Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026
Blake Stephenson Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for her comments and for extending the powers set out in the 2011 Act.
Protecting our country from terrorism is a central responsibility of Government. The public deserve to be safe from these heinous acts. Our commemorations this year marking 25 years since the 11 September attacks—the deadliest terrorist attack for British citizens in our history—should serve as a constant reminder of this solemn duty. Every attack, whether it is the Manchester Arena bombing, Lockerbie, 7/7, Omagh or an array of other dreadful attacks, should prompt us to pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives in the service of our country by dedicating ourselves to preventing such atrocities from happening again. [Interruption.]
Blake Stephenson
Stopping terrorism underpins everything we do in this place, as those who seek to alter our politics using violence fuelled by hateful ideology cannot be allowed to operate in our country. As the head of MI5 recently stated,
“The protection of democracy—its institutions, its representatives, its principles—has never felt more vital.”
While we look back, the past year is a reminder of the threat posed by terrorism at this very moment. The decision to raise the threat level to “severe” followed intelligence assessments and appalling attacks against members of our Jewish communities. I will be cautious about referencing specific recent cases that have involved people being charged and hostile states. However, to use just one example, earlier this year two Islamist extremists received life sentences, and a third received a prison sentence, for their role in a terrorist plot intended to target the Jewish community in Greater Manchester, which was foiled through the outstanding work of our police forces.
Against that background, I can say with certainty that we agree with the continuing use of the powers. They are serious powers, as the Minister said, and ones that must be used appropriately. When the renewal period for TPIMs was instituted, the late Conservative Minister James Brokenshire rightly noted the safeguards that the House continues to put in place when voting to renew the powers, but also recognised that they were sadly likely to continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, those comments remain accurate today.
These are serious, restrictive powers available to the Government. Therefore, I understand that they are rightly used sparingly as a tool of last resort, as the Minister outlined. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s previous report, TPIMs were applied only 33 times between the introduction of the Act in 2011 and 2024, with only four active applications in the last quarter. While I would not want to ask the Minister to comment on specific cases, do the Government need to take a different approach given the increase in the terrorism threat level to our country?
As with all powers, some questions remain, including those arising from previous comments by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that were noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. However, we must equally listen to the previous assessment of the independent reviewer, alongside the views of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, all of whom have agreed that TPIM powers should be renewed.
When the renewal order for the powers was brought forward in 2021, the then Opposition rightly supported the Government’s efforts. Our support therefore continues in the same vein, recognising that it is imperative for all of us to ensure that the resources and powers necessary to protect the public are in place.
Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses
Blake Stephenson Excerpts(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this very important debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their very thoughtful contributions. Counterpoint Research estimates that global sales of AI glasses rose by 263% in the first half of 2026, and the market is predicted to reach $44 billion by 2032—like other hon. Members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It is essential that we examine how to keep women and girls safe as this market expands.
Technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behaviour that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether it is the pervasive use of early cameras, which resulted in the exploitation of women and young girls in a way that we look back on in horror, or the explosion of the internet and smartphones, which created a new range of problems that I know the Minister and others are trying to combat, day in, day out.
There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses—we have heard about some of those today—but that does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm. Rather, the problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst motivations in our society. That is why it is important to recognise that smart glasses are part of that wider pattern and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, some of which we have heard today, that illustrate the need to ensure that these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country.
John Slinger
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on digital product safety is worth considering? In a white paper that he published in July, he makes the point very effectively that, just as we require physical products to be regulated so that they are safe for users—for example, lift shafts have to be safe—we should insist, through a process that he sets out in his White Paper, that digital products are safe and that the manufacturers of those products must ensure that they are safe. I think this issue would come within that scope.
Blake Stephenson
I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?
Blake Stephenson
I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance.
Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue.
Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society.
It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology.
That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras.
If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.
I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives.
One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence.
This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans.
I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week,
“I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.”
Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top.
To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.
Blake Stephenson
I want to take the opportunity to clarify that I did not make the point that manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they were not intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which is different. I do not think they intend to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that; maybe the Minister agrees with me.
Satvir Kaur
I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.
I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
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.
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.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52—Requirement for leave to enter or remain as a spouse or civil partner—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make such amendments to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of implementing the requirements specified in this section.
(2) Where a person (‘the applicant’) seeks indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the spouse or civil partner of a person with leave to enter or remain in the UK (‘the partner’)—
(a) the applicant must provide evidence that they were married to or in a civil partnership with the partner for a period of at least two years prior to the making of the application for indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) the applicant and the partner must prove that they remain, and intend to remain, in the marriage or civil partnership and that they intend to live together as spouses or civil partners;
(c) the partner must have a salary of at least £38,700 per year;
(d) the applicant and the partner must be at least 23 years old; and
(e) any application is to be refused if the applicant and the partner are first cousins.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
This new clause would place requirements, including a salary threshold, on individuals seeking to enter or remain in the UK as a spouse or civil partner.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 51 and 52 concern a particular route; 58,000 family visas were granted in the year to June, and it remains the one major route to this country with no limit at all. New clause 51 would introduce an annual cap on spouse and partner visas, set after consultation, with no more than 5% from any one country. New clause 52 would set four requirements: two years of marriage before settlement; a sponsor income of £38,700; both parties to be at least 23; and no first cousin marriages.
I anticipate that Committee members may raise a number of objections to the new clauses, so let me pre-empt some of those directly. The first is that the new clauses would potentially interfere with the right to marry. They would not. British citizens would remain free to marry who they choose. Nothing in the clauses touches that; the clauses consider the conditions on which a partner from overseas comes to settle here permanently. Every country sets such conditions; the only question is whether they are set by Parliament or left to shift with the political winds.
Perhaps the second objection will be that £38,700 is too high, but that is not a new figure. It was the level that the previous Government legislated to reach, matching the threshold for skilled workers, so that those who bring a partner here can support them without needing to rely on taxpayers’ money. This Government paused the increase pending review. The Migration Advisory Committee reported in June last year, yet 17 months later there is still no decision. That is a familiar pattern: Ministers commissioned the review, received it and then did nothing with it, leaving families, employers and the public in the dark. If the Government think that £29,000 is the right figure, they should say so and defend it; if not, they should act.
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.
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.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I may have missed part of it, so I want to make it absolutely clear that I was not an immigration Minister in the previous Government. I was happily getting on with my life in the private sector before I came here. That said, I am not persuaded by the Minister’s response and I will press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Sponsor licences: designated persons and sanctioned companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must revoke any sponsor licence held by—
(a) a sanctioned person; or
(b) a sanctioned company.
(2) For the purposes of subsection 1(a), a person is a "sanctioned person" if the person is—
(a) a designated person;
(b) a body corporate, partnership or other undertaking that is owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a designated person, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations;
(c) a body corporate that is a subsidiary of, or is under common control with, a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b); or
(d) a person acting on behalf of, or at the direction of, a person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(3) For the purposes of subsection 1(b), a company is a “sanctioned company” if the company is—
(a) a designated corporate, partnership or other undertaking, within the meaning given in the relevant regulations; or
(b) a designated body under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026.
(4) Revocation under subsection (1) must take effect no later than 7 days after the day on which the person or company becomes a sanctioned person or company, or, if later, the day on which the Secretary of State becomes aware of that fact.
(5) The Secretary of State must not grant, renew or reinstate a sponsor licence to a sanctioned person or company.
(6) Where a sponsor licence is revoked under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must not curtail the leave of a person sponsored under that licence before the end of a period of 30 days beginning with the day of revocation, unless they are satisfied that curtailment within that period is necessary in the interests of national security.
(7) Subsections (1) to (4) do not apply to the extent that the activity concerned is authorised by a licence granted under regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
(8) Where a person or company ceases, for the purposes of subsection (1), to be sanctioned, the Secretary of State must, on application, consider afresh any application for a sponsor licence made by that person or company, and may not refuse it on the ground of the earlier sanctioned status or revocation.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
“body corporate” means a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 2006, or a body incorporated outside the United Kingdom;
“designated person” means a person designated by name under, or for the purposes of, regulations made under section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018; or
“relevant regulations” means the regulations under which the person concerned is designated;
“sponsor licence” means a licence granted by the Secretary of State to a person or company permitting that person or company to act as a sponsor in relation to an application for entry clearance, leave to enter, or leave to remain under the immigration rules.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to revoke the visa sponsor licence of any company or other person subject to UK sanctions designation, or owned or controlled by a designated person.
Blake Stephenson
The new clauses—new clause 69 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and in my own name—address the same weakness: a sponsorship system with loopholes that those who abuse it know how to exploit.
New clause 59 would make revocation of a sponsor licence mandatory where there has been visa fraud, with an indefinite ban on reapplying. Consider how the system works today: a sponsor is caught committing visa fraud, its licence is revoked, and it then faces a cooling-off period of around 12 months, after which it can apply again. If even that is too long to wait, the people behind the company can simply wind it up, form a new one and start afresh with a different name on the paperwork but the same individuals behind the desk. That is not enforcement; it is a mild inconvenience.
We should be clear about what visa fraud means in practice. It is not a technical breach of paperwork. In the care sector, people paid thousands of pounds for jobs that did not exist. They arrived to find no work, no wages and debt they could not repay. Some were housed in overcrowded accommodation, controlled by those who brought them here. Visa fraud is very often a gateway to modern slavery. Those who commit it should not be given a second chance to do it again, and new clause 59 would ensure that they are not.
New clause 69 deals with a different loophole, but one that is harder to defend. It would require the revocation within seven days of any sponsor licence held by a person or company subject to UK sanctions, while giving their workers 30 days to find another sponsor. When this country sanctions an individual or a business, it is because we have judged them to be a threat to our security, complicit in aggression abroad or involved in serious corruption or human rights abuses. We freeze their assets and bar them from our financial system, yet there is no automatic requirement that they lose the privilege of sponsoring workers into the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary that this is not already the law.
The new clause would be fair to the workers involved. They are not the ones who have been sanctioned, and they should not be punished for the conduct of their employer. That is why the new clause would give them time to find another sponsor and continue working lawfully in the UK.
Neither new clause should be remotely controversial, and neither should divide the Committee. They close gaps that should never have existed, and they protect the integrity of our immigration system and the people most at risk of exploitation within it. I hope that the Government will accept them—if not today, then perhaps on Report—and that if they cannot, they can explain clearly why.
In closing, I ask the Minister whether any person or company subject to UK sanctions holds a sponsor licence today, and how many revoked sponsors have later obtained a new licence.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 63 concerns English language testing, a topic on which I have tabled many questions to the Home Office, as the Minister will be aware. It would stop the immigration rules allowing fully remote English language tests unless Parliament authorised them in legislation.
This Government have made much of raising English language requirements. Only yesterday, the Home Secretary confirmed that settlement will require English to A-level standard. She said that it is unacceptable for migrants to come here without learning our language. I agree with every word of that, but at the very moment the Government seem to be raising the standards, they are lowering the guard on testing. The Home Office plans to move its English test online or make it “digital by default” without in-person invigilation from late 2027, under a contract worth up to £816 million. In answer to my written questions, Ministers acknowledged the “challenges” posed by AI-assisted cheating. They also confirmed that they intend to pursue remote testing for the “Life in the UK” test as well.
The warnings could not be clearer. In March, the IELTS partnership, the world’s largest provider, withdrew from the tender process, warning that a fully remote test
“would rely on unproven technologies and practices.”
Research by Cambridge University Press has shown that remote testing creates more opportunity for identify fraud, proxy test taking and organised criminal exploitation. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has moved away from remote exams because of cheating.
The body that runs America’s law school admissions test is ending remote testing over widespread AI-enabled cheating. In Mexico, the country’s leading university ordered 58,000 students to resit their entrance exams in person, after a remote round was riddled with cheating. Australia and Canada have both rejected remote language testing for visa purposes.
However, we need not look abroad. We remember the 2014 scandal, when organised cheating in supervised centres invalidated tens of thousands of results. If fraud on that scale was possible with an invigilator in the room, what does the Minister think will happen when there is no room at all?
Consider the absurdity of where this leads us. A teenager sitting a GCSE is supervised, and a learner driver sitting a theory test must attend a test centre and prove their identity, yet a test that can unlock a visa and, in time, permanent settlement here in the UK would be undertaken sitting at home, in front of a laptop, with nobody checking who is really answering the questions.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Listening to the shadow Minister throughout the day, it is revealing just how deficient the Bill is in tackling the fundamental problems with immigration and asylum policy. Even if the Government do not agree with our new clauses, I invite the Minister—perhaps I should have intervened on her at some point—to address a wider point the shadow Minister is making: how do we deal with all these issues that are simply not addressed in this legislation or anywhere else where the Government say they are acting?
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.
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.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 71—Offence of employing an illegal worker: liability of officers for neglect—
“(1) Section 22 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence: bodies corporate, &c) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) If an offence under section 21(1) or (1A) is committed by a body corporate and is attributable to any neglect on the part of an officer of the body, the officer, as well as the body, shall be treated as having committed the offence.
(2B) A person who, at the time of the offence, was shown in the register kept by the registrar of companies as a director or secretary of the body, or as a registrable person with significant control over the body, is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) as an officer of the body at that time unless the person proves that they had ceased to hold that position before that time.
(2C) The appointment or registration of a new officer, or a change in the persons with significant control over the body, after the time of the offence does not affect the liability of any person under subsection (2) or (2A).’
(3) After subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) Subsections (2A) to (2C) apply in relation to a partnership as they apply in relation to a body corporate, with references to an officer of the body being read as references to a partner.’”
This new clause would make directors or partners guilty of the offence of employing an individual disqualified from employment by reason of their immigration status if the offence was committed as a result of their neglect, not only with their consent or connivance (as is currently the case).
New clause 72—Unpaid illegal working penalties: disqualification of directors—
“(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5A insert—
‘5A Disqualification for unpaid illegal working penalties
(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where, on an application under this section, it is satisfied that—
(a) a penalty notice has been given under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to a company of which that person was a director or shadow director at the time of the contravention,
(b) the whole or part of the penalty remains unpaid at the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which it became payable, and no objection or appeal in respect of it is pending, and
(c) the person’s conduct in relation to the contravention, or to the non-payment of the penalty, makes them unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
(2) An application under this section may be made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The maximum period of disqualification under this section is 15 years.’”
This new clause would enable directors to be disqualified where a penalty imposed for employing workers without leave to enter or remain in the UK has gone unpaid for six months. It complements NC70 by stopping the same individuals from simply setting up another company.
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?
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.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you finishing up the Committee for us, Dr Murrison.
I have tabled amendment 69 in relation to clause 50 and part 1. That area of the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite broad power to make regulations that are consequential to the Bill. As it stands, the Bill has quite a range of implications for Scottish trafficking laws and how they are carried out. The amendment aims to ensure that the Government receive consent from Scottish Ministers before introducing regulations affecting slavery and human trafficking.
The amendment refers in particular to clause 11, which creates a new legal procedure for claim notices requiring people to notify the Home Office of any reasons or grounds for why they should be allowed to enter, remain or not be removed from the UK. In that respect, the Bill tries to shift the burden of responsibility on to survivors by creating the obligation to treat a failure to disclose relevant details at the earliest opportunity as damaging to one’s credibility.
The way things are looked at in Scottish law seem to be different from the English approach. This kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK seems to contradict the commitments in Scotland to the UN refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under the inter-agency co-ordination group against trafficking. Those obligations require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. The amendment would help by forcing the Government to look again at how clause 11 might interfere with the obligation placed on Scottish Ministers via the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to provide support to victims of trafficking.
Section 9 of that Act requires Scottish Ministers to secure necessary support and assistance for adult victims of human trafficking, and gives Scottish Ministers their own statutory duty. That duty is triggered by a reasonable grounds decision. The new credibility penalty in clause 11 seems therefore to conflict with the statutory framework established by the 2015 Act and with the approach enshrined within it—a fundamental human rights approach to believing survivors.
That statutory inconsistency between the two provisions poses a question of how reserved powers within the Bill and devolved functions will interact. Consideration must be given to the Bill’s implications for those devolved powers, particularly in relation to trafficking frameworks, and to whether the Bill’s provisions can be enacted without undermining existing statutory duties in Scotland.
I worked with the Scottish Refugee Council on the amendment. It recommends that Scotland should maintain its greater flexibility to provide secure immigration status for trafficking survivors, and its goals of supporting recovery and reducing the risk of re-trafficking. To do that, the Bill should explicitly protect the operation of the 2015 Act and preserve Scottish Ministers’ discretion to provide support. The amendment is therefore needed to ensure that UK immigration measures do not impede the fulfilment of devolved duties on trafficking.
Although I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, I hope that the Government will look again and discuss this matter further with Scottish Ministers before the Bill’s final stages.
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 (Fifteenth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2026
(2 days, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and me, and to new clauses 30 and 31.
Everyone in this Committee wants to see the end of asylum hotels. The Government’s plan is to move people on to large sites—former military bases housing hundreds at a time. As we have heard, new clauses 30 and 31 would require consultation and published costs first. The Opposition are sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has just made, but consultation and costs alone are not enough. Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored.
That is what new clause 64 would do. Before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would have to publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education, and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it, so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden with no warning and no plan.
It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact of such sites on community wellbeing or local safety. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. That is totally unacceptable. Under new clause 64, large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure those impacts will be mitigated. I hope the Committee recognises how new clause 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers.
New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police, including instances of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk. Failing to do so would be an offence itself. There is currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown that serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements and ensure consistency so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next. It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken. It would require the Government to set clear rules for how incident information is reported, handled and shared.
The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not being acted upon. It is obvious that large sites in communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules.
How many large sites do the Government plan to open and where? Is there any duty on providers currently to report serious incidents to the police? I will push new clauses 64 and 65 to a vote, and I hope that the Committee recognises their importance for our communities and constituents across the country.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire completely, but I want to make a separate point. I have some sympathy for the Minister. Last week, we rightly criticised the Government’s approach on hotels; now, we are rightly criticising their approach on large sites. The argument might be, “Well, what are the Government expected to do?” I urge them to take a wholly different approach.
A few weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee went to Denmark. Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues, but it is far subtler than that. Their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire Graham King millions, if not billions, Denmark uses non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross runs the asylum centres rather than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not-for-profit basis. If they make a profit, the money goes back into the asylum centre or is given back to the Government.
That wholly changes the tone. In Denmark, we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres, but volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers to deliver the accommodation—accommodation that I accept is needed, although the Government must improve and speed up their processing of claims.
Anna Turley
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.
Siân Berry
I am afraid that I am not convinced that the Home Office has the right protections in place under current law or through the Bill. I detect that the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for dismissing the new clauses, or that safeguards are in place for privacy and the most sensitive personal data in current and future use of AI.
I suspect that I have made the Minister think more about this today, so I hope that she will seek further information and consider introducing further measures to the Bill in its next stages. For now, pending further debate, I am happy not to press these two new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Further provisions relating to the prevention of slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Duty to prevent slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) A relevant organisation must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking arising or occurring in—
(a) its own operations;
(b) the operations of any franchisee or subsidiary undertaking; and
(c) the operations, products or services of any person in its supply or value chain or other business relationship.
(2) In determining what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section, regard must be given to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section within 12 months of passing of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate an enforcement authority with responsibility for ensuring that relevant organisations comply with the requirements of this section.
(5) The enforcement authority may, where it is satisfied that a relevant organisation has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this section—
(a) issue a public censure notice;
(b) require the organisation to take specified compliance, prevention, restoration or remediation steps within a specified period;
(c) require the organisation to compensate any persons adversely affected by the noncompliance;
(d) impose a monetary penalty of up to 5% of the organisation’s global turnover;
(e) exclude the organisation from participation in public procurement procedures for a period determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, wherever incorporated or formed, which carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom, supplies goods or services, and has, inclusive of any subsidiary undertaking, total turnover of £36 million or more;
(b) a public undertaking within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“value chain” includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the commercial organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.
54B Responsibility for slavery or human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) Where slavery or human trafficking occurs or is identified in the supply or value chains of a relevant organisation (“O”), O is responsible for such slavery or human trafficking if—
(a) any activity of O causes or contributes to the occurrence of the slavery or human trafficking, or
(b) the occurrence of slavery or human trafficking is directly linked to O’s operations, products or services by O’s business relationships.
(2) O is not responsible for the slavery or human trafficking if it is proved that O had taken reasonable and proportionate steps under section 54A.
(3) Where O is responsible for slavery or human trafficking, O commits an offence.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (3) is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, partner or other senior officer of O, that person also commits the offence.
(5) A party guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) in the case of a relevant organisation, and any director, manager, partner or other senior officer of that organisation who commits an offence under subsection (4), to an unlimited fine;
(b) in the case of an individual—
(i) on summary conviction, to an unlimited fine, with such a fine being proportionate to the degree to which they were responsible for slavery or human trafficking;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to an unlimited fine, or to both.
(6) A person adversely affected by any slavery or human trafficking for which a relevant organisation is alleged to be responsible may bring civil proceedings against that organisation, whether or not criminal proceedings have been commenced or concluded in respect of the same conduct.
(7) Civil proceedings under this section may be brought by the person who claims to have been adversely affected by slavery or human trafficking (a “victim”), the Secretary of State, or any person acting on behalf of a victim.
(8) For the purposes of this section, “relevant organisation” has the meaning given in section 54A.’”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This new clause would require organisations to take steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking in their operations, and make organisations or individuals responsible for slavery or human trafficking liable to fines or imprisonment unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 40—Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour—
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) goods of a specified description,
(b) goods from a specified country, region, facility, undertaking, sector or industry, or
(c) goods involving a specified person,
as goods presumed to be made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour.
(2) An organisation which trades in the United Kingdom must publish on its website, as part of any slavery and human trafficking statement prepared under section 54 or otherwise, details of whether the organisation—
(a) makes available on the United Kingdom market,
(b) imports into the United Kingdom, or
(c) exports from the United Kingdom,
any goods designated by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for a right of appeal against any designation.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on compliance with this section and on the action organisations are to be required to take to reduce or eliminate their involvement with designated goods.
(5) In this section—
‘forced labour’ means forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization, and includes forced child labour and labour or services exacted under slavery, servitude, human trafficking, debt bondage or any other form of coercion; goods are made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour if forced labour has been used at any stage of their extraction, mining, harvesting, production, manufacture, processing, packaging, transportation or storage, at any stage of an organisation’s value chain;
‘value chain’ includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.’”
This new clause would permit the Secretary of State to designate goods as being presumed to involve forced labour and require organisations to publish whether they sell, import or export goods so designated.
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.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. I am sure the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses will be grateful and will find that useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation
“(1) In respect of any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998 is of no effect and must be disregarded in the interpretation and application of such legislation;
(b) any such provision must be read and given effect to as if there were no mention of or reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) a Minister of the Crown will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure;
(b) no immigration officer, court or tribunal may give any regard to the interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to UK legislation about immigration, asylum or deportation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsThursday 29th October 2026
(1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 October 2026 - (29 Oct 2026)
Mr Kohler
I apologise. The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said that they realised they could no longer
“rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
In spite of the Home Secretary’s statements to the contrary in the recent Home Affairs Committee evidence session, the Prime Minister was quoted in The Times as saying
“the small boats crisis has arisen in the last 10 years because we lost that returns agreement”.
There seems to be a belated admission—in No. 10, at least, if not in the Home Office—that Brexit has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration to this country.
We cannot continue to be on the outside looking in. The security needs of our border demand closer alignment with Europe.
The Home Secretary has signalled her desire to negotiate access to the Eurodac database, and we are asking the Government to go further in working with our European neighbours by joining the migration and asylum pact. Our new clause would mandate negotiations to join the pact, so that we can share the benefits of European collaboration on immigration. Although Border Force has had some success in reducing dangerous crossings, there will always be a market for criminal gangs to exploit unless we join the EU’s comprehensive framework. Does the Minister acknowledge the potential for the migration and asylum pact to deliver more effective border security, or was the Prime Minister wrong to draw attention to the negative impacts of Brexit?
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control.
The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels.
The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank hon. Members for tabling the new clause and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that deeper international co-operation is important. That is why the Home Secretary is in regular contact with her counterparts across Europe, including in France, Germany and Belgium, and we are continuing to establish a more comprehensive relationship with Europe as a whole. However, I remind him that irregular migration is not an issue limited to EU nation states. That is why we as a Government are looking even wider and being even more ambitious: not only tackling the issue when it emerges within European territories, but working upstream to prevent the vile trade of organised immigration crime in the first place.
For example, in August 2025 we signed an agreement with Iraq to bolster efforts to deter small boat arrivals. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and increase returns. In August this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. Those are just some examples of the importance of that broader co-operation and partnership. My hon. Friend the Minister for Migration and Citizenship also attended this year’s Berlin process meeting of Interior Ministers in Montenegro in September. It was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen international police co-operation and develop a joint response to cross-border security challenges not only with our EU counterparts but with representatives from the western Balkans.
I agree that international co-operation is an essential strand of our overarching strategy to tackle illegal migration, and one that I am keen to highlight is bearing fruit. As hon. Members will know—I will say it again, just for the record—small boat arrivals have decreased by more than 40% compared with this point last year. I am not claiming that the job is done—far from it—but we are taking a holistic approach to this issue, of which the Bill is one part. However, the Government will not support the new clause.
I want to pick up on a couple of the points the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised about the impact on returns and about Eurodac. We continue to work with our European partners on the shared challenge, including on returns, but joining the pact would not guarantee increased returns, and our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers real returns outcomes.
Eurodac is a matter for the EU, not a unilateral UK decision. Eurodac is one example of a pact measure where our participation is not legally possible without EU agreement, and the Eurodac legislation makes that clear. Access to asylum data could, of course, help identify individuals who have previously claimed protection in an EU member state before travelling to the UK, but it is for the EU to decide whether it wishes to extend access to third countries. In the meantime, we are strengthening practical co-operation with European partners, including through intelligence sharing and our observer status in the European Migration Network, which delivered on a key PM commitment from the UK-EU summit, and I will come on to say a bit more about the work we are doing on that.
Going back to the new clause, participation is not a straightforward proposition. The pact is not a single agreement that third countries can simply choose to join. It is complex collection of EU legislative measures, many of which are designed specifically for EU member states and Schengen countries. There is no established model for third-country participation, so any form of UK participation would require agreement from the EU and significant EU and operational change before extensive negotiations could commence. The pact is still being implemented across the EU and has been in application only since June this year. Member states are working to implement it, with the EU rightly focused on making it work for its own member states. That is a significant challenge, particularly for frontline countries that are facing the greatest migration pressures.
Mr Kohler
I will start with one: since Brexit, the Government have spent more than £1 billion on the agreement with France. We do not yet know the costs of intelligence sharing with Belgium, so I cannot give an answer on that. However, those deals fail to recognise that people who seek asylum are desperate. Sadly, making the French coast a more difficult place from which to embark pushes asylum seekers towards longer, more dangerous routes. Small boat departures from Belgium used to be rare, but that has changed since the start of 2026. There were 32 attempts to launch small boats from Belgium between January and April of this year, of which five were prevented. In comparison, there were just two launch attempts in the whole of 2025. We believe that agreeing a deal with the entire bloc would be more effective in preventing dangerous small boat crossings, by implementing a deterrent that encompasses all of Europe.
I take the Minister’s point, however. We do need some evidence, which is why the Liberal Democrats suggest a cost-benefit analysis. New clause 7 calls on the Home Secretary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral arrangements, to compare their costs with the estimated costs of joining the pact. Does the Minister acknowledge the benefits that that information could yield? Hon. Members have shown that they are interested in the answer, so let us give them the answer. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks.
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—
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?
Mr Kohler
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce whose stated aim is to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees. The Prime Minister has, to his great and huge credit, made ending homelessness a priority, but why, then, is the Minister pursuing the measures in this Bill that contradict such a noble aim? We have already seen that the refugee tax and core protection introduction risk exacerbating the precarity experienced by refugees with settled status.
In December 2024, the Government doubled the grace period refugees were given to move out of Home Office accommodation to 56 days. They did that, as they stated at the time, to provide refugees with more time to find alternative accommodation, reducing the risk of homelessness and putting pressure on overstretched council housing services. The Home Office has now reduced the grace period to 42 days, which would increase such pressures. The longer move-on period was shown to be effective. According to the Refugee Council, an estimated 1,000 refugee households in England avoided homelessness in 2025 thanks to the increased time they had to begin rebuilding their lives in the UK. I am concerned that a reduction in move-on time would lead to increased refugee homelessness, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has seen any data on refugee homelessness levels since that reduction in the grace period.
The issue of a shorter move-on period is compounded by systemic issues identified by the Refugee Council. Those include refugees receiving documentation in stages instead of all at once, delayed access to e-visas, local authority uncertainty on refugee entitlements and challenges of low digital literacy. Those challenges require a tailored approach, which is why our new clause would establish a taskforce to combat refugee homelessness. It would be responsible for co-ordinating the different services, moving people out of asylum support, ensuring that people who are granted refugee status get their essential documents promptly, identifying those at the greatest risk of homelessness and monitoring the impact of changes to the move-on period.
Asylum has become a politically charged issue, but we cannot lose sight of our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. We must ensure that move-on initiatives deliver. The National Centre for Social Research found that constraints of systemic housing shortages and the concurrent roll-out of e-visas were holding us back. It made recommendations that included restoring the move-on period to 56 days, better data sharing and strengthening the support on offer. It would be within our taskforce’s remit to ensure that those recommendations are properly implemented. Having a body dedicated to protecting homeless asylum seekers is a way to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities and action those recommendations.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that. The root of the pressure is the number of people arriving and the time that they spend in the system. Fewer arrivals and faster outcomes would do far more for councils than any taskforce.
We will not support the new clause, but let me ask the Minister a question, building on the one that the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked. What is the current move-on period after a grant of protection, and what assessment have the Government made of the cost of refugee homelessness to local authorities throughout England?
Anna Turley
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority.
As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce.
Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face.
We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days.
We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.
Mr Kohler
Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts.
In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban. According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP.
Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality. We must remember that if this country works for refugees, refugees will work for this country.
The argument that giving asylum seekers employment rights will encourage further illegal immigration is well worn but ultimately unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little to no role in people’s destination of choice, whereas factors such as language and familial relations are far more influential. The Government’s position is disputed by their own Migration Advisory Committee.
Indeed, asylum seekers come here in spite of the fact that our working regulations are a complete outlier in comparison with other states. EU law requires access to work after six months at most, while Canada allows it immediately and the US after six months. Even Denmark, which is always held out as being quite hard-line on immigration issues and undocumented migrants, allows it after six months. A three-month limit would be in line with our allies and may incentivise the Home Office to improve the efficiency of its decision making.
Allowing refugees to work after three months would be worth £437 million per cohort, which is five times the cost that would be recovered with a £10,000 payment scheme. Importantly, the public support this measure. Lift the Ban research found that 71% of the public agreed that people seeking asylum should have the right to work. Ultimately, people who work while they wait for an asylum decision are more ready to support themselves when they get status. This is good for the taxpayer, good for the asylum seeker and good for the country.
Blake Stephenson
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would give asylum seekers the right to work after three months, and the Green party’s new clause 24 would give them an automatic, unrestricted right after six months that lasts through every appeal. We oppose both new clauses.
People who enter the UK illegally should not be able to claim asylum here at all. The new clauses go in the opposite direction. They would make the UK a more attractive destination for people deciding whether to pay a smuggler to cross the channel. Everybody wants to reduce pull factors so that we can reduce dangerous crossings, and I am afraid that the new clauses would introduce additional pull factors.
I will keep my remarks brief and just ask the Minister a question. How many asylum seekers currently have permission to work, and what assessment have the Government made of the effect that earlier work rights would have on the number of claims?
Siân Berry
The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work.
As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim.
It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other.
More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape.
The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees.
Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high.
Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work.
Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening.
In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work.
Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP.
Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety.
In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.
Tom Gordon
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the immigration rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. The family reunion route was paused on 4 September 2025, with a stricter system promised from spring 2026 still not in place, as we discussed earlier in Committee. So I ask the Minister: if the Government announce a new settlement route, will there be a new family reunion route, too? We want to see the details of the resettlement scheme announced with this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure we end up with the tens of thousands of people, predominantly women and children who used to use the family reunion visas, able to access it.
I meet many people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, from victims of genocide such as the Yazidi people to people who came through the Afghan route. Quite often the distress and additional trauma that is caused by having been separated from their families compounds the issues that they are already trying to grapple with.
With the new rules set to come in under this Bill, there will be issues around refugees being able to hit the income thresholds so that their family members can come with them. That is the purpose of this new clause and I would welcome any news or updates from the Minister further to the questions already put during the course of this Bill Committee.
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.
Draft Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 (Specified Purposes Related to Policing) Regulations 2026
Blake Stephenson Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the Minister for those detailed opening remarks. The protection and enforcement of our laws protecting our borders must be an absolute priority for Government. Whether individuals are coming across the channel in small boats or concealed in trailers, we must do all we can to prevent and deter these dangerous journeys.
Unfortunately, the tragic consequences of people smuggling in trailers are all too clear. It is right that the people who previously committed these crimes are now in prison, but that should not prevent us from remaining vigilant and taking steps to stop such tragedies from happening again. During the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, the Government received our support for the clauses that underpin the draft regulations. Therefore, they will continue to receive our support for them today.
The specified purposes related to policing that are set out in the legislation are very sensible and will rightly enable the lawful sharing of trailer registration information held by the DVLA with policing bodies. Allowing the police and the Home Office to share that information where it is used for the same purposes is also an entirely appropriate measure. I hope the Government will utilise these powers effectively to identify and arrest anyone responsible for illegally bringing individuals into our country.
Given the time available to scrutinise the Government’s approach to border security in the ongoing Immigration and Asylum Bill Committee, which the Minister and I are enjoying session after session, I will not belabour the broader issues with this approach. However, I hope the Government will acknowledge that if we are to stop illegal migration, which should be the overall aim, we must not only seek to smash the gangs, as this legislation aims to do, but deter all forms of illegal entry.
Illegal entry to the UK is both incredibly dangerous and damaging to the British population, and we owe it to both parties to remove the incentives that encourage illegal migration. To overcome the failures that we have seen in tackling illegal migration, measures such as the draft regulations need to be accompanied by a message that anyone who comes to the UK illegally will not be allowed to remain in this country. I fear that without such changes, this well-meaning legislation, while an improvement, will prove unable to address the much broader problems.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsTuesday 27th October 2026
(1 week, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 October 2026 - (27 Oct 2026)
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.
Anna Turley
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007 sets out exceptions to the automatic deportation of foreign criminals. This technical amendment provides greater legal clarity in relation to the exception that may apply where a foreign criminal is also a confirmed victim of modern slavery.
At the time the UK Borders Act was enacted, there was not a detailed domestic legal framework in place for the identification and protection of victims of modern slavery. Since then, the Government have introduced specific domestic modern slavery legislation, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The ongoing work on this Bill has highlighted the outdated reference to the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—ECAT—and this provides an opportune moment to update the legislation so that it refers to the relevant domestic modern slavery framework.
New clause 32 replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom’s obligations under ECAT with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery legislation, namely the temporary permission to stay provision in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Since the introduction of the 2007 Act, the UK has introduced specific modern slavery legislation and these provisions will now provide the legal framework for identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery in the UK. The new clause aligns the deportation framework with existing domestic legislation on modern slavery provisions and provides greater legal clarity.
The new clause does not expand or alter the protections. It simply clarifies and clears up any ambiguity in the law. It simply places the exception to automatic deportation on a clearer domestic statutory footing, while ensuring the Secretary of State retains flexibility to grant temporary permission to stay in exceptional circumstances where appropriate.
Blake Stephenson
New clause 32 rewrites the exception to automatic deportation for foreign criminals who are victims of trafficking. At present, section 33(6A) of the UK Borders Act 2007 disapplies automatic deportation where removal would breach our obligations under the Council of Europe trafficking convention. The new clause would replace that with a test based on leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, including where the Home Secretary merely intends to grant such leave, even where she is under no duty to do so.
A criminal conviction should trigger automatic deportation, and those deported as foreign criminals should not be able to make protection claims to stop that deportation. New clause 32 keeps a route by which a foreign criminal can avoid automatic deportation and it widens the discretion to use it.
I am sure nobody in this Committee wants genuine victims of trafficking to be left unsupported, but in clause 38, the Government accept that people who pose a threat to public order should be disqualified from protection. Why, then, keep the exception to automatic deportation for people who have been convicted of crimes here? Why widen the range of cases where there is no duty to grant leave at all?
How many foreign criminals relied on the trafficking exemption in each of the past three years? In what circumstances would the Home Secretary intend to grant leave under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 where there is no duty to do so? How many foreign criminals do the Government expect to benefit? Unless the Minister can show that this exception will be rare and tightly controlled, it is a back door through which foreign criminals will continue to avoid removal.
Anna Turley
Temporary permission to stay is granted only in limited circumstances for specific purposes and for time-limited periods. Confirmed victims who are considered a risk to public order who have made a modern slavery claim in bad faith will not usually be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK. In rare cases, the Secretary of State may decide that temporary permission to stay is to be granted to an individual who has been convicted of a crime, for example, where their presence is necessary to support a law enforcement investigation or criminal proceedings. The new clause ensures that the Secretary of State retains this discretion as is befitting with clauses we considered earlier. Any grant of temporary permission to stay is subject to the individual continuing to meet the relevant requirements and lasts only for as long as it is necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is granted.
I will undertake to write to the Committee on the specific numbers that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked for. I thank Members for their interest in the new clause. It replaces the existing reference to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings with a reference to the relevant domestic modern slavery legislation, namely the temporary permission to stay provision in the Nationality and Borders Act. The technical new clause provides greater legal clarity in relation to the exception that may apply where a foreign criminal is also a confirmed victim of modern slavery.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 32 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 33
Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner
“(1) Part 5 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (immigration advisers and immigration service providers) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 92F (enforcement of penalty notices) (inserted by paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025)—
(a) in subsection (1), after ‘notice’ insert ‘(“a penalty”)’;
(b) for subsections (2) to (4) substitute—
‘(2) In England and Wales, the penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court.
(3) In Scotland, the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland, the penalty is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of the county court.
(5) Where action is taken under this section for the recovery of a penalty, the penalty—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.’
(3) In Schedule 5 (the Immigration Services Commissioner), in paragraph 9C (enforcement of orders to refund fees or pay compensation) (inserted by paragraph 14(5) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025)—
(a) for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—
‘(3) Any amount to be refunded or paid under the order (“the amount owing”)—
(a) in England and Wales, is recoverable by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) as if it were payable under an order of the county court;
(b) in Scotland, may be enforced by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland;
(c) in Northern Ireland, is recoverable by P or the Commissioner (on P’s behalf) as if it were payable under an order of the county court.’;
(b) in sub-paragraph (4), for ‘make an application under sub-paragraph (3)’ substitute ‘take steps to recover or enforce an amount owing’;
(c) for sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) substitute—
‘(5) Where action is taken under this paragraph for the recovery of an amount to be refunded or paid under an order of the Commissioner, the order—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, is to be treated for the purposes of section 98 of the Courts Act 2003 (register of judgments and orders etc) as if it were a judgment entered in the county court;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, is to be treated for the purposes of Article 116 of the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/226 (N.I. 6)) (register of judgments) as if it were a judgment in respect of which an application has been accepted under Article 22 or 23(1) of that Order.
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, an appeal is pending during the period—
(a) starting when the appeal is brought, and
(b) ending when the appeal is finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.’”—(Anna Turley.)
This amendment would insert a new clause, to go in after clause 49, amending the provision inserted into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 about the enforcement of orders made by the Immigration Services Commissioner for penalties, refunds and compensation, so as to make it work effectively in Northern Ireland.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Anna Turley
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Government new clause 33 seeks to amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to ensure that the enforcement of orders made by the Immigration Services Commissioner under that Act for penalties, refunds and compensation work effectively in Northern Ireland. Provisions regarding enforcement of unpaid monetary penalties, refunds of fees or payments of compensation in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were part of the Immigration Services Commissioner measures in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Upon making preparations to commence the measures, however, it became apparent that the current provisions are not compatible with the system in place in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Government are taking steps to rectify the situation so that the enforcement regime can operate as intended.
The Government new clause ensures that any unpaid monetary penalty, refund of fees or payment of compensation imposed by the Immigration Services Commissioner on advisers providing poor or illegal immigration services or advice can be recovered in Northern Ireland as they can in England, Wales and Scotland. It also makes provision for penalties to be entered into the relevant registers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Procedures for recovery of debts differ in Scotland from those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, statutory penalties need not be treated as an existing court judgment. In keeping with other types of statutory penalty in Scotland, the proposed drafting allows for these penalties to be treated as an extract registered decree arbitral, bearing a warrant for execution for purposes of enforcement. That means that no application is needed to the court to enforce a debt or penalty, as it is treated as having been registered with the court and authority given the execution.
Amendments in later groups will make provision for the commencement of the new clause to take place in conjunction with the measures it relates to within the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 as amended by the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
Blake Stephenson
New clause 33 makes the Immigration Services Commissioner’s penalties, refund orders and compensation orders enforceable as court orders across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. These are technical improvements and we support them.
Rogue immigration advisers do real damage. They take money from vulnerable people, and, too often, they coach claims designed not to establish the truth but to delay removal, including the late claim lodged the night before a flight, and the fresh claim built on a story that has changed. We would end immigration legal aid and limit judicial review to cases where the Home Office has acted outside its powers, which would remove much of the market that these advisers exploit.
In the meantime, the regulator should have teeth. How many penalties has the commissioner imposed in the last three years, how much has actually been recovered and how many prosecutions for giving unregulated immigration advice have there been? As I said, we support this move, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.
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
Blake Stephenson Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 (Tenth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsThursday 22nd October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2026 - (22 Oct 2026)
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142.
Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?
Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those?
Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force.
Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.
Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.
Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that
“the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]
Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest.
Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report?
Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what?
Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).
Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they
“were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”.
I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.
The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter.
It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and
(b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of—
(i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3),
(ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and
(iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 62—Asylum support payments: annual report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for each financial year beginning after section 23 comes fully into force, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the power in section 23(3).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out, for the financial year to which it relates—
(a) the number of persons required to make payments under section 23(3);
(b) the total sums required to be paid;
(c) the total sums recovered, including sums collected by HMRC under regulations made by virtue of section 24(4);
(d) the total sums written off or treated as irrecoverable;
(e) the number of persons exempt by virtue of section 23(6), by description of exemption; and
(f) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.
(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament within six months of the end of the financial year to which it relates.”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament each year on how many people have been charged for asylum support, how much has been charged, recovered and written off, how many people are exempt, and what the scheme costs to run.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when.
Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote.
Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations.
Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected.
We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now.
The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those
“who have had their case concluded”;
but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November?
The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers
“take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,
but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge?
Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)
Blake Stephenson ExcerptsThursday 22nd October 2026
(2 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2026 - (22 Oct 2026)
Melanie Onn
I will not, because I am on my final sentence.
Rather than having a negative perception of those asylum seekers, this could help the public to understand that they are making a contribution—that they are willing to make a contribution. Then we will see a settlement that is deemed to be acceptable and that hopefully contributes to a much more cohesive society.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time.
As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost.
This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
David Smith
I am delighted to hear the Opposition spokesman say that this is not a refugee tax. Does he agree, as we approach other issues in the Bill and elsewhere, that redistributions of funding and contributions in other areas are not always a tax?
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.