Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- 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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

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.

--- 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—

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

--- 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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 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.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

rose—

[Blake Stephenson]

rose—

[Anna Turley]

I will give way first to the hon. Gentleman.

[Blake Stephenson]

I want to press that point. If the Minister’s position is that she wants the starting point for tribunals to be “no weight”, then what is the harm in adding “must” to make it absolutely clear that the House expects tribunals to apply “no weight”? But then she says that she wants tribunals to have flexibility, so which one is it?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but we absolutely cannot bind the courts’ hands in this situation. The reality is that they have to be flexible. We can set a very clear steer—that is on the record, in the Bill and in legislation—but it is important that we allow the courts flexibility, because their role is to establish the facts, case by case.

[Anna Turley]

As my hon. Friend rightly flags, “no weight” is the starting point for the weight that should be given to a person’s private or family life established in the time that they were in the UK without permission. That is a clear definition for the court. Applying the “no weight” rule to all breaches of leave could mean minor or technical breaches leave cases open to challenges of disproportionality.

Amendment 106 is in a similar vein. Although we agree that non-compliance must have consequences, it is appropriate that we distinguish between serious breaches and less significant or technical non-compliance, because we always have to have proportionality. Removing “serious” would considerably widen the provision and could require the same approach to be taken to conduct of very different gravity. The Government’s reforms already substantially strengthen the public interest side of the article 8 balancing exercise. The inclusion of “serious” helps to ensure that the reforms are focused on the cases of greatest concern.

[Blake Stephenson]

In that case, if “serious” is to remain in the Bill, will the Minister help the Committee to understand what types of scenarios might constitute serious or not serious?

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s attempts to define this, but it is important to say that we are keen not to include specific definitions in the Bill, as we are worried that they could result in disproportionate outcomes. Our approach is to be robust, targeted and, crucially, legally sustainable. We do not want to allow ourselves to be open to challenge.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; I hope you are ready for a lot of Divisions over the next few weeks. While clause 2 decides who the adjudicators will be, clause 3 decides how the quality of their decisions will be protected. That matters because poor-quality decisions will result in appeals, and appeals mean delays, fewer removals and increased costs for the taxpayer to bear.

Clause 3 sets out who is responsible for what: adjudicators decide on the cases; the chief executive must ensure that the adjudicators are adequately trained, as the Minister explained earlier; the chief appeals officer allocates cases, organises a system of legal support and oversees quality development and assurance; and the professional standards officer sets standards and publishes a code of conduct.

Dr Casey warned that adjudicators without legal training would be more likely to make “errors of law” and that the backlog, rather than genuinely decreasing, could simply relocate to the upper tribunal. The solution to that potential consequence must lie in this clause. What exactly is the “system of legal support” for adjudicators in subsection (3)(b)?

A question occurred to me over the adjournment, following the earlier debate about magistrates: will adjudicators sit with legal advisers, as lay magistrates do? That may or may not be helpful, but I would be interested in the Minister’s response. If so, at what cost?

The Law Society points out that the chief appeals officer is responsible for quality but has no power to intervene in any decision. What powers will the chief appeals officer have to act on poor performance?

Amendment 88 is a probing amendment. It would require the chief appeals officer to publish the number of applications for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal, how many are granted each year, the number and proportion of appeals authority decisions that the upper tribunal sets aside, and the number of decisions that the appeals authority reviews under clause 6, with their outcomes.

In her oral evidence session before the recess, Dr Sumption told this Committee that one of the key measures of success should be how many decisions are overturned. This amendment would ensure that Parliament is told every year whether that relocation of the backlog to the upper tribunal, which Dr Casey described, is happening.

Will the Minister confirm whether the appeals authority will publish annual data on the quality of its decisions, including the rate at which they are set aside? If the Minister can give assurances on that, we will not press this amendment. Finally, what training standards will apply under clause 3(2), and will they be published? Will the code of conduct be published before the first case is heard?

The Opposition support clause 3, which ensures that the quality of the decision making is the best answer to the criticism that the appeals authority would generate more appeals than it resolved, but only if it is real, resourced and reported to Parliament.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Members for Mid Bedfordshire and for Stockton West for tabling amendment 88. I will turn to that after giving a brief overview of the clause as it stands.

Clause 3 sets out the IIAA’s executive and non-executive members’ powers and duties. It makes the adjudicators responsible for the authority’s primary function: to make decisions on immigration and asylum appeals and certain bail applications. This will be the sole responsibility of executive adjudicators. Senior adjudicators will also have a responsibility to perform this function, but they may also have further responsibilities that are delegated to them by the chief appeals officer, as the clause permits. No other member or employee can determine the outcome of an appeal or application, reinforcing the autonomy of the adjudicator as the decision maker.

The clause also makes clear what the chief executive, chief appeals officer and professional standards officer are responsible for. Those members are responsible for putting adequate training and support in place for adjudicators, developing a quality assurance mechanism and setting the standards required of IIAA adjudicators. Those roles together will enable the IIAA to operate effectively and independently. Parliament will be kept abreast of important matters concerning the IIAA members or the administration of justice through written representations of the chief executive. Those representations must be laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. This will also act as an important mechanism for the independence of the authority, which can communicate to Parliament through the Secretary of State on matters of concern.

Amendment 88 tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition would require the chief appeals officer to publish annual data on internal reviews and onward appeals against IIAA decisions. The Government support transparency and agree that the quality of the authority’s decisions must be properly monitored. However, we are confident that the Bill already establishes a comprehensive framework for quality assurance and accountability. Clause 3 requires the chief appeals officer to oversee the quality of adjudicators’ decisions, organise legal support and develop a quality assurance mechanism. The professional standards officer is also responsible for setting and maintaining the standards required of adjudicators, as well as publishing a code of conduct.

The authority will be required to produce an annual report; that is not for me to determine, but I fully expect it to cover the kinds of areas that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire set out in his amendment. The annual report will be laid before Parliament. Its operation will also be subject to independent external scrutiny by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. Although I agree that it is important to scrutinise the specified figures that the hon. Member flags in his amendment, we do not feel that they on their own would provide a reliable measure of decision quality. It is therefore unnecessary to prescribe those particular measures in primary legislation. I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment, but will quickly refer to a couple of points that he raised.

We discussed earlier the standards of adjudicators that the hon. Member mentioned, but it is important to reiterate that adjudicators should have the required training to give them the necessary decision-making expertise to make determinations on appeal cases and bail applications. It will be the responsibility of the chief executive to ensure that adjudicators have adequate training and support. The chief appeals officer will be responsible for organising a system of legal support for them. The Bill provides strong safeguards and quality assurance mechanisms to ensure high standards and to ensure adjudicators are entirely independent of the Executive.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire flagged adequate training and support, and it is important go into a bit more detail on that. The chief executive will be responsible for ensuring that the authority’s adjudicators have adequate training and support to maintain independence from the Executive. The chief appeals officer is responsible for overseeing that quality. The chief appeals officer will also be able to identify any specific training needs of adjudicators and recommend them to the chief executive if they desire. The important point is that the authority is independent. It is really important that we remember that. It is not for the Government to decide what accreditation and continuous development is required for the authority’s adjudicators. They will be making decisions against appeals to which the Home Office will be a party, so it is important that we allow the authority to set those standards itself.

I will move on to how things will be monitored. As I mentioned, we have built a few steps of quality assurance into the system from the outset through training, legal support, professional standards, decision quality oversight, internal review and onward appeal rights. As I said, the chief appeals officer will be responsible for organising that system of legal support, the professional standards officer will be responsible for setting professional standards, and the detailed operation of those arrangements will be developed through the authority’s quality assurance framework and procedural arrangements as they are established.

I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that we agree with the principle behind the amendment. We do not think the specific figures he outlined are the best way to reliably measure decision-making quality, but we share the determination to ensure that there are opportunities to scrutinise it throughout the process.

[Blake Stephenson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

The clause allows the IIAA to review its own decisions once, to correct errors, amend reasons or remake the decision. An internal review of that kind is consistent with the Opposition’s own plan for a short internal appeal. Clause 7 provides the only route from the IIAA to a court—appeal to the upper tribunal on a point of law, with permission—and also applies to the post-Cart ouster in section 11A of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, with refusals of permission. Government amendment 36 limits the IIAA’s power of review to errors of law. Errors of fact will instead be corrected under the procedure rules. We do not oppose that. A review that can reopen the facts is a rehearing by another name.

That changes the argument about clause 1(8), however. The narrower the IIAA’s own remedies, the harder it is to say that there is an adequate alternative to judicial review. How will errors of fact be corrected, and how quickly? Do the Government still regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy? What time limit will apply and will a pending review delay removal or an onward appeal? I think that the Minister touched on that in her remarks, but I will be grateful if she could unpack that somewhat. How many reviews do the Government expect, and what effect will those have on the upper tribunal? Do the Government regard review and appeal together as an adequate alternative remedy that justifies excluding judicial review?

The Government’s own impact assessment—admittedly the one published earlier, not the one published yesterday, because I have not seen that—expects a “sustained increase in demand” on the upper tribunal. What additional capacity—judges, sitting days and so on—has been funded, and how many onward appeals does the impact assessment assume? What proportion of IIAA decisions do the Government expect to be set aside?

Clause 6(3) is significant; it applies the partial ouster that the previous Conservative Government enacted in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which was drafted precisely with narrow exceptions and is accepted by the courts. Professor Ekins, in his oral evidence a few weeks ago, told us that the model could be applied here to IIAA decisions. If that is right for the upper tribunal, why is it not right for clause 1(8)?

I have two final questions. First, will time periods such as those in clause 8 apply to upper tribunal appeals? Secondly, where an error of law is found, will the upper tribunal remake decisions itself or send them back? We support Government amendment 36 and clauses 6 and 7. A credible internal review and speed at the second stage, as well as the first, are part of a system that is fast, final and defensible in court.

[Anna Turley]

I thank hon. Members for the constructive way they have approached the clauses and amendments. As I mentioned, the clauses are important to ensure that decisions can be reviewed either by the authority itself or by the upper tribunal where there are errors in law. The Government amendment in this group seeks to clarify this position and support it on the face of the Bill.

I will turn to a few of the questions raised. On the point of law and the question posed about whether a review power is necessary if there is already a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, the review power enables IIAA to correct errors directly without requiring parties to pursue what can be a longer and more resource-intensive appeals process. This can lead to quicker resolution of cases and reduce unnecessary onward appeals. On the supposition that this is just an additional layer of appeal: it is not. The clause provides the IIAA with the power to review its own decisions, as I said. It does not remove or replace the onward right of appeal to the tribunal. The review mechanism and the onward appeal route operate as part of the wider appeals process established by the Bill.

On the question whether an appeal is limited to a point of law, this measure reflects the existing onward appeal route from the first-tier tribunal. The IIAA will determine the merits of the case. The upper tribunal’s role is to consider whether the law was applied correctly rather than, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, to provide a full rehearing. I think reference was made to why permission is required as well. Permission provides an appropriate filter so that we can ensure that appeals only within an arguable point of law proceed. We are keen to avoid unnecessary resource expenditure and delay in the finality of decisions. Permission may be sought from either the independent immigration appeals authority or the upper tribunal. Any further questions, particularly around costs, will continue to develop during the process and development of the policy, and I will continue to keep Members updated.

Amendment 36 agreed to.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The clause allows the Secretary of State to request expedition of an appeal, bail application or procedural step within these proceedings where there is a public interest in securing a quicker resolution. This is an exceptional power for exceptional cases. It ensures that matters of particular importance can be brought to the attention of the IIAA for consideration of expedited treatment.

Let me be clear: this is a power to request expedition, not direct it. The IIAA decides whether a case should be accelerated and may refuse a request where expedition would not be reasonably practicable or would not be in the interests of justice. Nothing in the clause permits Ministers to influence the outcome of proceedings or diminishes the authority’s independence. Cases will continue to be determined impartially and on their merits. The clause is a balanced safeguard. It supports the timely resolution of cases, engaging public interest while preserving fairness and independence. The principle is simple: the Secretary of State may ask, but the authority decides.

Government amendment 37 seeks to ensure that the immigration bail provisions operate consistently with the Bill’s expedited proceedings framework. The Bill already requires regard to be had, when considering whether to grant immigration bail, to whether proceedings are subject to the late claims process under clause 12. The amendments make equivalent provision where proceedings before the authority relate to a person being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under clause 9. Clause 9 applies where the Secretary of State considers that it would be in the public interest for proceedings to be expedited. It is therefore appropriate that cases proceeding under that expedited process are treated consistently with the cases subject to the late claims process.

[Blake Stephenson]

The clause lets the Home Secretary ask the authority to expedite a case where it is in the public interest. The authority must agree unless it is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Home Office has said that the power will be used for cases such as high harm foreign offenders and human rights claims that are clearly without merit. The Opposition support that.

On amendment 90, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, the principal question is: why leave it to discretion? The public have a direct interest in foreign criminals being deported and being deported quickly, so why leave it to the Home Secretary’s case-by-case discretion? Amendment 90 would require the authority to expedite any appeal by a person who is liable to deportation and has been convicted of an offence either here or abroad, exactly as if the Home Secretary had asked. Will the Government accept that incredibly sensible amendment, which I think the British public would support? I have a couple of basic questions. What criteria will the Home Secretary use, and will they be published? How many requests do the Government expect each year?

Government amendment 37 requires anyone deciding bail to consider whether the authority is expediting the person’s appeal at the Home Secretary’s request. We support that—someone whose appeal is being fast-tracked should not be released while it is heard—but it has a cost. How many additional people do the Government expect to remain in detention as a result, and is there the capacity? How do the Government intend to implement that?

On legal robustness, the House of Commons Library notes that lawyers are already asking how an appellant could challenge a decision to expedite, given clause 1(8)—we come back to clause 1(8) and the robustness, or otherwise, of that clause. That question will be answered in the courts if it is not answered here, so how do the Government expect expedition decisions to be challenged, and do they expect them to be judicially reviewed? When will the process regulations be made, and how long will the authority have to respond to a request?

We support the clause and the Government amendment. We will oppose any attempt to remove the power. Our amendment 90 would ensure that the appeals that matter most to public safety are always at the front of the queue, and I will seek to press that to a Division.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution to this debate and for tabling amendment 90. To reiterate, the Government amendment ensures that the immigration bail provisions operate consistently within the Bill’s expedited proceedings framework. The Bill already requires regard to be had, when considering whether to grant immigration bail, to whether proceedings are subject to the late claims process under clause 12. The amendment makes equivalent provision where proceedings before the authority relating to a person are being expedited pursuant to a request by the Secretary of State under clause 9.

Let us move to amendment 90. The clause is deliberately designed to deal with cases where the Secretary of State considers that expedition would be in the public interest. It allows those cases to be identified individually and an expedition request to be made to the IIAA. Amendment 90 would instead apply expedition automatically to a broad category of appeals, which is not the purpose of the clause. Where there is a case for setting time periods for a wider group of proceedings, clause 8 provides the appropriate mechanism.

That said, I think it is also important that we are not specifying a particular group in the Bill. Otherwise, potentially, we may need to amend legislation for every category of appeals that the Home Secretary wishes to expedite. It is really important that we maintain flexibility for the Secretary of State to respond to public opinion and to public safety in terms of the category of appeals that she would wish to be expedited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, then to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

[Blake Stephenson]

You never know, Chair, we may be asking the same question. I asked the Minister whether she would provide some criteria—I am expanding my question, in fact—to give the public some certainty as to the decisions that the Home Secretary might make. Does the Minister expect some criteria to be published?

[Anna Turley]

It is important that we maintain flexibility, as I said. The Bill provides distinct mechanisms for very broad categories of cases and for exceptional individual cases. We should retain that flexibility, so I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on limiting the approach of the Home Secretary in the Bill. Particularly, this is also about case-specific assessment. We want to allow the Home Secretary the opportunity to look at case-specific assessments, rather than being too defined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The Independent Immigration Appeals Authority has a statutory objective to handle its cases quickly and efficiently. It cannot do that if it cannot enforce the requirements set out in its procedure rules. It is anticipated that the requirements on parties to proceedings will be set out clearly under the authority’s procedure rules.

Clause 10 provides the authority with a lever to set tangible consequences for non-compliance by enabling it to charge a party to proceedings, among others, who has acted “improperly, unreasonably or negligently,” and whose actions have caused the authority’s resources to be wasted. That is intended to disincentivise tactical delay. The charge will be payable to the authority, rather than an order to pay costs to another party. It will be for the authority to determine what meets the threshold for a charge according to the circumstances of the case, and the detailed operation of the power should be set out in the authority’s procedure rules. Any moneys the authority receives under the power will be paid into the consolidated fund.

Government new clause 1 will enable a party or the authority to seek enforcement, as if the decision of the authority were that of the relevant court. That will simplify the process of recovering funds and will bring the authority in line with existing provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

[Blake Stephenson]

Clause 10 allows the authority to charge a party or representative who acts “improperly, unreasonably or negligently” and wastes its resources, and the Opposition support it. Last-minute applications and poorly prepared cases waste time the system does not have.

I have a couple of questions. The Bar Council objects that non-lawyer adjudicators could charge or fine barristers, with a chilling effect. We do not accept that representatives should be immune from the consequences of abusing the process, but the power must be clear. What level of charge is envisaged, and will there be a cap? How often are wasted costs orders made in the tribunal now? Will a person who is charged have a right to review or appeal?

Of course, fairness cuts both ways. The Home Office is a party. The Library records that 36% of asylum appeals disposed of last year were withdrawn, and the Refugee Council attributes that to poor initial decisions, a point that was made earlier in the debate. Will the Home Office be liable to charges when it withdraws a decision shortly before a hearing, and will guidance define what counts as acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently?

Government new clause 1 makes sums payable under a decision by the authority, including charges under clause 10, recoverable as if they were county court orders in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and enforceable in the sheriff court in Scotland. We support that. A charge that cannot be collected is no deterrent at all. Will charges against the Home Office be enforceable in the same way? What sums do the Government expect to be recovered each year?

We support clause 10 and Government new clause 1. A clear, fairly applied and enforceable power will discourage abuse of the process, which we think is important.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. Government new clause 1 ensures there is a mechanism for the enforcement of cost orders between parties to proceedings in the authority, in addition to charges made by the authority under its powers in clause 10. The clause allows the authority to charge a participant in proceedings where it considers that they have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and that that has resulted in the authority’s resources being wasted. Schedule 3 provides for the authority to make rules in relation to cost orders, whereby the authority may order costs to be paid between parties as a result of any party acting improperly, unreasonably or negligently. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether the Home Office is accountable, yes, we will be.

The new clause enables a party or the authority to seek enforcement as if the decision of the authority were that of the relevant court. When enforcement of a sum is pursued following the authority’s decision, that decision is to be treated as a registrable judgment in the relevant jurisdiction—in this case England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. This simplifies the process of pursuing sums payable under the authority’s decision. It is broadly in line with equivalent provisions in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which enable tribunal costs to be enforced.

The hon. Gentleman made a few points about fairness and the ability to recoup the money. It is anticipated that the authority will take into account the circumstances of the case and the person’s ability to pay when deciding whether to impose a charge. Where there are genuine reasons for delay, for example, it is unlikely that those actions will meet the threshold for a charge. The value of the charge will, rightly, be set through the authority under its procedure rules. It will need to strike a balance between being proportionate and fair, and deterring tactical delay of the process. There will be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the charging power through the procedure rules, which will be subject to the negative procedure. We heard earlier a challenge to the use of the negative procedure, but the current tribunal rules are decided through that procedure, so there is no difference in the process.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned enforcement. The new clause provides that a sum payable under an order of the authority is enforceable as if it were payable under an order of the relevant court. That means the person to whom the money is owed as a result of a decision of the authority can rely on the court processes for the enforcement of that sum.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

Clause 11 tackles one of the most damaging features of the current system: claims raised at the last minute to prevent removal. It allows the Home Office to serve a claim notice on anyone liable to removal or deportation, requiring them to set out every reason they should be allowed to stay, including any modern slavery information, by a deadline. Clause 12 gives teeth to clause 11. Where someone ignores a claim notice and raises new grounds only once they are detained or given removal directions, their appeals will be fast-tracked and the late claim will count against them when bail is considered.

The Opposition support that approach, but there is a problem. The Minister told the Committee during the oral evidence sessions:

“More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 5, Q3.]

That is exactly the gaming of the system that the public will no longer tolerate. Our plan would require applicants to submit their claim in one go, with later claims disregarded unless there has been a material change in their home country. Clause 11 moves in that direction but stops short: a late claim goes into the late claims process and damages credibility, but it can still be heard and can still succeed. How long will people have to respond? Where will that be set? Who will be served? Beyond clauses 12 and 36, what are the consequences of failing to comply? Can late grounds still succeed on appeal?

Amendment 91 would close the gap: reasons or grounds raised after the claim notice deadline could not be relied on in an appeal before the appeal authority or the upper tribunal unless the appeal authority is satisfied that they arise from a material change of circumstances after the deadline. That is the principle of our plan: claims must be made in one go, and later claims disregarded unless something has genuinely changed. Will the Government accept that approach and therefore our amendment?

Clause 11(10) repeals a large part of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including provisions on late evidence in section 26 and accelerated detained appeals in section 27. Why repeal them rather than bring them into force? What will replace them? The Immigration Law Practitioners Association points out that the priority removal notice regime gave recipients a period to access legal advice and clause 11 does not. We do not support the ILPA’s proposed legal advice precondition, but the Government should explain their answer to that point, because if they do not, it will be litigated.

Government amendment 38 goes further, repealing section 19(2) of the 2022 Act on credibility statements, which is replaced by new clauses 3 and 4. We do not oppose that approach. The risk is legal. Justice and the Bar Council remind us that, in the Detention Action case, the Court of Appeal quashed the detained fast-track rules because they were systematically unfair, and that the Court took comfort from specialist judges hearing those cases, which will not be true of the appeal authority. A fast track that is quashed delivers nothing.

What timetable will apply? Justice reports that the Home Office intends decisions “within a week”. What legal advice do the Government have that this process will survive legal challenge? How many cases are expected and what will happen to other appeals pushed back in the queue? What effect will the new bail conditions have on detention numbers and capacity? Will these cases, which often feature detention and are often complex, be decided by senior adjudicators?

Government amendments 39 and 42 mean that a person who gives modern-day slavery information late, after detention or after removal directions, will not go into the late claims process. I understand the reasoning, which responds to concerns from anti-trafficking organisations, but the Minister told the Committee that more than a third of failed charter returns involved a modern slavery referral raised after return arrangements were made. Does this change not reopen exactly that gap?

New clause 3 requires adjudicators in late claims cases to treat late information and late evidence as damaging credibility unless there are good reasons, and new clause 4 does the same for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. We support them, but everything turns on “good reasons”. If that phrase is read generously, the rule will be swallowed up by the exception. Will the Government look to define it in the Bill or in guidance?

The written evidence adds two points to ILPA’s concern about legal advice. First, ILPA notes that nothing in clause 11 exempts under-18s from the credibility consequences of missing a claim notice deadline. Will children be exempt or protected by guidance? Secondly, Women for Refugee Women says that the Home Office’s guidance on gender-based claims

“recognises that late disclosure is common among survivors of trauma.”

The organisation After Exploitation and a coalition led by Hibiscus call a requirement to disclose everything at the outset “highly unrealistic”. How will the claim notice regime be applied consistently with the Home Office’s own guidance? Will trauma-related late disclosure count as a good reason? We want grounds raised early, but a regime that the Home Office’s own guidance contradicts will not survive its first test case.

Justice adds a point on Detention Action that the Minister should look to answer. When the Court of Appeal considered the fast-track rules, it took into account that independent specialist tribunal judges were hearing the cases. That will not be the case with the appeal authority. Has the Government’s legal advice taken that into account?

We support clauses 11 and 12 and the Government’s amendments, and we oppose attempts to weaken them. One notice, one deadline and one claim: that is the principle, and the Bill should apply it fully. I will seek to press amendment 91 to a Division.

[Anna Turley]

As the hon. Gentleman set out, we have an issue in our system in this country with late claims that are made in detention just prior to planned removal, which inevitably require release or lead to bail, as there is no mechanism for dealing with the appeals in an expedited way. That leads to a significant degree of gaming the system and compromises removals performance.

On the late claims process, a single fast appeal process, which we are setting out here, will apply to late claims—those made after the expiry of the new claim notice. Individuals must submit all relevant information up front. Failure to do so, unless justified, will damage their credibility and result in expedited handling, which will be relevant to maintaining their detention until removal. Late disclosure of modern slavery information may similarly damage credibility unless justified.

Receiving information at the earliest opportunity helps to ensure that cases are considered on the fullest possible picture, enabling timely and better-informed decision making. Clause 11 seeks to deliver that through a new claim notice, which may be issued to individuals to inform them of the need to submit any immigration claim or modern slavery information they have to the Home Office at the earliest opportunity. Where modern slavery issues are raised, that will help support early identification of needs.

Clause 11 works in conjunction with clause 12 to ensure that individuals are informed that failing to submit an immigration claim following receipt of the notice, only to make a claim from immigration detention or after being served notice of departure details, will leave them subject to an expedited late claims process and may have negative implications for their credibility. For modern slavery purposes, the notice will advise recipients that failure to provide modern slavery information only to do so after the claim notice deadline will be taken into consideration, under clause 36, as damaging the credibility of their account by decision makers assessing whether they are a victim of trafficking, unless there are “good reasons” for the delay. Clause 11 is intended to encourage early disclosure of immigration or modern slavery information and remove any perceived advantage of delayed disclosure.

Clause 12 sets out that anyone who receives a claim notice, as set out in clause 11, but makes a claim or provides information only after the deadline given in the notice when they are either in immigration detention or have received notice of their departure details from the UK will enter the expedited late claims process. It also states that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the authority will hear any appeal against such a late claim as a priority above all other claim types. The provision supports earlier disclosure of claims and enables more efficient and expedited determination of late claims. The swift timescales associated with the late claims process will support the maintenance in immigration detention, and subsequent removal from the UK, of these individuals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Again, that is not something that is prescribed in the Bill. As we establish this, it will be important to have a look at whether that ought to be a key principle. I cannot make the commitment at the moment, but it is important that we reflect on that as the authority is established.

As I said, it is unnecessary to prescribe a detailed list of operational metrics. Precise reporting arrangements should be a matter for the authority once operational. Mandating specific requirements in primary legislation would reduce flexibility and constrain the authority’s ability to adapt its reporting arrangements as it becomes established. That will be an operational matter for the authority as it is set up, and should not be prescribed in the Bill. The Government therefore do not accept the amendment or new clause 28.

More broadly, I appreciate that there is a wider point, separate to the context of the Bill, about data and statistics. The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly statistics that include information on receipts and outcomes. The Home Office immigration system statistics quarterly release covers data on a range of topics, including claims, outcomes and nationality. The full set of official statistics published by those Departments is kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics. I think that is a conversation that we could have another day, but it is important that we do not accept amendments that seek to require the inspector to focus on what is not in his remit.

[Blake Stephenson]

Given the insufficient assurance on the outcome data, I wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Clause 14 addresses the dual-running process between the authority and the first-tier tribunal. It gives a power to the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor to, among other things, transfer property, rights, liabilities or staff used by the first-tier tribunal from the Secretary of State to the authority. This provision allows for operational flexibility and makes for a smoother transition in case it is later decided that assets or property should transfer to the authority.

Clause 15 provides an essential safeguard during implementation of the authority. Its principal purpose is to protect continuity. Before part 1 is fully in force, clause 15 provides for specified descriptions of cases that would be decided by the authority to be transferred to the first-tier tribunal. This could prove necessary in case of a significant disruption affecting the authority’s operation—for example, to manage unpredictable spikes in demand in the implementation period when the authority is not yet fully formed.

The clause may also be used to correct the rare occurrence in which a case needs to be moved to another body. This ensures that cases are heard by the appropriate forum without avoidable procedural complexity. This is not a power to influence individual decisions, avoid judicial scrutiny or alter appeal rights. Appeals will continue to be determined independently and in accordance with the law. Clause 15 simply provides the resilience and flexibility needed to keep cases moving and correct exceptional allocation discrepancies.

Clause 16 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make provision that is consequential on part 1 of the Bill, which establishes the authority. The clause ensures that the wider statute book can operate properly when functions transfer from the first-tier tribunal to the IIAA. It provides that the authority is generally to be treated as a tribunal where legislation applies to tribunals. However, not every provision applying to tribunals will necessarily be suitable for the authority. The clause therefore enables regulations to modify how individual provisions apply, or to disapply them where appropriate. The clause may be used to amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation that has been passed before the Bill receives Royal Assent, or passed later in the same parliamentary Session.

Government amendment 43 provides the Lord Chancellor with limited and backstop powers to make amendments to the tribunal procedure rules in connection with regulations made to transfer cases between the authority and the existing first-tier tribunal. Tribunal procedure rules will continue to be made by the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee in the usual way in all other circumstances, and in connection with the transition to the new appeals structure where time allows. However, during the transition there may be exceptional circumstances requiring urgent practice and procedural changes to be followed in the first-tier and upper tribunals that cannot be accommodated through the usual rule-making process. This amendment provides an important safeguard to ensure that tribunal procedure adequately supports the transfer of cases and that proceedings are not delayed should such circumstances arise.

[Blake Stephenson]

This group brings together the machinery clauses of part 1: transfer schemes in clause 14, the transition in clause 15, and the consequential power in clause 16. I will speak to amendment 93 tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West and to Government amendment 43.

Clause 14 is technical in nature. It allows transfer schemes to move property, rights and liabilities to the appeals authority. The Opposition support that, but it is also where the costs of the reorganisation begin to show. The impact assessment—again, the previous impact assessment, not the one that was issued yesterday—warns of significant judicial liabilities in winding down the tribunal, because full-time judges hold lifetime appointments and there are the additional costs of running two systems. What is the estimated cost of winding down the tribunal? How many staff will transfer? Why does the Lord Chancellor, as well as the Home Secretary, need this power? What will the parallel running costs be?

We want the new body up to speed as quickly as possible. Will existing first-tier immigration judges be able to transfer or apply as senior adjudicators, for example, should they wish to? How many of them do the Government expect to apply and employ? The Law Society points out that the impact assessment says the implementation plans are “not yet fully developed”, which I think the Minister reflected earlier. Will a full costing of the transfer be published before any scheme is made?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response, his questions and his challenges. Amendment 93 proposes that the authority should be able to transfer cases back to the first-tier tribunal only for a maximum of three years after clause 1 comes into force. If the amendment were to be accepted, it would reduce the flexibility within the overall appeals system to reduce the appeals backlog while simultaneously determining new appeals. I am afraid we are not able to set an arbitrary target of that kind, although I am sure that, given that we are bringing this Bill forward, the hon. Gentleman will understand our sense of urgency behind this transition. He need be in no doubt about the urgency with which we want to make this transition.

The length of time that the FTT IAC—even more acronyms—and the authority will need to run concurrently to ensure optimal efficiency in the overall appeals system will depend on a number of operational matters when the authority is established as a new statutory body corporate. Therefore, legislating for an arbitrary cut-off point of three years is unhelpful, and may result in appeals taking longer than necessary to be determined. We need to be flexible and responsive, which the current drafting of the Bill allows us to do.

Government amendment 43 provides the Lord Chancellor with limited and backstop powers to make amendments to the tribunal procedure rules in connection with regulations made to transfer cases between the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority and the existing first-tier tribunal. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire challenged me as to why that cannot be done by the Secretary of State. It is not appropriate for the Home Secretary to lead on that; the Lord Chancellor doing so is obviously more appropriate.

Tribunal procedure rules will continue to be made by the independent Tribunal Procedure Committee in the usual way in all other circumstances, and in connection with the transition to new appeals structure where time allows. However, during the transition there may be exceptional circumstances requiring urgent practice and procedural changes to be followed in the first-tier and upper tribunals that cannot be accommodated through the normal rule-making process. This amendment provides an important safeguard to ensure that tribunal procedure adequately supports the transfer of cases and that proceedings are not delayed should such circumstances arise.

More importantly, the power is tightly constrained and can be exercised only in connection with regulations made under clause 15, which provides that regulations can be made to transfer cases from the authority back to the first-tier tribunal, and clause 52, which provides for commencement regulations. The power is intended to be used only where urgent rule changes that cannot be taken forward in the usual process are required.

Given that the power to make rules is otherwise exercised by the Tribunal Procedure Committee, the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals before exercising it. The power is appropriately constrained and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Regulations that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, as defined, must be approved by both Houses through the affirmative procedure. Other regulations made under the clause will be subject to the negative procedure.

In response to the question of the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire about which cases will transfer, clause 52 makes provision for the commencement regulations, including setting out which cases will transition and when. On his questions about cost and implementation, as I have said, detailed plans for the authority, including the costs, are being developed, and work is continuing across the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to refine the authority costs and establish comparable, current costs for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. There are not yet agreed or publishable figures for either comparison, as programme costs, affordability and benefits will be developed through the business case.

The hon. Gentleman also asked when the authority will start to make decisions, and when it will take all new appeals. The authority will be introduced through a phased transition, with the FTT IAC continuing to hear existing appeals in parallel while the new authority begins taking specified cohorts of new cases. We know that the current system is taking too long to deliver decisions, so the Bill creates a more scalable appeals system with greater capacity and faster processes, while retaining independent scrutiny and fairness.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Minister did not respond to my question about the projection that by the time the appeals authority gets up and running, approximately 200,000 people could be waiting for an appeal. Does that projection resonate with the Minister? Is that situation a possibility?

[Anna Turley]

Could the hon. Gentleman say where he got that figure from?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

The figure is taken from the evidence the Committee received from Refugee and Migrant Justice.

[Anna Turley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I do not recognise that figure, but of course, the Government want to make sure that we are fully aware of the figures. As was detailed at the start of the Committee’s consideration, the Government know that there are a huge number of appeals in the backlog. As the authority is developed and starts to come into force, the transition will be made. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any projections, as I would not want to mislead the Committee with any numbers or predictions we could make at this stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Power to specify cases to be heard by First-tier Tribunal instead of IIAA

Amendment made: 43, in clause 15, page 13, line 2, at end insert—

“(4) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedural Rules in connection with regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.

(5) Before making rules under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.

(6) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (4) 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 regulations under clause 15 transferring cases back to the First-Tier Tribunal from the IIAA. (See also amendment 46.)

Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

Q That is very helpful, thank you. Do you want to add anything, Dr Casey?

Dr Casey: Yes, I agree. I will just say that I think that, because the Independent Immigration Appeal Authority will not be a judicial body, the courts might be more anxious in scrutinising whether a clause ousts judicial review. At the moment, the way it is drafted, as a public lawyer you read a clause trying to oust and you think how a court would read it. I can imagine a court looking at that at the minute and inserting brackets and making it “A (rational and reasonable) decision of the IIAA”, and interpreting it in that respect.

[Anna Turley]

Q I am keen to come back to some of your comments on article 8. What is your analysis of how it has, slowly over time, come to protect those it was never originally intended to cover, and how can we safeguard against that in the future? Picking up on your point about the potential knock-on effect to article 3, Dr Casey, what mechanisms can we use to prevent article 3 being abused, essentially, on the back of our changes to article 8?

Professor Ekins: On the article 8 point, my own view, which is substantiated in quite some detail in the 2021 Policy Exchange paper with the support of Lord Hoffman that I referred to is that, for a long time in the history of the ECHR, article 8 had nothing to do with immigration and asylum. It was not a provision that was understood to impose limits on the enforcement of migration law or on the deportation and removal of non-citizens, especially foreign criminals and so on. There was no connection there.

A connection has been established in the case law by reading article 8 very expansively and then effectively requiring each particular decision to enforce the migration law of a member state to involve an individuated proportionality assessment about the impact on the particular person being removed—or, in relation to article 8, quite often on his or her family or maybe his or her extended family—and for that to pass judicial muster.

As I say, I think that is an innovation in the case law of the Strasbourg court. I do not want to overstate its novelty—it is an innovation that has been going on for several decades—but it is not part of what the UK and other member states agreed when they agreed the terms of the convention, and I think it should be viewed as a misinterpretation of the convention.

In a sense, the joint declaration of the member states earlier this year recognises that something has gone wrong in the case law of the Court; that it has read article 8—we will come to article 3—to establish a kind of Europe-wide migration and asylum law, beyond the terms agreed by the member states. That needs to be addressed and wound back.

The thought that, in a sense, you are wronging a foreign criminal when you remove him or her from the UK so that he or she cannot maintain a connection with family is just fundamentally misconceived. In the same way, we are not wronging the offender by incarcerating him, which makes it very much more difficult to maintain a flourishing family life; the consequence is a side effect of the wrongful choice made by the offender. Something similar holds, I think, with the wrongful choice made by a person who violates our migration law.

There are harsh consequences in many of these cases, of course, but they are not harsh consequences whereby the UK sets out to wrong someone’s family. That structure has to be more fully recognised. We should see that something has gone badly wrong in thinking that the right to respect for private and family life entails, at least in some cases, a de facto immunity to the application of migration law.

Dr Casey: I agree with Professor Ekins entirely. The extension of article 8 into the domain of immigration law was a very conspicuous act of judicial lawmaking through the living instrument approach.

As recently as 1985 in the Abdulaziz v. the United Kingdom case, you had the UK Government—Sir Peter Rawlinson, the Attorney General—arguing tooth and nail that article 8 did not apply to questions about entry into the UK or removal and that it was just outside the scope. They lost that case, and that has been the EHCR’s position for several decades since then, but it was not understood as part of the original compact when the convention was ratified.

Professor Ekins: You asked us about article 3 as well, I think.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Anna Turley and Blake Stephenson

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

Do you think it is fair for people to be able to circumvent an international rules-based framework by going through a safe country already before coming to claim asylum in the UK, or do you think that should have no effect at all on their asylum claim here?

Angela Afzal: We have to acknowledge that the majority of refugees claim asylum and receive protection in countries neighbouring where they had to flee. Secondly, we need to acknowledge that the UK is about 14th in the ranking of EU-plus countries in how many asylum applications we have per capita—we are quite far down the list.

The nature of our geography means that people need to be able to cross the channel in some way to reach the UK for protection. At the moment, there are not significant safe routes for people to get to the UK; we are talking about hundreds of them at the moment. In the absence of safe routes for people to get here, people who arrive here and have their claims processed should be granted the full entitlement to refugee status, so that the UK plays its part according to the obligations of the UN refugee convention.

Ideally, we would want people to have the opportunity to travel here on a safe route from the region of displacement, so that they would not have to make the dangerous journeys to Europe in the first place. As things are at the moment, there is little alternative.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q In the view of the International Rescue Committee, what safe routes should be opened up today to deal with the issue that you have just described?

Angela Afzal: We welcome the safe routes that the Home Secretary has recently announced. We think that they are a positive development. There has been a wide consultation with communities and stakeholders, and the approach has allowed communities to offer consent for the refugees who come to them. There can be planning for people arriving so that services are ready. Our experience shows that that is when you get good refugee integration and good social cohesion.

We welcome the offer of complementary safe routes, so that people who want to come here to study and work, but are not able to access the usual immigration rules—