. For example, permission to stay may be available to a victim of modern slavery who entered the UK as an overseas domestic worker, a domestic worker in a private household or as a private servant in a diplomatic household. The change to temporary permission to stay will not alter that. An individual’s immigration status and assessment of risk upon return is considered if an individual makes a protection claim. That includes an assessment of serious harm and consideration of risk of re-trafficking and reflects risks of success of specific exploiters, wider vulnerabilities of the individual to re-trafficking and the ability of the return country to protect that individual. Any claim will be considered on its individual merits.

Clause 39 will therefore create a clearer and more coherent temporary permission to stay framework, while maintaining support for victims and preserving the appropriate immigration and protection routes for those who qualify. Amendment 119 is a technical change that clarifies the eligibility criteria for individuals to be considered for temporary permission to stay. It makes clear that individuals who already hold valid leave to enter, leave to remain or a right of abode in the United Kingdom are not eligible for temporary permission to stay.

The change relates only to eligibility for temporary permission to stay. It does not change the grounds for granting temporary permission to stay, or the entitlements available to those granted the leave. As I have already made clear, that change does not impact support entitlements. Victims will still have access to support provided through the national referral mechanism while they remain in the UK. A grant of temporary permission to stay is not needed to access support.

New clause 29 was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. I will respond to it in full once the hon. Lady has spoken about it. The clause would require the Secretary of State to grant all eligible confirmed victims of modern slavery at least five years’ leave to remain with a route towards settlement. Although I appreciate the intention behind the new clause, temporary permission to stay was never intended to be a general immigration route or a pathway towards settlement to meet the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention. The new clause goes far beyond what is proportionate and reasonable in these circumstances, though I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion’s arguments for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

Supporting a victim of modern slavery and deciding what immigration permission that person should have are related questions, but they are not the same. The law must protect people who have been exploited while maintaining an immigration system that is controlled, and that the public can have confidence in. Clause 39 removes the specific duty to grant limited leave to help someone recover from physical or psychological harm caused by their exploitation. It keeps the duty where leave is needed for a victim to seek compensation or to co-operate with an investigation or criminal proceedings.

Whatever some may claim, this is not the removal of every route by which a confirmed victim can receive leave. The Opposition support keeping this route focused on a specific, evidenced need. A finding that someone has been exploited does not answer every question about where they should live or for how long. The Minister needs to tell us how this will work for a genuine victim who still needs help, and how continuity of recovery support will be ensured.

There is also a bigger point here: the grounds that remain are the ones that matter most for bringing traffickers to justice. However, according to the figures that charities have put before the Committee, in 2024 only a handful of grants were made so that victims could seek compensation or help with criminal proceedings. A prosecution that collapses because the key witness left the country is a win for the trafficker, and nobody on the Committee wants that. Can the Minister tell us how the Home Office will ensure that these remaining grounds are actually used, and that its decisions never undermine a victim’s ability to help put an exploiter behind bars?

Government amendment 119 adds existing leave to enter and the right of abode to the circumstances in which there is no duty to grant leave under this provision. Avoiding duplication makes sense, and we support it. New clause 29 goes in a very different direction: it would require at least five years’ leave for qualifying confirmed victims, with access to public funds and permission to work, as well as eligibility for settlement after five years’ residence with any form of leave. That is a very substantial immigration proposal, and it would send exactly the wrong signal to the gangs who sell places on small boats. We oppose it.

Being recognised as a victim is a serious finding, but it should not automatically settle the separate question of a long period of residence, access to public funds and a route to settlement. Those who back the new clause need to explain why five years is the right minimum in every single qualifying case; how many people it would cover; what it would cost in housing and public services; and why residence under any form of leave should count towards settlement. We support clause 39 and Government amendment 119, and we hope that the Minister will set out the safeguards that will sit alongside them.

[Anna Turley]

I thank all the hon. Members who have tabled amendments in this group and contributed to the debate. I want to start with new clause 29, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. As was set out earlier, it would grant eligible confirmed victims of modern slavery at least five years’ leave to remain, with a route towards settlement.

I want to be clear that temporary permission to stay is a targeted and temporary form of leave designed to meet specific needs arising from an individual’s experience of exploitation that meets the UK’s international obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Temporary permission to stay will continue to be available where it is necessary for a confirmed victim to remain in the UK to co-operate with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of crimes or to seek compensation in relation to their exploitation.

New clause 29 would require the Government to grant leave in a way that would go beyond what is proportionate or reasonable and would significantly exceed what is required under our international obligations.

[Siân Berry]

I asked in my speech not about people claiming asylum but about those here under other forms of immigration status. Does the Minister not see the replacement of those with VTS leave being reduced as a result of clause 39? That is one of the problems that I wanted to raise. When people are here under potentially coercive forms of leave, such as sponsored work visas, will VTS leave still be available as a replacement to prevent people being left in the hands of exploiters?

[Anna Turley]

I will cover that in the more in-depth response to the hon. Lady’s comments at the appropriate time.

As I said, the new clause would require the Government to grant leave in a way that would go beyond what is proportionate or reasonable, and that would significantly exceed what is required under our international obligations. When individuals require protection or are seeking to remain in the UK, other routes remain available, depending on the individual circumstances. Creating an automatic pathway to long-term leave and settlement through modern slavery provisions would conflate the modern slavery identification and support system with an immigration route, and thus risks blurring that distinction. That has the potential to increase opportunities for improper use of the system and would have significant implications for wider immigration objectives, which we have been clear must operate on the principles of fairness.

I hope to cover some of the points that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion raised—if I fail to pick them up, I ask her to come back to me or I can respond in writing. She asked whether the temporary permission to stay framework meets our international obligations. Decision to grant temporary permission to stay does not automatically lead to removal from the UK. There are various routes to remain in the UK that will remain available to foreign nationals depending on their circumstances. Any applications will be considered on their individual merits in line with published policy.

The hon. Lady asked whether any further statistics could be shared. Temporary permission to stay data is currently drawn from a number of different Home Office systems. Further work is under way to establish the most robust dataset. We are continuing to assess what information can be shared publicly and we will provide further data in due course where appropriate.

The hon. Lady also asked whether we are disadvantaging people by removing recovery from exploitation. The measure does not prevent individuals from accessing support from the point of their positive reasonable grounds decision—or earlier, if emergency support is required to assist with recovery from their exploitation. Access to the national referral mechanism support is based on national referral mechanism status, not immigration status. All adult victims in England and Wales who need to can continue to access specialist needs-based support to assist their recovery, irrespective of their immigration status or a refusal of temporary permission to stay.

The hon. Lady also flagged whether the changes were compliant with international law. The Government’s view is that the change to the temporary permission to stay policy absolutely does not impede our compliance with our international compliance. Temporary permission to stay, in its current forms, goes beyond what is required under article 14 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. The changes will provide stronger clarity on the UK’s obligations while still complying with article 14.

Article 4 of the European convention on human rights imposes a positive obligation on member states to identify and protect victims of trafficking, which is met in part through the operation of the national referral mechanism. That obligation does not go so far as to require member states to grant leave. In any event, support is not dependent on temporary permission to stay leave being granted, so that even when an individual is not granted temporary permission to stay leave, they can still access modern slavery support while they remain in the UK.

Further, an individual’s immigration status and assessment of risk on return are considered if an individual makes a protection claim. That includes an assessment of whether the individual has a well-founded fear of persecution or is at real risk of serious harm. Any claim will be considered on its individual merits, in line with published policy and country information.

The hon. Lady also asked about skilled workers. As of 8 October 2026, skilled workers who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, where that decision was made during their most recent permission, may have their visa amended for the remaining period of extant leave. Individuals will not need to be sponsored and can work in any occupation. The change supports skilled workers to leave exploitative employers and move to new, safe employment. In the immigration White Paper, the Government committed to explore introducing further reforms to our sponsorship system by putting more responsibility and accountability on effective and responsible sponsors. That will include exploring whether the Government can make it easier for workers to move between licensed sponsors for the duration of their visa, giving them more control over who they work for and reducing the risk of exploitation.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked what the changes will mean for compensation and people’s co-operation with the process. Under the changes to temporary permission to stay, victims can continue to engage with law enforcement agencies in supporting criminal investigations and pursue compensation in relation to their exploitation. By focusing temporary permission to stay on those specific purposes, the Government can ensure that it remains available in supporting victims’ engagement with the criminal justice system and accessing compensation. More broadly, the Government are strengthening the tools available to law enforcement and courts to disrupt criminal activity, prevent modern slavery and protect those at risk.

On victim engagement with the criminal justice system, I should say that the modern slavery victim care contract provides adult victims in the national referral mechanism with a dedicated support worker to assist them to access legal aid and legal representation. That support will be further strengthened when the modern slavery victim care contract is replaced by the new support for victims of modern slavery service. The new contract introduces specialist support workers to help victims to engage better with the criminal justice system. That will include, but is not limited to, providing tailored guidance and advocacy to help victims understand complex legal processes, and helping to remove barriers to accessing and receiving the assistance they need at every point in the criminal justice process.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 41 and 42 stand part.

[Anna Turley]

I turn to our commitments to ensure that all exploited and trafficked children can access the support they need for their recovery. Clause 40 seeks to amend sections 48 and 58 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to rename independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians, following the recommendation of the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act and the subsequent renaming of the role in June 2019. The Government consider that “guardian” better reflects the role and is more easily understood and used by children and the professionals supporting them. The clause makes a change in terminology and does not alter the functions or powers of independent child trafficking advocates.

As I have said, this Government are committed to supporting vulnerable children. Clause 41 makes clear our ongoing commitment to providing specialist modern slavery support for children through independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. The clause ensures that all children in England and Wales who are potential victims of this horrendous crime will have a statutory right to access that support. It reflects the lessons learned from the existing pilot and stakeholder engagement, and gives independent child trafficking guardians flexibility to respond to each child’s needs. It clarifies that they can provide representation, support, or both—either directly to the child or indirectly by supporting other professionals who provide services or make decisions about the child.

Although independent child trafficking guardians already engage in practice from the point of referral, references to “reasonable grounds” in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act risk creating confusion with national referral mechanism decision-making thresholds, which in turn risks an inconsistent approach to supporting vulnerable children. The clause clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and implements recommendations made by the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act. Importantly, it also clarifies the need for collaboration by requiring public bodies to have due regard to independent child trafficking guardians’ expertise, to share relevant information and to involve independent child trafficking guardians in discussions and decisions relating to the child. That will help independent child trafficking guardians work effectively with the authorities responsible for the child’s care, providing specialist expertise to help make sure that children access the support required to recover from this awful abuse.

Further detail will be outlined in the regulations and statutory guidance, which will be published alongside the national roll-out of the service. The clause ensures that there is clear and consistent support for exploited children; I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 42 removes a fulfilled requirement in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the Modern Slavery Act’s being passed.

The then Government fulfilled that obligation in 2015 when they laid before Parliament a report setting out their proposed approach to implementing the service. Since then, the independent child trafficking guardian service has been developed, tested and refined through the pilot service, independent evaluations, feedback from children and young people, and the recommendations from the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The requirement to report again on the proposed approach is therefore no longer necessary as the service model is now established and its operation is well understood. The clause also removes the specific commencement provisions relating to the independent child trafficking guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The relevant provisions in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act will instead be subject to the general commencement arrangements in the Act. The clause does not itself alter the functions or powers of independent child trafficking guardians. I commend clauses 40 to 42 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

A child who has been trafficked or enslaved has already been let down by adults in the worst way imaginable; they now need adults who will take responsibility and keep them safe, not a maze of agencies arguing about whose job that is. That is the test that we apply to these clauses and, based on that test, the Opposition support them.

Clause 40 renames independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians. Those advocates were one of the innovations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and we have no difficulty with a title that better describes their role. However, a new name will not, on its own, protect a single child. What matters is whether the guardian has the expertise, access and authority to make a difference.

Clause 41 is more substantive. It allows guardians to provide representation, support or both, and makes clear that the role covers children who may be victims of slavery as well as trafficking. That recognises that exploitation does not always fit neatly into one box. Many of us have seen in our own communities how county line gangs groom children to run drugs. That is exploitation, plain and simple.

The clause also allows assistance to be given indirectly through the professionals who provide services to or make decisions about the child. Helping those professionals to understand the risks has real value, but indirect support must never become a convenient substitute for someone actually being there for a child who needs them. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us who will decide whether indirect support is enough and how the child’s own voice will be heard in that decision.

The guardians’ involvement in decisions must also be meaningful. There is little point in appointing someone to stand up for a child if the big decisions have been made before they are in the room. Guardians also need a clear and fast route to the police when an exploiter is trying to get back in touch with a child. They are part of the safeguarding response, and the gangs who prey on children must be hunted down and prosecuted.

Clause 42 would remove the requirement to report to Parliament on proposed steps under section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act and change the commencement arrangements. In July, the Government announced £25 million to extend the guardian service to the remaining 179 local authorities in England that do not have it yet. We welcome that, but a child in one of those areas needs a guardian now. Can the Minister tell us when the service will be available in every one of them? Removing a reporting requirement must not mean that Parliament knows less about whether children are actually being kept safe.

Finally, the service will work only if it can meet demand. Can the Minister tell us how many children the expanded service is expected to support and what will happen when demand outstrips capacity? The Government should set out how they will measure whether guardians are actually making children safer, to ensure that this is a real step forward and not simply a change of name. We support clauses 40 to 42.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions; I will seek to respond to them in my reply. This group of clauses makes clear the Government’s commitment to providing specialist modern slavery support for children through the independent child trafficking guardians across England and Wales. Clause 40 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to rename independent child trafficking advocates as independent child trafficking guardians, as recommended by the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, and their service’s renaming in 2019.

Clause 41 ensures that all children in England and Wales have a statutory right to access support. It reflects lessons learned from existing pilot and stakeholder engagement. It clarifies that support should be provided at the earliest opportunity, and the need for collaboration between independent child trafficking guardians and public bodies.

Clause 42 removes a requirement in the 2015 Act for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report setting out proposed steps in relation to the arrangements for independent child trafficking guardians within nine months of the Act being passed. The Government at the time fulfilled the obligation and now consider it unnecessary. It removes the commencement provisions relating to independent child trafficking guardian measures in section 61 of the Modern Slavery Act. Instead, they will be subject to general commencement arrangements in the Act.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about the UK-wide application of the child trafficking guardianship service. In England and Wales, we recently announced a £25 million investment in the national independent child trafficking guardianship service, which—combined with the provisions in the Bill to place the guardian support on a statutory footing—will end the postcode lottery and ensure that exploited and trafficked children will have access to the support that they need.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the model and how we decided on the more indirect model. The independent child trafficking guardian support model remains largely unchanged from the 2024 operational model. This flexible, needs-based approach was found better to meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent child trafficking guardian service, published in 2024. It is supported by best practice and the Home Office response to the modern slavery review.

Every child is entitled to indirect support where independent child trafficking guardians promote effective, multi-agency working to ensure that the child’s needs are met by the most appropriate professional, and provide specialist modern slavery and exploitation expertise to support professionals who may already have established relationships with children. Direct one-to-one support is generally provided to children with no figure of parental responsibility in the UK. However, the service also has the flexibility to provide direct support in other cases where that is appropriate to meet a child’s needs. As the independent child trafficking guardian service is rolled out nationally, the Government will continue to monitor and evaluate its impact to ensure that it remains effective in supporting child victims of modern slavery.

The hon. Gentleman asked about safeguarding partners. If they already have legal duties, why are independent child trafficking guardians needed, and how will different organisations work together not to duplicate the contact with the child and the help for that child to navigate the system? Independent child trafficking guardians provide specialist modern slavery expertise and independent advocacy, complementing rather than duplicating the statutory safeguarding role of other agencies. The legislation strengthens collaboration by requiring public bodies to have due regard to independent child trafficking guardians’ views and recommendations, to provide access to the relevant information and to involve independent child trafficking guardians in discussions and decisions relating to the child.

That means that public authorities must properly consider and take account of independent child trafficking guardians’ views when exercising their functions, but retain responsibility for making decisions and discharging their statutory duties. Details of how that will be achieved will be outlined in the independent child trafficking guardians statutory guidance, which will be published alongside national roll-out of the guardians service. The legislation does not require public authorities to follow any particular recommendation made by an independent child trafficking guardian. Rather, public authorities must have due regard to the independent child trafficking guardian’s views and recommendations before reaching their own decisions. That requirement will be further supplemented by guidance. For public bodies not paying due regard to independent child trafficking guardians, concerns may be expressed through existing safeguarding and accountability processes. Public bodies remain accountable for ensuring that the decisions are lawful, properly reasoned and consistent with their statutory duties.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked further about indirect and direct support, and the more appropriate form of it. It will be for Barnardo’s—the service provider—to determine what support a child needs. Clear guidance will be provided by the Home Office. The service also has the flexibility to determine where direct support is appropriate to meet a child’s needs, for instance where there is no figure of parental responsibility for the child in the UK. We believe it is appropriate this decision making sit with the service provider that is best able to make this decision. This flexible, needs-based approach was found to better meet the needs of vulnerable children by the independent evaluation of the independent child trafficking guardian service, published in 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

It is my view and that of a wide range of refugee and modern slavery organisations that clause 43, particularly subsection (3), is incompatible with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which puts a duty on state parties to afford support to survivors of modern slavery in receipt of a reasonable grounds decision. The removal of the duty to provide support will put adults, children and young people at risk of destitution, homelessness and further harm, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses.

We know that trauma can manifest in a wide range of ways and may significantly affect an individual’s ability to engage consistently with support services or comply with procedural requirements. Penalising people for such difficulties fails to take account of the realities of trauma and recovery and, again, creates detriment from a known feature of abuse. Additionally, while we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, they do need to receive adequate resources in order to discharge those duties appropriately and in the best interests of the child. Local authorities do not currently receive any funding to offer specialist support to children affected by trafficking and exploitation, and my amendments to this clause therefore seek both to reduce the harms being caused by it and to boost the support that can be offered to survivors.

Amendment 70 would remove subsection (3) and take away the Secretary of State’s power to override professional assessments. Support for the survivors of modern slavery is currently delivered through Government-funded contracts such as the modern slavery victim care contract in England and Wales, and equivalent arrangements across the devolved Administrations. Specialist organisations and trained support workers provide this support directly to survivors and are responsible for carrying out detailed assessments of need. The assessments should be informed by the professional expertise of frontline practitioners and crucially by survivors’ own views and experiences. I believe that support workers and survivors are best placed to identify an individual’s needs, because they are in direct and ongoing contact with the person concerned. It would therefore be harmful for the Secretary of State, who is removed from this direct engagement, to override such assessments without having had contact with the individual or a comparable understanding of their circumstances.

Allowing decision makers who are distant from a survivor’s situation to disregard professional assessments risks undermining survivor-centred support and could result in people being discharged from support with outstanding high needs. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has presented further evidence to us on these points, around subsection (3). It says that it

“reflects the operational reality of how the MSVCC contract already functions in assessing survivors' needs.”

It therefore makes worse what is already bad. At the moment, an MSVCC provider completes a needs assessment and submits it to the Home Office for approval. The Home Office then reviews the assessment and either agrees or disagrees with both the assessment itself and the level of support recommended. It is concerning that this decision maker power, that ultimately rests with the Home Office, will be given directly to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State will be even further removed from the care, safeguarding and day-to-day insight available to frontline service providers, and could issue blanket rules or directives in situations of strained resources, for example, that would even more arbitrarily remove support from survivors. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group tells us that there is evidence for already ongoing issues with meeting the thresholds required to secure additional support, including for mental health needs. The recovery needs assessment process is highly bureaucratic—individuals are often discharged from support despite having significant unmet needs. If a similar approach is applied to decisions relating to the recovery and reflection period, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be discharged from support while still experiencing high levels of unmet need, exposing them to an increased risk of re-exploitation.

In amendment 72, I have asked for assistance to apply to children. While we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, I think it is very important that the Secretary of State retains an overarching duty to ensure that children receive support in line with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. This would help ensure national accountability for the protection and recovery of child victims of trafficking and not leave it to the piecemeal provisions of local authorities. Maintaining this duty would also ensure that the Secretary of State remains responsible for ensuring that local authorities are adequately resourced, as my next amendment would require. It would be, therefore, an important safeguard to ensure that all children receive the support and assistance to which they are entitled, regardless of where they are located.

Amendment 73 would ensure funding for local authorities to support children. We need to make sure that they have adequate resources to discharge their duties in the best interest of children. Currently, local authorities do not receive any specialist support funding for children affected by trafficking and exploitation, but it is essential, as is the mainstream child protection that local authorities provide. The charity, ECPAT, which stands for Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, has told me that not providing dedicated funding to local authorities to meet the ECAT entitlements of children leaves an enormous gap. It says that the Home Office provides local authorities with £143 per child, per night, towards the cost of supporting unaccompanied children, but there is no equivalent funding attached to a child’s identification as a potential victim of trafficking. That responsibility is placed on the existing social care system, which we all know is under substantial financial pressure. I really hope that the Government will listen to that point.

A final point in relation to subsection (3) is that all it says is

“where the Secretary of State disagrees”

—which is incredibly broad. Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State will publish criteria governing when this override power may be used, and will she address the fact that there is currently no defined threshold for displacing an authorised person’s professional assessment by the Home Office? I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I want to see the risks and problems identified by them addressed, either in regulations or in the Bill, before the legislation leaves this House and goes to the other place.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendments 70 to 73, which propose several changes to clause 43 on support and assistance provided to adult and child potential victims of modern slavery. I will start by reiterating the purpose of clause 43 and then turn to the amendments. Currently, where a potential victim has had suitable statutory support put in place to meet a modern slavery need, and that support is removed due to their conduct, the Secretary of State is required to provide that person with the equivalent support again. That results in the duplication of support provided across Government and the associated excessive costs to the taxpayer.

Clause 43 will ensure that the Secretary of State is not required to provide equivalent support again in those circumstances. For example, if a potential victim has their asylum accommodation withdrawn because they did not follow asylum support conditions, they will no longer be able to access equivalent modern slavery accommodation in its place. That will safeguard the integrity of the modern slavery system, ensuring support is not provided unconditionally and indefinitely. We recognise, however, the specific vulnerabilities and impact that trauma may have on an individual’s conduct. To safeguard vulnerable victims, support will not be withheld if there is a good reason, related to their modern slavery experience, for the conduct that led to that element of support being removed.

I wish to be clear that the Government remain committed to supporting vulnerable people. We have invested £25 million in the national independent child trafficking guardianship service and are in the process of procuring the new adult victim support contract to assist victims to achieve long-term stability and to live independently, and to reduce their risk of re-exploitation. Together, those investments form part of our wider programme of modern slavery reform, designed to safeguard the integrity of the system and ensure that resources are targeted at those who need them.

Clause 43 also makes technical amendments to section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. They will not change the support provided to adult or child victims; rather, the clause ensures that current support arrangements for adult and child victims are correctly reflected in statute. In line with existing practice, the amendments remove children from the provision to reflect that local authorities safeguard and promote the welfare of all children within their area, and the independent child trafficking guardian service provides further specialist modern slavery support. The amendments also make it clear that an authorised support provider can assess the support needs of adult victims of modern slavery.

Turning to amendments 70 to 73, the Government understand that their intention is to safeguard vulnerable potential victims. The Government share that commitment and are equally committed to ensuring that all victims of modern slavery, including child victims, can access the necessary support and assistance they require. The Government do not, however, consider the amendments necessary. In fact, they directly contradict the intention of clause 43 in two ways.

First, amendment 70 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to override an authorised person’s assessment that support is necessary to assist a potential victim in their recovery. That would mean that the Secretary of State would be unable to intervene where appropriate to ensure that the outcome of a support assessment aligned with the relevant statutory guidance. That is a necessary power, ensuring fairness in the provision of support to adult victims across England and Wales. The power provides an important safeguard to ensure that Government-issued guidance on the assessment of necessary support is appropriately adhered to.

The need to intervene may arise in particularly complex cases and where other state support services have jurisdiction. For example, where an authorised support provider has determined that financial support is necessary but has not accounted for income the victim receives from another statutory service, the Secretary of State must be able to intervene to ensure that financial support is not provided where it is not necessary, in line with guidance.

As an another example, where an authorised support provider has determined that ongoing support should be provided to a victim despite their lack of engagement, but it has not given due attention to the non-engagement policy and the other statutory support available to a victim, the Secretary of State must be able to intervene to withdraw that support in line with statutory guidance on non-engagement to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the policy across victims in England and Wales. I want to be clear, however, that the Home Office has a robust contract management regime in place to ensure that our supplier will deliver a high-quality service to victims in line with its contractual obligations underpinned by statutory guidance. The supplier has consistently met and exceeded delivery expectations, and the Home Office has a strong relationship with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

My concern is that subsection (3) provides the Home Secretary with a broad, unqualified power to disagree with the assessments that the Minister has just mentioned. Amendment 71 seems to provide a perfectly reasonable set of safeguards against breaching those international obligations. Will the Minister look at providing more detail about the criteria that the Home Secretary would use in future regulation to reassure us?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady referencing that. Of course, we will always consider any issues and desires for clarification that are raised in this Committee through the development of the regulations. Her concerns have been noted, but I am reassured that we are compliant with the ECAT and ECHR obligations.

The hon. Lady made a couple of other points about a potential increase in homelessness and destitution. The Home Office remains committed to meeting legal obligations, ensuring that policies do not leave people destitute or at risk of re-trafficking. However, individuals should not be able to use modern slavery to circumvent the conditions for other statutory support services. To ensure a coherent approach across Government to supporting victims, adult modern slavery support will be withheld in particular circumstances in order to align with decisions made by wider statutory services to withdraw support from someone who has failed to follow reasonable conditions.

To safeguard vulnerable victims, support will not be withheld if a victim has a good reason related to their modern slavery experience to explain why they were unable to meet reasonable conditions. As only the particular element of modern slavery support that was removed by another service will be withheld, where necessary, support worker assistance will remain available to advise and signpost to other avenues of accommodation or financial support.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Office’s oversight and monitoring of local authorities to ensure that children do not fall through gaps in provision. I think I have covered most of that, but the children’s social care national framework is statutory guidance for local authorities that sets the national direction for practice. It provides clarity on the outcomes that children’s social care should achieve for children, young people and families. “Working Together to Safeguard Children 2026” is the multi-agency statutory guidance. It provides detailed information on the duties and responsibilities of all agencies to safeguard children.

Both pieces of statutory guidance—the national framework and “Working Together”—should be read alongside each other. Ofsted independently inspects local authority children’s services through its inspecting local authority children’s services framework. Those inspections consider the experiences and progress of children and families, the quality of practice and leadership, and whether services are meeting their statutory duties. Local authorities are assessed using performance data, reform, delivery and wider regional intelligence to determine the appropriate level of support and intervention.

As I have outlined, the amendments are unnecessary, as the Government are confident that support provisions for adult and child potential victims are compliant with our international obligations. Adult support needs assessments already consider the individual support needs and circumstances of victims, and local authorities already have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children within their areas. For the reasons outlined, I respectfully request that the amendments not be pressed.

Government amendments 120 to 123 will make minor changes to proposed new subsection 50A(5ZA) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, inserted by clause 43, to clarify how the provision will work in practice. First, amendments 120 to 122 put beyond doubt that proposed new subsection 50A(5ZA) is a targeted provision such that where a particular form of support is to be withheld, such as accommodation, the duty to provide other forms of support, such as financial support, will continue. That will prevent the duplication of support provided across Government and the associated excessive costs to taxpayers by ensuring that specific forms of support are not provided unconditionally and indefinitely. However, we recognise the specific vulnerabilities and impact that trauma may have on an individual’s conduct, which is why the amendments will make the safeguards for vulnerable potential victims clearer.

As a result of amendment 123, when decision makers are deciding whether an element of support should be withheld, they will consider whether the conduct that resulted in other statutory support being removed is attributable rather than “properly” attributable to their modern slavery experience. That is to avoid decision makers having to make unduly complex assessments, which could have an adverse impact on vulnerable potential victims. I commend Government amendments 120 to 123 and clause 43 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Support for potential victims must reach those who genuinely need it, with clear responsibility for decisions and proper accountability for every pound of taxpayers’ money. Clause 43 raises three practical questions. Who assesses that need? Who can overrule that assessment? How does this support fit alongside other services?

The clause allows an authorised person to assess the assistance someone needs while keeping a power for the Secretary of State to override a positive assessment. Amendment 70 would scrap that override. I understand the worry about specialist advice being set aside, but Ministers must remain answerable to this House for the public money in this system, so we cannot support the amendment. What the power does demand is clear reasons. I would welcome the Minister telling us when the override is expected to be used, what evidence would justify it, and how a wrong decision would be put right.

Amendment 71 would add a list of factors to be assessed, including the best interests of the person and their dependent; their individual needs; and compatibility with the relevant conventions. Good decision makers should already be weighing a person’s need, and writing a long list of factors into statute invites challenge on every one of them and risks turning each decision into a legal contest. We do not support the amendment.

Government amendments 120 to 123 are the latest in a string of changes that the Government have made to their Bill in this part alone, but these amendments are an improvement. Where someone loses support elsewhere because of their conduct, the exclusion is narrowed to the particular kind of support they have lost, rather than letting the loss of one service become a reason to withhold everything. That is a fair balance. Conditions attached to public assistance must still mean something, and the taxpayer should not simply be asked to replace support that someone has lost through their own misconduct.

Government amendment 123 removes the word “properly” from the test of whether that conduct is attributable to harm arising from exploitation. We will not oppose it, but the Minister should explain why the word is going, and confirm that it does not lower the bar. The question must still be answered on the evidence. Neither an automatic excuse nor an automatic penalty makes for good decisions.

Amendments 72 and 73 concern children. Clause 43 removes children from these Home Office support duties while separate duties on local authorities and other agencies remain. Amendment 72 would keep the Home Office duty for children, and amendment 73 would require resources for local authority provision and reporting on funding.

Protecting children is essential, but keeping two overlapping duties risks the very thing we all want to avoid: two bodies each assuming that the other has it covered while the child falls through the middle. We do not support these amendments either, but the Government must be clear about where responsibility now lies. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out who is responsible at each stage of a child’s case, how local authority provision will be funded, and what happens immediately if that provision is not there. We support clause 43 and Government amendments 120 to 123.

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Anna Turley]

I think I have answered most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, and if not, I will clarify in writing.

[Siân Berry]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 120, in clause 43, page 45, line 9, after “support” insert “of a particular kind”.

This amendment and amendments 121 and 122 clarify that where assistance or support of a particular kind would have been available from elsewhere had it not been for the victim’s conduct it is only assistance or support of that particular kind that the Secretary of State will no longer be under a duty to provide.

Amendment 121, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, leave out first “the”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 120.

Amendment 122, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, after “support” insert “of that kind”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 120.

Amendment 123, in clause 43, page 45, line 15, leave out “properly”.—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment leaves out an unnecessary word from the inserted subsection (5ZA).

Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44

Content of slavery and human trafficking statements

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I shall now speak to clauses 44 to 49. While we take seriously the need to investigate modern slavery within the UK and provide support to victims, we must also remain cognisant of the global reach of UK business and supply chains. Globally, it is estimated that 27.6 million people are trapped in forced labour, with around two thirds of those cases linked to global supply chains. Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act established the UK as the first country in the world to require businesses to report on how they are tackling modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. While the transparency in supply chains regime was widely welcomed by businesses and non-governmental organisations when it was first introduced, it has since faced criticism that it is merely a tick-box exercise that lacks any teeth in respect to enforcement.

Compliance with section 54 is difficult to quantify, but analysis from the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre in 2021 suggested that around only 60% of companies have met basic reporting requirements. This month, the Rathbones “Votes Against Slavery” report identified 194 instances of non-compliance across 160 FTSE 350 companies over the last six years. Measures in the Bill will address that by raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to improve their reporting and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger consequences for non-compliance. We are bringing in a more consistent approach to how organisations report, and by penalising those that do not comply, we can better highlight those that are taking positive action to ensure their supply chains are free from modern slavery. Those that fall short will be clearly exposed, encouraging a race to the top.

Clause 44 strengthens transparency by requiring organisations to cover mandatory content in their annual modern slavery statement, as set out in proposed new schedule 4ZA. It replaces the existing discretionary reporting areas in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act with mandatory areas in proposed new schedule 4ZA, set out in schedule 5 of the Bill. We expect businesses and the public sector to report meaningfully on the actions they are taking. In making this change, reports will become more standardised, comprehensive and open to greater public scrutiny. Clause 44 also enables the Secretary of State to amend those requirements through regulations following consultation with persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Schedule 5 sets out the information that must be provided in a slavery and human trafficking statement. Statements must include information on the organisation’s structure, operations and supply chains; risks in their operations and supply chains, and steps taken to manage those risks; policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking; relevant due diligence processes; training for staff; and an assessment of the effectiveness of action taken. If an organisation does not have any relevant information to provide under any of these topics, they must provide a reason.

This provides a clear and consistent framework for businesses and public authorities to report on action they have taken to assess and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. By standardising reporting in line with the Government’s comprehensive guidance, consumers and investors will have greater access to relevant information to support making informed choices on where to spend their money.

The Modern Slavery Act is ambiguous in its expectations on organisational accountability for the content of modern slavery statements and how group structures may meet their reporting requirements. The Government want to ensure that senior parties are held to account for the contents of their organisations’ statements, and to certify that they are current. Clause 45 mandates that signatories state that the contents of their reports are accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief, and that they sign after the end of the financial year to which it relates.

We also want to continue to allow the private sector to report in groups, where appropriate, as a means of balancing transparency with the burdens on business. Clause 45 sets out that parent companies may produce statements on behalf of their subsidiaries. It therefore clarifies responsibility for modern slavery statements by ensuring that accountability rests with a clearly identifiable senior individual. That will strengthen governance and oversight, promote greater board-level engagement and reinforce the expectation that signatories take responsibility both for the accuracy of the statement and for the organisation’s approach to managing modern slavery risks. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clauses 44 and 45, together with schedule 5, set out what businesses must tell us about modern slavery and who takes responsibility for that information. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 put responsibility on businesses to explain what they were doing about the slavery in their operations and supply chains. That was an important Conservative reform. We should build on that where there are gaps, and judge the changes by whether they help to expose and stop exploitation.

An honest business that pays its workers properly should not be undercut by someone whose low prices depend on exploitation further down the chain. Nor should a customer have to wonder whether the bargain they have bought came at somebody else’s expense. Clear information can help with both, but a longer statement is not necessarily a better one, and paying someone to produce a polished document is no substitute for checking what is happening on the ground. Clause 44 and schedule 5 make reporting topics compulsory. They cover the organisation and its supply chains; the risks and the steps taken to address them; policies, checks and staff training; and whether action taken has worked.

We support the principle of making statements more useful and easier to compare. A reader should be able to work out what an organisation has actually done without wading through pages of comforting language. Ministers will have a power to change the required content, so I would be grateful for an assurance that any future change will be assessed for its cost to business as well as for its expected benefit.

There is an important qualification, however. Schedule 5 still allows an organisation to say that it has not assessed the risk, put policies in place or taken particular steps, provided that it gives an explanation. The Minister should be clear about what is being promised. This is a duty to report on specified matters; it does not, by itself, require every organisation to take every action described in the schedule. That raises an obvious question: what happens when the same organisation reports year after year that it has done nothing? Who will look at the explanation and what will prompt further scrutiny? There is a difference between being honest about a gap and treating an annual explanation as permission to leave that gap untouched.

The detail must be workable. A company may buy through several suppliers before the chain reaches the people making the product, and information will not always be easy to obtain. Ministers need to explain what reasonable inquiries look like to avoid creating a system in which large companies simply pass endless questionnaires down to smaller firms. Small suppliers should be able to spend their time dealing with real risks, rather than answering the same question in 10 different formats. Businesses will also need proper notice before the new requirements apply; I hope the Minister will tell us how much notice they will get.

Clause 45 deals with approval and signing, including certification by a parent undertaking. That can avoid duplication, but it must not allow the activities of a subsidiary to disappear inside a vague statement about the wider group. The person signing should have asked enough questions to stand behind the declaration of accuracy. Board approval should mean that somebody has actually paid attention. The Minister should explain how group reporting will stay clear about which businesses it covers, and what evidence directors should have in front of them before they sign. We support clearer reporting and proper responsibility at the top, but the Government must show that the changes will help to identify exploitation, and that the information produced will actually be used. Otherwise, we will have added to the paperwork and left the people being exploited exactly where they were.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions on these important measures, which we are very proud to bring in.

As discussed, clause 44 strengthens the transparency of modern slavery statements by requiring organisations to cover the mandatory topics set out in schedule 4ZA. That will allow statements to be more standardised and comprehensive, and open to greater public scrutiny. Schedule 5 provides a clear and consistent framework for businesses and public authorities to report on the action they have taken to assess and address risks of modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. Clause 45 improves accountability for reporting by holding senior parties to account, while also allowing private sector group structures to balance transparency on those important issues with the burdens of running a business.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the mandatory content requirements would be. As I said, they are set out in schedule 5. Statements will need to contain information on the organisation’s structure, operations and supply chains; the modern slavery risks within them; the steps taken to address those risks; modern slavery policies; due diligence processes; relevant staff training; and the assessment of the organisation’s effectiveness in preventing modern slavery in its operations and supply chains. If a statement does not contain relevant information under any of those topics, the organisation must state that the information has not been included for that topic and give a reason why. The mandatory content requirements align with updated statutory guidance published in March 2025. The guidance was updated with input from stakeholders from Government, business, civil society and academia to ensure that it reflects best practice and international standards.

The hon. Gentleman asked why these topics in particular have been selected. They build on the voluntary topics set out in the original legislation, informed by the updated statutory guidance, which, as I have just outlined, was developed in consultation with stakeholders. The guidance sets out how an organisation may produce a modern slavery statement in line with best practice and international standards, which include the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD due diligence guidance for responsible business conduct. The mandatory topics also align with legislation in Australia and Canada. Organisations in scope of reporting requirements across the three jurisdictions may use the joint-reporting template published in July 2025 to create one statement that would be compliant in all three countries.

The hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement, about organisations that have said they would take no action or have identified no risk, and about what teeth are behind the measures. The new measures require businesses to provide a reason if they have not taken any steps to assess modern slavery risks. If they have assessed that there are no risks, they must set out their risk assessment approach. The purpose of the regime is not to penalise organisations for identifying risks or for being at an earlier stage in managing them, but to ensure greater transparency about the action they are taking and the basis for their decisions.

By bringing a more consistent approach to how businesses report, we can better shine a light on those that take positive action to ensure that their supply chains are free from modern slavery, and highlight those that fall short, encouraging a race to the top. Stronger transparency enables consumers and investors to make informed choices and hold businesses and private sector organisations to account, encouraging more proactive efforts to manage modern slavery in supply chains. Of course, we will consider some of the other reporting and monitoring measures, and the punishment measures, as part of the coming groups.

On businesses wanting further clarity on reporting requirements, we consulted widely, as I have said, with businesses, non-governmental organisations and civil society during the recent update to the guidance on transparency in supply chains, which was published in March 2025. Businesses themselves asked for greater clarity on how parent companies and their subsidiaries can report as a group. The updated guidance now includes details on the best-practice approach to reporting as a group when, for example, companies share the same procurement or operate in similar markets. To enable that practice to continue, we have included measures in the Bill to make it clear that companies may report as a group and thereby continue to report in the most efficient way for their business.

As I said, schedule 5 improves the accountability for reporting, holding senior parties to account, while allowing private sector group structures to balance transparency on such important issues against the burdens of running a business. I hope hon. Members share our view that making the requirements mandatory will help individuals, consumers and all those of us who are concerned about the impact of modern slavery in supply chains across the globe to hold companies to account further.

[Siân Berry]

I add my support—for a change in this Committee—to the broad approach taken in this part of the Bill. I realise that the Bill’s scope is narrow, but have the Minister or the Home Secretary had any discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and other Departments about using these quite creative new reporting requirements—which cover the supply chain and require reasons to be given for not doing things—as a template for use in other areas, such as environmental pollution or other human rights issues? Will the Minister commit the Home Office to taking the learnings from implementing this to other Departments?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. We are proud of the provisions, and a review is being undertaken by the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to consider how to develop them further. I hope that the Home Office example is setting out best practice for other Departments to ensure that, in a world of global business, we are able to hold corporations to account in our legislative and democratic framework. I appreciate her point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46

Application to public authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

As just discussed, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act requires large businesses to report on the steps that they take to prevent modern slavery within their operations and supply chains. However, equivalent requirements do not apply to the public sector. Given that the Government spend approximately £295 billion annually on procurement, there is a clear risk that public sector supply chains may also be exposed to modern slavery. The clause addresses that gap by extending transparency requirements to public authorities and strengthening accountability for modern slavery risks in public procurement.

Public authorities will be required to publish annual modern slavery statements covering the mandatory topics set out in schedule 4ZA, and to upload those statements to the modern slavery statement registry within six months of the end of the relevant financial year. The clause also sets out who may sign a statement, requires signatories to confirm its accuracy to the best of their knowledge and belief, and provides for group reporting where appropriate.

By bringing the public sector into line with the private sector, the clause will improve transparency, strengthen accountability and help ensure that public money is not contributing to modern slavery. It is important to note that this is a groundbreaking and important aspect of the Bill. As I have set out, we spend a huge amount on public procurement contracts, and I am sure that the vast majority of people would hope and expect that taxpayers’ money spent by the Government, local authorities and our broader public sector does not have any damaging effect on modern slavery around the world.

Placing this responsibility on public bodies, as we do for private bodies, is not just a really important statement about levelling up; it is an important statement that every penny of taxpayers’ money should be spent in an ethical way and must not support modern slavery in any of our supply chains. It is an important provision, and we should be proud to have included it in the Bill.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 46 brings public authorities within the modern slavery reporting system. It is right that we look closely at how they account for the money they spend. If we expect businesses to explain what they are doing about exploitation in their supply chains, public bodies should be prepared to do the same. Taxpayers are entitled to know that money taken from their wages is being spent responsibly. The fact that a contract is paid for by the state does not make the risks behind it disappear. We support the principle of the clause.

Let us consider a public body that buys uniforms, cleaning services or equipment. The contract may look perfectly respectable, but who has checked the arrangements further down the chain? Who has asked how the workers are recruited, or whether a subcontractor is using labour supplied on terms that should ring alarm bells? Those questions need asking before a problem becomes a scandal, and the Government should lead by example here. Ministers cannot demand standards from the private sector and then accept an annual statement from a public body as evidence that everything must be fine. The statement needs to reflect the decisions made by the people who are actually buying the goods and services. If the procurement team finds a serious risk, it needs a clear route to someone who can act on it.

The threshold also matters. The Bill leaves both the minimum budget and the way in which it is calculated to be decided by regulations. Until we see them, we cannot know which bodies will be covered or what the burden will be. Businesses must report once their turnover reaches £36 million; I would be grateful if the Minister told us whether the public sector threshold will match that. How many authorities are expected to be covered, and what assessment has been made of their capacity to comply? The Government’s notes say that applying those duties to public authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland requires the consent of the devolved legislatures. Has that consent has been sought?

The clause also allows one public authority to certify another’s statement. There may be sensible reasons for that, particularly where services or purchasing arrangements are shared, but responsibility must remain clear. If a statement turns out to be inaccurate, the answer cannot be that one authority relied on another and neither checked. The Minister should tell us what assurance the signing authority will be expected to obtain. The named intelligence agencies are excluded—there are obvious sensitivities around public disclosure of their operations—but the power to add further exemptions should be used sparingly. I would welcome it if the Minister set out the principles that will govern any further exclusions.

We support clause 46, but now we need is a workable timetable, clear responsibility and a proper connection between reporting and purchasing decisions. Public bodies should be able to show that they are tackling the risks that they find, and Ministers should be ready to answer when those bodies are not doing so.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Abhorrent practices such as modern slavery have no place in public supply chains. We have taken action, through the Procurement Act 2023, to strengthen the rules around excluding suppliers because of serious misconduct anywhere in their operations, including certain key subcontractors.

In February 2025, the Government updated procurement policy note 009, “Tackling modern slavery in government supply chains”, advocating a risk-based approach to identifying and managing modern slavery risks, and encouraging Departments to conduct due diligence using a range of tools, such as the modern slavery assessment tool.

The modern slavery assessment tool is a risk identification management tool that has been designed to help public sector organisations to work in partnership with suppliers to improve protections and reduce the risk of exploitation of workers in their supply chains. The Government also made the anti-slavery risk tiering tool available to public sector buyers in October 2025. That tool enables faster risk assessments and clear next steps to mitigate modern slavery risks across the commercial lifecycle.

The hon. Gentleman asked which organisations will be required to start reporting. Based on the evidence in our impact assessment, we estimate that around 1,040 organisations will be required to report, and that, because of the ability to report in groups, which we have explicitly allowed for, that will likely result in approximately 380 statements.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about devolved Government consent. We are having conversations as part of this process. He asked about timings and when public sector organisations will start to publish their statements. Through the Bill, the Government are extending the duty to report on actions being taken to address modern slavery in supply chains, as introduced in section 4 of the Modern Slavery Act. We expect the measures to take effect for an organisation’s financial year beginning on or after commencement. While commencement timelines are still to be finalised, we do not expect the first compliance statements will be required any earlier than the end of 2028.

I think I have answered all the shadow Minister’s questions. I thank Members for their interest in the clause, which is about extending transparency requirements relating to modern slavery to public authorities. Our intention is to align the public sector procurement process with the private sector, and to ensure that no public money is contributing to modern slavery.

[Matt Vickers]

We talked about the number of organisations that we expect to be impacted. In terms of proportionality and balance, where will the threshold lie? For businesses, it is a turnover of £36 million, but what will be the scale of public sector organisations expected to comply versus the private sector?

[Anna Turley]

It is difficult to make a direct comparison. Organisations will be expected, to some extent, to lead this themselves. For example, NHS England will make a decision on whether it is accountable as a body as a whole, or whether it provides multiple responses from regional bodies. Those organisations will come forward to us with their recommendations on how they would like to report, which will give us a sense of the scale. I do not think this is directly comparable to the private sector in a like-for-like way. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Statements: publication and submission

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, organisations are required to publish modern slavery statements on a prominent place on their website. If they do not have a website, they must make their statement available on request. That makes it difficult to access modern slavery statements, assess levels of compliance and hold organisations to account, as there is no central means of reporting.

Clause 47 seeks to address that gap by creating a clear requirement for organisations to submit their modern slavery statements to a specified electronic platform, such as the modern slavery statement registry that exists for voluntary submissions. The clause requires statements to be submitted within six months of the end of the relevant financial year, ensuring that reporting is timely, accessible and easily monitored. By centralising statements in a single location, the Government will be more able to identify organisations that are complying with their statutory obligations and take action on those that are failing to do so.

That will strengthen oversight, improve transparency and support more effective enforcement of the reporting regime. It will also make information on modern slavery risks and actions more readily available to consumers, investors, civil society and other stakeholders, enabling greater scrutiny of organisational practices and more informed decision making. The clause transforms a reporting requirement into a more effective accountability mechanism. By ensuring that statements are submitted to a central registry within a defined timeframe, it will improve monitoring of compliance, strengthen enforcement and increase transparency across both public and private sector supply chains.

[Matt Vickers]

Following our consideration of what these statements should contain, clause 47 turns to whether they reach the people who need to read them. There is little value in requiring a statement if nobody can find it, or if the only version available is several years out of date. A customer, supplier or member of the public should be able to see what an organisation says it is doing and when it last accounted for its actions. We support making that information easier to find.

The clause requires publication on an organisation’s website, when it has one, with a prominent link on the home page. It also allows regulations to require electronic submission to the Secretary of State. Organisations must comply as soon as reasonably practicable after the financial year ends and within six months at the latest. That gives them a clear deadline, but the practical question is whether the Home Office will know when it has been missed. A collection of statements tells us who has submitted what; it does not, on its own, tell us who should have submitted one and has stayed silent.

The existing registry can already send reminders to organisations that have signed up, but it cannot chase an organisation that should be reporting and has never registered at all. I would be grateful if the Minister explained how the Department will identify every organisation covered, and how it will follow up missing statements.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reading the statements, it should be easily to tell the current version from an old one and to identify the organisation concerned. Where a parent company reports for its subsidiaries, the coverage should be obvious, otherwise the public may think a business has failed to report when its statement is simply filed under a different name. I would welcome a clear timetable for the submission regulations. The point of all this is to make scrutiny possible, and Ministers must ensure that publication produces information that people can actually use. We support clause 47.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. To reassure him, we will be building on the modern slavery statement registry. More than 34,000 organisations are already registered there. Therefore, familiarisation costs to those organisations are likely to be minimal, as they already use that platform. For organisations that have not used the registry before, we expect the costs of familiarisation, which includes the time taken for personnel for register and learn how to use it, to be very low. The impact assessment estimates the first-year cost to businesses is approximately £0.4 million, and the ongoing costs are estimated to be approximately £0.2 million per year.

The hon. Gentleman asked about timetable and whether there should be a single reporting deadline. It is important that we recognise that businesses may have different financial reporting periods based on how their financial year operates, as most businesses’ reporting will align with their financial year timescales. We want to ensure that businesses can align their modern slavery reporting with their ongoing reporting operations and obligations to minimise the burdens.

I want to clarify the broader impact of the measures. It is important to reiterate that this requirement is not new; businesses in scope should already be producing their modern slavery statements in line with section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. The measures in the Bill will require some changes to the content and process for completing and submitting a statement, but those will be minimal. A full impact assessment and breakdown of costs, as I have said, has already been published. On registry notifications and how to identify the organisations covered, we are working with the Department for Business to build the in-scope list, so I can keep the hon. Gentleman and the Committee updated on that.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the enforcement. Multiple models could be used to deliver that, including conferring functions on an existing regulator or within the Home Office. We are doing the work to ensure that the most appropriate model for enforcement and for administering these financial penalties will be in place. We will consult on the draft regulations during the passage of the Bill.

I thank Members for this important debate. The clause strengthens reporting requirements, improves transparency and makes it easier to identify and take action against modern slavery risks. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48

Guidance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

Given the changes to reporting requirements in the Bill, clause 48 seeks to ensure that the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance aligns with these updates. The clause sets out that the Secretary of State can issue guidance for both the private and public sectors on how to write a modern slavery statement and provide examples of good practice in tackling modern slavery in supply chains and examples of information that may be included in addition to the mandatory information. That will ensure that there is adequate information to support organisations in producing modern slavery statements that cover all of the mandatory content requirements set out in schedule 5.

In summary, clause 48 will help promote consistency, transparency and good practice in reporting across both the public and private sectors, strengthening the overall effectiveness of the modern slavery transparency regime. I commend clause 48 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

For these new duties to work, the people carrying them out need clear instructions. That is where the guidance under clause 48 comes in. It is a short clause, but the guidance will matter a great deal to the people expected to make the preceding clauses work. They need to know what a useful statement looks like, what information they should seek from suppliers and how to explain a risk they have identified. They should not need a lawyer to translate the Government’s instructions before they can get started.

Timing matters. Organisations need time to understand the requirements and put arrangements in place. Publishing guidance at the last minute would create avoidable mistakes and leave Ministers blaming people for confusion of the Government’s own making. Will the Minister commit to having the guidance available well before the new duties take effect?

Businesses have also only recently been told to review updated Home Office guidance on their statements. They should not have to rewrite everything a second time; the new guidance should build on what organisations have just put into place rather than start again from scratch. There also needs to be a clear distinction between what the law requires and what the Government would like organisations to do voluntarily. The clause allows guidance to cover additional information that statements may include. That should be plainly labelled; businesses should not discover that an optional suggestion has become an unofficial requirement when somebody comes to assess their compliance.

Practical examples would help, particularly for organisations with different kinds of supply chains. Guidance should explain how to report a problem honestly and what to do when there is evidence that somebody is being exploited. Nobody should wait for the next annual statement before raising a serious concern with the appropriate authorities.

We support clause 48, but the Minister should tell us who will be consulted on the guidance and how future changes will be communicated, so that organisations are never caught out. Clear instructions from the outset would save everybody time and keep the focus where it belongs: on the people these measures are intended to protect.

[Anna Turley]

Simply put, clause 48 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide practical guidance on how modern slavery statements should be prepared in line with the new requirements in the Bill, including, as the shadow Minister suggested, good practice in identifying and tackling modern slavery risks within operations and supply chains.

The shadow Minister asked when the updated guidance will be issued; I am pleased to reassure him that the Secretary of State will issue the new guidance in time for commencement. He also wanted further clarity on the reporting requirements. During the recent update to the transparency and supply chain guidance, published in March 2025, we consulted widely with businesses, NGOs and civil society. This has been well received. It aligns with the international standards that I set out earlier, such as the OECD due diligence guidelines.

The purpose of clause 48 is to support compliance and improve the overall quality of reporting. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49

Enforcement

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

Compliance with reporting requirements remains inconsistent and there are limited consequences for organisations that fail to meet their obligations. Clause 49 introduces a civil enforcement framework, including financial penalties, for organisations that fail to comply with their statutory reporting obligations under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose penalties of up to £1 million or 1% of annual turnover—or of the budget, for public authorities—to make sure that there are real consequences for those who do not take the duty seriously. It also provides a power, by regulation, for the Secretary of State to set out procedural safeguards, including warning notices, opportunities to make representations, rights of appeal and provisions relating to determination of the penalty amount, cost recovery, interest on late payment, and enforcement of unpaid penalties. That will ensure that enforcement is fair, proportionate and effective.

The changes are central to strengthening the transparency in supply chains regime, ensuring that there are meaningful consequences for non-compliance and addressing long-standing concerns that the current framework lacks teeth. I commend clause 49 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 49 brings us to the practical question of what happens when an organisation fails to do what the law requires. We have spent preceding groups discussing what organisations must report, and how we must publish it. Those duties need to mean something. A business that takes its responsibility seriously should not find that a competitor can ignore the rules and carry on without consequence. We support effective enforcement against organisations that fail to comply without a reasonable excuse.

The clause allows Ministers to establish financial penalties through regulations. The maximum for an individual penalty will be the higher of £1 million or 1% of the organisation’s total turnover, or of a public authority’s total budget. That is a substantial power. It is a ceiling, not a standard fine, and how penalties are set below it will matter enormously. There must be a sensible distinction between a genuine mistake that is quickly corrected and a deliberate refusal to comply.

An organisation that has ignored repeated requests should not be treated in the same way as one that has made an isolated administrative error. Equally, the “reasonable excuse” provision must not become a stock response for those who simply cannot be bothered. Much of that detail is left to regulation. The clause allows for warning notices, representations and appeals. Organisations should know how a penalty has been calculated and have a fair opportunity to challenge a wrong decision. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed which of those safeguards the regulations will include, and how the seriousness of a failure will be assessed.

There is a particular issue with fining public authorities. A fine on a public body ultimately comes out of public money, but that does not mean that public bodies should escape enforcement. However, moving money out of a service budget while leaving the same failures untouched would achieve very little. The Minister should explain how a penalty will lead to better conduct and how senior officials will be held accountable for putting matters right.

The clause also provides for civil court enforcement; the Minister should explain how that route and the penalty regime will fit together, and who will make the decisions. There is an example here from the existing law. The 2015 Act already allows the Home Secretary to seek an injunction against a business that fails to publish a statement, yet that power has, as far as I am aware, never been used. A strong power on paper is of little use if the enforcement team lacks the information or capacity to use it. The Minister should tell us what resources have been judged necessary and when the new arrangements will be up and running.

Finally, we should be clear about what the penalties address. They concern failures to comply with the reporting duties. The compliance statement is not proof that exploitation is absent and a reporting penalty is no substitute for investigating evidence of slavery. Where such evidence emerges, there needs to be a clear route to the agencies that can protect victims and pursue the perpetrators. We support giving these duties proper teeth and we support clause 49. The test for Ministers is whether persistent non-compliance is tackled, whether decisions are fair and whether identified risks lead to action. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of how the regulations will deliver that in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions on these important clauses.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked who will be determining and enforcing the financial penalties. The Secretary of State may determine who will impose financial penalties on non-compliant organisations, and a number of models can be used to deliver that. That work is ongoing, but it could potentially be done through an existing regulator or within the Home Office itself. I appreciate that that will be an important part of the regulations we are drafting, and they will be shared during the Bill’s passage. We continue to engage with partners to ensure that we develop the most appropriate model for enforcement, so that we can administer financial penalties without placing an additional burden on the taxpayer by creating a new institution.

The shadow Minister asked about the High Court injunction power. Under the current framework, if an organisation fails to publish a statement, the Home Secretary can seek an injunction to require compliance. However, that power has not been used to date, due to the difficulties of monitoring compliance under the current regime, where there are no mandatory requirements or clear deadlines.

Pursuing an injunction can be a burdensome and resource-intensive process, and the court could only require the injuncted organisation to comply; it cannot issue a financial penalty. The measures in the Bill provide clearer expectations on what compliance looks like, allowing for more effective monitoring of compliance. They also introduce powers to impose stronger consequences on those who do not take their duties seriously.

On our expectations for the collection of these civil penalties, the purpose of the penalties is to encourage compliance with the transparency in supply chain requirements. We know from similar reporting regimes, such as gender pay gap reporting, and from Companies House, that organisations typically comply with their obligations once an investigation is opened, and before it gets to a stage where a financial penalty is issued. Therefore, the expectation is that the number of penalties issued will actually be very low. In addition, the penalty amount will vary depending on a number of factors, including organisational turnover. Given the penalty calculations and the expectation of almost full compliance, it is difficult to give an estimate of expected revenue from civil penalties. On where those penalties will go, the Bill provides that any financial penalties received by the enforcement agency must be paid into the Consolidated Fund, as is typical for such penalty regimes.

The shadow Minister asked about public bodies. As I said, they will be in scope of the reporting requirements, and financial penalties will apply to organisations that are legally separate from the Crown, such as local authorities and arm’s length bodies. As a matter of constitutional principle, the Government do not impose financial penalties on themselves.

We expect that the provisions will apply to modern slavery statements covering an organisation’s financial year that begins on or after commencement. While commencement timelines are still to be confirmed, we do not expect that the first compliance statements will be required any earlier than 2028. As I said, clarification on the details of the enforcement body will be provided as the Bill progresses through Parliament.

I thank Members again for their contributions to this discussion. Clause 49 introduces a new civil enforcement framework that will include financial penalties for companies that fail to comply with their reporting obligations under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, as improved by the previous clauses. Doing so will strengthen the regime and give it real teeth when looking to tackle the problem of modern slavery in supply chains.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Enforcement

“(1) A sum payable in pursuance of a decision of the IIAA is recoverable in England and Wales as if it were payable under an order of the county court.

(2) A sum payable in pursuance of a decision of the IIAA may be enforced in Scotland in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(3) A sum payable in pursuance of a decision of the IIAA is recoverable in Northern Ireland as if it were payable under an order of the county court.

(4) Where action is taken under this section for the recovery of a sum payable in pursuance of a decision of the IIAA, the decision—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.

(5) IIAA Procedure Rules may provide for any or all of subsections (1) to (4)—

(a) to apply only in relation to sums of a description specified in the Rules, or

(b) not to apply except in relation to sums of a description specified in the Rules.”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause would insert a new clause, to go after clause 10, which makes provision about the enforcement of the payment of any sums required to be paid by virtue of decisions of the IIAA.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill

New Clause 2

Increasing the availability of IIAA advice and IIAA representation

“(1) The Secretary of State may take such steps as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to increase the general availability of IIAA advice and IIAA representation.

(2) The power under subsection (1) may, in particular, be used to provide financial or other assistance (subject to any conditions the Secretary of State considers appropriate)—

(a) for persons undertaking education or training;

(b) for persons providing education, training or accreditation;

(c) for persons who provide IIAA advice or IIAA representation.

(3) In this section—

‘IIAA advice’ means advice from a qualified person about an appeal or bail application that has been or may be made to the IIAA;

‘IIAA representation’ means representation by a qualified person in proceedings before the IIAA;

‘qualified person’ means a person who is qualified for the purposes of section 84 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause authorises the Secretary of State to take steps to increase the general availability of advice and representation for persons who make an appeal or bail application to the IIAA. The new clause would be inserted after clause 10.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Late claims process: credibility

“(1) This section applies to proceedings that are subject to the late claims process (see section 12).

(2) In determining whether to believe a statement made by or on behalf of the appellant, an IIAA adjudicator must take account, as damaging the appellant’s credibility, of the fact that they provided late information.

(3) But if the IIAA adjudicator considers that there are good reasons why the appellant provided the information late, the adjudicator may decide that subsection (2)—

(a) applies to a lesser extent than it would if there were no good reasons, or

(b) does not apply at all.

(4) If in the course of the proceedings the appellant provides late evidence, an IIAA adjudicator must take that fact into account, as damaging the appellant’s credibility.

(5) But if the IIAA adjudicator considers that there are good reasons to do so, they may decide that subsection (4)—

(a) applies to a lesser extent than it otherwise would, or

(b) does not apply at all.

(6) The IIAA adjudicator must include, as part of their reasons for a decision that disposes of the proceedings, a statement explaining—

(a) how the adjudicator has applied subsection (2), and in particular—

(i) the extent to which they decided that the appellant’s credibility was damaged by the provision of late information,

(ii) the impact any credibility damage had on the determination of the appeal, and

(iii) if the appellant provided reasons for the provision of late information, what those reasons were and how they affected the application of subsection (2);

(b) whether the adjudicator has applied subsection (4), and in particular—

(i) whether the appellant provided late evidence and if so what that evidence was,

(ii) the extent to which the adjudicator decided that the appellant’s credibility was damaged by the provision of late evidence,

(iii) the impact any credibility damage had on the determination of the appeal, and

(iv) if the adjudicator considered that there were good reasons as mentioned in subsection (5), what those reasons were and how they affected the application of subsection (4).

(7) In this section—

‘late evidence’ means evidence provided to the IIAA after any deadline imposed in relation to the evidence by or under IIAA Procedure Rules;

‘late information’ means immigration information provided by the recipient of a claim notice in response to the notice—

(a) after the claim notice deadline, and

(b) at a time when the recipient was detained or had been given a notice of departure details as mentioned in section 12(1)(a) or (b);

‘immigration information’ has the meaning given in section 12;

‘claim notice’ and ‘claim notice deadline’ have the meanings given in section 11.”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause would insert a new clause, to go after clause 12, providing that, where proceedings are subject to the late claims process (see clause 12), the appellant’s credibility is damaged. And if such an appellant provides evidence late, their credibility is damaged further. It also requires IIAA adjudicators to make a statement about the application of this section.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Late information etc: proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission

“In the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, after section 2 insert—

‘2ZA Provision of late information etc: effect on credibility

(1) This section applies where an appellant in proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under section 2—

(a) has been served with a claim notice, and

(b) has provided any immigration information in response to the notice after the claim notice deadline—

(i) at a time when they are detained under a relevant detention provision, or

(ii) at any time after they have been given a notice of departure details.

(2) In determining whether to believe a statement made by or on behalf of the appellant, the Commission must take account, as damaging the appellant’s credibility, of the fact that they provided late information.

(3) But if the Commission considers that there are good reasons why the appellant provided the information late, the Commission may decide that subsection (2)—

(a) applies to a lesser extent than it would if there were no good reasons, or

(b) does not apply at all.

(4) If in the course of the proceedings the appellant provides late evidence, the Commission must take that fact into account, as damaging the appellant’s credibility.

(5) But if the Commission considers that there are good reasons to do so, it may decide that subsection (4)—

(a) applies to a lesser extent than it otherwise would, or

(b) does not apply at all.

(6) The Commission must include, as part of its reasons for a decision that disposes of the proceedings, a statement explaining—

(a) how the Commission has applied subsection (2), and in particular—

(i) the extent to which it decided that the appellant’s credibility was damaged by the provision of late information,

(ii) the impact any credibility damage had on the determination of the appeal, and

(iii) if the appellant provided reasons for the provision of late information, what those reasons were and how they affected the application of subsection (2);

(b) whether the Commission has applied subsection (4), and in particular—

(i) whether the appellant provided late evidence and if so what that evidence was,

(ii) the extent to which the Commission decided that the appellant’s credibility was damaged by the provision of late evidence,

(iii) the impact any credibility damage had on the determination of the appeal, and

(iv) if the Commission considered that there were good reasons as mentioned in subsection (5), what those reasons were and how they affected the application of subsection (4).

(7) In this section—

“claim notice” and “claim notice deadline” have the meanings given in section 11 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2026;

“immigration information,” “notice of departure details” and “relevant detention provision” have the same meanings as in section 12 of that Act;

“late evidence” means evidence provided to the Commission after any deadline imposed in relation to the evidence by or under rules under section 5;

“late information” means information provided by the recipient of a claim notice in response to the notice—

(a) after the claim notice deadline, and

(b) at a time when the recipient was detained or had been given a notice of departure details as mentioned in subsection (1)(b);’”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause would add a new clause making similar provision for proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to that made by the new clause inserted by NC3. It would be inserted into the Bill after the new clause inserted by NC3.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

Liability to deportation of certain residents despite section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971

“In section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 (exemption from deportation for certain existing residents), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) But the Secretary of State may decide that, despite subsection (1)(b), a person to whom subsection (1)(b) applies is liable to deportation (and may accordingly make a deportation order against them under section 5) if the Secretary of State—

(a) has deprived the person of citizenship status under section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 (deprivation where conducive to public good), or

(b) is satisfied that the person has engaged in behaviour that would render them liable to deprivation of citizenship status under section 40(2) of that Act (whether or not they have such status).

(1B) A decision under subsection (1A) must be taken personally by the Secretary of State.

(1C) The Secretary of State may make a decision under subsection (1A) where the person—

(a) was deprived of citizenship status, or

(b) engaged in behaviour that would render them liable to deprivation of citizenship status,

before subsection (1A) came into force.’”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 49, would enable the Secretary of State to override the exemption from deportation in s.7(1)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 for certain Commonwealth and Irish citizens where they have behaved in a way that would render them liable to citizenship deprivation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment 47.

[Anna Turley]

New clause 5 will mean that a person’s exemption from deportation under section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 can be disapplied where they have engaged in conduct such as terrorism, war crimes or serious organised crime. Section 7 provides protection from deportation for certain Commonwealth and Irish citizens who were ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973. It is an important safeguard for many people with long-standing ties to the UK.

The recent high-profile case of Shabir Ahmed highlighted a significant anomaly in the current law. In cases where the person’s conduct is serious enough to justify the removal of their citizenship, section 7 prevents us from deporting them. That cannot be right. Some of the most serious offenders, including individuals involved in terrorism, serious organised crime, sexual grooming or war crimes, should not be able to avoid deportation purely on the basis that they have been in this country since before 1973.

Our new clause will end the disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the most dangerous people. Decisions to disapply the exemption will be taken personally by the Home Secretary. Safeguards put in place by the new clause ensure that the legislation will not affect the vast majority of people protected by section 7. It will be used to ensure that only those individuals whose conduct places them among the most serious threats to the public can be deported.

As we saw with the case I mentioned, changing the law is only half the problem. Arranging the deportation of such individuals can take time, as successive Governments have found previously. Introducing this important new clause will ensure that we have the power to deport this individual, and that will be taken forward in the usual way. Given the danger that this individual poses, Government amendment 47 would amend the commencement clauses in the Bill to ensure that the new clause comes into effect upon Royal Assent.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

New clause 5 closes an anomaly that dates back to 1973, under which Commonwealth and Irish citizens living in the country when the Immigration Act 1971 came into force are protected from deportation by section 7, however serious their conduct. The new clause would let the Home Secretary decide that such a person is liable to deportation where they have been or could have been deprived of citizenship on conduct grounds. We support it and amendment 47, which brings it into force on Royal Assent.

The Conservative plan is to deport all foreign criminals. Not some of them—all of them. Any measure that removes a barrier to deportation is a step in that direction. New clause 5 is indeed a step in the right direction, but it is such a small step that it is challenging to see that it will make a noticeable impact. It is a personal discretion, not a duty, for the Home Secretary. Every person it covers will still be able to resist removal under article 8 and article 3, through the Human Rights Act 1998. Compare that with the much more robust new clause 45, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), which would mean automatic deportation for every foreign national convicted of an offence. That is what our borders plan means by deporting all foreign criminals.

For the purposes of the debate, I have three questions for the Minister. How many people do the Government estimate are protected by section 7 and could be made liable to deportation under new clause 5? What is the Government’s legal assessment of the clause’s reliance on conduct before commencement? How will the power apply to Irish citizens, given the common travel area, and have the Irish Government been consulted on the measure?

We will support Government new clause 5, but if the Government accept the principle that dangerous people should not be protected from deportation by legal technicalities, I hope they will support our new clauses in that regard too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I want to raise a few alarm bells in terms of what I feel about this measure, and I hope the Minister can answer me clearly. My misgivings arise partly because the Minister talked about basing the need for the new clause on a single case example; partly because it has been introduced into the Bill at a late stage in our considerations; and partly because it will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. It appears to be a rush, and I am not convinced that it will not have equalities impacts or overlap with the lessons we should have learned from the Windrush scandal. If the Minister can give some more assurance that this has been looked at carefully and not rushed into on the basis of a single case, I would be glad to hear it.

[Anna Turley]

I can be explicit: this change in the legislation has been inspired by one particular case. I will not apologise for that, because I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that the current situation is not acceptable. Some of the most serious offenders, including individuals involved in terrorism, serious organised crime or war crimes, cannot be deported even after we have stripped them of British citizenship, because of this loophole. It is important that we take steps to address it.

I want to give the hon. Lady some reassurance, however, because people may express concerns about protection given in law to others—for example, the Windrush generation or others who came here previously. I will be absolutely clear and explicit in Committee: they will not be affected. Any broader protection for the Windrush generation is not affected by the new clause. The power will be exercised personally by the Home Secretary. The Government are clear that the wider protections offered by section 7 will remain intact. The new clause will not affect the overwhelming majority of people protected by section 7 or their rights. This measure is intended solely to ensure that specific individuals whose conduct places them among the most serious threats to the public can be deported.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

We support closing this gap. Given that the test is an issue of the Home Secretary’s judgment, rather than of a conviction, and that it applies to past conduct, it would be helpful if the Minister can give reassurances. Given how serious and huge the power will be, some sort of reporting mechanism will help us to understand how often it might be used and how many people fall under it.

[Anna Turley]

The power is similar to those the Home Secretary has already, including the ability to prevent people from coming here and to ask for people to be removed. We agree that if deprivation on conducive grounds is to be used sparingly, it should be against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct has involved very high harm. Other than where a decision is taken on the grounds that the person has conducted themselves in a manner that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, the conducive power is limited so that it can be applied only to those who are dual citizens. Parliament chose to enact the power on that basis to avoid the prospect of leaving people stateless, which would be contrary to the UK’s commitments under the 1961 statelessness convention. To respond further, the Home Secretary is of course accountable to this place on a daily basis. On high-profile cases, I am sure she will continue to give her usual response on the Floor of the House.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked for an estimated projection. We do not have the statistics, but I have been clear and up front that we are responding to a particular case. We expect these to be extreme and unusual cases, where someone has been guilty of a crime of this magnitude, but is of that generation prior to 1973. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the consideration of the legal assessment. We have reviewed the legal position very carefully. We are content that it is lawful, which is why we are taking this measure forward.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Irish citizens. Irish citizens are liable to deportation, but in practice are only pursued in limited circumstances.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate. As they will know, the Government have made this change to end the disparity in powers available to protect the public from the most dangerous people. The recent high-profile case of Shabir Ahmed has highlighted a significant anomaly in the current law. In cases where the person’s conduct is serious enough to justify the removal of their citizenship, section 7 currently prevents us from deporting them.

[Tom Gordon]

I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have published a report on accountability for Daesh war crimes. Included in that report was the fact that the UK Government use their powers to strip citizenship more than almost any other country in the world, and in a way that has often been described as not particularly transparent. Could I press the Minister to go further on the reporting mechanisms that we need to see if we have this new clause and also existing Government citizenship stripping?

[Anna Turley]

This new clause does not influence our decisions to deprive people of citizenship—that remains. This is simply about our ability to remove them. That is the important loophole that we are trying to close, to create consistency on that front.

Safeguards put in place by Government new clause 5 ensure that legislation will not affect the vast majority of people protected by section 7. It will only be used to ensure that those individuals whose conduct places them among the most serious threats to the public can be deported.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32

Exception from automatic deportation of foreign criminals

“In section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (exceptions from automatic deportation of foreign criminals) for subsection (6A) substitute—

‘(6A) Exception 6 is where—

(a) the foreign criminal has limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom under section 65(2) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking),

(b) the Secretary of State is under a duty to grant the foreign criminal limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom under that section, or

(c) the Secretary of State intends to grant the foreign criminal limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom under that section despite not being required to do so as a result of the application of subsection (7)(a) of that section.’”.—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause, to go after clause 39, replaces an exception from the duty to deport foreign criminals. The existing exception operates by reference to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. The replacement exception will operate by reference to the domestic legislation that gives effect to that Convention.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 sets out exceptions to the automatic deportation of foreign criminals. This technical amendment provides greater legal clarity in relation to the exception that may apply where a foreign criminal is also a confirmed victim of modern slavery.

At the time the UK Borders Act was enacted, there was not a detailed domestic legal framework in place for the identification and protection of victims of modern slavery. Since then, the Government have introduced specific domestic modern slavery legislation, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The ongoing work on this Bill has highlighted the outdated reference to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—ECAT—and this provides an opportune moment to update the legislation so that it refers to the relevant domestic modern slavery framework.

New clause 32 replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom’s obligations under ECAT with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery legislation, namely the temporary permission to stay provision in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

Since the introduction of the 2007 Act, the UK has introduced specific modern slavery legislation and these provisions will now provide the legal framework for identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery in the UK. The new clause aligns the deportation framework with existing domestic legislation on modern slavery provisions and provides greater legal clarity.

The new clause does not expand or alter the protections. It simply clarifies and clears up any ambiguity in the law. It simply places the exception to automatic deportation on a clearer domestic statutory footing, while ensuring the Secretary of State retains flexibility to grant temporary permission to stay in exceptional circumstances where appropriate.

[Blake Stephenson]

New clause 32 rewrites the exception to automatic deportation for foreign criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section 33(6A) of the UK Borders Act 2007 disapplies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe trafficking convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so.

A criminal conviction should trigger automatic deportation, and those deported as foreign criminals should not be able to make protection claims to stop that deportation. New clause 32 keeps a route by which a foreign criminal can avoid automatic deportation and it widens the discretion to use it.

I am sure nobody in this Committee wants genuine victims of trafficking to be left unsupported, but in clause 38, the Government accept that people who pose a threat to public order should be disqualified from protection. Why, then, keep the exception to automatic deportation for people who have been convicted of crimes here? Why widen the range of cases where there is no duty to grant leave at all?

How many foreign criminals relied on the trafficking exemption in each of the past three years? In what circumstances would the Home Secretary intend to grant leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 where there is no duty to do so? How many foreign criminals do the Government expect to benefit? Unless the Minister can show that this exception will be rare and tightly controlled, it is a back door through which foreign criminals will continue to avoid removal.

[Anna Turley]

Temporary permission to stay is granted only in limited circumstances for specific purposes and for time-limited periods. Confirmed victims who are considered a risk to public order who have made a modern slavery claim in bad faith will not usually be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK. In rare cases, the Secretary of State may decide that temporary permission to stay is to be granted to an individual who has been convicted of a crime, for example, where their presence is necessary to support a law enforcement investigation or criminal proceedings. The new clause ensures that the Secretary of State retains this discretion as is befitting with clauses we considered earlier. Any grant of temporary permission to stay is subject to the individual continuing to meet the relevant requirements and lasts only for as long as it is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is granted.

I will undertake to write to the Committee on the specific numbers that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked for. I thank Members for their interest in the new clause. It replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery legislation, namely the temporary permission to stay provision in the Nationality and Borders Act. The technical new clause provides greater legal clarity in relation to the exception that may apply where a foreign criminal is also a confirmed victim of modern slavery.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 32 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner

“(1) Part 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (immigration advisers and immigration service providers) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 92F (enforcement of penalty notices) (inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025)—

(a) in subsection (1), after ‘notice’ insert ‘(“a penalty”)’;

(b) for subsections (2) to (4) substitute—

‘(2) In England and Wales, the penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court.

(3) In Scotland, the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(4) In Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court.

(5) Where action is taken under this section for the recovery of a penalty, the penalty—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.’

(3) In Schedule 5 (the Immigration Services Commissioner), in paragraph 9C (enforcement of orders to refund fees or pay compensation) (inserted by paragraph 14(5) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025)—

(a) for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—

‘(3) Any amount to be refunded or paid under the order (“the amount owing”)—

(a) in England and Wales, is recoverable by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) as if it were payable under an order of the county court;

(b) in Scotland, may be enforced by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland;

(c) in Northern Ireland, is recoverable by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) as if it were payable under an order of the county court.’;

(b) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘make an application under sub-paragraph (3)’ substitute ‘take steps to recover or enforce an amount owing’;

(c) for sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) substitute—

‘(5) Where action is taken under this paragraph for the recovery of an amount to be refunded or paid under an order of the Commissioner, the order—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, an appeal is pending during the period—

(a) starting when the appeal is brought, and

(b) ending when the appeal is finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.’”—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment would insert a new clause, to go in after clause 49, amending the provision inserted into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 about the enforcement of orders made by the Immigration Services Commissioner for penalties, refunds and compensation, so as to make it work effectively in Northern Ireland.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Government new clause 33 seeks to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to ensure that the enforcement of orders made by the Immigration Services Commissioner under that Act for penalties, refunds and compensation work effectively in Northern Ireland. Provisions regarding enforcement of unpaid monetary penalties, refunds of fees or payments of compensation in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were part of the Immigration Services Commissioner measures in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Upon making preparations to commence the measures, however, it became apparent that the current provisions are not compatible with the system in place in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government are taking steps to rectify the situation so that the enforcement regime can operate as intended.

The Government new clause ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services Commissioner on advisers providing poor or illegal immigration services or advice can be recovered in Northern Ireland as they can in England, Wales and Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Procedures for recovery of debts differ in Scotland from those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, statutory penalties need not be treated as an existing court judgment. In keeping with other types of statutory penalty in Scotland, the proposed drafting allows for these penalties to be treated as an extract registered decree arbitral, bearing a warrant for execution for purposes of enforcement. That means that no application is needed to the court to enforce a debt or penalty, as it is treated as having been registered with the court and authority given the execution.

Amendments in later groups will make provision for the commencement of the new clause to take place in conjunction with the measures it relates to within the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 as amended by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

[Blake Stephenson]

New clause 33 makes the Immigration Services Commissioner’s penalties, refund orders and compensation orders enforceable as court orders across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. These are technical improvements and we support them.

Rogue immigration advisers do real damage. They take money from vulnerable people, and, too often, they coach claims designed not to establish the truth but to delay removal, including the late claim lodged the night before a flight, and the fresh claim built on a story that has changed. We would end immigration legal aid and limit judicial review to cases where the Home Office has acted outside its powers, which would remove much of the market that these advisers exploit.

In the meantime, the regulator should have teeth. How many penalties has the commissioner imposed in the last three years, how much has actually been recovered and how many prosecutions for giving unregulated immigration advice have there been? As I said, we support this move, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I undertake to write to the shadow Minister with those figures as I do not have them to hand, but I appreciate his interest in the new clause. Government new clause 33 ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services Commissioner on advisers for providing poor or illegal immigration advice or services can be recovered in Northern Ireland, just as they can be in England, Wales or Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The new clause will ensure that the system relating to the Immigration Services Commissioner operates as intended.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 33 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34

Meaning of “the Immigration Acts”

“In section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (meaning of ‘the Immigration Acts’)—

(a) omit the ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (n);

(b) at the end insert

‘, and

(p) the Immigration and Asylum Act 2026.’”—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause, which would go in after clause 50, would add the Bill to the list of “Immigration Acts” in the UK Borders Act 2007. “The Immigration Acts” is a general term used across the statute book and is defined in the Interpretation Act 1978.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause makes a straightforward technical amendment to the UK Borders Act 2007. It adds the Bill, once enacted, to the statutory list of enactments that comprise “the Immigration Acts” in the 2007 Act. References to “the Immigration Acts” appear throughout the statute book and are used in connection with a wide range of immigration powers, enforcement provisions and other immigration functions. It is therefore important that, once enacted, the Bill is included within that established statutory definition.

The effect of the new clause is to ensure that references elsewhere in the legislation to “the Immigration Acts” will apply consistently to the revisions contained in the Bill in the same way as they apply to other immigration legislation. The new clause is a technical provision that ensures the legislation fits coherently within the wider immigration statute book and that existing references to “the Immigration Acts” operate as intended.

[Blake Stephenson]

Mr Twigg, you and the Committee members will be pleased to hear that this will be the shortest speech of the day. The new clause adds the Bill, once enacted, to the list of “the Immigration Acts”. It is a technical provision, and we do not oppose it.

[Anna Turley]

I thank Members for their overwhelming interest in and enthusiasm for this new clause. As discussed, this is a straightforward amendment that adds the Bill to the statutory list of enactments that comprise “the Immigration Acts” in the 2007 Act. It will simply mean that references elsewhere in legislation to “the Immigration Acts” will apply consistently to the provisions contained in the Bill in the same way that they apply to other immigration legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 34 read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jade Botterill.)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

I beg to move amendment 113, in clause 25, page 24, line 17, after “Crown Court” insert “or Court of Appeal”.

This amendment means that where the Court of Appeal makes a slavery and trafficking risk order under section 29(1)(a) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 any application to vary, renew or discharge the order will be determined by the Crown Court.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Anna Turley]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr Murrison. Good morning to all colleagues.

Before we get into the detail of the various clauses, I want to place part 5 of the Bill, and all the provisions concerning modern slavery, in their wider context. Modern slavery is a vicious, cruel and barbaric crime that dehumanises people. This Government are absolutely committed to tackling it in all its forms, and to identifying victims and giving them the support that they need.

However, for the Government to continue to meet that commitment, we must go further. We need a robust end-to-end system supporting earlier identification, ensuring clear decisions and addressing opportunities for improper use, so that the system works effectively for those it is intended to protect. These measures will improve alignment with wider immigration and support systems while enhancing protections for child victims. We need to reduce further the risk of exploitation by increasing expectations on businesses to tackle abuse in their supply chains, and by strengthening the enforcement powers available to our courts and the police to stop offenders in their tracks. The clauses in the Bill will do all that.

Clauses 25 to 34 are focused on strengthening slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. As modern slavery offending continues to evolve, the tools used to manage offending behaviour must keep pace to enable law enforcement and the courts to take more efficient and tougher action. Slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders give law enforcement agencies and the courts powers to apply for and grant orders to prohibit certain behaviour and to prevent harm, but they are not operating as effectively as they could be. The measures will strengthen those powers, making them more efficient and flexible to use, and improving their effectiveness as preventive tools. The changes will help to prevent further exploitation, better protect victims from harm and reduce the risk of exploitation and reoffending.

Clause 25 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and provides the power for the court before which a person is acquitted of a slavery and human trafficking offence to make a slavery and trafficking risk order. The appropriate court is the court where the person was acquitted following a trial, the court allowing an appeal, or the Crown court on remittal following a successful appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Under existing legislation, a slavery and trafficking risk order is available only on application to the magistrates court. In circumstances where a person is acquitted of slavery and trafficking offences by the Crown court, the process places additional pressure on law enforcement and court time. Allowing the court that made the acquittal decision—including on appeal—to make an order, and extending the power to make an order to the higher court, will remove delays caused by the current process. As the trial court has already heard the evidence, it need not be repeated in the magistrates court. That will also mean that the courts can make an order of their own motion. That will improve efficiency and effectiveness by dealing with an individual immediately following the trial, reducing the risk of offending and preventing harm to others without delay.

The clause also enables the court to adjourn proceedings relating to a slavery and trafficking risk order on acquittal. The reasons we need adjournment of proceedings will be discussed in further detail under clause 30.

Government amendment 113 sets out a technical amendment to clause 25 to clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. The amendment makes it very clear that any subsequent application will be heard by the Crown court, rather than the Court of Appeal. That aligns the provision of the slavery and trafficking risk order made on acquittal with the existing approach under section 29 of the 2015 Act, which covers appeals of the decision to make an order and ensures a consistent process for managing such orders. The amendment will also ensure that the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is not taken up by further matters in respect of the orders. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

Clause 25 allows a court to make a slavery and trafficking risk order when someone is acquitted of a slavery or trafficking offence. The court may do so only when it is satisfied that the person’s conduct shows a risk that they will commit such an offence, and that an order is necessary to protect people from harm. It is worth reminding the Committee that these orders exist because of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, brought forward by Theresa May as Home Secretary. That legislation put this country at the forefront of the fight against modern slavery, and the Opposition welcome measures that build on it.

Modern slavery is a vile crime. It preys on the vulnerable and hides in plain sight in our towns and on our high streets, and the police need every reasonable tool to get ahead of it. Let me be clear: an acquittal must be respected, and nobody should treat a risk order as a second verdict. However, a trial can bring out evidence of risky conduct that falls short of proving the offence charged. Where the statutory test is met, it makes sense for the court that has heard all the evidence to be able to act there and then. The alternative is that the police must start again in another court, with another application, another handover and another chance for the case to fall through the cracks. The person at risk cannot afford that.

This power will not use itself, however. Prosecutors and police need to have considered it before the trial ends, with the evidence ready and a plan for who will manage any restrictions afterwards. Otherwise, we risk passing a good clause that goes unused at the very moment it matters. Government amendment 113 corrects the Government’s own drafting—I suspect that it will not be the last correction we see in Committee. An appeal against such an order will be treated like an appeal against sentence. The Court of Appeal may end up making an order itself. The amendment ensures that any late application to vary, renew or discharge that order goes to the Crown court.

Officers should know which court to go to without a dispute over jurisdiction, so we support the amendment, but we should be honest about where many of the applications will land. The Crown court backlog reached a new record of more than 80,800 cases at the end of June. Every additional application joins that queue, and victims are already waiting far too long. That is not a reason to oppose this power, but it is a reason for the Government to tell the Committee what assessment they have made of the court time needed and how it will be found.

The clause also amends the Scottish and Northern Irish legislation, so that breaching one of the new orders is an offence in those jurisdictions, too. Those who exploit others do not stop at borders, and someone subject to an order must not be able to escape enforcement by moving to another part of the United Kingdom.

We support the clause and the Government amendment, but I would be grateful if the Minister answered three questions. First, who will be responsible for identifying suitable cases before an acquittal brings proceedings to an end, and what guidance will prosecutors be given? Secondly, how many of the orders do the Government expect to be made each year? Thirdly, if someone subject to one of the orders moves to Scotland or Northern Ireland, how will the order be enforced there promptly?

[Anna Turley]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response to this debate. As discussed, the clause makes important amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and provides the power for the court before which a person is acquitted of a slavery and human trafficking offence to make a slavery and trafficking risk order.

Let me address a couple of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether the measures would contribute to an increase in court time. The court will have heard the evidence during the trial or considered it on appeal, and it will be best placed to assess whether an order is necessary. The Government amendment will also mean that the evidence heard in the Crown court does not need to be repeated in the magistrates court, so court time in the magistrates court will be reduced, improving efficiency and effectiveness by handling the case immediately following the trial.

The hon. Gentleman also asked whether the measures will increase the use of orders and how many orders we expect to see. As hon. Members know, we have published an impact assessment setting out the analytical case for the proposed measures, and developed a justice impact test with the Ministry of Justice. The estimated impacts are therefore only indicative, as no available evidence or data estimates the magnitude of the increase in the number of orders issued as a result of the changes, but the scenarios assume that the number of prevention or risk orders will increase by between 25% and 75%, which equates to an increase of 20 to 30 orders per year.

Government amendment 113 is technical and will merely clarify which court is responsible for dealing with any future application to vary, renew or discharge a slavery and trafficking risk order made by the Court of Appeal on acquittal. I commend it to the Committee.

Amendment 113 agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26

Power for Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force to apply for prevention and risk orders etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 27 stand part.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Member for Stockton West was right to raise the concerns of law enforcement partners about the limitations to the effectiveness of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. We are seeking to deal with that issue through these clauses.

Our ambition is to ensure that law enforcement agencies have exactly the right tools they need to respond as offending evolves. Currently, the British Transport police must rely on a local force to make an application for a slavery and trafficking order on their behalf, even if the British Transport police have undertaken all relevant investigations. That means that there are delays between identifying a risk and an application for a slavery and trafficking order.

Clause 26 extends the list of bodies to allow the chief constable of the British Transport police to apply to a magistrates court to make, vary, discharge and renew slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Giving an express power to the British Transport police will enhance the force’s capability to disrupt and tackle criminal exploitation and sexual exploitation on the transport network, and to keep pace with how modern slavery offending has evolved. It will also reduce costs and the time spent by local forces on making and processing applications of these orders on behalf of the British Transport police, and will enable swifter protection of victims by minimising the length of time between the offence taking place and the application being made. Extending these powers to the British Transport police will send a message to organised criminal gangs that all areas of law enforcement are equipped to take decisive action against perpetrators who exploit vulnerable individuals.

Clause 27 will remove a further limitation on law enforcement applications for slavery and trafficking orders: the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to make applications for slavery and trafficking orders only in relation to a person who lives in their police force area. The nature of modern slavery offending, and the links to other types of crime, have evolved since the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was introduced. Both criminal and sexual exploitation offending can take place across force areas, in multiple locations across the country, and online.

The legislation also needs to evolve to remain effective and to reduce the risk of offending and harm caused. The current legislation does not account for instances where the perpetrator has never visited or does not intend to visit the location where the offending occurs—that includes circumstances in which the offending takes place online. In such cases, the offending is more likely to be identified by the force in the location where the offending occurs, but the responsibility for applying for an order currently falls on the force in the perpetrator’s area of residence. Removing that restriction will enable law enforcement to improve the way it targets and disrupts modern slavery and human trafficking offending by relieving the burden on forces. It will cut back on application delays by allowing any force to apply for the order. The application will need to be made in the area where the defendant lives, or in the police area where the applicant believes the defendant is or is intending to come to. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 26 brings the chief constable of the British Transport police into the arrangements for applying for slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Clause 27 widens the ability of territorial police forces to apply for these orders against people who live outside their area. The Opposition welcome both clauses.

The gangs behind modern slavery do not respect police boundaries, and our ability to stop them should not be hemmed in by those boundaries. The gangs move people by road and rail, they recruit in one town and exploit in another, and they rely on the gaps between agencies. Officers on our railways might be the first to see what is going on. If a British Transport police officer keeps seeing the same man shepherding the same frightened young people between stations, and gathers the evidence and identifies the risk, the next step should not be a phone call to ask another force to make the application.

Clause 27 deals with the same problem for territorial forces. Under the current law, a force can apply only in respect of someone who lives in its area or who intends to come into its area, but someone can live in one force area and do their damage in another. The force holding the evidence should be able to act, but wider powers require clear responsibility. If several forces have an interest in the same individual, who leads? Who checks that the person is complying with the order? Who answers the phone when a victim reports contact that might breach the order? Criminals exploit gaps, and we should not create new gaps between police forces.

Let me make a point that applies to the whole of part 5 of the Bill, so that I do not have to repeat it when addressing every group of amendments. Every new power in clauses 25 to 34 comes with work attached. Officers must recognise when an order is appropriate, build an application that will stand up in court, attend hearings and then manage the order for years. The British Transport police already have a demanding job keeping passengers safe, and our courts are already stretched. This is not about point-scoring on resources, but none of those powers will work just because a clause has been passed. Officers need training, guidance and capacity, and Ministers cannot hand forces new duties and leave them to pick up the bill.

We support clauses 26 and 27, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. First, were these changes requested by chief officers, including the chief constable of the British Transport police, and if so, what problems did they identify? Secondly, will there be an agreed protocol in place before these powers come into force, setting out which force leads when more than one force is involved? Thirdly, what assessment have the Government made of the training, guidance and capacity that forces will need to use the new powers set out in this part of the Bill?

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his questions, and we appreciate his support for these important clauses.

Put simply, clauses 26 and 27 address the important issue of how law enforcement agencies will deal with the issues in their area. Clause 26 extends the provisions to the British Transport police, while clause 27 removes the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to apply for orders only in relation to people living in their local area.

As I set out earlier, currently there are unnecessary limitations on law enforcement’s ability to apply for slavery and trafficking orders. The constraints on how the orders can be applied for restrict their effectiveness. This means that we could be doing more to manage the risks identified, to protect vulnerable people who are at risk of exposure to these horrendous crimes.

To manage that, we have worked closely with enforcement colleagues—including, to respond to the hon. Gentleman, the British Transport police—to design new clauses that will allow forces to apply for the orders and remove the restriction on chief officers of police of being able to apply for orders in relation only to individuals living in their local police area. That will allow forces to better manage individuals who are committing offences across police force boundaries.

The hon. Gentleman asked about how the responsibility for monitoring and enforcing would be managed, and how the process would work. This amendment will improve co-operation between local forces and the British Transport police, who have to work collaboratively at almost every stage of the process, from application to monitoring. The British Transport police will still need to engage with the relevant local forces, give notice of the application to the chief officer of police, and conduct monitoring of the orders.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether a national monitoring system would be introduced. Law enforcement is responsible for monitoring and managing compliance with slavery and trafficking orders. The former modern slavery and organised immigration crime unit issued guidance to law enforcement on obtaining and managing slavery and trafficking prevention risk orders, to help ensure consistency across forces in England and Wales. When the changes are introduced, that statutory guidance will be updated to align with them, ensuring that all those involved have the right training and preparation for the new powers.

Together, clauses 26 and 27 allow the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to remain relevant to the modern world. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Notification requirements in slavery and trafficking prevention orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 29 stand part.

[Anna Turley]

Under section 19 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, courts may require individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention orders and slavery and trafficking risk orders to notify the police or another specified agency of personal information, including their name and address. However, monitoring and enforcement are currently inconsistent across police forces, which affects their ability to manage individuals and respond effectively to risk. That can result in police forces collecting information on individuals subject to an order in different ways, leading to delays in identifying breaches and an inconsistent approach to preventing individuals from engaging in criminal behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. As he has set out, the orders in clauses 28 and 29 are crucial tools to allow our law enforcement to protect victims, and we appreciate the support of His Majesty’s Opposition.

The clauses address a gap in the current framework for managing individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Currently, notification requirements are discretionary, which has contributed to there being different approaches to monitoring and enforcement across police forces, and that can limit law enforcement’s ability to identify breaches, manage risk and safeguard potential victims. Clauses 28 and 29 strengthen that regime by making the notification requirements mandatory, while also enabling courts to impose additional risk-based notifications where necessary and proportionate. This flexibility will allow the requirements placed on individuals to keep pace as modern slavery evolves.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the additional data that will be collected under clause 29. Currently, each force collects and records said data differently; that is part of the problem we are trying to address according to local needs. It is for the forces to decide how to monitor and manage individuals subject to an order. He also asked about some of the things that could be requested and collated: those could include phone numbers, email addresses, online usernames and vehicle registrations. They will be considered on a case-by-case basis specific to an individual that addresses proportionality and necessity based on the risk of offending, which I think answers his question about additional data. The shadow Minister also mentioned the regulations we refer to. We will publish those as soon as possible.

Together, these measures will support a more consistent and effective approach to monitoring individuals subject to orders. Strengthening orders and increasing notification requirements sends a strong message to both perpetrators and victims that exploitation will be detected. I commend clauses 28 and 29 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30

Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: adjournment of proceedings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

There is a risk that the current legislation is not clear that a court can adjourn proceedings, although it is common practice for courts to adjourn proceedings in relation to the slavery and trafficking prevention orders. Clause 30 makes it explicit that a court can adjourn proceedings when a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a slavery and trafficking prevention order. It ensures that the court has the option to adjourn proceedings for a slavery and human trafficking offence even after sentencing. That will remove any existing or future doubt.

The clause also includes provision for when an individual does not attend proceedings, to ensure that the criminal justice process can continue. It is simply about ensuring that courts have the necessary powers to ensure a smooth and effective court process.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 30 allows a court to adjourn proceedings on a slavery and trafficking prevention order at sentencing. If the defendant does not attend the adjourned hearing, the court may adjourn again, issue a warrant for their arrest or, subject to safeguards, proceed in their absence. A court deciding whether to make one of these orders needs the evidence to get it right, and the Opposition support giving it the time to do so. Proposed restrictions may need checking, or information from another force may still be outstanding. Rushing that work could produce an order that misses the very conduct it is meant to stop.

We should be clear about what an adjournment means in practice: another hearing has to be listed, officers may have to return to court, and if the offender is not in custody the risk they pose has to be managed while the case waits. When someone has been convicted of exploiting another human being, the public will rightly expect any continuing risk to be dealt with promptly. Given the Crown court backlog of a record more than 80,000 cases, nobody should be adding avoidable hearings to that list.

It is also worth noting that the clause places no limit on how long proceedings can be adjourned or how many times. That is why so much depends on preparation. The possibility of a prevention order should not suddenly occur to someone at the end of a sentencing hearing. An adjournment may sometimes be necessary, but it must not become the fall-back for an application that nobody got ready.

We welcome the power to proceed when the defendant fails to attend; a convicted offender should not be able to hold up a protective order simply by staying at home. The safeguards in the clause matter. Before issuing a warrant, the court must be satisfied that the defendant had “adequate notice” of the hearing before proceeding in their absence. It must also be satisfied that the defendant was told the hearing could go ahead without them. If that is not done properly, the court cannot take the next step. Getting the paperwork right is what allows the court to act firmly.

We must not forget the victim. If the hearing has been put off, the victim needs to know that restrictions are not in place. Otherwise, they may rely on protection that does not yet exist. We support clause 30, but I would be grateful if the Minister answered the following questions. When proceedings are adjourned and the offender is not in custody, how will any immediate risk be managed until the order is made? Who will be responsible for telling victims that an order has been delayed and what has and has not been put in place? Will the Government monitor how often such proceedings are adjourned and how many times in a single case, so that a sensible power does not become another source of delay?

[Anna Turley]

I thank the shadow Minister for his thoughtful contributions. Clause 30 is simple: although courts can adjourn proceedings, the current legislation does not explicitly provide for that, which has created the potential for real uncertainty.

During the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 in the House of Lords, a specific provision was requested in related to serious violence reduction orders to make it clear that proceedings could be adjourned even after sentencing took place. The specific provision for adjournment has been included in domestic abuse protection orders. That is intended to enable the court to determine any outstanding prevention orders, even after the criminal proceedings have concluded. Replicating measures such as those for instances of modern slavery will remove any current or future doubt that the court is able to determine a slavery and trafficking prevention order after sentencing.

Adjournment is a procedural tool that the court might take after sentencing or acquittal to consider imposing an order. The court may then consider further evidence related to the future risk of offending when considering whether to make a slavery and trafficking prevention order. Clause 30 is about enabling the court to more effectively address offending while the defendant is still under their power and to ensure that outstanding matters in a case can be dealt with at the same time. Adjourning proceedings in relation to the making of a prevention order is currently common practice, but we are making that explicit and mirroring the similar provisions in other legislation providing for civil orders.

The shadow Minister asked whether the measure would result in an increase in non-attendance in the courts and potentially an increase in warrants. A court can hear the proceedings in a person’s absence if it is satisfied that the defendant

“has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings, and…has been informed that if the defendant does not appear for those proceedings the court may hear the proceedings in the defendant’s absence.”

As such, a person cannot continually delay proceedings by not attending, but the notice requirements are safeguarded to ensure that defendants are aware of the proceedings. The court cannot issue a warrant unless it is satisfied that the person

“has had adequate notice of the time and place of the adjourned proceedings”.

Clause 30 also makes clear that a court can adjourn proceedings where a person has been found guilty of a slavery and trafficking offence before making a slavery and trafficking prevention order.

I will pick up on the shadow Minister’s point about victim liaisons because that is important; I will undertake to get back to him and the Committee about that. The clause also undertakes a court process, which is currently common practice in relation to these orders and mirrors established legislative precedent from other civil orders. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 according ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: electronic monitoring

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 32 and 33 stand part.

[Anna Turley]

There is currently no express power in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as a condition of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. Case law suggests that that may be within the court’s existing powers; however, as it is not explicit in the current legislation, it can be unclear to the court that electronic monitoring—tagging, as we know it—is an option as a monitoring tool for slavery and trafficking orders. Introducing an express power will ensure that there is no doubt that electronic monitoring can be used where it is deemed necessary.

Clauses 31 and 32 set out the explicit provision for courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a slavery and trafficking prevention order or an interim slavery and trafficking prevention order, or a slavery and trafficking risk order or an interim slavery and trafficking risk order. Such a requirement will be applied only where the court is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm. We want to ensure that law enforcement has all the tools it needs to manage offenders effectively.

Electronic monitoring enables law enforcement to monitor compliance with the conditions of an order where they include an exclusion zone, a curfew or travel restrictions. The conditions imposed by each order are tailored by the court depending on the nature of the individual’s risk of offending. Electronic monitoring, as a condition of a slavery and trafficking order, would also help to prevent reoffending and prevent offenders from fleeing, leaving the country and escaping criminal punishment.

We know that electronic monitoring of an offender can make victims and survivors feel safer in some instances and improve their engagement with the criminal justice system. Electronic monitoring can also act as a deterrent to perpetrators while the tag is being worn. Electronic monitoring will ensure certainty of detection when protective licence conditions are breached, strengthen offender management, help victims and survivors feel safe following the release of their perpetrators and help to prevent further offending.

Clause 33 sets out a number of consequential amendments to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to support the introduction and enforcement of electronic monitoring requirements for individuals subject to slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. The clause updates section 30 of the 2015 Act so that the existing offence of breaching an order applies consistently to all the modern slavery and trafficking orders. This ensures a consistent enforcement framework across the full range of orders.

The clause also sets out a requirement for the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice governing the processing of data obtained through electronic monitoring. That will provide clear guidance on the handling of information gathered through electronic monitoring while ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The clause also provides the appropriate regulation-making framework for electronic monitoring arrangements and clarifies the parliamentary procedure for regulations specifying who may be responsible for electronic monitoring.

Clauses 31 to 33 will strengthen the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, support the use of electronic monitoring and provide a clear framework for enforcement, governance and oversight, and I commend them to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clauses 31 to 33 provide for electronic monitoring in slavery and trafficking prevention orders and risk orders, including interim orders, and require the issuance of a code of practice on how the monitoring data is handled. A court order must mean something. If somebody is told to stay away from a potential victim or a particular place, the authorities need to know when that order is broken, and they need to act. Electronic monitoring can help with that, and the Opposition support these powers.

However, we should not view tagging through rose-tinted glasses. A tag tells the authority where someone is. It cannot stop the person picking up a phone and getting someone else to do their dirty work, and a tag is only as good as the response when it goes off. Picture someone walking into an area the court has barred them from because a potential victim lives there. The device records it and an alert is raised. Then what? Who receives that alert first, how quickly is it passed to the police, and how quickly do officers arrive? Someone who is at risk at 11 o’clock on a Saturday night cannot wait until Monday morning for someone to check a screen.

That is not a theoretical concern. Only this week, Sky News reported that the Metropolitan police will no longer respond to curfew or tag battery breaches lasting under an hour, unless the wearer is judged to pose a particular risk. The commissioner says his officers are dealing with more than 100 tag breaches a day, driven in part by the Government’s early release scheme. One sergeant put it simply:

“there are not enough cops”.

The Met itself described cases in which officers were told about a breach many hours after it had happened. The problem is therefore at both ends: alerts that are slow to reach the police, and police too stretched to respond when they do. The Minister must tell us how alerts under these new orders will avoid both.

Monitoring can also be imposed only where suitable arrangements are available in the area, so a court may decide that monitoring is necessary but still be unable to order it. Will monitoring be available consistently across the country from the day these powers come into force, or will protection depend on where a victim happens to live?

The person being monitored must allow the equipment to be fitted and maintained, and must not interfere with it. Deliberate tampering cannot be allowed to defeat an order, and it must be treated as the enforcement matter it is. Equally, officers need to be able to tell a flat battery from a deliberate attempt to go off the radar, so that they spend their time on the real risks. Clause 33 requires a code of practice on monitoring data. That code must protect the data properly, but it must also let the right officers get hold of information quickly, and make sure that it is preserved where it may be needed as evidence.

We support clauses 31 to 33, but we have questions for the Minister. When an alert is raised under one of these orders, who receives it? How is it passed to the police, and how quickly will officers respond, including at night and on weekends? Where will monitoring be available when these powers come into force, and when will it be available everywhere? When will the Committee see a draft of the code of practice on monitoring data?

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his helpful and thoughtful contributions, and for his support for the clauses. As discussed, this group covers the electronic monitoring requirements for slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, along with consequential amendments.

As I laid out previously, law enforcement does not always have the tools needed to support it in effectively monitoring those subject to these orders or to identify breaches at an earlier stage. The clauses will enable courts, where necessary and proportionate, to impose electronic monitoring requirements. That will strengthen the management and enforcement of orders, help to identify breaches sooner and disrupt further offending, and provide greater protection and reassurance to victims.

The hon. Member for Stockton West raised a few questions, which I am very happy to answer. First, he asked whether the code of practice would be subject to parliamentary procedure. Given the likely content and nature of the code, the fact that it is not going to define or create any new legal responsibilities, and that the processing of data must be in accordance with the requirements of data protection legislation, the Government do not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to any parliamentary procedure.

The hon. Gentleman asked for some more detail on what the code of practice would look like. This clause sets out that the Secretary of State must issue a code of practice relating to the processing of data gathered in the course of the electronic monitoring of individuals where that has been imposed. The code of practice is intended to set out the appropriate tests and safeguards for the processing of such data, in order to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The Government consider that a code of practice is the most appropriate vehicle for setting out expectations and responsibilities in relation to the processing of data gathered under electronic monitoring requirements. It is important to have the flexibility to update the code to keep pace with any changes to that legislation and to ensure that it can be aligned with operational guidance.

The hon. Gentleman asked about resourcing. There is currently no intention to increase the number of electronic monitoring cases. Electronic monitoring will be used only in cases where it is justified against the legislative requirements and considered necessary to protect persons from harm. The number of orders issued with electronic monitoring as a condition will depend on the nature of the offending, the assessment of the court hearing the case and the other conditions available that could address the risk. As such, it is not possible to say whether, overall, the use of electronic monitoring will increase or decrease. It is about giving the courts the clarity that they need.

It is important to consider that electronic monitoring can help to reduce the amount of resource used trying to trace offenders who breach the conditions of their orders. Electronic monitoring would enable forces to respond more effectively to the risk posed by offenders, and we could see some early intervention and prevention as a result of that.

Electronic monitoring can be a condition of an order only if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring arrangements are available in the relevant area, and the court is satisfied that the necessary provision can be made under the arrangements currently available. I think I have covered the issues raised by the shadow Minister.

Clauses 31 to 33 will also align the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders with other civil orders, as I mentioned, which have explicit provision for electronic monitoring. This is about clarity for the courts on the face of the law. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 32 and 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34

Variation etc of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

This clause, building on the group we have just discussed, strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed or varied. It ensures that such measures may be applied only when the court is satisfied that the requirement is necessary for the purpose of protecting persons from physical or psychological harm, and it introduces safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, including limits on the duration of monitoring extensions.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause brings the new notification and electronic monitoring requirements into the process for varying and renewing slavery and trafficking prevention orders and risk orders. An order has to keep protecting people long after the day it is made. Those subject to the orders could move, change how they operate or find a way around a restriction and the police must be able to respond. The Opposition support the clause. There should be no reward for wriggling around an order. If the evidence shows the restrictions need strengthening, the authorities should be back in front of the court quickly, not waiting for someone to come to further harm.

A power to apply for a variation, however, does not tell an officer when to use it. Take someone whose activities have shifted to a different town. The police know things have changed and that the original conditions no longer fit the risk, but unless someone picks up the file and takes it back to court, the order stays exactly as it was. Someone has to be responsible for spotting that gap and closing it.

The clause also deals with orders made before the Bill. As we discussed under clauses 28 and 29, some such orders contain no notification requirements at all. Under clause 34, when an older order is varied, the court can add those requirements only if it is satisfied that they are necessary, but when an older order is renewed, they must be included. That is welcome, but it means the protection depends on someone bringing the older order back to court.

Electronic monitoring brings deadlines of its own. A court can extend a monitoring requirement by no more than 12 months at a time, so every order with a tag will need to come back to court at least once a year to keep it in place. Expiry dates should never come as a surprise. An ongoing risk must not go unmonitored because a renewal application was left sitting in someone’s in-tray. There is a practical catch, too: a tag can be added on variation only if the defendant is present in court, so the person who stays away from the hearing may be the very person who cannot be tagged. I will be grateful if the Minister could say how that will be handled.

The clause rightly keeps the requirement for the court to assess risk and necessity. Good evidence makes for a stronger order, and a stronger order is one that officers can enforce with confidence. I set out our concerns about police and court capacity when we debated clauses 26 and 27, and they bite the hardest here. Reviewing existing orders and returning to court every year is exactly the kind of work that does not happen unless someone is given the job of doing it. We support clause 34, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. Who will review existing orders, and who will ensure that a renewal reaches the court before the order or the monitoring runs out? How quickly will an urgent variation be heard when fresh evidence shows that the risk has grown, and what happens if the defendant does not attend? How will victims be told when an order is varied, renewed or allowed to lapse, so that they know what protection they actually have?

[Anna Turley]

As I laid out earlier, we want to ensure that law enforcement and the courts have the tools required to prevent harmful behaviour, including when orders are renewed or varied. Put simply, clause 34 strengthens the operation of slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders by allowing courts to include additional notification requirements and electronic monitoring when orders are renewed and varied. That will enable orders to respond to changing risks, help law enforcement manage those risks effectively and better protect potential victims.

The hon. Gentleman asked an earlier question about resource, and it is important to re-emphasise that electronic monitoring can often reduce the resource wasted in trying to trace offenders. Instead, it can allow forces to effectively respond to the risk posed by offenders. He also asked who will be involved, but it will follow the existing process already undertaken by those police forces.

I want to further discuss the balance between the powers given under the clause and human rights, as I think it is important to get this on the record. Electronic monitoring would only be applied by a judge to orders where it is appropriate within the confines of the European convention on human rights. There are also restrictions on the specified length of the electronic monitoring period that can be applied, based on the circumstances of the individual cases—for example, it could be up to 12 months. The decision to electronically monitor a subject will only be made following great consideration by the courts, and it will be applied only where there is justification and it is demonstrated to be proportionate in that case.

Providing the courts with this explicit power to require electronic monitoring as a condition of a slavery and trafficking order does not mean that what constitutes an acceptable threshold for electronic monitoring will be lowered. The provision will only allow for it to be quickly put in place where merit is identified. If I have not addressed any of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, I commit to write to him further on those, but I am grateful for his support. The clause introduces important safeguards governing the use of electronic monitoring, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35

Authority responsible for deciding if a person is a victim etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 4 and clause 36 stand part.

[Anna Turley]

I will speak to clauses 35 to 43. Since the modern slavery system was established, the nature and volume of referrals have changed. Compared with 2014, referrals into the national referral mechanism—the system for identifying potential victims of modern slavery—have increased by 900%. In 2025, modern slavery referrals from those who arrived by small boat were the highest since records began in 2018, and more than half of referrals now relate to exploitation that took place overseas. Our system seeks to identify, support and protect individuals at the earliest opportunity, and that is in everyone’s interest.

However, we cannot ignore the fact that, because of the protections offered by the system, there is value for some in seeking to misuse it. In 2025, over a third of chartered flight returns that failed to go ahead involved a modern slavery referral lodged after that return was arranged. That type of action undermines the integrity of the system and creates disproportionate operational pressures.

We need a robust end-to-end system—one that supports earlier identification of victims, delivers clear and timely decisions and addresses opportunities for improper use. Importantly, it must be one that works effectively for those who it is intended to protect. This Government have been particularly clear in our commitment to embed protections for those who are most vulnerable, including exploited and trafficked children, and the clauses will bring balance and order to the system to do just that.

First, clause 35 clarifies a key part of our modern slavery system: who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, it will formalise the existing operational model where the Secretary of State acts as the competent authority or decision-making body for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority in relation to reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions on a case-by-case basis. We know this model can be successful; we have been piloting the approach since 2021, enabling local safeguarding partners, who will often be involved in the child’s care, to make decisions about whether the child is a victim of modern slavery.

Stakeholders have told us that embedding decisions with those working directly with a child removes the perceived disconnect between identification and support and delivers a more sustainable model of decision making aligned with existing safeguarding frameworks. However, legislative change is required to implement this approach on a greater scale.

That is what this clause delivers: the legal foundation to devolve modern slavery decision making for children nationally, ensuring decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard them. By embedding these responsibilities within existing local safeguarding structures, the clause will strengthen partnership working, increase awareness of exploitation, support earlier identification of vulnerable children and create greater opportunity to prevent harm before it occurs.

Schedule 4 will play a critical role in implementing the changes made through clause 35 of the Bill, making consequential amendments to reflect the definition of “competent authority” and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities.

Together, the measures will enable consistent, high-quality devolved decision making for children by local safeguarding partners. First, schedule 4 updates definitions to reflect the change in who can make decisions set out in clause 35. Secondly, the regulations ensure persistent decision making across all decision-making bodies, setting a clear framework for the making of modern slavery decisions, what bodies should make them and how they should do so. This will be underpinned by guidance that makes it clear what is expected of public authorities while also providing transparency on how their competence will be addressed. That will help ensure consistent and quality decision making, and that public authorities are trained and supported to deliver to the required standard.

Thirdly, regulations will make it clear that information sharing and joint working across multi-agency safeguarding partners is paramount to strong decision making, enabling the Secretary of State to require public authorities other than the Home Office to engage in decision making. That is crucial not just for information sharing for partners with the Home Office, but to deliver the tried-and-tested approach to decision making for children, which will see responsibility embedded with those best able to make decisions for children and ensure it is done in a consistent and controlled way.

Turning to clause 36, the Government are committed to ensuring that decisions made under the national referral mechanism are robust, preventing opportunities for improper use of the system and providing clarity in legislation. To deliver that, it is essential that the factors that a decision maker must consider to negatively impact a person’s credibility are clear.

Currently, decision makers can consider factors such as the timing of disclosure and consistency in the information a person has provided, which may have an impact on the credibility of a person’s account. This assessment can be used to inform the outcome of a reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decision. However, there is no legal requirement for this credibility assessment to inform part of the decision making.

The clause will place those credibility considerations on a statutory footing, making it clear that those factors, which can often be an indicator of a lack of veracity, will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework supporting consistent decision making and a clear understanding across potential victims and those representing them.

We recognise that there may be factors that explain the presence of credibility indicators. For example, a person may be suffering from coercion, fear or trauma. That is why the legislation also requires decision making to assess whether there are good reasons that could explain the presence of factors that would otherwise impact on an individual’s credibility. Detailed guidance will be set out on what will constitute good reasons, recognising that these are non-exhaustive. It will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience.

This is a key safeguard that balances the importance of preventing improper claims with the recognition that some factors that point to a lack of credibility are the result of individual circumstances that require consideration. By setting out a statutory duty to consider credibility considerations and the impact of those factors on decisions, the clause will strengthen the legal robustness of decision making and provide greater clarity for decision makers, potential victims and those representing them. I commend clauses 35 and 36 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

There were 23,411 referrals into the national referral mechanism last year, which is the highest number since it began, and 25,373 in the year to June. Behind those numbers are genuine victims who deserve our protection, but there are also people who have worked out that a modern slavery claim can be used to frustrate removal.

The British public want two things from our modern slavery system, and they are not in conflict: they want genuine victims protected, and they want the system to stand firm against those who try to game it to avoid removal. Every bogus claim wastes taxpayers’ money, ties up officials who should be helping real victims, and delays the removal of people with no right to be here, and every bad decision risks leaving someone who has been exploited in the hands of the very people who exploited them. The Opposition believe that these clauses can help on both counts and we support them.

Clause 35 sets out who makes the decisions. For adults, it is the Secretary of State. For children, it can be the Secretary of State or another public authority nominated for that purpose. Schedule 4 makes the consequential changes needed for that to work. A name in legislation has to mean real accountability. A child’s treatment should not depend on whose desk the file happens to land on.

Clause 36 deals with credibility. When deciding whether to believe someone’s account, decision makers must treat certain things as damaging to credibility unless there are good reasons for them. Those things include a delay in making a claim or providing information, material inconsistencies and omissions, inconsistencies with what the person has said in an asylum claim or in court, and striking similarities with other people’s accounts. That is common sense. If someone tells one story in an immigration application and a very different one the moment removal becomes a real prospect, the decision maker should test that difference hard. If an account bears an uncanny resemblance to someone else’s, officials must be free to ask whether they are looking at genuine evidence or a script supplied to frustrate removal.

The principle behind the clause is one that we legislated for in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022: that late disclosure without good reason should count against credibility. Labour opposed the Act at the time, so I welcome the fact that the Government now recognise the value of that principle and are building on it. There is common ground across the Committee on this issue. The clause is carefully drawn. It is about damage to credibility. It does not say that every claim must fail or that every inconsistency proves a lie, and it allows for good reasons. Someone threatened by a gang may be terrified to speak. Someone describing horrific events that they have witnessed may not get it all out at once.

However, the Bill does not define a good reason; it leaves it to guidance. That guidance must help caseworkers tell a genuine explanation from a convenient excuse, and it needs to be ready before the clause comes into force, not cobbled together afterwards. The rules will work only if caseworkers have the information to apply them. The clause asks them to compare an account with what the person said in an asylum claim or in court proceedings, and with accounts given by other people. That is not much use if the caseworker cannot see the earlier account or has no means of spotting that the same story has appeared in a dozen other claims.

We support clauses 35 and 36 and schedule 4, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer the following questions. First, which authorities does she expect to be nominated to make decisions in children’s cases? Has legislative consent been sought from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and who will check the quality of decisions across the United Kingdom? Secondly, will the guidance on what counts as a good reason be published in draft before Report, and how will it apply at the reasonable grounds stage where the threshold is deliberately low? Thirdly, what systems will caseworkers have to see earlier accounts held elsewhere in the Home Office and to identify striking similarities across different claims?

Clear credibility rules should mean quicker and better decisions. What happens to support once a negative decision has been made is the subject of clause 37 in the next group, and I will come to it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This is a really important discussion because these are important clauses. Clause 35 clarifies who can make decisions about whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery for the purposes of part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. For adults, as I have said, it will formalise the existing operational model, with the Secretary of State acting as a competent authority for all modern slavery decisions. For children, it will enable the Secretary of State to nominate other public authorities to act as the competent authority. That will allow modern slavery decisions relating to children to be devolved nationally, ensuring that decisions are made by those best placed to safeguard and support them, building on the success of the pilot.

Schedule 4 complements these changes by making important consequential amendments to reflect the definition of competent authority and ensure consistency across the statute book. It will enable the Secretary of State to lay regulations on the making of reasonable or conclusive grounds decisions by all competent authorities and issue guidance on the processes to be followed by nominated public authorities.

Clause 36 places on a statutory footing credibility considerations that are already set out in guidance. That will make it clear that these factors will be considered to be damaging to a person’s credibility unless good reasons are put forward. That will provide a more robust framework—one that supports consistent decision making while recognising factors that could impact credibility indicators, such as a person suffering from coercion, fear or trauma.

I come back to the points raised during the discussion. I am afraid that I take issue with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for talking as if the purpose of the Bill is just to drive rhetoric or a political argument. These important measures will give our constituents confidence in the immigration and asylum system, and they will make sure that these important provisions, which are a credit to the Conservatives, are genuinely there to protect those who require and deserve support having faced the horrendous issue of modern slavery. It is really important that we protect them from abuse.

I go back to some of the facts and evidence I have already mentioned. The hon. Lady seems to dismiss the evidence out of hand, but there are some important factors here. I mentioned in my introductory remarks that modern slavery referrals have gone up 900% since 2014. Of arranged returns that failed to go ahead, 34%, or over a third, involved a referral for modern slavery made after the return had been arranged—not prior, but after. That is people who have gone through numerous appeals processes and have had numerous opportunities to highlight issues or concerns, but who had a return arranged because they have no right to be in this country.

Of cases raised through the national referral mechanism’s out-of-hours decision-making service ahead of a charter flight, 76% were raised between the hours of 3 pm on the day prior to the planned removal and 6 am on the day of the planned charter removal. Of the total referrals, 15% were raised after 11 pm.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I am just addressing the hon. Lady’s point. She said that those are not big statistics, or she dismissed them. They might appear small in scale, but they place a hugely disproportionate pressure on operations. Home Office officials are getting all the paperwork in place and liaising with different countries and airlines. These cases are hugely expensive and damaging for operations. They delay removal action due to disingenuous claims, prevent proper decision making and impact support for those who need it most. That is what the Bill aims to address.

[Siân Berry]

This is a useful debate, because the Minister’s points are speaking to the operational nature of this. I hope she will go away and reflect on the wider harm that will be caused by adding this to all victims, in response to what is an operational decision. She is very much relying on that, rather than on our obligations under human rights law and the nature of why late referrals may occur in those circumstances.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention. I will come on to trauma and the exemptions that we have, because this is really important. We want to make sure that genuine victims are protected, but I want to outline another fact—the facts are really important here—because the UK refers more victims of modern slavery than the whole of Europe put together. In 2023, the UK referred 17,004 cases, yet there were 10,907 referrals in the whole EU. I do not think anyone can accuse us of not living up to our obligations on modern slavery.

The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wimbledon have both mentioned victims of trauma. As a Government, we have engaged extensively with organisations working to address modern slavery. We have had a call for evidence and lived experience forums. We have had a range of expert insights, including survivor voices, to ensure that we have informed policy development. That has helped to ensure that the reforms reflect how the system operates in practice and take a trauma-informed approach to identifying and supporting victims. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as the Bill progresses, to ensure that the system remains responsive to victims’ needs.

I reiterate that individuals have opportunities throughout their immigration process to raise any modern slavery-related information, or any other information.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way on that specific point?

[Anna Turley]

I will give way, and then I will make the point I had intended to make.

[Siân Berry]

The Minister repeatedly refers to “individuals” making the claim, but people cannot self-refer to the national referral mechanism. A professional is making the judgment that they may be a victim. Will the Minister acknowledge that? These claims of abuse hinge on the belief that individuals are making claims, but they are not.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady must not misinterpret us; we are absolutely clear that individuals do not make those claims. However, they raise information. If they raise information on the plane’s steps, it is very clear that many individuals are knowingly gaming the sorts of information that will be relevant to a modern slavery claim. Individuals can raise, at any point in the immigration process, not a referral but any information relating to any concerns they may have about their experience of modern slavery. That could be at the moment they arrive at a UK port, when they are encountered by immigration officials, or it could be to the police, a local authority, a community group or a charity. All this information can be flagged.

If modern slavery information is raised, or if it is identified through general immigration screening processes, a trained first responder—in these circumstances, from UK Visas and Immigration, Border Force, Immigration Enforcement or the police—will make a national referral mechanism referral. Adults must consent to such a referral being made. The referral process includes questions designed to surface any modern slavery experience, to aid decision making by the single competent authority and the immigration enforcement competent authority. People are trained specifically to ask questions throughout the process to identify victims of modern slavery.

Returning to the issues of trauma, the Government recognise the horrific experience that many victims of modern slavery have endured. We understand that trauma can have a profound effect on their ability to raise and discuss it, which is why decision makers are trained and must consider whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility.

Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experience. That will be trauma-informed, and it will ensure that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis. First responders are also trained to recognise any signs of modern slavery and identify potential victims, to use trauma-informed approaches to help individuals disclose their experiences and, where appropriate, to refer them to the national referral mechanism.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asks about the provisions applying to children. The Bill’s credibility provisions will apply to individuals of all ages, but specific safeguards will be in place with regard to age. The Government recognise the specific vulnerabilities that children can have, which may affect their ability to disclose relevant modern slavery information. That will be factored into decision makers’ consideration of whether there are good reasons to explain the factors that might otherwise be viewed as undermining an individual’s credibility. This could include, for example, a child’s developmental stage and emotional maturity, which could have an impact on their ability to disclose information. Detailed guidance will support decision makers in considering each person’s individual circumstances and experiences, ensuring that credibility assessments are made fairly and on a case-by-case basis.

The hon. Lady also asks whether the credibility provisions will apply to British nationals. Yes, they will apply to all individuals, including British nationals. We recognise that some individuals, including British nationals who have experienced modern slavery, may have reasons for being unable to disclose information at an early opportunity. For example, victims of historical exploitation may not have previously come into contact or had repeated interactions with authorities, resulting in delayed disclosure. Equally, victims might not recognise themselves as victims of modern slavery or might be reluctant to be identified as such. That is why our first responders are trained to understand and identify signs that may indicate that a person is a victim.

The clause also requires decision makers to consider all relevant circumstances and evidence when assessing the credibility of an individual’s account on a case-by-case basis. As I said, where they identify that there are good reasons for the delayed disclosure, they will not draw a negative credibility finding on that basis alone.

The hon. Lady mentioned the al-Fayed cases. We are absolutely committed to supporting victims to come forward and disclose their experiences, including victims of historical exploitation, victims of grooming gangs and al-Fayed trafficking victims. Those are horrendous cases. Under the modern slavery system, first responders must refer consenting adults and children to the national referral mechanism when modern slavery indicators are present. This is true regardless of how long ago the incidents may have occurred. Decision makers will take this into account when considering cases. Where there is an explanation for the time taken between the exploitation and disclosing it, the delay in disclosure will not result in a negative credibility finding on that basis alone. The credibility provisions on delayed disclosure focus on where individuals have had repeated opportunities to disclose and did not do so. It is not a blanket provision on all lateness.

Hon. Members have asked for more detail on why good reasons are not listed in the Bill. The Bill sets out a pretty exhaustive list of five specific factors that decision makers are required to consider as having a negative impact on credibility when assessing the account of an individual referred to the national referral mechanism, while recognising there might be legitimate reasons for these issues arising. Where the competent authority is satisfied that there are good reasons for the issues with an individual’s account, such as delayed disclosure and inconsistency of account, this will mitigate against any adverse credibility finding. The legislation does not include an exhaustive list of good reasons, primarily because the range of potential mitigating circumstances is so broad that any attempt to provide a closed list would inevitably fail to capture the full range of potential mitigating circumstances.

Decision makers should not be restricted to a set of good reasons. Having these reasons in guidance will retain flexibility for decision makers to consider individual factors that appear to impact on an individual’s credibility. Those decision makers should consider all relevant factors in the round on a case-by-case basis before making a credibility finding. In terms of good reasons, relevant consideration may include the impact of trauma, fear of authorities, cultural or gender-related barriers to disclosure, a lack of self-identification as a victim or, for children, factors such as developmental stage, maturity and the effects of grooming, coercion and control.

The hon. Member for Stockton West asked about consistency across local authorities and local decision-making structures. It is important to say that any individual would receive a consistent decision and outcome. That is important to us, irrespective of which competent authority makes the decision. Regulations will be put in place to establish a clear framework that all competent authorities will be expected to operate within in order to ensure that decisions are taken consistently across all areas. All decisions will be made in line with modern slavery statutory guidance that will be consistent across all competent authorities. For decisions made by local public authorities, there will be separate additional guidance setting out the process and timelines for decision making through this model.

The shadow Minister also asked who might be nominated. Ahead of any public authority being nominated as a competent authority, it will be provided with a comprehensive programme of training to ensure that it understands its responsibilities as a competent authority and is able to make timely and accurate decisions. In addition, the Home Office will put in place clear oversight processes, including clear intervention steps that will be taken should concerns be raised about performance.

The shadow Minister also asked how the measures will apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The intention is for this model of decision making to apply to children across all parts of the United Kingdom. We already have successful pilot sites operating in all four nations, as the model allows for local safeguarding partners to have flexibility over how they deliver many elements of the decision-making process. This means that decisions can work alongside any differences in legislative framework across the UK, while ensuring that all decisions are made to a consistent standard. We will continue to work with local safeguarding partners and devolved Governments on this approach and implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anna Turley]

This Government are clear that we must be able to move individuals more efficiently through the system without unnecessary delay, and ensure that those who are deemed not to be victims of modern slavery do not receive protection and support that they do not need and are not entitled to. Clause 37 makes it clear that a negative conclusive grounds decision ends the modern slavery recovery period, so there will be no requirement to wait for the 30-day recovery period to end before confirming that an individual is not a victim.

At present, after referral to the national referral mechanism, if an individual receives a positive reasonable grounds decision, they receive a statutory 30-day recovery period. That protects them from removal and enables access to support. Even where a decision maker has the evidence to issue a negative conclusive grounds decision within 30 days, and so conclude that the individual is not a victim, that would not end the recovery period nor these entitlements.

Clause 37 rectifies this problem. Where there is enough evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery, a negative conclusive grounds decision can be issued within the recovery period, and the issuing of that negative decision will end the recovery period. This is important to ensure that we remove inefficiencies in our system and do not retain unnecessary barriers to removal. It will also ensure that support resources remain focused on supporting and protecting genuine victims. I commend clause 37 to the Committee.

[Matt Vickers]

Clause 37 raises a simple question: once the competent authority has considered a claim and reached a negative conclusive grounds decision, why should the recovery period carry on just because the calendar has not yet reached 30 days? Under clause 37, the recovery period ends when a negative conclusive grounds decision is made, even if that is before the 30 days are up. If no decision has been made by then, the period continues until a decision is made. Corresponding changes are made for further recovery periods. The Opposition support this principle.

The recovery period exists so that a claim can be properly considered. Once it has been considered and found wanting, the protection should not roll on automatically. Our immigration system will not command respect if an unsuccessful claim simply buys another stretch of waiting at taxpayers’ expense. Where the legal process is complete and someone has no right to be here, they should leave.

We should be honest about what the clause does and does not do. Ending a recovery period lifts the legal bar on removal and ends the support that goes with it. However, it does not remove a single person; that depends entirely on what happens next, which is a point that applies just as much to the groups of clauses either side of this one. Too often, a decision is made in one part of the Home Office, while another part carries on as if nothing has happened. Ministers should be lining up the next steps while a case is still being considered, so that a negative decision is followed swiftly by action, not by a trip to the back of another queue.

Speed must not come at the expense of getting it right. A rushed decision that falls apart under scrutiny helps nobody and ends up in court. In the year to June, more than four in five conclusive grounds decisions that were reconsidered came out positive. Whatever the reason for that, it tells us that first decisions do not always hold up. If a negative decision will now end support immediately, the quality of that decision matters more than ever.

The Government announced earlier this month that the backlog of conclusive grounds decisions had been cleared, yet more than 6,000 cases were still waiting at the end of September, and that number has been rising. The Home Office’s own statistics show that the number of cases awaiting a final decision fell in every quarter until April this year, but has since risen by 23% between March and June and by a further 6% in September alone. I would be grateful if the Minister explained what the Government mean by “cleared”, and what they are doing to stop the queue from growing again.

The person, their representative and the organisations supporting them also need to know what has been decided and what happens next. A recovery period that ends overnight must not leave anyone unsure of whether they are still entitled to support.

We support clause 37, but I would be grateful if the Minister answered three questions. First, what checks will take place before a negative conclusive grounds decision is issued, and how will a genuine mistake be put right without that process becoming an endless source of delay? Secondly, once a negative decision is made, who takes ownership of the case, and how will cases that are already in the system when the clause comes into force be treated? Thirdly, will the Government publish regular figures showing how long it takes, after a negative conclusive grounds decision, for the next enforcement step to happen? Counting decisions alone will tell us nothing about whether the system is actually working.

[Siân Berry]

I also oppose clause 37. Under that clause, survivors who receive a negative decision could be immediately removed from support, which could expose them to destitution, homelessness and an increased risk of further harm and exploitation.

Allowing competent authorities to make and serve conclusive grounds decisions during the recovery and reflection period could have a devastating impact on survivors’ wellbeing and recovery. This approach may reduce the amount and quality of evidence available to inform decision making, because survivors may not have sufficient time to understand the process, build trust with support providers or access legal advice. Given the complexity of many cases and the evidential requirements often associated with conclusive grounds decisions—including the need for medical or mental health assessment reports—many individuals may find it difficult to obtain and submit the necessary evidence within such a short timeframe.

I believe that there will also be wider impacts on survivors and society—particularly an increase in homelessness, which the Prime Minister is committed to reducing. Clause 37 could result in survivors being exited from support on the same day that they receive a negative decision, which would clearly put them at a heightened risk of destitution and homelessness. A negative decision notwithstanding, anyone in the national referral mechanism was referred by a first responder who identified trafficking indicators. Those indicators suggested the need for appropriate support to prevent the individual’s situation from deteriorating, whether or not they met the threshold for identification as trafficked at the point of referral.

Additionally, instructing decision makers to decide at any point in the recovery and reflection period means that survivors may be expected to provide far too much relevant information about their case far too quickly after being rescued or escaping a situation of exploitation. Those decisions may be rushed; there may be political or administrative pressure on decision makers to rush processes so that decisions are made more quickly and support can be withdrawn. The overturning data is very instructive on that point. I agree that the quality of decisions matters more than speed. Clause 37 is very risky in its potential to do harm.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association suggested in evidence that if clause 37 is retained, a further short 30-day period of support should be provided, to avoid the cliff edge. No amendment to that effect has been tabled. Does the Minister really intend for people to receive literally nothing after a negative decision, risking homelessness, destitution and re-exploitation? She should bear in mind not the six people disqualified on bad faith grounds, or the small number of people whose cases start while they are under removal plans, but the huge number of potential survivors this will affect right across the country.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the contributions that hon. Members have made. As I have made clear, the Government are committed to ensuring that the modern slavery national referral mechanism operates efficiently and effectively. Clause 37 is an important part of that. It will remove inefficiencies and allow for support to be targeted at those who are recognised as victims, rather than having an arbitrary period to wait when we have conclusively identified that an individual is not a victim. As I am sure hon. Members would agree, support should be removed in a recovery period when there is sufficient evidence to conclude that an individual is not a victim of modern slavery.

Let me respond to some of the points that colleagues have made. I have heard language describing people whose conclusive grounds decisions state that they are not victims of modern slavery described as “survivors”. It is important to note that the conclusive grounds decision is that they are not a victim of modern slavery, and therefore that they are not considered to have recovery needs stemming from modern slavery. It stands to reason that those individuals should not be entitled to the recovery period or to modern slavery-specific support—nor would they need them.

For someone who does not receive a negative conclusive grounds decision in the recovery period, those protections will continue for the duration of the 30 days or until such time as a conclusive grounds decision is made. During the recovery period, when there are still reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is a victim of modern slavery, protection from removal and entitlement to support will be ongoing. The recovery period itself is not being reduced; the new provision merely makes it clear that, where there is sufficient evidence to warrant making a negative conclusive grounds decision during that time, doing so will end the recovery period.

The quality of decision making has been flagged by a number of Opposition Members. We are talking about highly trained staff, and negative conclusive grounds decisions are always checked by a second pair of eyes, so there is quality assurance and effective decision making. In 2025, of the 17,560 negative decisions, only 1,467 were accepted for reconsideration. Changing the outcome, however, does not mean that the original decision was incorrect. In most cases, additional information was provided that was not available originally, so that is not an issue of decision-making quality.

--- Later in debate ---

Disqualification from protection

[Anna Turley]

I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 38, page 40, line 16, leave out—

“except where the person is within subsection (1A)”

and insert—

“in a case where the person is aged 18 or over”.

This amendment limits the duty of the Secretary of State to disqualify potential victims of slavery or trafficking from certain protections when they are a threat to public order so that the duty will apply only in respect of adults.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 115 to 118.

Clause stand part.

[Anna Turley]

Our modern slavery system is generous in the rights and protections it provides those who require them to recover from that abhorrent crime. The Government remain committed to ensuring that such protections are available to those for whom they are intended. It is right—indeed, it is within our international obligations—that the Government can deny modern slavery protections to those who pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system through dishonest claims made in bad faith.

The practical operation of the disqualification mechanisms has long-standing challenges, including in cases involving foreign national offenders. The current disqualification framework does not always provide sufficient clarity on when disqualification should apply and what the consequences of that decision are, or on when a claim should be treated as having been made in bad faith. Such ambiguities have created operational uncertainty and complicated decision making, and ultimately mean that the disqualification framework does not operate as effectively as it should.

Clause 38 addresses those issues by strengthening and clarifying the public order and bad faith disqualification frameworks, while maintaining appropriate safeguards for children and those at risk of re-trafficking. First, it expands the grounds on which a person can be disqualified, based on the national security or public order threat that they pose, to include suspended sentences, reflecting the changes made in the Sentencing Act 2026. Secondly, it clarifies the consequences that follow a decision to disqualify, making clear that no onward modern slavery decision making is required, rectifying an existing lack of clarity. Thirdly, it clarifies that where an individual is at an immediate and significant risk of re-trafficking in the UK, the national security or public order disqualification will not apply. That necessary and targeted safeguard provides clarity for decision makers, potential victims and professionals, and balances the need to protect people at significant risk with the duty to disqualify. That exemption ensures that, where there is a direct risk of someone being exploited or exploited again in the UK, they retain access to NRM support for protection.

Clause 38, combined with amendment 115, also introduces a specific, targeted exemption from disqualification for all children on public order grounds, while maintaining the disqualification where the national security criteria are met, to ensure that the acute vulnerabilities of children are appropriately recognised. Importantly, the clause also separates bad faith from public order, and, for the first time in statute, defines circumstances in which a claim is to be treated as having been made in bad faith. That includes claims based on falsified documents or claims made only after removal action has commenced without compelling justification, thereby disincentivising people from trying to misuse the system.

Those measures will provide a more consistent and robust approach to disqualification decisions, helping to ensure that the modern slavery system safeguards the public interest, commands public confidence and strengthens the Government’s ability to respond where individuals pose a threat to public order or seek to misuse the system. The clause therefore addresses existing uncertainty that underpins the current disqualification framework, strengthens and clarifies the circumstances in which disqualification will apply, embeds more appropriate safeguards, and ultimately supports a more effective modern slavery system.

Amendment 115, which is consequential on amendment 114, ensures that all children are treated equally under the public order disqualification in clause 38. Presently, clause 38 exempts children with leave to remain or right of abode in the UK from disqualification based on public order threat based on criminality. Amendments 114 and 115 recognise the vulnerabilities of all children and make an important change to ensure that all children under the age of 18 are treated consistently. The same exemption from the public order disqualification on criminality grounds will therefore be afforded to all children regardless of their immigration status. The amendments do not affect disqualification on national security grounds, for which all children remain in scope. I hope that Members will agree that the amendments are sensible and proportionate, and ensure that the public order disqualification provision, and our safeguarding duties, can operate as intended.

Amendment 118 is a technical amendment to provide greater clarity win the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on how the public order disqualification, bad faith disqualification and temporary permission to stay provisions operate together. Amendments 116 and 117, which are consequential on amendment 118, remove references to temporary permission to stay from the public order and bad faith disqualification provisions in section 63 of the 2022 Act.

That will create a clearer distinction between a disqualification decision and a temporary permission to stay decision under section 65 of the same Act, the latter of which can be considered only after a positive conclusive grounds decision has been made. Importantly, section 65 already makes clear the circumstances in which the duty to grant permission to stay does not apply, including where public order, national security or bad faith concerns arise. The amendments therefore improve the clarity and consistency of the legislation, without changing the underlying policy intent.

[Matt Vickers]

A modern slavery claim must never become a “get out of jail free” card for someone who threatens our national security or is deliberately abusing our immigration system. Clause 38 deals with disqualification from protection on grounds of national security, public order and bad faith, and the Opposition support its purpose. It builds on the public order disqualification that the last Conservative Government introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—a measure that Labour voted against.

When we legislated again in 2023, the then Prime Minister said that our modern slavery measures would drive “a coach and horses” through protections. Labour has kept those measures and is now are adding to them—we welcome that. However, the Committee must understand exactly who is caught, which protections fall where and how such decisions will be taken. The Government have had to table—

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Turley Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

3. What steps she is taking to expedite the deportation of foreign national offenders.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

Anyone coming to the United Kingdom knows that doing so is a privilege, not a right. Any foreign national who breaks our laws is not welcome. All foreign national offenders who receive a prison sentence or suspended sentence are now eligible for deportation. Since this Government came to power, we have removed over 11,700 foreign national offenders; that is up 41% on the two years before then. We are determined to ensure that more foreign criminals are removed from our shores.

[Sarah Pochin]

Gift Oladele successfully appealed his deportation, after sexually assaulting a woman in Manchester. He then went on to rape a 19-year-old young woman in Wrexham. Can the Minister explain exactly what changes her Government have made to article 8 of the European convention on human rights to make sure that this does not happen again, and when they will take effect?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Lady raising this case, and look forward to her supporting our Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is going through Parliament. We are determined to build on the progress we have made, and which I have just outlined. Our asylum Bill will fix the broken appeals system and close the human rights loopholes, so that they cannot be exploited. From early next year, we will be able to remove offenders immediately after sentencing, allowing us to scale up deportations even further. We will be relentless in ensuring that all who break our laws are removed.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Nearly 6,000 foreign national offenders were returned in the last year—12% more than in the year before. Clause 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill strengthens the measures on circumstances in which it is in the public interest to deport foreign criminals, particularly where their offending is more serious. Will my hon. Friend explain how these changes will build on the progress that has been made, and further strengthen public security?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We remain firmly committed to the ECHR and the protections it gives us all, including the prohibition on torture, a right to life and protections from the state. However, we are determined, through this legislation, to protect its principles from over-interpretation, both domestically and internationally, and to ensure we have an immigration and asylum system that has the consent of the British people.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

There are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in the UK. Today, a foreign criminal jailed for four years or more cannot use family or long residence exceptions to avoid deportation. Last week, the Government voted down our amendments in Committee to keep that rule and extend it to terrorists, making the Immigration and Asylum Bill softer on the worst offenders than current law. Will the Home Secretary admit that only leaving the ECHR will guarantee us that foreign criminals are deported?

[Anna Turley]

It is sad to see the Conservative party so spooked by the far right that they are trashing some of the finest work of their greatest Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. When he said, “Never again,” and led the way in building a European convention on human rights, he knew the protection it gave everyone from tyrants, despots, torture and death. This Government will defend Churchill’s legacy—even if the Conservatives will not—by reforming both the ECHR, internationally, through co-operation with our European neighbours, and its domestic application through the forthcoming Bill, to ensure that its protections and principles are fit for the modern world.

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What steps she is taking to help reduce levels of abuse experienced by retail workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Mears, acting for the Home Office, is acquiring properties to accommodate asylum seekers in small, rural communities in the Scottish Borders, where GP surgeries, schools and transport are already stretched. Scottish Borders council tells me that it is not being properly consulted by either the Home Office or Mears before these properties are acquired. Will the Minister meet me, together with representatives from Scottish Borders council, so that we can discuss how engagement can be improved?

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Home Office officials continue to engage with Scottish Borders council and other local partners on asylum accommodation. We value and recognise the importance of working with those local authorities, taking account of local circumstances when considering accommodation requirements.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)]

T9. Have Ministers noted the recent report from the University of Sheffield, which showed that drug diversion schemes for people caught in possession of controlled drugs are more successful at cutting reoffending than prosecutions? Will the Minister encourage police forces to use those schemes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

The asylum accommodation centre at Wethersfield has blighted the local community and made it impossible for people to sell their homes. The number of pupils in the primary school is declining, putting the school’s future in question. When I was Home Secretary there was a cap on numbers and a commitment to a closure date in spring next year. The Government have reneged on both of those. When will the asylum centre in Wethersfield close, and when will my constituents be able to get back on with their lives properly?

[Anna Turley]

The Wethersfield centre, which was opened under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government, has operated for years with robust security arrangements to maintain the safety and security of both residents and the wider community. The chief constable has said that the centre is not having a negative impact on crime. This Government are proud to put fairness at the heart of our approach by moving to alternative accommodation, including former military sites, which reduce the burden on communities because they are self-contained, with 24/7 security and CCTV.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Policing Minister for her confirmation that £5.2 million will be sent to Cleveland police to help to deal with the mutual aid bill—that is most welcome—but she will recognise that the police funding formula is simply not fit for purpose, especially when Cleveland has the highest level of crime and the poorest level of resources devoted to it. Although I welcome her indication about exceptional funding, does she agree that the situation will not be resolved until there is a complete reconfiguration of policing in this country? The people of Cleveland cannot wait for police restructuring.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

Following their convictions for LIBOR manipulation, Jay Merchant and Christian Bittar were deported from the UK and barred from returning. Earlier this month, their convictions were comprehensively quashed by the Court of Appeal. With their convictions thrown out, the reason for their deportation is completely invalid, but the deportation order will remain in place until removed by the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary look into those cases, accelerate the decision-making process on their applications and have their deportations revoked, so that they do not receive any more unearned punishment?

[Anna Turley]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those cases. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further and will look into it.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

MPs’ safety is paramount. After my speech in the Black History Month debate on Thursday, a shadow Minister posted a racially charged tweet online that has resulted in more abuse against me. Do Ministers accept that MPs are bound by the code of practice, and, at the very least, that they should not be racist online?

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s progress in reducing those perilous and often exploitative small boat crossings, but aside from the misplaced idea that asylum seekers have significant recourse to public funds or mainstream benefits, we must still be honest that a lot of human behaviour ultimately boils down to incentives. What consideration have Home Office Ministers given to the Danish model in terms of narrowing any incentive gap for migrants between coming here for work and doing so by other, irregular means?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate my hon. Friend raising that question. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has visited Denmark. This year she announced that we would introduce a new approach to refugee protection in the UK called core protection, which marks a shift to a more streamlined approach that meets our international obligations without going beyond them. We are committed to upholding our international obligations, but we no longer want a system that is seen as over-interpreting those obligations or that is open to abuse, and that is what my right hon. Friend is ensuring through the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

The villages of Crick and Flore in my constituency are two small rural communities with few amenities, but both have hotels housing asylum seekers. The previous Minister responsible for asylum, in fairness, recognised that they are not suitable and said that they would be temporary, but all the communication I get now says, “It will be done by 2029”. Can I invite the Minister to visit these villages and see for herself how unsuitable they are for those hotels?

[Anna Turley]

I would be more than happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman to discuss that and hear more about his local area. As he knows, we have made great progress in closing asylum hotels, and we are committing to doing that by the end of this Parliament. We have saved over £1 billion since inheriting the chaotic and disastrous hotel accommodation situation from the previous Government.

[Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)]

October marks the first anniversary since the appalling arson attack on a mosque in Peacehaven in my constituency. I will forever be grateful to the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister for coming to Peacehaven in the immediate aftermath and standing with me and the local community. I am also grateful to the Home Office for the extra security measures it has given to my community. A year on, what more does the Home Secretary think we can do to stop this kind of appalling hate crime and rebuild community cohesion so that something like that never happens again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for confirming that the contract for the Cladhan to be used as asylum accommodation signed by the previous Government will be cancelled this year. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that was enabled only by significantly falling small boat numbers and the lowest backlog since 2019, and that claims that people are just being moved around are not borne out by the numbers?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is right. We are extremely proud of the fact that we have reduced the numbers of those crossing by boat by 40%, and deportations are up—we have removed over 80,000 people. Those numbers continue to bring down the pressure on the asylum system.

[Dawn Butler]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need some clarification. After I posted my Black History Month speech last week, I received thousands of abusive messages. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), posted:

“If you want to tax my constituents more to fund random handouts to your mates overseas then yes, that is ‘stolen wealth’—their money is not yours, they have done nothing wrong, and you can do one.”

That resulted in a racist pile-on, and I am troubled and concerned by the phrase “your mates overseas”. What exactly does the Member mean?

I am deeply concerned by this. It is not about the reparations debate—I can handle people disagreeing with that—but “The Code of Conduct” states that Members are required to “treat others with respect.” I have emailed the Member to ask for an explanation, but none was given. Mr Speaker, could you advise me on how I can obtain an explanation for what was meant?

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.

Clause 22

Interpretation of Refugee Convention: “lawfully staying”

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 22, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would omit the transitional provision for clause 22. Amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, and that would mean that the transitional provision could also be included in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

New clause 61—Removal of persons within Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention: disapplication of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998—

“(1) Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) does not apply to a decision of the Secretary of State to remove from, or require to leave, the United Kingdom a person who is not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (as inserted by this Act).

(2) In proceedings relating to such a decision, a court or tribunal may not treat the decision as unlawful by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right.

(3) In this section ‘Convention right’ has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.”

This new clause would mean that the Human Rights Act 1998 would not prevent the removal from the United Kingdom, where the Refugee Convention permits their return, of a refugee who is a danger to national security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community.

[Anna Turley]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. If the Committee will bear with me, I will set out some reminders of the purposes of the clause to which amendment 133 refers, to give some context to the discussion and debate that I look forward to this morning.

Clause 22 provides that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a “particularly serious crime” or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws and contribute positively to life in this country. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations. It is right that we help individuals from around the world who flee conflict and oppression, but the asylum system must be fair and effective so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection. Those who break our laws and undermine our way of life do not deserve to have our support or indulgence any longer.

Those granted refugee or human rights protection status are provided with the rights and support necessary to rebuild their lives, to integrate into our communities, to support themselves and their families, and to contribute to the UK. That includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. However, we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome. Those who can be deported will be deported, and those we are unable to remove will be denied the benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws. Through their serious offending, they have demonstrated conduct that justifies a different approach to the benefits and entitlements associated with protection status.

All those who claim asylum undergo a series of security checks against immigration and police databases, and they are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both inside and outside the UK, or are of national security interest. Under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, we have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcomed here. We have expanded the definition of “particularly serious crime” so that any registered sex offender or any individual convicted of a schedule 3 sex offence can be denied protection status, alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

This is a huge concern in rural constituencies like mine. There is no support any more for the immigration and asylum system. Will the Minister explain how she believes that these changes will assure people that there is a safeguard in place to make sure that those who are threats not only to individuals but to our nation will not be welcomed here?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his. There is real concern that anyone who comes here and breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide to those genuinely fleeing persecution who abide by the rules and standards we expect of them. No member of this Committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We have deported more than 12,000 foreign national offenders, up 41% on the two years before we came into power. As I say, no one should be in any doubt about our determination.

The clause focuses particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, those individuals are already granted shorter, more restricted leave, with conditions attached, and are subject to regular review until they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. We are clear that we will continue to monitor and review these individuals until removal is possible. They cannot qualify for settlement, and their continued presence in the UK is permitted for only so long as the barrier persists.

We are determined that protection from removal, where required by international obligations, should not automatically confer the broader benefits associated with protection status. It is right that there is a clear distinction between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not—those who make the effort to integrate into the UK and those who do not.

Certain rights under the refugee convention are owed only to individuals who are “lawfully staying” in the UK. The Secretary of State’s policy is that refugees who have been excluded from the protections of the refugee convention under article 33(2) are not lawfully staying in the UK. Clause 22 puts that policy on a statutory footing for the first time, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. That will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope the Committee agrees that it cannot be the case that those who have committed those crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws.

New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would enable the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. I look forward to hearing his argument for the new clause, but it is important to clarify that we would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. My initial response is that simply disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 does not address the point about international law or customary international law, and that any attempt to ignore those obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. That would not comply with our obligations under the refugee convention, which we ourselves established, to ensure that we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Is not one of the risks with the Opposition’s proposition that, by disapplying the European convention on human rights, we would have to strike a new deal with other nations every single time? That is the reason for the slow returns processes we currently have with countries that are not in the ECHR.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in every experience I have ever had in this portfolio and others, international co-operation has been the solution, not the problem, whether it is driving down fraudulent asylum applications or dealing with those who break the rules when they are here.

Finally, Government amendment 133 will simply allow for transitional provisions to be included in the commencement regulations, rather than being on the face of the Bill.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.

The current rules allow too many foreign national offenders to avoid deportation. That undermines public safety and confidence in our immigration system, so it is right that through the Bill we strive to balance the public interest against individual rights, and to ensure that the application of article 8 of the ECHR in deportation cases reflects that balance. The existing tests do not place enough weight on the public interest, especially on public safety and crime prevention. The tougher action that the Government propose is intended to ensure that the courts consistently prioritise public protection, which is welcome.

It is incomprehensible to most people how those who have been granted permission to live and work in the UK and then seriously break the law of the land do not then forfeit the rights that have been conferred on them. That view is heightened when people are part of organised crime gangs, have only recently arrived in the country or have arrived without permission and request asylum. We say that the UK is a tolerant country, but I see that tolerance fracturing as UK citizens see the rules of the country failing in the face of modern migration. We are not the only country experiencing this, and failing to address it will only ensure even greater civil unrest.

It is worth noting that, between 2016 and 2021, about 70% of successful appeals by foreign national offenders allowed them to stay solely on article 8 grounds. Other data shows that nearly 20,000 foreign offenders remain in Britain due to a clogged appeals system, with many winning cases based on human rights arguments. It is interesting to see an amendment propose incredibly tough, specific measures when, during their time in government, the Conservatives failed to implement any changes that would have prevented the disgraceful scenes that we see around the country today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We are talking about people who pose a threat to our national security and are, categorically, a danger to our community. I think that the rights of the people in my community should trump the rights of people who pose a threat to our national security and are a danger to that community—[Interruption.] I will try to make a bit of progress, or we might be here for quite a while.

New clause 61 would remove the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves Ministers unable to act. It is a concrete step that the Committee could take today. If the Government reject that approach, what is the answer? Where removal is lawful, how quickly will it happen? Where return home is barred, will Ministers seek agreements with safe third countries? While the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk, and who is accountable for making sure that they work?

Government amendment 133 removes the transitional provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applies only to decisions made after it comes into force. The Minister’s explanatory statement says that amendment 135

“would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations,”

which means that the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill. That means that the question of who this clause applies to and whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by Ministers, not by this Committee. I ask the Minister directly: will existing cases be reassessed, or will this apply only to future decisions? When will the regulations be published, and when will this clause actually take effect? Until Ministers commence clause 22, neither it nor new clause 61 can apply to a single person.

We also need to know who will decide that someone falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention, what evidence will be required and how challenges will be handled. Those decisions must be robust, otherwise we risk years of litigation while the person concerned stays put.

We will support clause 22 because it tightens the position of these individuals, but our support should not be mistaken for confidence that it solves the problem. Declaring someone dangerous is not the same as protecting the public from them. New clause 61 confronts the gap between the two, and we will press it to a Division at the appropriate point. If Ministers will not support it, they must explain what they will do instead to keep this country safe.

[Anna Turley]

I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that.

As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence.

To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes.

I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.

[Mr Kohler]

Has anything changed? In all those discussions, has any position moved at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.

[Catherine Fookes]

I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law.

I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful.

The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born.

As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”.

The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.

That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes.

This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended.

That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.

[Ben Goldsborough]

That gets to the crux of the issue that we are trying to combat within the Bill. The issue itself is not necessarily the principles behind the ECHR; it is the over-interpretation—the juridification—of the law. What we are seeking to do through the Bill, which my constituents greatly welcome, is rein in the courts and make them understand that Parliament sets the rules of the game. We will ensure that they are firm but fair for all residents, as well as for those stuck on waiting lists who need swift action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the Bill: ensuring that we define matters for courts so that we do not see the free-for-all of over-interpretation that we have seen before.

I see this as a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants and foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protect our individual rights and freedom.

[Matt Vickers]

The Minister talked about Winston Churchill. Does she think that Winston Churchill would have desired legislation that allows people who are categorically a threat to our national security, or a danger to the community, to stay in this country?

[Anna Turley]

I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.

[Matt Vickers]

The clause relates to people who are too dangerous to lawfully stay in the country. It is not giving us a perspective by which to remove those people. Those people are a danger to our community—you are saying that they are a danger to our community and a threat to our national security—yet we are not going far enough to remove them. It undermines the entire clause.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind Members that there have been several uses of the words “you” and “your” this morning. This is not about me.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.

[Matt Vickers]

rose—

[Anna Turley]

I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.

[Matt Vickers]

This new clause sets out that we would remove people under the mechanism only where doing so complied with the refugee convention. It is there in black and white: we are complying with our obligations under the convention on refugees.

[Anna Turley]

The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.

[Melanie Onn]

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. Is there a point to be made about retaining our responsibilities in relation to the ECHR? Critically, international co-operation will enable us to deport more easily people who have no right to be here.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.

[Matt Vickers]

Disapplying the Human Rights Act is about disapplying our domestic legislation—our domestic barriers. That is entirely compliant with the international refugee convention. This is not about international barriers; it is about our domestic barrier, the Human Rights Act.

[Anna Turley]

That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome.

I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it.

Amendment 133 agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert—

“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made.

(3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant.

(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax.

On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified?

Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only.

Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target?

Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary.

Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt?

The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost.

During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:

“I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]

Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs?

Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment?

The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.

[Anna Turley]

I thank Members for their important contributions to this debate on asylum costs and the mechanism the Government are creating to recover some of them. As we heard from my hon. Friends, fairness is at the heart of this debate. We are discussing the concept that individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers should contribute towards the support that they received. That is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who have received support having a stake in the success of this country and contributing to the cost of that support, and thereby to the sustainability of giving it to others, once they are financially able.

The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. Each year, the taxpayer funds £4 billion of asylum costs. While it is right that we support those fleeing war and persecution, it is also right that those who have received that support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can. The measures will ensure that they put back into the system that supported them and contribute towards the provision of that support to others, as well as ensuring that others who are paying for that support consent to doing so.

We have heard examples of our constituents contributing to many different forms of collective support, including through national insurance, and through tax to fund access to healthcare. Contribution is an important principle of the social contract in this country. For that reason, the Bill introduces a new power, under which asylum seekers will pay back a portion of the cost of their support when they are financially able to do so. It will be possible to recover those costs through tax receipts, benefit payments and/or as a debt to the Home Office. That mirrors the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions deducts from universal credit where people have child support payments due, owe money for hardship payments, or have unpaid bills or tax.

Amendments 81, 76 and 79, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seek to prescribe in the Bill how and when asylum support contributions should be calculated and reduced. The Government cannot accept the amendments because they would be too complex to enable effective delivery of the policy and would move us away from the policy intent of a fair and proportionate contribution towards the costs of support once a person is financially able to pay.

Clause 23 establishes an important principle that, where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute, it is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23(5) already requires regulations to include provisions to ensure that nobody pays where it would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the regulations that we have committed to sharing during the passage of the Bill.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I have a huge pile of responses to the points the hon. Lady made, and there are some important clarifications I want to make. If I do not answer her questions sufficiently, I will be happy to take an intervention.

I want to pick up the hon. Lady’s point about destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set the provision at this level, and I do not think it is appropriate to define poverty in the statute book. Given I have wards in my constituency where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that the hon. Lady set out—I am sure the same is true for the constituencies of other Members present—I am afraid I cannot accept an amendment that says that people in my area can be below that poverty line but asylum seekers cannot. All my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it is appropriate to safeguard one group and not another, as much as we all have a desire—an absolute commitment—to reduce poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country.

The hon. Lady also raised the matter of whether the Bill breaches article 25 of the declaration of human rights. We are absolutely confident that it meets our international obligations, including under the refugee convention. We believe it is compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a sustainable system for the future.

The convention does not anywhere require states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual’s circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution be given protection and access to support, which we are doing. Asylum seekers receive a comprehensive package of taxpayer-funded accommodation support, which is very different from the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the refugee convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a contribution, when they can, towards the system that they benefit from. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive—we can and will do both.

The hon. Lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations. I want to reiterate that we have committed to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill’s passage, and I undertake to do that as soon as possible. I am sure that colleagues will understand that it requires a lot of complex engagement with the Treasury and others. We want to make sure that we have got this absolutely right and that we do not fall foul of the situation Opposition Members found themselves in when they tried to introduce this Bill—the workings out had not been done.

The hon. Lady asked why anyone should pay more than the cost of the support they received. This policy is intended to generate a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not to be an itemised recovery of the precise costs incurred by an individual. That would be extremely difficult—nigh on impossible—and it would undermine the ability for us to raise any money through the measure. The flat rate will be calculated by reference to average support costs and the average time spent in asylum accommodation. A flat rate is clearer and more feasible to administer, while payments will remain linked to affordability.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Secretary’s power to make exemptions. I want to flag that it is very similar to an existing power that the Home Secretary has that is covered by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. It is really important to maintain the ability to make exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances.

I want to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. That will not be the case. Payments will apply only where someone has the means to pay. Safeguards will ensure that no one is pushed into destitution. Payments will be linked to income and affordability thresholds. Deduction rates and exemptions will be designed to protect those without the means to contribute. As I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this Bill’s passage. Could a person be penalised where a payment could cause destitution? No. Clause 23 requires regulations to contain provisions that ensure that a person is not required to pay where doing so would cause destitution, as we have already flagged.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

Anna Turley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Government amendments 124 and 125.

Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert—

“them or their household becoming impoverished.

(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”

This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).

Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”

This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.

Government amendment 126.

Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—

“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.

(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”

This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we have had so far today. I will pick up my response to the various Opposition amendments, starting with amendment 141, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, which would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including for settlement. The Government are already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hon. Members will hopefully have seen from some of the media debate. That is currently undergoing a lot of discussion, so it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, paying towards the cost of their asylum support will form part of their wider contribution to society. People with outstanding asylum support debt will be prevented from returning to the UK until that debt is repaid. It is our intention that those who receive support will be expected to make contributions when they are financially able to do so.

The detailed operation of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. As I have mentioned to hon. Members already today, we have committed to sharing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill, providing them with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how those provisions will operate in practice. That approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight, while retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy. The draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.

I will take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The Government are determined to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That is part of the principle of this, although the primary objective is fairness and sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. As I have said, details of the scheme are under development and will be published in draft regulations. We will look for as much transparency as possible, not just in the process but in how we can publish data in our regular asylum statistics.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned amendment 124, which is about the powers given to the Home Secretary for exemptions, and the circumstances in which they might be used. The amendment enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities arising under the asylum support contribution scheme. As I mentioned this morning, that is commensurate with article 8 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, which gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. The power will of course be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and we anticipate that it will be used only in exceptional cases.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the amount payable and how the income threshold will be set. Hon. Members have raised the £10,000 figure, which is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required. The final flat-rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation. As we discussed this morning, it is intended to reflect average asylum support costs across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. That is how the figure was reached. The estimates will depend on the final design and implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We will continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five-year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty. I hope I have addressed the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

On Government amendment 124, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of the support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be fair and proportionate to depart from that general principle. The amendment provides flexibility to respond to such circumstances and supports the fair and effective administration of the scheme. The detailed circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme, while ensuring that it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases.

Government amendments 125 and 126 are technical amendments that deal with how the requirement to pay back a contribution towards asylum support operates if the recipient becomes bankrupt or enters another form of insolvency process. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the effect of a person becoming insolvent on their liability to make payments. They also define when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will allow the Government to set out in regulations that, where appropriate, liabilities under the scheme are not extinguished by bankruptcy or certain other insolvency processes.

In addition, the amendments provide a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the asylum support scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. They make no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken.

The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here.

This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).

Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they

“were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”.

I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.

The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who

“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.

As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter.

It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.

[Anna Turley]

I thank hon. Members across the Committee for tabling the amendments in this group and for the explanations that they have given. The Committee will forgive me if I once again stress that clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity: where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help to maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. That ensures that those who have a right to support still receive it, but that comes with responsibilities and expectations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.

[Anna Turley]

Apologies for any misconception. A person will not have to pay for the support they received entirely as a child. I will make sure that I clarify the wording of that for the Committee’s understanding.

The Bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. That is the appropriate mechanism. It provides flexibility, allows clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks, such as in relation to debt, and enables the approach to be kept under review. The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility would be evidenced, when liability should cease or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual’s current means. Those details are critical to protect the policy’s aims and mitigate against abuse, so such exemptions should not be in the Bill.

In relation to amendment 82, which suggests an exemption for those granted status on appeal, the policy in the Bill seeks a contribution from all recipients of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest of hon. Members in terms of those exemptions. We will consider everything discussed and heard in Committee when preparing the secondary legislation to which the Government have committed during the passage of the Bill.

I will respond to some of the issues raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned targeting those who are destitute. I want to be clear: we are still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment begins only later, when individuals have the means for it. There are clear safeguards, such as income thresholds and exemptions, to protect the most vulnerable. There will also be a grace period after support finishes but before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, the policy reflects a principle that when someone can contribute, they should.

The hon. Member also mentioned exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those exemptions are not in the Bill because that is the wrong place for them, but we will make those regulations. Hon. Members’ contributions and concerns have been heard and will form part of that discussion. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Amendments 139 and 142 concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the asylum support contribution scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling them, but we cannot accept them. Amendment 139, which aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this legislation. The Government’s approach is deliberately prospective: liability should arise only once the detailed rules, notification arrangements and safeguards are in place. Applying the scheme retrospectively to earlier support would create uncertainty, move the goalposts and not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.

[Joe Robertson]

I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?

[Anna Turley]

That example is about changing the level of a loan that has been provided. I do not think we can expect people who may have fled war and persecution to come to this country on one understanding, only to have that changed while they are here. This is an entirely new system; it is not about changing the level of a loan or a return. It is important that we do it only going forward; trying to apply it retrospectively would be open to an extreme amount of legal challenge.

Amendment 142 would require any regulations that specify further exemptions under clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will reject the amendment, but again, with an emphasis on consensus, I say that I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly on important regulations such as these. Although we are rejecting the amendment, I undertake to review the matter during the passage of the Bill, because such important exemptions need appropriate scrutiny, and these regulations will need the full scrutiny of Parliament. As I say, I am open-minded about considering that as the Bill progresses.

As we have already committed, the detailed scheme will be published in secondary legislation during the passage of the Bill, so I hope that will give hon. Members plenty to engage with during the process.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work.

I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out.

Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this.

It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers?

The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration.

A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax.

Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments?

Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?

[Anna Turley]

I thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group, as well as for the discussion and interest they have shown in this provision, which we have debated at length today.

Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require those who have received asylum support and accommodation, known as section 4 and section 95 support, to pay a contribution towards those costs. The clause contains an important safeguard: it requires the regulations to ensure that individuals are not required to pay when doing so would cause them to become destitute. That means that people will not be required to pay if it meant they could not meet their essential living needs or if it would place them at risk of homelessness.

The clause exempts children. Other exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation to ensure safeguards, thus protecting vulnerable groups. I look forward to working further with Members on that throughout the course of the Bill. Details of how the charge will be applied and how the system will operate will be set out in regulations and the Home Secretary has committed to sharing a draft of those regulations with Parliament.

The Bill is built on a balance of rights and responsibilities. This reform protects support for those who need it most, while reinforcing the principle that support should come with an expectation of contribution when that is affordable. When confidence in the asylum system is low, and with asylum support costing the taxpayer around £4 billion, it is right to take steps to reduce costs and ensure that those who can make a proportionate contribution do so. This policy achieves that.

The measure is not a tax on asylum seekers or refugees. It does not affect a person’s right to claim asylum nor their entitlement to receive support when it is needed. The clause reflects the broader principle that, alongside the rights and protections afforded to those seeking asylum, there are responsibilities that our constituents would expect one another to undertake: to contribute towards public costs where it is fair and reasonable to do so. This aids integration, helping to foster a shared sense of fairness, responsibility and belonging. It says to our constituents who contribute for their entitlement that no one should be entitled to a free pass.

Building on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the measure is also about asking people to contribute for those who come after them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland mentioned the desire that he heard expressed by asylum seekers coming to this country that they want to pay and contribute. Many of them will want to enable the system to continue, so that other people fleeing war and persecution can benefit.

Clause 24 enables asylum support repayments to be recovered through the tax system. It provides a power for regulations to make provision for HMRC to collect repayments on behalf of the Secretary of State from individuals who are liable under clause 23. The clause also creates the statutory framework for information sharing between HMRC and the Home Office where that is necessary for the administration and collection of repayments.

Hon. Members asked whether HMRC will be responsible for collecting payments. We are ensuring a range of repayment mechanisms, including options that could make use of the tax system. Decisions on the final repayment model will be taken in due course, informed by our discussions. We will continue to work across Government to identify the most effective and proportionate response.

The powers we are introducing will help ensure that, should the Government decide to use the tax system as a collection mechanism, repayments can be administered effectively and efficiently. The clause therefore provides the legislative framework necessary to support recovery of asylum support costs through the tax system. I listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members and their detailed questions on the set-up of the scheme, its processes and the collection mechanisms. The Home Secretary has committed that information on those factors will be published during the process of the Bill. I undertake to ensure that hon. Members continue to get more information as the drafts are published.

Moving on to the amendments in this group, amendment 140 and new clause 62 concern transparency and reporting on the asylum support contribution system. The Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, but we cannot accept these provisions. On amendment 140, the Government have already committed to sharing draft regulations during the Bill’s passage, allowing Parliament to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme. Building on the conversation we had on the previous group, I will review whether exemptions will be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I hope hon. Members will take that commitment.

The amendment would also make commencement of the scheme conditional on publishing five-year estimates of the number of people liable, sums recovered and administrative costs. Those will depend on the final design and operation of the scheme, and may be subject to considerable uncertainty. For example, the numbers of asylum claims in this country are coming down, so five-year estimates would not necessarily give us any degree of certainty. We will provide relevant analysis through the impact assessment, and are committed to providing data to support transparency on the effectiveness of the scheme as implemented. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement dependent on such five-year forecasts.

Likewise, we do not think that a separate reporting scheme on liabilities, recoveries, write-offs, exemptions and administrative costs, as set out in new clause 62, should be prescribed in primary legislation. We will explore what appropriate information on the operation of the scheme can be incorporated into Government asylum statistics and reporting once the scheme is operational.

To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money.

[Matt Vickers]

The Home Office confirmed that it spent £22,000 on its “don’t rape women” guide for asylum seekers. Can the Minister confirm that clause 23 restricts the sums that are recoverable purely to accommodation and subsistence, rather than to the Home Office’s comms budget?

[Anna Turley]

I moved to my conclusion too quickly; forgive me, Mr Twigg. I still have a number of points to respond to—I thought we were getting an early escape.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I wanted to cover, regarding asylum support. Section 98 support is temporary emergency accommodation, which is not within the scope of clause 23. Section 98 is the immediate emergency support, and asylum seekers then apply for section 95 support, which is what the clause addresses. He asks why that is not included, and I take his point. We are trying to move away from the kind of expensive and unsustainable emergency support that we saw explode under his party’s Administration. We have already saved more than £1 billion by closing hotels, so that will not be part of this measure. The asylum support that people apply for is what is covered by the clause.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked about repayment thresholds. As I said, the Bill establishes the principle and the key framework for the recovery of asylum costs; the detailed operation, including thresholds, will be set out in secondary legislation. That is a common and proportionate approach to drafting such legislation, for which operational detail may be adjusted over time. The policy intent is that repayment will begin only once an individual reaches a defined threshold for repayment, and that deductions will be set at a manageable rate, so that recovery remains proportionate and does not cause hardship or destitution. Any regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there will be clear safeguards.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked whether we expected to raise any money. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned, the asylum system represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of about £4 billion. The Government are determined to bring those costs down. The policy of recouping asylum support is a world first. It is about ensuring that those who benefit from this specific, targeted form of support contribute towards its cost, when they can. Our objective is fairness to everyone in this country, as well as sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. It is about not just recovering costs, but contribution. Costs will be recouped over time from individuals who have moved into employment or otherwise have the means to contribute.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Turley]

I was going to mention work and study, but I will come back to that.

[Siân Berry]

My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share.

The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.

[Mr Kohler]

I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help.

Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.

[Mr Kohler]

The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.

[Anna Turley]

I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so.

The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.