Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place.

Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people.

It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar.

Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced.

Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know.

We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly.

We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics.

Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one.

On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way.

Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them.

That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period?

Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. There have been incidents in the last year, which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of, where women have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. They have been brought in illegally and when they are sometimes able to escape from their captors or kidnappers—their pimps or whatever they call them—they then find themselves in an unbelievable circumstance where they are here illegally. However, that is not by their own choice but through the coercion of others. Does the hon. Lady feel that there must be some methodology to help those people who are victims and find themselves in unbelievable circumstances?

[Kirsty Blackman]

There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation.

We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support.

There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear.

Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk.

We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks.

I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria.

The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I say a big “thank you” to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate. She has—I say this with great kindness—a wonderful, warm heart. I always enjoy her contributions, and today is another example of just that.

It is always a joy to see the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is a good and dear friend to us all. I know that he understand the issues incredibly well. It is in his very nature to endeavour to give us the answers he can, within the confines of his departmental brief.

Members will have no doubt about my views on immigration, about which I have great concerns. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, so I understand that many people across the world flee persecution and human rights abuses, and look for a country of sanctuary. I believe that our country can be that sanctuary, but I have genuine concerns about the abuse of the asylum system—my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to some of them.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether on straightforward illegal immigration or on protected characteristics, part of the problem is that there are concerns in wider society about the United Kingdom’s stagnant economy and expanding population. That lead to protests and to demands that we close our borders so that we do not further exacerbate the problems of a growing population and a shrinking economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is absolutely right—I will refer to those matters shortly. There is no use saying that what he refers to is not happening or that there is a small number of asylum seekers—that is not the case. The images of small boats show overwhelmingly that they carry young men. They are more economic migrants—most of them look extremely fit and well. They are illegal immigrants coming by the backdoor to seek greater help in the benefits system, rather than the families I want to stand up for, who are fleeing oppression and threat to life.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank my hon. Friend for his speech; he is doing an excellent job. Does he agree that people are concerned about spiralling costs? Asylum seeker accommodation costs are set to rise to £15.3 billion across the UK over the next decade, including from £100 million to £400 million in Northern Ireland. When our services are already at breaking point, that is frustrating people. Surely the Government have a duty to look after the people who are born and raised here before committing to that spend.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend and colleague is right. I know that the Minister will consider all these matters, and I hope that he will give us an answer to that question. I can understand why so many are outraged that we would take winter fuel payments away from our own hard-working pensioners while doing nothing about migrants who seem to want an easy way of life. People have that perception about those who come along on plastic boats from Calais to Dover. I want us to put those migrants aside very quickly.

I try to be compassionate and understanding in everything I do in this House—although I am no better than anybody else—but I see a very clear difference between an economic migrant who wants to use the benefits system and a family who have no safe place to be. That must be highlighted. As a member of APPG for international freedom of religion or belief, Dr Huq, you will understand only too well that many Christians are persecuted in Syria and across the middle east, and in India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Myanmar. All being well, on 8 January we will have a Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in Myanmar.

The previous Government had a Syrian resettlement scheme, and six Syrian families came to Newtownards. They did not have a big grasp of the language, but our community drew together and supported them. Those six families are still there. They have had children there, they have jobs, they have learned the language, they have children at school, and they have houses. They did so by their own bootstraps, so to speak, and that should be recognised as something good that happens.

I believe that the Government must make changes to the system and take a hard line, returning those young men back to France or wherever they have travelled from or through, but I have a genuine fear that these changes may prevent those who are truly in need of asylum from claiming it. By the end of 2024, 132 million people had been forced to flee their homes. I have a large number of figures here, and I do not have time to mention them all, but there are 42.7 million refugees, 5.8 million people in need of international protection and 4.4 million stateless persons. It is clear that we cannot take them all in. That is why we must have a robust system in place to provide foreign aid to help where we can and take those who specifically need our help.

We cannot and must not allow the abuse of the system to end the system in its entirety—the goodness of the system that the Minister and the Government are trying to bring in—in the same way that we do not allow the abuse of drugs to prevent doctors from using the rules and regulations to prescribe them. Across the world, there are almost 74 million internally displaced people and 8.4 million asylum seekers. Again, we cannot take them all, but we can take some—I think we have a duty to do so.

We need a fit-for-purpose system that allows those who are persecuted for their faith to find a refuge and build a life with their families, such as those Syrian families who came to Newtownards eight or nine years ago. They are integrated—part of us—and contributing to society there. They want to assimilate, become British and espouse our values. We must remind ourselves of our all-important British values of tolerance and compassion as we address this problem without literally throwing the babies out with the bathwater—or English channel water, as the case may be. I thank the Minister in anticipation of his answer. I also thank the two Opposition spokespeople, who I know will make valuable contributions. I wish you, Dr Huq, and all colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.