Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Chris Law Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 General Committees

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Where to begin? The regulations brought by the Government today are a depressing illustration of the Labour party’s failure to challenge an immigration-obsessed far right and are a shameful surrender to the Conservatives and Reform in demonising and scapegoating one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. Asylum seekers deserve protection from the dangers they have fled. They deserve our care and they deserve and are entitled to support.

We should begin by dispelling the myth disgracefully repeated by the Home Office that asylum seekers are somehow abusing British hospitality. Qualifying for asylum support is far from straightforward, with applicants having to prove that they are destitute or will become destitute within 14 days. Assets held and past earnings are considered. Accommodation is provided on a no-choice basis. Financial support is less than £50 a week if they are in self-catered accommodation or less than £10 if they are in catered accommodation. That money is meant to fund essential needs such as toiletries, laundry, non-prescription medicines, clothing, travel and communications over the course of the year. I would like to see if anyone on the Committee could manage with that.

Given that almost all people seeking asylum are not allowed to work, as the hon. Member for Woking mentioned, is it any surprise that most of them live in poverty and experience hunger and poor health? Asylum seekers rely on that support to avoid destitution. A compassionate Government would realise that existing support should be a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to what is provided to people seeking safety in the UK, yet the Government have decided that their priority is removing the legal duty to provide that meagre, minimal support.

What are the risks of withdrawing the duty to support? The Government do not know, because they have not conducted an impact assessment, although some of the answers should be obvious. Depriving a person of accommodation and the very baseline of financial means to support themselves will only increase the likelihood of their becoming homeless, working illegally or being exploited by criminals and gangs. This is happening on the Government’s watch. It will increase that person’s likelihood of falling ill, being a victim of violence or, tragically, dying prematurely. These are people’s lives, and the Government view them as expendable for what they see as a political win. What a complete disgrace!

In such circumstances, the Government run a serious risk of breaching their international legal commitments under article 3 of the European convention on human rights, on preventing inhuman or degrading treatment. It is worth noting that we were not just a signatory to the refugee convention; we created it. We wrote and drafted it, and now the Government are about to go against it. Indeed, in 2005 a landmark House of Lords ruling established that denying subsistence support to asylum seekers who were forbidden from working breached article 3, as it created

“an imminent prospect of serious suffering”

regardless of statutory discretion.

Does the Minister not recognise that discretionary removal of accommodation and subsistence support to asylum seekers, as proposed by this legislation, would result in serious suffering and could be deemed inhuman or degrading treatment? How can he seriously say that these regulations are compatible with the ECHR, given the suffering they are likely to cause? How can anyone on the Committee vote in favour of forcing already vulnerable people into destitution?

Protection is a right, not a reward; moving from right-based support to a more selective discretionary model fundamentally undermines that. The Government have referenced similar models in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and France, although those comparisons have been disputed on the basis that some of those systems still retain statutory duties to prevent destitution. As we have heard, in Denmark they have the right to work after six months.

The Government have instead said that they will operate a system based on “genuine need”, but given that they have not published a full replacement framework, there is no clarity about how the new system will operate—particularly about how genuine need will be defined and assessed. Bizarrely, in what circumstances will an asylum seeker facing destitution not be considered in genuine need? Will the change from a legal entitlement to a discretionary system in which decisions are made case by case not simply add to bureaucracy, increase costs and add delays and frustrations for all those involved? As has already been mentioned, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out that only

“0.3% of all asylum seekers receiving support”

have been investigated for fraud and that only

“0.05% of those receiving support”

have had support “discontinued, reduced or withdrawn”.

This is a straw man: the Government are bringing forward these regulations to tackle an extremely marginal problem. What are the Government actually seeking to achieve? The explanatory memorandum states that they are bringing forward these regulations to provide

“flexibility to design an asylum support system aligned with domestic priorities”,

but the reality is that they are to provide a system aligned with political priorities.

This can be best described as coming from the ideological handbook of the far right. Cowering at the threat of the Reform party and dog-whistle politics, the Home Secretary has launched a disgusting assault on asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, which has been lapped up by the very people the Labour party is meant to stand in opposition to. Last month, the Home Office press release announcing these draft regulations proclaimed:

“Asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain’s generosity”—

a headline more suited to the right-wing tabloid press or a Reform party election manifesto commitment. These regulations are about jeopardising the lives of vulnerable people for the cheapest, most untrue headline.

To those on the Labour Benches, I say this: before it is too late, realise that you cannot out-reform Reform. Stand in solidarity with asylum seekers and vote against these cruellest-of-the-cruel regulations today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Colleagues have made an interesting range of contributions, and I will try to cover all the points they have made.

I will start with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent. The hon. Member for Fylde finished her thoughts regarding tinkering around the edges. We have committed to replacing this regime with a full framework. It is right that we take time to engage with the local government family—the hon. Member for Woking mentioned them—and with wider interested parties to make sure that is right. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent has heard clearly what the Government intend to do, which is to make sure that those housed at significant expense to the British taxpayer carry out their part of the bargain by not committing crimes. I will come on to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but I am quite surprised at his defence of that.

[Chris Law]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I have hardly started, but by all means.

[Chris Law]

I am not supporting illegality; the question is the scale of the illegality. To go back to the 0.3%, 0.05% are found to be guilty, and the cost to the entire United Kingdom per year—bear in mind that we are talking about £4 billion in asylum costs at the moment—is roughly £277,000. Can the Minister not agree that although there are cases, the Government are not allowing people to work and at the same time they expect everybody to be abiding absolutely within their system? That is already leading to ill health and near destitution. The level of crime that I have—

[The Chair]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is passionate on this subject, but interventions must be brief.