Electronic Travel Authorisation
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
Today marks a significant milestone in the transition to a fully digital immigration system with the UK moving to full enforcement of its digital “permission to travel” requirements. First, everyone (except British and Irish citizens and some other exempted cohorts) wishing to travel to the UK will need a “permission to travel”, and this requirement will be enforced. Secondly, from today most visa nationals applying for a visit visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.
This marks a further step in the move away from paper-based evidence towards secure, digital records linked to the passport used for travel. Carriers, including airlines, are required to check that passengers hold permission to travel through automated checks against Home Office records before boarding.
The permission to travel must be in the form of:
an electronic travel authorisation (ETA);[1]
an eVisa (a digital record of identity and immigration status);[2] or
other acceptable physical proof, where permitted.[3]
[1] https://www.gov.uk/eta
[2] https://www.gov.uk/evisa
[3] https://www.gov.uk/evisa/travel-with-evisa
Wherever possible, the permission will be digitally linked to the passport being used for travel, enabling status to be confirmed quickly and securely. Anyone who has an eVisa must ensure their travel document is linked to their visa via their UK Visas and Immigration account, to ensure the smoothest travel experience. This also applies to those with status under the EU settlement scheme and I particularly urge everyone in that group to ensure that their latest passport is linked to their UKVI account.
The benefits of introducing a digital permission to travel requirement are twofold. First, we will know more about people before they travel to the UK, strengthening the security of our border, enabling a more targeted approach to border control with more efficient processing of arrivals. By maximising the use of upstream interventions, we are preventing people who pose a threat to the UK from traveling in the first place, by refusing them permission to travel here.
Secondly, this approach enables the Government to deliver key innovations through end-to-end digitisation, making it easier for people to come to the UK to live, study, work or visit, thereby boosting the UK economy through tourism, trade, and investment opportunities.
The Home Office continues to promote the ETA scheme and transition from physical immigration status documents to eVisas through a comprehensive programme including media activity, gov.uk, extensive stakeholder engagement, cross-Government engagement and targeted customer communications. In parallel, we have undertaken extensive engagement with carriers to ensure they are prepared for these new requirements.
Electronic travel authorisation (ETA) for non-visa nationals
The ETA scheme was launched in October 2023 with over 19.6 million ETAs granted up to September 2025. Phased roll-out brought EU nationals into scope in April 2025 and, since then, it has become a universal requirement for all eligible non-visa national visitors, which is now being enforced from today. Public and stakeholder communications have been ongoing since 2023 and we continue to update guidance on gov.uk, work with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office posts and engage directly with carriers and the travel and tourism sector.
With the ETA requirement now in force, carriers such as airlines are required to check passengers hold the appropriate permission before they travel. Linked to this, carriers may be liable to a penalty if they bring someone to the UK who does not have the correct documentation or permission. Passengers can also check their ETA status and expiry online.[4]
[4] https://www.gov.uk/check-eta
Dual nationals
British citizens,[5] including dual nationals, are not eligible for an ETA and should prove their permission to travel and enter the UK border with a valid British passport or a passport containing a certificate of entitlement (CoE) to the right of abode. From tomorrow, the CoE will be available in digital form, linked to their passport. Without either of these documents, British citizens risk being refused boarding or may experience delays when travelling to the UK from today. Further information is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/electronic-travel-authorisation-eta-guide-for-dual-citizens
[5] https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship
The nature of British nationality law means there is no central register of British citizens or British dual nationals and therefore no mechanism to directly contact all those who may be affected. We have, however, taken active steps to raise awareness of what this means for dual British citizens. Public information strongly advising dual nationals to travel with a valid UK passport or CoE has been available since October 2024, including official guidance on gov.uk, and we included guidance for dual citizens in our ETA communications campaign which has been running since 2023. In November 2025, we announced the enforcement of ETA from 25 February 2026, which included information about the requirement for dual citizens: “No permission, no travel: UK set to enforce ETA scheme”.[6] We provide explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies, and since the start of the year we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold useable contact details.
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-permission-no-travel-uk-set-to-enforce-eta-scheme
This supplements our wider updates via gov.uk, engagement and promotion via Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office networks.
This position is long standing. Under the Immigration Act 1971, British citizens cannot be granted an ETA, a visa or other immigration permission. To enter the UK as a British citizen, people must evidence their right of abode by presenting a UK passport or a foreign passport endorsed with a CoE. Where all supporting information has been provided, people can expect their UK passport within three weeks when applying from the UK, and within four weeks for most applications from outside the UK. Where a dual national holds a foreign passport, His Majesty’s Passport Office reserves the right to request the original document to support completion of its checks. However, a colour photocopy of the foreign passport will usually suffice to help meet travel needs while the application is in progress.
ETA enforcement does not change this legal framework. What changes from 25 February 2026 is that carriers are now required to apply permission to travel checks consistently for non-visa nationals, in the same way that carriers already do for visa nationals, to avoid the risk of a penalty. We recognise this represents a change to how some British dual nationals experience pre-departure checks, particularly where they have travelled historically on a non-UK passport. Our approach aligns with that of comparable countries, such as the US and Australia.
Transitional arrangements and temporary measures
We do not plan additional grace periods. The ETA scheme has been rolled out to eligible nationalities since October 2023, and our approach has been clearly communicated throughout. A further transitional phase has been in place since roll-out completed in April 2025, meaning the requirement to have an ETA was not strictly enforced by carriers, giving passengers time to prepare.
Alongside this, we have supported carriers to prepare for these changes through sustained engagement, technical readiness work, partner materials, webinars and the introduction of a 24/7 carrier support hub. We have engaged with over 55,000 check-in agents globally to embed these checks in day-to-day operations.
Recognising the potential impact on dual British nationals, we have issued temporary operational guidance to carriers on the acceptance of alternative documentation. This includes carriers accepting, at their discretion, an expired UK passport (issued 1989 or later) alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport, where biographic details match. This is a short-term transitional measure and remains an operational decision for carriers. It does not replace the requirement to hold a valid UK passport or a valid CoE.
Carriers may also contact the carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport systems. This service is available to carriers only and our clear advice to passengers remains that they should travel with a valid British passport or CoE to ensure the smoothest experience. Carriers remain responsible for ensuring that passengers are adequately documented for travel; carrier liability requirements remain in force, and carriers may face charges if they transport passengers who do not have the required permission to travel. Carriers also set their own operating processes, and the decision on whether to carry a passenger is their commercial and operational decision.
Emergency travel documents remain available for urgent travel in defined circumstances. Adults and children who have previously held a UK passport issued after 1 January 2006 can apply where they need to travel urgently.[7] Where a person has not previously held a UK passport, they can only apply if their urgent travel meets the exceptional circumstances criteria, for example urgent medical reasons or attending the funeral of a close relative. This long-standing arrangement is unaffected by ETA enforcement, but it does not remove the need to hold the correct documentation for future travel.
[7] https://www.gov.uk/travel-urgently-from-abroad-without-uk-passport
In line with current practice, on arrival at the UK border, Border Force will continue to assess a person’s suitability to enter the UK and may conduct additional checks if required.
We will continue to take a compassionate and pragmatic approach to travellers who experience genuine difficulty while this process settles. The clearest way to ensure a smooth journey remains travelling with a valid UK passport or a CoE to the right of abode.
Transition to eVisas
Over 10 million people are already using secure and convenient eVisas, which are replacing physical immigration status documents such as biometric residence permits and visa vignette stickers in passports. We are now in the final phases of implementation, with eVisas becoming the default evidence of status for most immigration routes to the UK.
From today, 25 February 2026, most visa nationals applying for a visitor visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.
These changes streamline the process for visa applicants who now only need to visit the visa application centre once to confirm their identity and receive their passport back at the appointment. Decisions will be communicated by email, and for those granted a visa, they will create a UKVI account to access their eVisa.[8]
[8] https://www.gov.uk/evisa/set-up-ukvi-account
Eligible applicants applying for evidence of exemption from immigration control from outside the UK will also receive a digital record of exemption instead of a physical vignette, allowing carriers and UK Border Force to confirm exemption status automatically through existing checks.
By the end of 2026, the Government intend to stop issuing all physical visa vignette stickers in passports, with all successful visa applicants receiving an eVisa. The latest information on the transition to eVisa is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas
The enforcement of the ETA requirement, alongside the continued transition to eVisas, reflects our commitment to modernising and further securing the UK border. They also lay the foundations for a contactless UK border in the future.
Members may wish to signpost their constituents to further information about these changes. Supporting materials can be accessed here: eVisa partner pack[9] and ETA partner pack,[10] including key messages, factsheets and materials that may be shared to amplify these changes.
[9] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=9DCD0592
[10] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=828F5184
[HCWS1361]
Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the impact of the UK’s electronic travel authorisation rules on British citizens who are also dual nationals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I thank the hon. Member for her urgent question. The introduction of electronic travel authorisations—ETAs, as they are known—is part of plans to modernise and digitise the UK’s border and immigration system by providing a much clearer picture of who intends to travel to the UK for short periods. ETAs will enable a more targeted approach to border control, strengthening security and ensuring a smoother travel experience.
From today, carriers will check that eligible passengers hold an ETA before travelling to the UK and will deny boarding to those who do not hold the correct permissions. British citizens, including those who hold dual nationality, do not need and are not eligible for an ETA. They must travel with a valid British passport or another passport endorsed with a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode, known as a COE.
Since the outset of the scheme, the Home Office has embedded clear messaging for dual nationals across the ETA communications campaign and published comprehensive guidance on gov.uk setting out clearly what dual citizens need to do. Since 2024, we have provided explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies. Since the start of the year, we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold usable contact details.
In order to support British nationals overseas—particularly those who have not held a passport for some time or have never held one—the Home Office has put in place temporary mitigating measures, which include issuing temporary operational guidance to carriers confirming that they may at their discretion accept an expired UK passport issued in 1989 or later alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport. Carriers may also choose to accept alternative evidence and can contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport system.
It is not the intention of the ETA scheme to penalise our citizens who choose to live abroad. That is why we have given as much time as possible to allow passengers in such a position to make the necessary arrangements and why we have now put in place additional short-term measures to assist our nationals when travelling to the UK.
I finish by noting that the approach we have taken is comparable to that taken by many of our closest international partners, including the USA, Canada and Australia, who have already introduced similar systems—for example, the electronic system for travel authorisation for visitors to the United States—and we expect the EU to launch its own version. We are doing these checks to ensure that illegal migrants and foreign criminals cannot set foot here through our ports and borders by screening them before they travel. I am delivering a more secure, modern border.
Manuela Perteghella
I begin by declaring my interests as a British dual national and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights. From today, British citizens are at risk of being prevented from returning to their own country because of the Government’s mishandling of the electronic travel authorisation scheme. British dual nationals cannot apply for an ETA, and they do not have a visa, so unless they hold a valid British passport they must produce a certificate of entitlement costing £589 simply to prove they are British, compared to £16 for a tourist. Carriers face £2,000 fines, so it is no good that that is left to their discretion. The result is chaos for law-abiding British citizens, and families will be separated.
Communication has been wholly inadequate. Putting guidance on a website is not a communications strategy. I understand that the people who recently naturalised were not warned in their grant letters or at their ceremonies, and there have been no clear messages at the border. When Canada introduced a similar scheme, it delayed enforcement and created a low-cost, temporary authorisation—and it worked. Why has this Government refused to adopt the same common-sense approach?
I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government postpone enforcement to prevent British citizens from being wrongly denied boarding? Will the Government introduce a low-cost, one-off travel authorisation, like Canada did, for dual nationals whose citizenship can easily be verified? Will the Government ensure urgent help through consulates, high commissions and the UK Visas and Immigration helpline? These are British citizens who have followed the rules. They deserve better than confusion, silence and a £589 bill simply to come home.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for her response to my answer. I am clear that there has been no mishandling from the Home Office on this important issue. As I said in my speech, this has been on the Government website since 2024. We have also spent significant sums of money on getting the message out there, including through the relevant media and through communications to those who have naturalised over the last decade. Communications, as we all know in this place, can be difficult and some people can be missed. I have worked as hard as I can to get the message out there, including on Australian television.
The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is no eligibility for an ETA. That is due to the Home Secretary’s power to grant an ETA deriving from the immigration rules, which do not apply to British citizens. A passport costs £100. The turnaround times that we are seeing after the increase in demand are well within the expected limits, taking four weeks for those applying from outside the country, with the average at around nine days. That is fast. They can also apply for an emergency travel document in extreme circumstances and the turnaround times for that can be as quick as two days. There are also transitional methods in place, such as using expired passports that were issued after 1989. There has been significant communication and advice to carriers, including my meeting many of them to ensure that they fully understand the new measures in place. The carrier support line is also active, through which anyone encountering issues can make contact.
It is important that we introduce these measures. They are modernising, they are making our border more secure and they are very much in line with what other nations are doing. I have sympathy for those who may be encountering issues. On Monday next week, I will hold drop-in sessions that all Members of Parliament with specific cases—I do not want to go into too much detail on the Floor of the House—can visit.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was contacted in the early hours of this morning by two constituents who became proud British citizens in December. They did not have time to apply for British passports—they are from other EU countries with passports from there—because they were off on an extended honeymoon in south-east Asia. They now feel that they cannot get back into the UK from their honeymoon. They are absolutely stranded. I can pass on the details of the case to the Minister’s officials, but what would he advise? My constituents need to get back into this country as soon as possible. They should not have to pay a fortune for the privilege.
Mike Tapp
My suggestion at this point is that my hon. Friend’s constituents visit the Government website and call the support line to see what advice can be offered. I cannot go into specific details right now about that case, but if she comes to my drop-in session on Monday, where there will also be officials, we can deal with that. I am also happy to speak after this urgent question.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response.
The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed.
The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable.
The change does not remove rights. It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice.
Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient? I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral.
I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.
Mike Tapp
Agreement across the House on much of this is welcome, despite the mess that we inherited from the previous Government on immigration.
On the question of consular services, yes, they are in place but they are limited. They are for the most extreme cases such as bereavements and funerals or urgent medical care. On the use of social media, this morning I posted a tweet on X, which I am surprised that the hon. Member is not monitoring; I suggest she puts me on alerts. On the advice to airlines around the passports issued after 1989, that is the advice that has been issued but we cannot control exactly what each carrier does. It is important that members of our military—I speak as a proud veteran—are served correctly by the Government, and of course they will have no issues returning to the country.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that I wrote to the Home Secretary in a letter co-signed by 30 Labour MPs raising serious concerns about the new rules and how they will impact British dual nationals. The reality is that British citizens will be left stranded abroad and many will be priced out of returning home, adding them to a growing list of people who are effectively classed as second-class citizens. The Minister will also know that hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by these ill-thought-out, rushed reforms that lack any parliamentary scrutiny. I gently ask the Minister to please pause the rules to allow for meaningful consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny and to please remove the outrageous £589 charge for the certificate of entitlement.
Mike Tapp
I reject some of the framing. This has been public knowledge since 2023, it has been on the Government website since 2024 and we have spent significant funds on media. Communication is always difficult, and if this were extended for another year there would still be people who might not know about it. Travelling to this country on a British passport if someone is a British citizen, is not controversial. We have built in transitional arrangements to make it easier for anybody who has missed the messaging to come back to the country. This has not been rushed. There are many nations around the world that have an equivalent scheme, which ensures a more secure and modern border.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home.
Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?
Mike Tapp
I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister says this has not been mishandled, but I am sure even he would accept there are elements that could have been done better. One of those is to do with babies. I have two constituents—a three-month-old little boy stuck in Italy, and a little girl stuck in Uruguay who was born in Whipps Cross hospital in Walthamstow—whose mothers have dual citizenship and who both want to be back in the United Kingdom within the next month. If they come home with their families, under the current policy they face being turned away or separated from their mothers on arrival. Alternatively, families who have just taken on the biggest cost of all—having a baby—will have to find hundreds of pounds to pay for a certificate that will take months to arrive. In those circumstances, will the Minister at least accept there should be a waiver on the fees for babies so that they can come back home to their country?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point on babies. There is no exemption at this time; I am happy to meet and talk about that further. At the moment, the average turnaround time is nine days, so the four weeks should not be a problem. If there are any problems, please do approach me. We will not separate any families at the border.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I cannot be the only Member of this House with constituents who are dual nationals for whom the information and data requirements are making it difficult to get hold of passports overseas. In the light of those difficulties, might the Minister consider an interim measure, perhaps allowing those individuals to use an electronic travel authorisation for a limited amount of time, while they sort out getting hold of the passports?
Mike Tapp
We cannot open ETAs to British citizens for the reasons I explained in my statement. The turnaround time on these applications is good; we are looking at within four weeks and, on average, nine days, but as I have said to many Members, please do bring that specific case to the drop-in.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
My constituent Steve Bainbridge is a dual UK-Greek national. He has raised his experience of a delay in receiving his UK passport forcing him to have to use his Greek passport to attend his daughter’s wedding in the UK. He also highlighted bureaucratic issues faced by women travelling from Greece, such as with their maiden name having to be displayed in their passport and Greek documents using a different alphabet from British ones. Will the Minister outline how, if someone’s UK passport is delayed, they can avoid having to pay several hundred pounds and facing the bureaucratic issues that Steve has highlighted?
Mike Tapp
I would urge a meeting on Monday to go through the details of this, rather than trying to break it down in the glare of the public eye.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister put the changes on the gov.uk website. Why did not he do something original, like maybe writing to people with dual nationalities across the UK? He would not have got to everybody, but there would be records in the Home Office of everybody who has been naturalised in the UK, just as there will be files relating to citizenship and immigration. Why did he not get in touch with them directly? Is this not just a result of Brexit chaos catching up with British nationals? We now have people with dual nationality paying a Brexit border tax; where does this chaos end? With chaos in holiday airports across Europe, and limits on residence in the EU, has Brexit not been absolutely fantastic for this country?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I will ignore the rant about Brexit—we are well past that. Whenever anyone in this House, in the Gallery or at home seeks to travel, the first place they should go is the Government website, to receive travel advice. We do not hold a database of dual-national citizens, so it is difficult to reach them directly. However, we did send emails and messages out to all those naturalised over the last decade, and spent significant funds on media—and I went on Australian TV to get the message out there.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
After 40 years in the UK, it was the proudest moment of Petra Gartzen’s life when she obtained British citizenship. She is on holiday in Spain, and was shocked to discover that she will not be able to re-enter with her normal German travel document, because she is a dual national. Up until now, she has never needed a British passport or a certificate of entitlement, and she is ineligible for an ETA. She has done the right thing and applied for a British passport from Spain, which is a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare in itself. What would the Minister suggest that she does if the passport does not turn up in time for her flight home on 6 March?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; it is important, and well done to her for standing up so well for her constituents. Again, I ask that she drops into my session on Monday—civil servants will be there as well—and we can ensure that the right advice is issued, but at this point that there is information on the Government website, and a phone number to call for these sorts of incidents.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
I am going to take the unusual step of thanking two journalists—Lisa O’Carroll of The Guardian, and whoever writes for the BBC website—because they wrote about all this last week. That is relevant, because I have three constituents who would not have known about this, had it not been for the media coverage, and this is a really serious matter for some of them. One is in their 90s, and has had a number of strokes. Their daughter’s passport ran out last month and she, as a dual national, felt that she could not return to see her own parent. That is a family disaster for them. I take the view that one of the absolute constitutional rights of British citizenship is the right to return to your own country and not to be intimidated out of doing so. I do not particularly demand a reply from the Minister today—I have written to the Home Secretary—but will he consider allowing a simple grace period of six months. So that people can get across this, and do not have their family life disrupted?
Mike Tapp
I thank the right hon. Member for his question about his three constituents. I will let him in on a little secret: perhaps that media coverage is a result of the Home Office’s efforts to get this information out there as widely as we possibly can. There is no intimidation here. This is about a secure border and modernising. Equivalent nations around the world are doing exactly the same. On the individual circumstances he mentions, I cannot answer today, but let us get together on Monday and go through them.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituent David, I want to ask: has the ETA regime created a de facto UK passport requirement for British citizens? I also want to ask a question on behalf of my constituent Dolores, whose son, Tommy Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine, was murdered in Bournemouth, aged 21, by somebody I will not name in this Parliament, who should not have been in this country. I thank the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this matter. We are not past Brexit, because that murder was possible as a result of a lack of intelligence sharing. Will the Minister share how, through these changes, the Home Office is taking action to stop illegal migrants and foreign criminals coming into our country?
Mike Tapp
My sympathy goes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. These changes make a more secure border. They mean that we can check whether foreign criminals are coming into the country, and if they are, we can stop them, which makes us all safer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. As always, these problems have resulted because of a realisation that the small print does not really work. Many of my constituents take flights from Dublin because they can be more cost-effective, but the need to have a British passport can be incredibly cost-prohibitive. I am trying to be helpful and positive, so will the Minister and the Home Office give consideration to providing for an ID card that could be accessed online, on production of a birth certificate, and could be provided free of charge, or at a minimal cost?
Mike Tapp
We are modernising across the board. I will not make any new announcements in response to this urgent question, but the modernisation of the border includes digitisation, which will impact all of us positively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Helen Hayes to ask the final question.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In 2018, in the Windrush scandal, many of my constituents suffered the detriment of being denied access to their own country. A part of the learning from that scandal is that people do not always read information that is in the public domain, and they do not always have a hotline to Home Office messaging. One of my constituents is in Australia and was due to come back, but his father has been placed on end of life care, so he has had to extend his visit. Another constituent, who was due to travel next week, only found out about the new requirements this week, and it is too late for her to apply for a passport. The scale of the cases raised today implies that there is a problem. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents that this is not another Windrush scandal in the making, whereby British citizens end up being denied access to their own country?
Mike Tapp
I take the lessons from the Windrush scandal extremely seriously. I meet the Windrush commissioner on a regular basis to ensure that we fix those wrongs, and that they never, ever happen again. I reject my hon. Friend’s framing. People can apply for a passport, a certificate of entitlement or an emergency travel document, and there is a phone line that they can contact. If she would like to meet on Monday to go through the specifics of the cases she mentioned, then I am happy to do so.
Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount—or maxima—that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. Within the order, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate Government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the Department’s funding settlement. This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for electronic travel authorisation, known as ETA; entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months; a visa on a route to settlement; settlement; naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship; and certain nationality-related services.
The actual fee levels that are charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not changing in this order; any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation. We will increase the fee maximum that applies to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. The fee maximum for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per annum to £253 per annum. It will facilitate a subsequent increase to the two-year visit visa fee from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. That will facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee for applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family member in the UK from £3,413 to £3,635.
We are also amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting the connection between those two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British overseas territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or for other nationality statuses will increase from £1,605 to £1,709, and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively. Subject to parliamentary approval, that will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The explanatory notes suggest that the increases are linked in part to the consumer prices index rate of 3.5%, plus a 6.5% tariff to compensate for other areas. But according to the figures in the statutory instrument, the range for some increases is as low as 1%; for others, it is 25%. Can the Minister set out why there is such variation in the percentage increase, and why there is a deviation from the explanatory notes, and the CPI 3.5% plus 6.5%, in the order?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I cannot set out the exact details right now, but I can say that this is to ensure that we are recouping the costs of individual routes and that each individual route will have different costs to it. I can come back to him with further detail and break that down after the debate.
We are increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. The changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reducing reliance on the general taxpayer while supporting delivery of the Government’s priorities. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.
Mike Tapp
I will first answer hon. Members’ questions. On how the funding is used, I am sure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would not expect me to lay out today how the Home Office will spend its budgets beyond what has already been announced. On whether there will be any future fee increases, of course that will be kept under review, but I have set out the extent of the increases in today’s order.
The hon. Member for Woking talked about dual nationals—he framed them as Brits stuck abroad. We are bringing in new measures around ETA enforcement, which begins tomorrow. We have been communicating that since 2024 on the Government website. In 2025, a significant sum of money was spent on such communications. For clarity, if someone is a dual national, they will need their British passport to travel on. That is the same as Australia, the United States and many other countries around the world. It modernises and makes our border more secure. On meeting to discuss this, absolutely—he will see an email in his inbox. I believe it is on Monday next week that any Member of Parliament can come and talk to me about this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Ukraine Permission Extension Scheme: Further Extension
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
The Government remain steadfast in their support for the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion. From the outset of the conflict, the Government have acted decisively and compassionately, offering sanctuary to over 310,000 Ukrainians through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme, and Ukraine extension scheme. This response reflects not only the generosity and solidarity of the British public in providing sanctuary to those in need, but also the Government’s enduring commitment to international humanitarian principles and to standing with our allies in defence of freedom and democracy—an approach firmly aligned with the UK-Ukraine 100 year partnership, which sets out our long-term alliance and shared values across defence, education, and cultural exchange.
Local authorities and civil society organisations have played a vital role in delivering this support, helping to ensure that Ukrainians arriving in the UK are welcomed and able to rebuild their lives with dignity and security.
This Government have continued to honour their commitment to providing sanctuary for those displaced by Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Building on the success of the Ukraine schemes, the Ukraine permission extension scheme was introduced to offer eligible individuals the opportunity to apply for a further 18 months’ permission to stay in the UK.
The Government have listened to concerns raised by the Ukrainian community in the UK. To ensure continued stability and certainty for Ukrainians in the UK, it was announced that the UPE scheme will be extended by an additional 24 months. This means that individuals may benefit from a maximum of 3.5 years’ permission under UPE, in addition to any time already provided under the Ukraine schemes. This extension reaffirms the UK’s enduring commitment to supporting Ukrainian nationals and their eligible family members.
This extension will remain fee-free, and those granted permission to remain under UPE will continue to be able to access work, benefits, healthcare, and education.
Processing under the UPE scheme continues to operate efficiently, with the vast majority of applications concluded well within the service level agreement. This reflects the strong performance of the system and the commitment to providing timely decisions for those seeking support.
The Government will also expand the application window. Ukrainians will now be able to apply for the extension within the final 90 days of their current UPE permission, a significant increase from the current 28-day period. This change reflects the feedback we have had from applicants and is designed to provide greater flexibility and assurance, allowing applicants to secure their future in the UK with confidence and ease.
Application
To qualify, applicants must:
currently hold permission under UPE;
be physically present in the UK (or islands) at the date of application;
have been living in the UK (or islands) since being granted permission under the Ukraine schemes, including the UPE. Temporary periods spent outside the UK—defined as absences of no more than 12 months, whether continuous or cumulative —will not count as time outside the UK for the purposes of this requirement.
Applications for the UPE extension must be submitted online. It is essential for UPE holders to apply for the extension before the original UPE permission expires. Not doing so will result in the loss of rights to work and access to benefits, healthcare, and housing. Crucially, it means a former UPE holder will no longer hold valid immigration status and will be in the UK illegally. To avoid this scenario, the Government are taking proactive steps, including targeted communications, and are working closely with non-government organisations and community organisations, such as the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain, to ensure applicants are fully informed and supported throughout the process.
Safeguarding and children’s applications
Children must continue to have adequate care and accommodation arrangements in place. Where a child is not residing with a parent, parental consent will be sought to confirm the child’s living situation. If, on receipt of a UPE application, there is a reason to be concerned about a child, a referral will be made by the Home Office to the local authority where the child is resident.
Where a child is resident in the UK, having been granted permission under the Ukraine scheme alongside a parent or legal guardian who also holds Ukraine scheme permission, the child’s permission under any UPE extension will be aligned with that of their parent or legal guardian. This alignment supports the best interests of the child.
Children born in the UK to a Ukrainian national parent with permission under the Ukraine schemes will continue to be eligible to apply for UPE.
Temporary sanctuary
The Government have always been clear that permission granted under the Ukraine schemes—including UPE—does not count towards settlement in the UK.
Equally, time spent in the UK under the Ukraine schemes does not count towards the continuous lawful residence requirement under the long residence route. This position remains unchanged and reflects the Ukrainian Government’s strong desire for its citizens to return when it is safe to do so, in order to contribute to the rebuilding of their country.
It is also important to recognise the broader implications of long-term displacement. A balanced demographic is essential for Ukraine’s recovery and future stability. The return of its citizens will play a vital role in restoring communities, revitalising the economy, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of Ukrainian society.
Future policy direction
The Government recognise the importance of providing long-term certainty for Ukrainians living in the UK. We are committed to setting out the future arrangements clearly, and a further statement outlining the long-term position will be issued later this year. This will set out the Government’s approach beyond the extension of the UPE scheme, ensuring that displaced Ukrainians in the UK are supported in rebuilding their lives.
In shaping this approach, the Government will continue to engage with the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain and other community representatives to ensure that policy reflects the lived experiences and concerns of Ukrainians in the UK.
The Government remain steadfast in their support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, and we will continue to work across Departments to deliver a compassionate and coherent response to those affected by the conflict.
[HCWS1350]
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Tapp Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
We understand how important the details of the proposals are to people, and that is precisely why the Government opened a public consultation to gather views on those proposals. Once the consultation closes, we will analyse those responses, which will help to inform the development of the final earned settlement model. We have also committed to publishing the impact assessments for the settlement proposals, as well as the Government’s response to the consultation.
Carla Denyer
Some 300,000 children living legally in the UK will face a decade of living in limbo under the Government’s earned settlement proposals, according to new research out this week by the Institute for Public Policy Research. Those children’s wait for settled immigration status will be extended by at least five years, during which many families will face no-recourse-to-public-funds restrictions, and we know that that raises the risk of homelessness and destitution. How does the Minister reconcile that poverty-increasing measure with the Government’s new child poverty strategy, which states:
“Reducing child poverty is a moral imperative”?
Mike Tapp
When migrants enter the UK on economic routes, it is expected that they will be able to support their families. We are maintaining that principle, and it is right that we look into how we can do so better in response to circumstances. We will continue to ensure that migrant children are considered when we make decisions on requirements for settlement. As for the bigger picture, we saw an unprecedented influx of migration under the last Government that will put a massive strain on public services, so it is right that we extend the period from five to 10 years. That is what the British people expect, that is what we hear on the doorsteps, and that is what the hon. Lady’s constituents are saying as well.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 month 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for securing the debate, and I am grateful for her contribution and the others we have heard.
When it comes to detailed examination of foreign policy and the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States of America, colleagues will appreciate that such issues lie outside my remit as a Home Office Minister. However, I reiterate that the UK and US are close allies and partners; the UK-US relationship has been the cornerstone of our security and prosperity for over a century, and we will never turn away from it.
Let me begin by addressing the hon. Member’s proposals. We are not considering a fast-track visa for skilled US citizens, and I do not believe we need one. Our immigration system already offers a broad range of routes to target talented individuals who want to come and work or study in the UK. Alongside that, our increasingly digitised border—with priority fees for quick visa transactions—means that people can come to the UK quickly and easily.
I will talk now about visas and processing in general, and then move on to routes that attract global talent and skilled workers. On visa processing, the UK immigration system already provides a rich offering for people coming to the UK to work and study, with fast-track visa options for those who need them. UK Visas and Immigration is responsible for making millions of decisions each year about who has the right to visit or stay in our country.
The visa service is underpinned by an uncompromising focus on national security, but also a commitment to provide applicants with the best possible service. All applicants can and should expect UKVI to offer a simple online visa application process. A biometric appointment is usually available within five working days in one of our overseas network of more than 250 visa application centres, which cover more than 140 countries. Decisions are made within 15 working days of someone attending the VAC, and come with an online record of immigration status that is secure and that can be easily accessed, checked and shared with employers, landlords and carriers.
The UK service is competitive in terms of the speed at which the whole process can be completed. Those choosing to pay for our priority or super-priority services—which have recently been expanded across most of our routes—get decisions within five working days or the next working day respectively. In practice, if the super-priority service is chosen, a skilled worker visa application could be made on a Monday, and the applicant could attend the VAC on the Tuesday and have the decision by the close of business on the Wednesday. That is our fast-track service, and we stand out from our competitors on this.
Since January 2025 US nationals looking to visit the UK for up to six months on business can apply for an electronic travel authorisation. The quick application process using the ETA app offers fast decisions—usually on the same day—and lasts for two years, allowing for flexibility of regular travel and smooth border crossings.
The issue of attracting talent was raised. As set out in our immigration White Paper and modern industrial strategy, both of which were published last year, the Government are focused on attracting talented individuals to the UK to work and study. From business leaders and entrepreneurs to top-end researchers, our commitment is clear: we want to bring those with expertise, ambition and creativity to the UK, where they will find a unique environment to thrive and innovate and can help our economy grow further.
Dr Arthur
Earlier I gave an example of an entrepreneur who came to the UK from the USA. He spent a lot of money coming here, and he feels he has spent an important part of his life in the UK—when he could have spent it elsewhere in the world—but he feels betrayed now, because of the review of the ILR arrangements for him and others. Does the Minister accept that that will make people more reluctant to come to the UK? I am talking about entrepreneurs and people whom we actually need to come here and support our economy.
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. I cannot comment on the individual case, because I am not aware of that. The ILR changes that we are making are broad. We had a long debate on that the other day, but it is not there in any way to dissuade talent. Actually, post consultation, we are highly likely to see discounts for talent, to ensure that those people can settle in the UK faster; they are earning that through integration and contribution. That will be laid out in due course, following the closure of the consultation on 12 February.
In a volatile world, Britain stands out, as this Government make the UK the premier destination for business and top international talent. We have all the ingredients for exceptional talent to thrive. We recognise that the immigration system, which prioritises the skills that this country needs rather than nationality, has an important part to play in that, helping to ensure that we remain competitive in the global recruitment market. That is why we have established routes that focus on attracting those with the skills and talent to support the growth of our economy.
I will move on to the global talent system. Our global talent route for leaders and potential leaders in the fields of science and research, digital technology and the arts is the most flexible offer to the world’s top talent, including many from the US. Published research shows that this visa influenced four in five global talent visa holders to apply to live and work in the UK. Our high potential individual route gives recent graduates of the world’s top universities the opportunity to build their careers in the UK without the need for a prior job offer. More than 40% of universities whose graduates are eligible for that route are based in the US. It means that employers have access to the most highly sought-after international graduates, as well as to the pipeline of top talent from our own universities.
A world-class visa system is essential to attracting and retaining the best international talent. Our system is just that, but we are committed to going further and have already introduced pro-talent reforms. That includes expanding eligibility for the high potential individual visa to the top 100 global universities; enabling international students to transition seamlessly from study to entrepreneurship on the innovator founder visa; simplified access for top science talent; and a broadened list of eligible prizes for the global talent visa.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The biggest challenges facing the world now are global: climate change, the risk of pandemics, and antimicrobial resistance. These are global challenges, but also science challenges. The US Administration have an anti-vaxxer running the Health Department and a President who seems not to believe in climate change. Do the UK Government recognise that as an opportunity to really fly the flag for being a pro-science country and to offer refuge to scientists who want to help solve some of these huge global problems, but also help grow our economy?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his points. We are world leading in science. The visa system that we have created in the Home Office is there precisely to attract the top talent from across the whole world, and of course that includes the USA. We are committed to going further, as I have already laid out.
To support the Government’s efforts in targeting global talent, we launched the global talent taskforce last year. It will bring in specialist private sector headhunting expertise, and establish new functions to support individuals to relocate and companies to set up UK offices at pace. It will embolden its concierge offer to the world’s elite talent, starting with a dedicated focus on international AI talent.
I want to mention the skilled worker route because I believe it is relevant to this debate. US citizens can make use of the main work route for skilled workers. This route has a broad range of high-skilled occupations that individuals sponsored by an approved employer can use to come to the UK. In the year ending September 2025, more than 5,000 Americans used our skilled worker route to come and fill roles in the UK.
In closing, I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and all Members.
Dr Chambers
It is really encouraging to hear that 5,000 Americans came in on skilled worker visas. We are concerned that companies, especially AI and tech companies, are setting up in the UK, but not growing here, because they then relocate, particularly to silicon valley, and become multimillion or multibillion dollar companies, employing a lot of people and paying a lot of tax. Do we know, because I actually do not know, the number of people leaving to go to the US to work in tech compared with the number coming to the UK, so we can see the direction of gravity?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for that good point. I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will write to him with that data, if we have it. We do have data for those leaving the country in general, but I will certainly look into that.
The UK and the USA are connected in myriad ways. As we know, the ties between our two countries are deep, long-standing and strong. A large number of Americans come to our country every year to visit, work and study. We greatly value their contribution to our country, and as I have set out, a comprehensive range of visa routes is already available to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Indefinite Leave to Remain
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 month 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the petitioners in the Public Gallery, to my constituency neighbour, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for presenting the debate, and to every single Member who has contributed. It will be difficult to name everyone, because there have been so many speeches, but I am grateful for them.
Both petitions relate to the earned settlement proposal set out in “A Fairer Pathway to Settlement”, the Command Paper that the Home Secretary introduced to Parliament on 20 November. The proposed reforms represent the most fundamental change to the settlement system in decades and are currently subject to an ongoing public consultation that ends in 10 days, on 12 February. We recognise how important this issue is to Members—we have seen that here today—as well as to their constituents and of course to migrants across the whole country. We will listen, and are listening, to what is being said.
Kerry McCarthy
I have encouraged many of my constituents to participate in the consultation that finishes on 12 February, but I am concerned to hear that some of the changes might be introduced in April this year. I know from past experience with Government consultations that it tends to take an awful long time for the Government to consider the responses and then come up with their own response to them. How does that work in terms of the timing?
Mike Tapp
Some of the rule changes that we will introduce are firm, and that will be laid out today in my speech. Much of the proposal—for example, transitional arrangements—is very much being consulted on. Of course, that will be listened to. If there are any further questions when I finish, I ask Members to please intervene nearer the end.
Barry Gardiner
Will the Minister confirm whether the changes that are firm were also consulted on in the consultation document? If so, why were they consulted on?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for his considered intervention. I will go through my response to the debate, which will lay out exactly what changes are being made and what is going to consultation, and I am happy to talk again at the end.
We will provide further details on how the new settlement system will work in due course after the consultation closes, but I hope hon. Members will appreciate that, while the consultation is ongoing, I am somewhat restricted in what I can say. I will endeavour to be as helpful and fulsome as possible in my response.
Mike Tapp
I will not give way—I will make some progress, so that hon. Members can hear the meat of what I need to say. The Government recognise and value the long-term contribution of migrants to the UK. The proposal is not a deportation policy. Multiculturalism absolutely makes us great. However, settlement here is a privilege, not a right. It cannot be simply a measure of how long someone has been in the UK, but rather of the contribution they have made. If someone wants to settle in this country, they must contribute, integrate, follow our laws and learn our language. Those are the principles that underpin a fair immigration system that the British public could have confidence in.
Net migration ballooned under the previous Government, and we are now faced with the prospect of 2.2 million people being eligible to settle between 2026 and 2030. Around one in every 30 people in this country arrived between 2021 and 2024. Those numbers are staggering. That is not what people voted for. I am surprised that this has not been raised during the debate today.
Such numbers jeopardise our public services, our economy, the whole housing market and cohesion in local communities. Doing nothing is simply unacceptable. Around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list—
Pete Wishart
Will the Minister confirm, very clearly, from the Dispatch Box that any changes to ILR will be voted on by the whole House, giving all his colleagues in the Chamber tonight the opportunity to express their genuine hostility to these proposals?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his question. They are likely to be, in the case of rule changes; that decision has not been completely made, but Members can of course express their frustration at me here in this Chamber today.
As I was saying, around 1.34 million people are currently on our social housing waiting list, which has increased by 200,000 since 2020. Combining that with a potential 2.2 million people becoming eligible for settled status between 2026 and 2030 would put a massive strain on our public services. We have already set out plans to increase the standard qualifying period towards settlement from five to 10 years.
The earned settlement model will allow people to earn reductions for positive behaviour, such as working in a public service role and volunteering. We want to encourage that behaviour, which underlines the substantial contributions that many migrants make to our country.
People have spoken very well in this debate about stability within the country and the prospect of “moving the goalposts”, as some have framed it, taking that stability away, but I want to stress that people who are here waiting to settle have access to education, healthcare and rent. They can buy a house, work and travel in and out of the country, and have access to financial products.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this process is not about deporting people; it is about creating a system that is based on contribution and integration, and people who are not committing crime. That is what the public expect. However, the new model will also impose penalties on people who claim public funds or who have breached immigration laws. Those are not punitive measures; they are deterrents for those who are thinking about choosing a life of benefits when they can work, or who fund criminal gangs in order to cross the channel on small boats, endangering their own lives in the process.
This Government will not continue with the status quo, considering the huge numbers that we face. It is right that we implement a system that is fair and that rewards people who work to make this country a better place to live.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the proposals that are not subject to consultation are five-year discounts for two groups of people. The first group is partners, parents and children of British citizens, reflecting our commitment to treating our citizens fairly and their right to be in a relationship with whoever they choose, regardless of nationality.
The second group that will receive the discount is British national overseas visa holders. We remain committed to the people of Hong Kong and the hundreds of thousands of people who have uprooted themselves and rebuilt their lives in the UK. Prior to this debate, I was at the APPG on Hong Kong discussing exactly that. There are complex questions around income, family income, and assets over income; we are currently consulting on those and, when a decision is made about them, it will be announced.
It is vital that migration enriches our economy, but it is most vital that it enriches our local communities. The measures set out in the earned settlement model promote integration by raising the level of English required and by demanding strict adherence to our laws. We will encourage integration and strengthen communities.
Barry Gardiner
One of the four pillars that the Minister has set out in the consultation document in relation to integration is volunteering. A number of hon. Members have already mentioned that there is an arbitrariness—a subjective nature—to that. Who will certify the volunteer work that is done? One can imagine a plethora of organisations being set up that will then happily sign a chit saying, “So-and-so has volunteered for so many hours a week.” How will the whole process actually operate? It seems arbitrary and subjective. What will the volunteering entail? Will it have to be for the home community or for the wider community?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for making that good point, which we in the Home Office have discussed in detail many times. Indeed, that is why the issue is under consultation. It is subjective, it is complex and right now I cannot give him a definitive answer. However, we will reach one, and announce it in due course.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I must disagree with much of what the Minister has said. Most immigrants in our country are not benefit scroungers and are not criminals; in fact, most of the immigrants who I have met in my constituency surgeries are hard-working people. Just last week, a woman, her husband and their children were at my constituency surgery in tears because of the proposed policies that the Government have put forward. They told me that both of them work full time and, when one of them is working, the other is caring. They pay into our tax system, they work most weekends, and yet they still struggle to pay their rent and to buy food. I ask the Minister: at what point will they be able to volunteer?
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right that most migrants are not criminals. Most migrants are thoroughly decent people, and that is recognised by this Government and, of course, by the Home Office.
On the volunteering side of things, I will say again that this process is still a consultation and that we will set out more detail in due course. It pains me not to give more detail now, but that is where we are at.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Minister clarify a previous point on which there was perhaps some confusion? It is most definitely not the case that all migrants go into social housing; in fact, it is pretty much the opposite a lot of the time, and none of those who have contacted me about this issue are living in social housing—not that anyone should have any shame about living in social housing in the first place. Secondly, the Minister talked about firm elements of the Government’s proposals. Were they the exemptions that he mentioned before, or will he be covering other firm elements in the rest of his speech?
Mike Tapp
I have not in any way implied that all migrants go into social housing. My point was the increase of 2.2 million people who would have access to it, with 1.34 million already on the waiting list and our ambition to build just 1.5 million homes in that picture. That simply is not enough, and that is just on social housing.
Tony Vaughan
Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?
Mike Tapp
What I am not going to do is make up facts and figures on the spot, but I do not have an absolute fact to give my hon. and learned Friend. What I can say is that around 15% of people on universal credit are not British nationals. That is a reflection on the demand that this can put on our welfare system and, of course, on housing.
Mike Tapp
I am going to make some progress.
Turning to the subject of the first petition, people who come to the UK to take up a job make an important contribution to our economy and our public services, filling essential skills and labour market gaps, but for too long sectors have become reliant on them to fill those gaps and have not invested enough in our domestic workforce. The reforms we set out in the immigration White Paper last year redress that balance. We are reversing the long-term trend of an over-reliance on recruitment from abroad, and instead increasing investment in skills and training for those in the UK.
We implemented the first of those reforms in July last year, raising the skills threshold back to RQF—regulated qualifications framework—level 6, or roughly degree-level occupations, leaving a shortlist of medium-skilled occupations deemed critical to our industrial strategy and critical infrastructure. That restored the purpose of the skilled worker route and meant a reduction of more than 100 occupations. In December, we then raised the immigration skills charge by 32%. We are currently considering the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of salary requirements before making further changes, and will consider its upcoming review of the medium-skilled temporary shortage list in the summer.
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Given that we reckon that some 30% of posts in the NHS and care sector are taken up by people who have come from overseas, at what point will the reforms that he referred to just now get us to the point where we can do without that 30% of people? It strikes me that, before we do anything along these lines, he needs to do an awful lot of work with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that the balance can be had.
Mike Tapp
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. I can assure her that that work is going on, and I will come to it shortly.
Let me address some of the questions raised by hon. Members. One was on an impact assessment. It is important that one is produced and made public, and that will come once the consultation ends and we have made all the final decisions. It is important that we match the migration market with the skills market and the jobs market. We are working hard across the Home Office to ensure that we are attracting the right workers to fill the jobs we need them to work.
Let me turn to care workers. This Government are immensely grateful to those who come to the UK with good intentions and continue to play a vital role in the adult social care sector. However, it is clear that international recruitment went too far, and the route admitted unprecedented numbers of migrants and their families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) said, around 600,000 migrants came to the country to fill just 40,000 roles in that sector.
Barry Gardiner
Does the Minister share with me a sense of irony that the former Home Secretary and the former Immigration Minister who were responsible for giving out those 616,000 have now joined Reform?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for a point well made. This place never ceases to amaze me—but that is politics.
Some Members have raised Unison’s campaign on sector-wide visas. There is a commitment in the immigration White Paper to look at how we make it easier for those workers to change employer—that is being looked at seriously within the consultation. However, we want to retain the ability to punish those dodgy employers who are dishing out visas when they clearly should not be.
The Government are committed to providing opportunities for British workers. It is only right that we reduce reliance on international workers, and last year the Health Secretary announced a £500 million investment in a fair pay agreement for adult care workers, boosting their wages across England. But we still need to act to ensure that those who arrived while the requirements were relaxed earn their settlement and demonstrate that their integration and economic contribution to the UK meets the standards that we are setting.
The petition also touches on transitional arrangements, and whether the proposals will apply to those already halfway to settlement. As we have seen in this debate, this is a hugely important issue. We have asked for views on that in the consultation, and I hope Members will understand that while I acknowledge their keen interest and the concerns of many individuals, I cannot say anything that could prejudge the outcome of the consultation. The consultation will be published when it closes.
Some strong points were made around family income, the gender pay gap, those who are more vulnerable, those who are disabled, those who have university fees, and of course those on armed forces concessions. All of that is being considered within the consultation, and there will be more detail to come. I can only apologise that I cannot give more detail on that today. I assure Members that we will listen to what people tell us in the consultation before deciding how earned settlement will work.
Turning to the second petition, we are considering whether benefits should only be available to British citizens and not, as is the case now, to those with settled status. I know Members have concerns about this issue. The Government have a responsibility to British taxpayers to ensure their money is spent in a fair and equitable way. It is therefore right that we reassess the point at which migrants can access public funds.
We know the challenges that the country faces, and that this Government have inherited. One of the most significant challenges is a serious lack of social housing. We are taking steps to tackle the challenge, but we must be realistic. I have already set out the number of people who are expected to apply to settle over the next five years under our current system. All of those people could be eligible for benefits and social housing. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber will have constituents who have spent years on the waiting list for social housing. Continuing to add to that list will not solve the problem.
Ayoub Khan
The Minister talks about what potentially might happen, but, with respect, that is almost scaremongering. Most of those people are hard-working citizens. Does the Minister not believe that that kind of language raises this spectre, which is precisely why we are having the debate? That kind of language does no justice to what is really happening in our migrant communities.
Mike Tapp
I disagree. There is nothing in my language that is raising the temperature. The hon. Member would do well to listen to my praise of migrants in my contribution. I have made it clear that I do not think that all those who seek to settle would seek to access the welfare system and housing system, but it is quite clear that some would, and we are already at capacity, with 1.3 million of our constituents on the social housing waiting list.
We would like to hear people’s views on the measure, so I encourage anyone who is interested in providing those views to do so before the consultation ends. I am conscious of time, so before I finish, I want to again express my thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and to all Members who have contributed today. These are sweeping reforms, and I understand the strength of feeling toward them. I have heard the points that have been raised here, which will all feed into the important consultation. It is important that everyone who may be affected by the proposals has a fair and equal opportunity to make their voice heard.
As I have set out, the consultation is currently open to all until 12 February, and further information on how to respond and provide views can be found on the Government website. We want to ensure that any decision taken has a robust evidence base and a clear understanding of how people may be affected, and that is why this may be unclear to some of our constituents at this point.
Clearly, these are issues of great significance, not only in the context of the immigration system, but for our nation itself. I say to colleagues here and across the House that we understand the importance of our task, we are determined to get this right and, as I have set out, we are proceeding with the seriousness and care that the public and Parliament rightly expect.
Firearms Licence Holders: Mandatory Medical Markers
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 month 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) for securing this debate, and I thank all the other Members who are here today for their well-argued, compelling, considered and sensible points. I will address those points as best I can in my response, then I will move on to address the shotgun issue near the end.
As we know, firearms licensing controls are crucial to minimise the risk of harm and to keep the public safe. Medical checks and the use of firearms markers are an important part of those controls. Although I understand why there are calls for such markers to be mandatory, the Government do not consider that to be necessary at this point, and I come on to the reasons why. It should be recognised that the decisions in all firearms application cases are taken by the relevant police force. Medical information provided by GPs is very important, but it is just one part of the information that is considered by the police.
Before I address the specific points that have been raised during the debate, I reassure Members and their constituents that work continues to make the firearms licensing system as robust as it can be. Although public safety is and will always be the priority, it is also right to acknowledge that the large majority of firearms licence holders—there are some in the Public Gallery today—do not cause any concern. The challenge is to have an effective system in place to identify individuals who might cause harm.
Of course, the tragedy at Epsom college in February 2023 shocked us all. In discussing these issues today, I know that we all have the victims of that crime—Emma Pattison and her seven-year-old daughter, Lettie—and the victims of other such crimes well and truly at the forefront of our minds. The perpetrator at Epsom college was Emma’s husband; he was a licensed shotgun owner, who then killed himself. He had suffered from anxiety, but his GP and the police were unaware of that because he had sought treatment from an online doctor, as was explained earlier. He did not disclose that information when he applied for his certificate renewal.
The medical checks for firearms licensing have been significantly strengthened in recent years. Medical information for firearms licensing has been a requirement for every firearm and shotgun licence application since November 2021, when the new guidance for chief officers of police on firearms licensing was introduced. An applicant’s doctor must now provide details of any relevant medical conditions, such as depression, dementia, mental health issues or drug or alcohol abuse, that the applicant has experienced. A firearms licence will not be granted without this information.
A digital firearms marker is placed on the GP patient record when a certificate is granted. This means that if a certificate holder has a relevant medical condition during the five years’ validity of the certificate, their GP can alert the police, who will then review whether that individual is still suitable to have a firearms licence, and—if necessary—revoke the licence. Initially, the marker was in the form of a paper marker on a person’s medical record. However, because of concerns that a paper marker could easily be overlooked by a busy GP, work has been done to replace it with a new digital firearms marker.
Use of the digital firearms marker is not a core health requirement for GPs and is not part of the GP contract, nor is it a legal requirement, but the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners support its use, and the BMA issues guidance to GPs about it. Therefore, any GP who fails to engage with the process would be going against the advice of their professional associations, as well as taking a significant risk.
The available data indicates that most GPs in England are applying the digital firearms marker as they are expected to. We have received very encouraging data from NHS England about how the marker is being used by doctors, and we continue to work with NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care to assess whether there are any regional variations that could signpost whether greater engagement between police and doctors at local level is needed in certain areas.
The data provided by NHS England gives figures for the number of active digital firearms markers applied by GP surgeries in each of the last three years, and—
Mike Tapp
And I will go through the data now, before the hon. Member intervenes and asks for it. If there are any gaps in it, I will welcome an intervention at the end, and I will take note and we can write back.
In 2022-23, 93,700 new digital markers were applied, in 2023-24 that figure was 85,650, and in the latest year for which data is available, 2024-25, 98,690 new digital markers were applied to medical records. Those are broadly the numbers we would expect when compared with the data for the number of firearms licence applications and renewals made each year.
We also have data on the number of cases where a GP has notified the police of a medical concern about a certificate holder following a review prompted by the digital marker. In 2022-23, 1,180 cases were referred by GPs to police forces as a result of the digital marker, in 2023-24 that figure was 1,040, and in 2024-25 it was 1,140. That data is also broadly where we would expect it to be when compared with the annual figures for revocations of licences by police forces, and it gives us confidence that GPs are using the digital firearms marker as it is designed to work.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I am sad to hear that the Minister is not following the logic for making the digital marker compulsory. Without compulsion, the system is weak and public safety is undermined, as is demonstrated by the tragic cases that have been mentioned today. A quick google tells me that there are 38,000 to 39,000 fully qualified GPs. I think the Minister said that the number of GPs using the medical marker is around 18,000, which means that 20,000 GPs are not using it, so the system is not anything like as effective as it should be. As I said, if a compulsory system were introduced, there would be a check between the granting and renewal of shotgun and firearm licences.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I cannot comment directly on the data that he provided from his quick google—GPs may be qualified but not practising, and I would not want to jump to any conclusions—but that can certainly be taken away. It is the Government’s position that it is not necessary to make use of the firearms digital marker mandatory. If there was compelling evidence of systemic failure by GPs to engage with the digital marker, the case for mandatory requirement would be stronger, but that is not the picture painted by the available data. In fact, it shows that the digital marker is already being applied and used by most GPs.
Helen Maguire
I am listening intently to the Minister, but if he is saying that the number of people who have been referred to their GP with potential conditions and the number of markers are as expected, I cannot understand what difference it would make if the marker were mandatory. It seems as though it is sort of happening already, and if there were no additional cost to making it mandatory, then I struggle to understand why it is difficult for the Government to change their position.
Mike Tapp
We need to bear in mind that the governing bodies that oversee GPs are against this, given the potential for liability if a GP failed to disclose something to the police. I assure the hon. Member that the Home Office will keep our approach under review, as we do with all aspects of firearms licensing control, but we believe that the data available at this time shows that mandating is not necessary, and that the digital marker quite simply is being applied and used by most GPs.
Edward Morello
Without wishing to labour the point, and accepting that the data may in fact show that we are getting the level of penetration that we would expect, there is undoubtedly an unquantifiable risk of another tragedy happening. Given the level of uptake in a mandatory system, and given the requests of the sector—and, in fact, the BMA—for use of the marker to be made mandatory, it seems to me, purely from the perspective of de-risking it for the Government, that that would be a logical and relatively simple thing to do, so that, when we inevitably return, at some point in the next three to five years, to talk about another tragic death, it is not laid at the feet of this Government for following the mistake of the previous Government and not making it mandatory.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very well-made point. This is of course being kept under review. Today’s debate is important and will of course be listened to by the Home Office, but as it stands our position is that the evidence is showing us that GPs are using the marker as we would expect them to.
I am conscious of time, so I will move on to the points made on shotguns, because I am sure that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) would not want me to miss them. We know that shotguns are used for a range of legitimate purposes, such as target shooting and hunting, and that the vast majority are used safely and responsibly. We also recognise that shooting contributes to the very important rural economy.
However, legally held shotguns have been used in a number of homicides and other serious incidents in recent years, including the fatal shootings in Plymouth in August 2021. That is why we have committed to a public consultation on strengthening the licensing controls on shotguns, to bring them more into line with the stringent controls on other firearms, in the interest of public safety. We will publish the consultation shortly—I do not have the exact date today. We will carefully consider all the views put forward in response to the consultation before taking any decisions on whether—and what—changes may be necessary in the interest of public safety.
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to impress something upon the Minister. When he spoke about the uses of shotguns, he talked about target shooting and hunting. I gently say to him that these firearms are needed for far more than sport; they are used for land management and for farming. I encourage him, if he has not already, to meet the organisations that represent rural communities to understand how vital shotguns are for rural land management.
Mike Tapp
I thank the hon. Member for his points. I think that was covered in my point about the rural economy—the maintenance of land and pest control, for example, feed into that—but I take the point.
We will also provide an assessment of the impact of any changes that we intend to bring forward, including for policing, certificate holders and rural communities, at the relevant time.
In closing, I thank all Members who have contributed to what has been a thought-provoking debate—I mean that—on an issue that is central to public safety. I am grateful for all contributions. We have strong firearms licensing controls, and we are taking action to improve them further where the evidence shows that that is necessary. As I have said, we do not believe at this point that there is a compelling case for making the digital firearms marker mandatory. However, it is very important that all aspects of firearms controls are as effective and strong as possible, and our controls are kept under constant review.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I can assure the Minister—and you, Ms McVey—that this will be the last time. What is the equivalence between not making medical markers mandatory, when doing so would not cost anything, and yet going ahead with the consultation to move shotguns from section 2 to section 1, which will cost the industry a significant amount of money? The shooting community is all in favour of medical markers being compulsory, but it is opposed to moving shotguns from section 2 to section 1. These actions seem designed to make the shooting community very discontent.
Mike Tapp
This is about evidence, and the evidence that I have presented today suggests that GPs are abiding by the digital marker. The evidence that shotguns have been used in violent crime also exists. But of course, as I laid out, this will go to consultation. The Government are committed to public safety, and we remain open to any steps that could aid us in that effort.
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Tapp Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
Exploitation of workers is unacceptable, and overseas recruitment for social care visas closed in July 2025 following significant concerns about exploitation. We have revoked record numbers of sponsor licences to prevent exploitative employers from sponsoring migrant workers. The Government are establishing the fair work agency to provide a more cohesive and streamlined response to exploitation across all sectors.
Mrs Blundell
In recent weeks, I have heard from several social care workers in my constituency who have each outlined to me the profound uncertainty that they face regarding their employer-sponsored visas, despite the critical role that these workers play in supporting the most vulnerable in our communities. What consideration has been given to the idea that these employer-sponsored visas could be replaced with sector-wide schemes to prevent continued poor practice from some employers?
Mike Tapp
This Government acknowledge and are grateful for the significant contribution that health and social care workers put in, day in and day out, across the country. However, it was right that we ended the overseas recruitment of care workers due to the high levels of abuse that many workers were experiencing at the hands of dodgy employers. There are no current plans to replace the current sponsorship arrangement for care workers.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am disappointed to hear that the Minister is not looking at a common certificate of sponsorship. Has he made a decision, with his colleagues, on whether care workers will be considered in the same group as NHS workers in relation to the faster route? Otherwise, we are going to end up with a massive hole in our services, with social care yet again being the Cinderella service to the NHS.
Mike Tapp
We must remember that hundreds of thousands came into the country to fill just tens of thousands of jobs, so this is the right approach here. There are no plans at this time, but the mechanism of delivery is currently at consultation, and that closes on 12 February.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
My constituent, a migrant care worker, was asked to pay £3,600 to her employer, a private care company, for a sponsorship application that never happened. The company is now keeping the money, with no legal reason, and refusing to engage with my constituent. This is not the only case I am aware of. Will the Minister take stronger action, including suspending licences and prosecuting companies that exploit vulnerable workers?
Mike Tapp
It is important that we hold dodgy employers to account. Penalties are in place for those employing illegal workers, as is a potential prison sentence for illegal working. In the care sector, we saw hundreds of thousands come into the country to fill a very small number of jobs, so it is right to stop this social care visa at this point.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Health and social care workers fear not only exploitation, but that promises may be retroactively broken by the Government. Will the Minister confirm that the promise of indefinite leave to remain after five years for health and social care workers at Musgrove Park hospital in my constituency will be honoured?
Mike Tapp
When visas end, people should leave the country, and that is what this Government will ensure. There is no route for these people unless they switch, and that is of course open to them at this point. If the visa ends, they must leave the country.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
This Government remain committed to supporting Ukraine following Russia’s illegal invasion. More than 300,000 Ukrainians have been offered temporary sanctuary through the dedicated Ukraine schemes, and Ukrainians can still apply to the Homes for Ukraine scheme with a UK sponsor.
Catherine Fookes
Blwyddyn newydd dda, Mr Speaker.
Monmouthshire hosts more than 400 refugees from Ukraine. Most of the adults work locally, and some have started businesses; their children are settled in schools, and they contribute hugely to our community. However, Ukrainians in Abergavenny—a proud town of sanctuary—as well as in our towns of Chepstow and Caldicot say that their temporary status can create practical hurdles, such as in housing or university grant applications, because they may suddenly be uprooted. What is the Minister doing through the visa system to ensure that refugees from Ukraine have the necessary support and stability to thrive here in the UK in the long term?
Mike Tapp
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important concern. Ukrainians in Monmouthshire and across the UK have full access to work, healthcare and education, and this Government acted swiftly to introduce a further extension of three and a half years to provide certainty. Ukrainian visa applications are processed swiftly, and e-visas can be easily accessed online to prove status. The Department for Education is working closely with higher education providers to ensure that they support Ukrainians in maintaining stable access to their studies. We have to be clear that this bespoke route offers temporary sanctuary; it balances the immediate needs of Ukrainians with the future needs of Ukraine as it rebuilds.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker.
Bath Welcomes Refugees has supported more than 800 refugees to integrate and access vital services such as housing—indeed, Bath is another place where Ukrainian refugees have received a very warm welcome. The Public and Commercial Services Union report “Welcoming Growth” highlights the importance of employment support and English language provision in enabling refugees to contribute to society. What consideration has the Department given to these recommendations to support Ukrainian refugees in Bath?
Mike Tapp
As I said earlier, those here on these bespoke routes have access to full work, healthcare and education, but I will take the hon. Lady’s point away to my team after this session.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
In addition to what I laid out earlier in the House, the changes announced by the Home Secretary are subject to consultation, which is live and will end on 12 February. Any decision to implement these proposals will take full account of relevant legal precedent.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Mike Tapp
The Home Office English language testing procurement has formally launched. Given that there is a live process, I will not comment on that specifically. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Nearly 17,000 companies licensed to sponsor worker visas have five or fewer employees, and over 3,000 of these have just one employee. Ministers have been unable to tell me how many inspections have been made of companies since the general election. How sure is the Home Secretary that these are not bogus companies offering a back door to Britain?
Mike Tapp
Any UK business can apply for a sponsor licence, provided that it complies with the relevant requirements. I will take that point away, look at it and come back to the hon. Member with more detail.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
In the light of the appalling antisemitic terror attack at Bondi Beach, the faith communities in Aylesbury are scared. I welcome the Government’s funding to protect places of worship, but it does not extend to my local Jewish community, who do not have their own synagogue. What further measures will the Minister consider to ensure that all faith communities, even those without their own premises, are well protected?
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank the Government for maintaining the five-year pathway to settlement for Hong Kong British national overseas visa holders. In my constituency I have over 2,500 BNO visa holders. Will the Minister explain how the Department will continue to support our Hong Kong residents, now and in the future? Will he agree to meet me and my Hong Kong visa holders in Broxtowe to hear about the challenges that they continue to face?
Mike Tapp
We have continued the settlement after five years for residents, providing certainty. The new mandatory requirements on income and language we see as sensible. However, they are out for consultation and no firm decision has been made. It would be a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend and her constituents.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
On 7 October the police told a private meeting that they planned to ban Israeli fans from Villa Park. That was, to quote the minutes,
“in the absence of intelligence”.
On 9 October they accepted that they needed to find a more clear rationale for the decision already made. On 16 October they said they suddenly found significant intelligence for a ban. That supposedly came from a conversation with the Dutch police on 1 October, before the first meeting held in the “absence of intelligence”. Does the Home Secretary believe West Midlands police—yes or no?
No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness
Mike Tapp Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of considerable interest to her, and indeed to other Members. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed to what has been a wide-ranging and interesting discussion, and I look forward to meeting her in the new year to discuss this further.
I will come on to some of the issues and questions that have been raised, but it may be helpful if I set out the positions in broad terms first. As Members are aware, the no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing one. In essence, it seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK are able to support themselves and their families while in the country, thus avoiding unexpected pressures on the welfare system. When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to stay or enter. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require one are also subject to the NRPF condition.
There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition. Certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be assessed. A number of safeguards are in place to protect more vulnerable migrants. Those here under the family or private life routes, the “appendix child relative” or the Hong Kong British national route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have their NRPF condition lifted for free if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child or they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.
I will turn to the issue of homelessness, a central theme of this debate. This Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. There is no single or simple solution, but our cross-Government strategy, published just last week, sets out a long-term vision to end homelessness for good.
The national plan to end homelessness has three key pledges to be achieved by the end of this Parliament: to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers, to end the unlawful use of B&Bs for families and to prevent more households from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy is backed by ambitious goals to deliver lasting change. That includes a duty on public services to work together to prevent homelessness, a boost to the supply of good-quality temporary homes and £3.5 billion—a £1 billion funding boost over and above previous commitments—to combat rough sleeping and support services.
Furthermore, the Home Office has made a strategy commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness. That will enable local authorities to commence a homelessness assessment, which will be received within two days of an asylum discontinuation and within 14 days of family reunion visa issuance.
I will outline the safeguards specifically in place for rough sleepers with NRPF. The Home Office provides a dedicated homelessness escalation service, which helps local authorities and service providers swiftly clarify and resolve the immigration status of individuals if they are rough sleeping or at risk of doing so. I will also highlight an ongoing piece of work directly relevant to the issue. As we know, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are running a pilot in four council areas. It focuses on access to immigration advice and short-term accommodation, and provides a named point of contact in the Home Office for rough sleepers. Its aim is to provide more support to councils so that they can better help people sleeping rough with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says about moving beyond the pilot, and we look forward to the results to see whether we can move it forward. We will consider its evaluation, which we expect to receive next year, to understand whether the approach is working.
For some people, returning to their home country can be the most viable route out of homelessness. To that end, the voluntary returns service will work in partnership with trusted and willing civil society organisations, establishing a clear and accessible process to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from being supported to return to their country of origin. The Government encourage councils and partners to explore all lawful options to help those who cannot access statutory homelessness assistance due to their immigration status. Our shared aim is to work together to identify pathways off the street for everyone, including individuals with a no recourse to public funds condition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of data. We will continue to explore what further information on NRPF can be produced. At this time, we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for data publication or confirm what will be published. Additionally, the Home Office has committed to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop questions on no recourse to public funds for inclusion in the 2026-27 family resources survey, which is a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. The Home Office continues to develop the underlying dataset used for its publications so that it can show where NRPF has been applied to leave to remain applicants.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of safeguarding. It is important that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. A change of conditions application provides that safeguard for temporary migrants, but I hear what my hon. Friend says about access to legal aid in South Yorkshire, and I would like to cover that in more detail when we meet in the new year. There is an option to apply if someone is destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to a child’s welfare that outweigh the considerations for imposing the condition, or if they face exceptional circumstances affecting income or expenditure. On applying the rules retrospectively, we are going through a consultation period in which transitional arrangements are still under consideration. Any representations on that issue are encouraged; the consultation ends early next year, when there will be more detailed guidelines.
To conclude, the NRPF policy is and will continue to be a means by which we operate a managed but fair immigration system.
Olivia Blake
I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.
Mike Tapp
That quite rightly falls under any additional safeguarding issues and circumstances that apply to migrants, which can and will be taken into consideration. As I have set out, the Government are committed to driving down rough sleeping across the board. Our cross-Government strategy will help to deliver on that. Ours is a compassionate and generous society, as has come through in the contributions that we have heard in this debate. One of the tasks of governing is to ask ourselves constantly whether our systems and processes strike the right balance of firmness and fairness. On this issue, we believe that they do, but that does not make the discussion today any less worthwhile. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing the debate and thank all who have participated.
Question put and agreed to.