Fast-Track Visas: Skilled US Citizens

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Cameron Thomas]

Will the Minister give way?

[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—

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 7.37 pm.

[Mike Tapp]

Thank you, Ms Lewell—this debate is much better organised than the Division we have just been through.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I apologise, Ms Lewell.

[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.

[Patricia Ferguson]

Will the Minister give way?

[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

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[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—

[Helen Maguire]

rose—

[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]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Tapp]

I am conscious of time, but I will.

[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

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

1. What steps she is taking to help prevent the exploitation of migrant care workers by private care companies.

[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)]

4. What progress her Department has made on closing asylum hotels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking through the visa and immigration system to support refugees from Ukraine.

[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)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to help improve police efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

T2. I recently met a group of care workers from Northwich who are here through the health and social care visa, and who are undertaking vital work with great commitment and some personal sacrifice. They spoke passionately about the unfairness of applying the proposed changes to requirements for settled status retrospectively. What assessment has the Home Secretary made of the policy's compliance with the judgment in the case of R (HSMP Forum Ltd) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2008, in respect of ensuring that changes made to immigration rules should not disadvantage those who had already made life-changing decisions based on the existing framework?

[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.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T8.  Cambridge University Press & Assessment has long experience of conducting in-country English tests for those seeking to come to the UK, but it is concerned that the Home Office is moving too quickly to a new digital system whereby applicants do not have to attend in person to be tested. It fears that the scope for impersonation remains too high, so will the Minister review that change?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Illegal Migrants: Unknown Whereabouts

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) for securing this debate, and I am grateful to him and all other hon. Members who have participated. As we have heard, this an important issue for the Government, the public and the Home Office, which does not lie. A lot of ground has been covered, and several claims and criticisms have been aired about how this Government are tackling illegal migration, many of which I would contest or flatly reject, as I do the apocalyptic picture that he paints of our great country. He can continue to talk it down, but it will not gain him any more votes.

I will respond to this issue in more detail shortly, but before that, I must do two things. The first is to state without hesitation or equivocation that this Government are utterly determined to tackle the scourge of illegal migration. Anyone who comes to this country illegally or remains here illegally should not expect to stay. In cases of an individual with no right to be in the UK absconding or disappearing, efforts are made to trace them and bring them back into contact with the Department. As the Home Secretary has repeatedly made clear, the ability of the state to determine who can come to this country and who must leave is an essential part of any functioning immigration system.

Public safety is paramount, and the hon. Member mentions some disturbing recent events, but we will do everything in our power to protect our citizens, our communities and our country. It has been a top priority to fix the mess that we inherited, and our efforts are having an impact. Removals of those with no right to be here have increased dramatically. Almost 50,000 people have been returned since July 2024. That is up 23%—a record increase. Deportations of foreign criminals have also increased significantly in the last year, with over 5,430 foreign national offenders having been returned as of the end of October 2025. That is an increase of 12% on the previous year.

I must stress that the mess we inherited is not fixed in a week, a month or a year. We inherited open borders. We inherited hotels full, costing taxpayers £9 million a day. In the Home Office, we inherited a system that had ground to a halt. Processing has now increased by 50%. That demonstrates very clearly that we are making progress, and that Britain will not be a soft touch for illegal migration. We have ramped up enforcement activity, whether against the criminal gangs, illegal journeys or illegal working here at home. In the past year, enforcement action to disrupt illegal working across all sectors reached record-breaking levels; there were over 11,000 visits and 8,000 arrests. That is up 51% and 63% respectively—the highest levels that this country has ever seen. On top of that, people-smuggling arrests, convictions and seizures have increased by 33% in the past 12 months. That all contributes to the Government’s comprehensive and systematic work to reduce the incentives that draw people here illegally and to scale up removals.

[Sir John Hayes]

My experience in this House over almost 30 years is that most people here—indeed, the overwhelming majority—want to do the right thing, irrespective of party, and I make that perfectly clear through you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But in that spirit, I know that you will take the view that it is critically important that parliamentary answers be full and accurate. That is something that I conjured with as a Minister, answering many, many written questions in a variety of Government Departments. Will the Minister address the specific issue raised about the accuracy and completeness of answers to questions?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his two questions. On the first, I completely agree that the vast majority of those who come to this country are decent people. The sweeping changes to the asylum system over the past few weeks further encourage people to integrate and contribute, and further ensure that there is not the asylum shopping that we currently see across Europe. But there are bad eggs, and when we get those bad eggs, we will do what we can to deport them. That is why we have also seen changes in the last few weeks to make it easier to remove and deport people. I will come on to written questions shortly.

More broadly, we must never forget that the chronic problems we face long predate this Government’s time in office. When we took office, we inherited an asylum system overwhelmed by escalating costs, record hotel use and a backlog that undermined public confidence. We recognise that the current arrangements for accommodating asylum seekers are not suitable. The Government will close every asylum hotel, and we are on track to do that by the end of this Parliament. We are working to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation, such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country.

It remains necessary to use hotels in the short to medium term to deliver our statutory responsibility to ensure that individuals are not left destitute, but whereas over 400 asylum hotels were open in summer 2023, costing almost £9 million a day, fewer than 200 hotels remain in use. This is not just about cost; it is about restoring control to our asylum system. International co-operation is key to improving returns, and through our landmark UK-France agreement, we have strengthened our ability to return individuals to France. Our efforts are having an impact, and they will go further.

Turning to the focus of the debate, I am aware of the interest in these issues, and specifically in absconders. I will not comment on leaked data, but I can set out to the House the steps that are taken to ensure that an individual remains in contact with the Home Office, and the consequences should they abscond. An individual granted immigration bail may be required to reside at a specified address, and to report at regular intervals, either in person to a reporting officer or a police station, or by telephone or digital messaging. In some cases, a person may also be required to wear an electronic fitted device. Where someone fails to comply with that, efforts will be made to re-establish contact through the most appropriate method, which might be a visit from an enforcement team.

Individuals can come into contact with the Department for a variety of reasons, but if they are considered to be an absconder, their details will be circulated on the police national computer. The Home Office has a range of tools to locate those who abscond, and a dedicated tracing capability, which works in partnership with the police, other Government agencies and commercial companies.

Tracing foreign national offenders will always be a priority, and tracing is just one of the ways in which contact with an individual can be re-established. Many individuals who are out of contact may also re-engage with the Department voluntarily or decide to leave the UK. Individuals are also encountered through routine immigration enforcement and police activity. In all cases, the Home Office will consider the most appropriate action, including arrest and detention.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I am listening with interest to the Minister, but as a Member of this House, I would like to know whether the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) are correct or incorrect. Surely the House is entitled to know that.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his question. We do not comment on unverified leaks.

After internal reviews, my officials have acknowledged that the interpretation of an absconder requires clearer definition in departmental policy. Work is under way to amend guidance and operational processes, so that it is easier for immigration officials interacting with individuals to know when an absconder marker should be associated with a person, enabling them to take the right action in a timely way. Of course, there is more to do. That is why we are implementing the most significant immigration and asylum reforms of modern times.

[Mike Kane]

When we talk about emotive subjects such as this one, it is important that we establish the facts. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) recently railed on social media against illegal migrants coming to his constituency. They happened to be canoeists traversing the Atlantic and fundraising for motor neurone disease. Now he is Billy No Mates; he is like some latter-day King Cnut, without his courtiers, on the beach, railing at the tide to go backwards. Does the Minister not agree? For the record, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that I pronounced Cnut correctly.

[Mike Tapp]

In public life, it is important to ensure that we are not sensationalising, or raising the temperature on such an important and divisive issue. That is precisely why the Home Secretary is looking to restore order and control to the system—so that the likes of the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth cannot use it as a divisive tool for their own political ends.

I turn to the published figures, and will address the questions around them. The Government are not in a position to state the current number of illegal migrants whose whereabouts are unknown because the information is not available from the published statistics. The data would have to be taken from a live operational database, and would include historical records, which means that any figures would not be sufficiently robust and would not be verified.

I thank the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth again for securing this debate, and thank all Members who have contributed. These issues are a source of concern for many of our constituents, and it is right that they be discussed in this House. Perhaps inevitably, given the subject matter, a range of views and arguments have been advanced. Let me conclude by reasserting the Government’s stance: we will not stand for abuse of our immigration system, we will always put the safety of our citizens and the security of our nation first, and we will use every possible measure to find and remove those individuals with no right to be in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Changes in Immigration Rules: Nauru

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

Introduction of a visit visa requirement for Nauru

We are today introducing a visa requirement on all visitors from Nauru. This will come into force at 15:00 GMT today. Nationals of Nauru will also be required to obtain a direct airside transit visa if they intend to transit via the UK having booked travel to another country.

Nationals of Nauru will no longer be eligible to apply for an electronic travel authorisation for travel to the UK. There will be a six-week, visa-free transition period for those who already hold an ETA and have a confirmed booking to the UK obtained on or before 15:00 GMT on 9 December 2025, where arrival in the UK is no later than 15:00 GMT on 20 January 2026.

Arrangements are in place so that nationals of Nauru can apply for visas. We are publicising the changes so that travellers are aware and can plan accordingly.

We are taking this action in response to the country’s decision to introduce a new citizenship by investment programme. The practice of granting citizenship through investment is inherently high-risk and allows individuals access to a new identity with minimal ties to the issuing jurisdiction. Careful consideration of Nauru’s programme has highlighted significant risks to UK border and national security. Its design is particularly vulnerable to misuse and, in its current form, poses an unsustainable risk of exploitation by criminal actors or individuals seeking to circumvent UK immigration controls without genuine intent to comply with UK law. Due to the programme set-up, we also lack confidence in the legitimacy of any vetting and due diligence processes. This model cannot operate without rapidly escalating the level of risk to the UK border. The Government therefore consider it necessary to take action through this rules change.

The decision to introduce a visa requirement has been taken solely for national and border security reasons. This does not change the importance of our relationship with Nauru, a Commonwealth partner. Any decision to change a visa requirement status is not taken lightly. We keep the border and immigration system under regular review to ensure that it continues to work in the UK’s national interest.

All other changes will come into effect on 30 December 2025 and 1 January 2026, as detailed in the statement of changes.

[HCWS1143]

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their considered contributions. I know this topic is of significant interest and concern to my hon. Friend, and that has come through clearly in his and others’ contributions, for which I am grateful.

A fair amount of ground has been covered, and I will address as many of the points raised in the debate as possible, but first I want to set the discussion in its wider context. That means acknowledging that the immigration and asylum systems that this Government inherited were not working as they should. After years of chaos and dysfunction, the British people had lost confidence in the state’s ability to fulfil one of its most basic functions: deciding who can come to our country and who must leave. It has fallen to this Government to put that right, and that is what we have been working to do ever since the general election.

We have taken decisive and important steps to stabilise the systems. The foundations are much stronger thanks to those efforts, but now we have to go further. That is why we published our immigration White Paper earlier this year, and why last week we brought forward the most significant asylum reform package in modern times. Through those plans, we are determined to restore order and control. We cannot go on as we have with systems that are failing or broken. Change is urgently needed, but I assure hon. Members that we pursue these reforms with a keen sense of our international and historical responsibilities, and a recognition that this is a fair and tolerant country that welcomes those who come here legally to contribute and that is compassionate to the plight of those fleeing peril.

Last week the Home Secretary announced a fairer pathway to settlement and launched a public consultation on the proposed new earned settlement model, and earlier this year the immigration White Paper set out an increase to the default qualifying period from five years to 10 years. That, in general, is not open to consultation, and individuals will need to meet certain requirements to be granted settlement. They must have a clean criminal record, speak English to the higher A-level standard, have made national insurance contributions for at least three to five years, and have no debt in this country.

Individuals will have the opportunity to reduce the length of the qualifying period to settlement based on their contribution to the UK’s economy and society. Those who make a sustained and measurable contribution to this country will be rewarded with a shorter path to settlement. A reduction in years may also be earned by speaking English at an advanced level, known as C1.

We propose that settlement is delayed for those who contribute less to our public life, including those who have claimed benefit payments. A long penalty would also be applied to those who have entered the country illegally, which aims to strongly discourage entering the country via those routes. That follows the announcement of a new 20-year settlement path for refugees who remain on the new core protection route.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) did not let me ask this question earlier, but is it not true that the safe and legal routes have been all but destroyed except for BNO and for Ukrainians? It is really important that the Government restore safe and legal routes to this country to make sure that everybody can actually benefit from our safety and our respect for human rights.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for that good point. Safe and legal routes are part of the solution. We are not making these changes to the immigration system to please any part of the political spectrum; they are about solutions, such as safe and legal routes and harsher penalties for those arriving illegally. I will talk more about safe and legal routes shortly.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister set out what the English requirements and the earning requirements will be for someone with a learning difference? Clearly, those requirements will be significantly different from those for the wider community. How will they be assessed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very good question. Within the 12-week consultation, we will consider vulnerable groups. I reassure hon. Members that more detail is coming on the exact requirements. When we say “A-level”, we are not talking about our A-level standards—applicants are not going to have to study Shakespeare and poetry. The standards will be for foreign language speakers, but more detail will follow on the English language requirements.

We will continue to offer a shorter pathway of five years to settlement for non-UK dependants of British citizens. We will retain existing safeguards to protect the vulnerable, including settlement rights for victims of domestic violence and abuse. The EU settlement scheme and grants under the Windrush scheme are not within scope of the proposed reforms, so those routes will remain unchanged.

The earned settlement consultation, officially launched on 20 November, will be open for 12 weeks until 12 February 2026. We have had nearly 60,000 respondents to that consultation so far, and this debate is useful for feeding in the views of constituents, so I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I encourage all hon. Members to ensure that their constituents are aware of the consultation so that it reaches as many members of the public as possible. As the Home Secretary set out last week, the reforms are underpinned by values that are truly representative of our country: contribution and fairness.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister reaffirm that the act of seeking asylum is not illegal or unlawful—in fact, it is lawful under the refugee convention? That appears to have become somewhat muddied and clouded in this debate. Would he like to clarify the Government’s reaffirmation of the principles of the convention?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Claiming asylum is not illegal in itself; it is on the person to claim asylum in the first safe country that they travel into. That said, we are opening more safe and legal routes to ensure that we contribute to helping people in need from around the world, and more detail will come on them.

Turning specifically to the BNO route, the Government remain steadfast in our support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK and are fully committed to this route, which will continue to welcome Hongkongers. We fully recognise the significant contribution that Hongkongers have already made to the UK and the role they will continue to play in the years ahead. That is why we have confirmed that those on the BNO visa route will continue to be able to settle in the UK after living here for five years, subject to the mandatory requirements. The BNO route is a unique immigration route that was established following China’s passing of the national security law and reflects the UK’s historical and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong.

[Pippa Heylings]

I have three questions on those mandatory requirements and minimum thresholds, which are in a way being applied retrospectively. First, will the minimum salary threshold for three to five years be applied retrospectively to BNO visa holders? Secondly, will the tax contribution requirement be applicable to all family members, including non-working dependants? Thirdly, on the change to the language requirement from B1 to B2, and given that some of my constituents have only one more year remaining, has the Minister assessed whether test centres, resources and staff are available? Would equivalence to B2 be accepted, such as someone having passed a university degree in the English language because Hong Kong was a British dependent territory when they got their degree?

[Mike Tapp]

I will come on to that detail shortly. To warn the hon. Lady in advance, however, we are in the consultation period.

Retaining a five-year settlement period for BNO visa holders provides certainty to Hongkongers and ensures that the UK continues to honour its historical commitments. The BNO route will be included in the new earned settlement framework, with those holding a BNO visa given a five year reduction from the 10-year qualifying period.

The new mandatory requirements for settlement are basic requirements that we think are reasonable for people to meet if they settle here, but we are interested in views on whether certain groups should be exempt from them. I stress that no decisions have been made on that, but I have listened to hon. Members today. We are consulting on the transitional arrangements for those who are here, such as vulnerable groups and those within the BNO route.

We are also consulting on the English language levels that a number of hon. Members have spoken about today. Several hon. Members made a strong argument about assets versus income, which will be taken into consideration when making these decisions, as will the possibility of extending the route for those born after 1997. I am also interested in the survey mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe that was completed by 5,000 people, and I would like to see that over the next 12 weeks before these decisions are made. I have taken away a number of questions, including those from my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race). I am keen to go dragon boating with the community to listen and learn more from them—perhaps at some point over the next 12 weeks. A number of other points have been made and repeated, all of which have been taken away for consideration.

The UK’s support for Ukraine remains steadfast. Together with our partners and allies, the UK stands in solidarity with Ukraine and condemns the Russian Government’s unprovoked, illegal and premeditated war. I am proud that the British people have shown incredible generosity to the Ukrainian people, opening their homes to those seeking sanctuary. Since the launch of the Ukraine schemes, the UK has offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families through the Ukraine family scheme, Homes for Ukraine scheme and the Ukraine permission extension scheme.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for the positivity of his replies. His commitment is very clear. I asked about persecuted Christians; in the few minutes that he has left, can he assure us that protecting them is also part of Government policy?

[Mike Tapp]

I apologise, but I did not actually hear most of that. May I have that intervention again?

[Jim Shannon]

Of course. I talk incredibly fast, so I will try to slow down. I asked about the Government’s concessions for people who are persecuted across the world. It is really important to have those concessions, so that Christians or people of any religious faith know that if they want somewhere to go, the United Kingdom is available. I need that reassurance, if the Minister does not mind.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I apologise for not hearing him the first time. Yes, this is a consideration for the safe and legal routes, and I fully agree that issues of faith and persecution must be fully considered within them.

I will make some progress. The Government have already taken significant steps to further extend support. Since February 2025, individuals in the UK under one of the Ukraine visa schemes have been eligible to apply to the UPE scheme for permission to stay for an additional 18 months in the UK. On 1 September, the Government announced that the UPE scheme would be extended for a further 24 months, following the initial 18 months’ permission. That will provide further certainty and stability for our Ukrainian guests, so they can continue to benefit from the same rights and entitlements to access work, benefits, healthcare and education. More information on the extension will be made available in due course.

I turn to article 8. The Government’s asylum policy statement sets out our plans to tighten the application of article 8 of the ECHR, specifically on claims relating to the right to family and private life, to ensure that it reflects a fair balance between individual circumstances and the UK’s economic and social interests. There is no risk of abandoning the ECHR, which underpins trade deals, peace agreements and returns agreements; this is about making it fit for purpose in modern times. We will reform the application of article 8 by setting out a clear framework, which will be endorsed by Parliament, for those seeking to enter or stay in the UK who do not fall within our family policies.

On humanitarian visas more widely, this country has a proud history of providing protection, and we continue to welcome refugees and people in need through our safe and legal routes. However, it is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. That is why, as set out in the asylum policy statement, we are developing new safe and legal routes to offer sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing war and persecution from around the world, in line with the capacity of UK communities to support new refugees.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order.

Injury in Service Award

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I begin by adding my voice to what I consider to be the prevailing sentiment emerging from today’s discussion, which is that our police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other emergency service personnel are the very best of us. We owe them a massive debt of thanks for the work they do to keep us safe, and for always answering the call when we need help.

As a Home Office Minister, I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Government, but as the son of a career police officer and having worked in law enforcement myself, I have listened to today’s discussion with especially keen interest. Every day that my dad went to work, we worried, and I know that the same is true for all the families in the Gallery and the family of every officer who has served. Before this debate, I had a quick chat with my dad and asked whether he had sustained any injuries. He told me that only his ego had been injured, when he was stuck in a lift with nine other overweight officers and they had to call the fire brigade to get them out. That did make the papers—the headline was “Podgy PCs in a jam”.

On a more serious note, a lot of the points that have been raised resonate with me personally, and it is in that spirit that I express my sincere gratitude to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing the debate.

As was evident from the knowledge and passion with which the hon. Member spoke, this is an issue about which he feels strongly, as do other Members who contributed, to whom I am also thankful. Tom Curry sounds very much like the sort of man I would like to meet—a good bloke and obviously a fantastic campaigner.

A number of specific cases have been cited in the course of discussions, all of them deeply moving, and I will go through some of them. The hon. Member talked about a number of extremely emotional incidents that have happened in Manchester, including two incidents of leg-crushing by vehicles. The fear that must have been felt by those officers is unspeakable. Tom Curry, who I have already mentioned, is one of your constituents, I believe. He started the campaign, and I thank him for that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, you were doing so well, but you are using, “You” or “your” and you should be speaking through the Chair.

[Mike Tapp]

My apologies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) mentioned Sue Mitchell, who in November 1984 was also subject to ramming by car. She actually managed to commit an arrest, which shows immense bravery on the ground. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) talked about Robert Gifford, who served with the British Transport police and witnessed the Ladbroke Grove train crash, which must have been harrowing in many ways. The hon. Member mentioned another constituent, who was beaten by thugs. That demonstrates the challenges our officers experience every day out there on the ground.

The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) spoke about Ian, who served for 30 years in Thames Valley police, and I thank him for his service. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) talked about Andrew Barr, who served with the Met police for 16 years, as well as with search and rescue. Service is often in the blood of those who serve with the police force, and that is why they often volunteer in other ways. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) talked about air crash injuries and Councillor Coles, who rightly praises the fire brigade. As with the police, every day while we are in this place, the fire brigade officers literally run towards danger, and I thank them.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made a really good point about high-profile cases that the press pick up on, when we all send out to the country our thanks to the police, but we must remember that the unnamed do not get that from the media. Routine policing can become dangerous at any moment. While we are safe in here, the police are out there on the streets putting their lives at risk.

The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) spoke about Bill Maddocks, a firefighter. It sounds like an extremely complex case, so I will not comment on that at this moment. If the hon. Member will write to me and the Minister for Policing and Crime, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), we can get into the detail.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a considered statement, which I thank him for, and mentioned PC Geoff Newham, who was involved in a crash and was injured. After his injury, his trying to solve complex issues, such as county lines, demonstrates the dedication to service that so many in our police forces and emergency services have. I thank him very much for that.

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for his considered approach. He mentioned Elsie Galt, to whom I send my thanks, who suffered from a road traffic accident.

There are clearly physical effects that can have significant or, in the most serious examples, life-changing consequences. Then there is the emotional and psychological impact, which, again, can last for years or even a lifetime. We must always remember that the impact of such incidents is felt not only by the individuals themselves, but by their loved ones, their colleagues and their families. When dedicated public servants suffer serious injuries in the course of their duties, it is of course incumbent on us as a state and a society to wrap our arms around them and ensure that they are given all the support they need.

I turn to the specific focus of the debate. I will summarise the Government’s position, but I will do so with full recognition that I am a relative latecomer to this debate, as has been set out by others in a very long-running discussion. I commit to take any outstanding questions away, including on the case that the hon. Member for Cheadle raised. The first point to make is that the Home Office is well aware of the proposal under discussion. Senior officials have spoken many times to leaders of the campaign; indeed, the previous Minister for Policing met a number of them to hear their thoughts on this important matter.

My understanding of the situation is that work continues to identify whether a medal is the best method of recognising emergency services workers who are injured as a result of their duties, and whether it is viable. I realise that the hon. Member for Cheadle and other Members in favour of his proposal would wish me to go further and make a commitment. Respectfully, and with full recognition of the importance of the issue in question, I am afraid I cannot do so today. What I can say is that when any decision is made, it will be communicated to all interested parties, including those in the Gallery today.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am sure there is a bit of disappointment at the Minister’s statement, but could he enlighten the people in the Gallery and the Chamber on the timescale for when a decision might be reached?

[Mike Tapp]

I cannot give a timescale right here and now, but I will meet the Policing Minister in the next week and we will come back to you with an answer on that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I have listened carefully to the whole debate, and I thoroughly support the proposal. From the Minister’s summing up, it sounds as if the decision is more in the hands of civil servants than in those of Ministers. May I gently point out to him that civil servants are never remiss when it comes to awarding themselves all sorts of decorations and recognition? Here, it is more a question that the feeling of the House has made itself heard, and it really ought to be conveyed to those people to whom this task appears to have been delegated that they ought to do what they have been told by the elected representatives of the people of this country.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the spirit of his question. I reassure the House and those in the Gallery that the Policing Minister is a Minister who has authority. We saw that in the past week with the scrapping of police and crime commissioners—something that is well overdue. That came well and truly from the Minister, but of course she will have heard these words today.

If Members will indulge me for a second, I will set out some general points about medallic recognition that are relevant to the debate and my response. In this country, all medals are a gift from Government on behalf of the monarch. They are instituted by royal warrant and sit firmly under royal prerogative powers. The advantage of this is that we keep our medal system above the political fray, and no amount of political patronage can affect the criteria. That is why the British model for such recognition is highly respected across the globe.

My reason for mentioning that is not to offer a commentary on the merits of the proposal we are debating today, but to set the discussion in its proper context. I wholeheartedly agree with the general notion that acts of extraordinary courage, sacrifice or selflessness should be recognised and celebrated. Having worked in law enforcement and served in the military, I am behind that notion. That is why in policing, for example, we have worked closely with forces and staff associations to increase the number of officers and staff receiving formal gallantry awards.

[James Wild]

I referred to my time in the Ministry of Defence, and during that time we created the Op Shader medal for British service personnel who were involved in operations against Daesh in Iraq and Syria. The original proposal was that that medal should only go to the pilots in the planes conducting the strikes, but the Secretary of State and the Ministers in the Department ensured the case was made for it to go to the ground crews who got those planes in the air, so Ministers can make a difference. We have the system that the Minister has described, but Ministers are there to drive this through.

[Mike Tapp]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are having the debate in this House today, but the point stands that the decision is not a political one.

We know that for a great many emergency service personnel, their work is more than a job. It is a vocation, which they do because they feel passionate about serving our country and helping others. For those who have to leave the job they love due to injury, that is an immensely painful experience. Every effort must be made to support them in adjusting to their new circumstances.

On the financial impact, to use the example of policing, depending on the injury and its severity, a gratuity and a pension may be payable through existing provisions. Financial awards are not a substitute for medals, but they are not nothing. They have their own meaning and impact, and I think it is important that that point is made.

However, recognition is not just about payments or medals; it is about how we treat people during and after their service. Through the police covenant, we are ensuring that officers and staff who are injured physically or psychologically receive the support they need both during service and after they leave.

To turn briefly to the Elizabeth Emblem, which was raised during the debate, I have been informed that extending it to cover those injured on duty is simply not viable. Aside from potentially disrupting the Elizabeth Emblem, for which some recipients have waited 80 years, extending it would fundamentally alter the nature of the award. It is not normal practice for medal cohorts to be expanded. Normally, a new medal would be created.

I thank all Members for their contributions and of course all those in the Gallery. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Cheadle for securing this debate and for advancing this cause with such care and enthusiasm. I hope he will understand that I am not in a position to make a commitment on the proposal he has put forward. However, I have heard what has been said across the House and will ensure that my ministerial colleagues with responsibility for this area are fully aware of it. As I said, I will have a meeting next week.

For the risks that our officers face and the sacrifices that they make, they are the epitome of public service. They are, to put it simply, all heroes. On behalf of the Government and our country, I finish by thanking them for everything that they do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

8. What steps she has taken to tackle delays in the payment of refunds by her Department.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

UK Visas and Immigration makes millions of decisions every year about who has permission to visit or stay in the UK, protecting our borders and delivering excellent customer service across the globe. Where customers require refunds, UKVI officials ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.

[Peter Lamb]

I thank the Minister for his response. I have several residents who have been waiting almost a year for a refund from the Home Office. Given the dramatic improvements that we have seen in asylum application processing in the last year, can I trust that the Minister will put the same zeal into ensuring that the other Home Office processes work just as efficiently?

[Mike Tapp]

I am aware of those three specific issues, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are looking at them. I am happy to talk to him in more detail offline.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Application costs are significant, and sometimes push those who apply to the wall. Whenever it comes to getting moneys back from someone who owes them, the Government are very zealous—as they should be. I suggest that when it comes to those that they owe money to, the Government should be just as zealous.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and of course we will be just as zealous with those receiving refunds.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

10. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential merits of extending the remit of the national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs to include Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

12. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of introducing a statutory annual cap on levels of legal immigration.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

An arbitrary limit on legal migration would serve no one. As we have seen in the past, attempts to implement such caps have been unsuccessful. I remind the hon. Member of the 1 million in one year under the previous Government, undercutting British workers. Instead, this Government have set out a plan to reduce net migration by restoring control to the immigration system, reducing our reliance on overseas labour, and investing in domestic skills.

[Mike Wood]

Does the Minister not recognise that an important step towards significantly reducing net migration would be to make it clear to all those working in his Department or handling migration that there is a number that everyone is working towards? If that is the case, surely Members of this House should be able to vote on that binding cap, as happens successfully in countries such as Australia.

[Mike Tapp]

It is always amusing to be lectured about immigration by the Conservative party. There are more sophisticated ways to address high net migration, and this Government are doing that by tackling the underlying causes of over-reliance on migrant labour by employers, alongside raising the bar for who can come to the UK, and targeted visa restrictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

14. Whether she has made a recent assessment of the potential impact of exempting British national overseas visa holders from the proposed extension of the settlement qualifying period on levels of net migration.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

The Government remain steadfast in their support for Hongkongers in the UK, and remain fully committed to the British national overseas route. We will consult on the earned settlement scheme shortly, and everyone will be welcome to participate.

[Yuan Yang]

Reading is proud to be a town of many immigrant diasporas, including Hong Kong BNOs who are seeking refuge here. Many of my immigrant constituents have lived in our community for years, and they work incredibly hard so that they can put down roots, much as my parents did when I was a child. Will the Minister acknowledge the contributions of immigrant families who enrich towns like mine, when making policy about settlement periods?

[Mike Tapp]

Absolutely. Across the board we recognise the contribution from migrant communities, and specifically the Hong Kong community. We are listening to their views about the route to settlement, and will continue to do so.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

The case for legal migration and for those genuinely seeking asylum is undermined by evidence that businesses in Station Road in my constituency are using and exploiting migrants to carry out illegal trading. Local businesses are shocked and frustrated that when the police raid those premises, they remain open and continue trading. Will the Government consider bringing forward legislation to provide for the immediate closure of illegally trading shops?

[Mike Tapp]

We take extremely this seriously in the Home Office, but it is out of control after the previous Government left us with a broken system. That is why in just over a year and a half we have increased arrests by 50% and visits by 64%—the highest in British history—and we will continue on that route.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

15. What steps her Department is taking to close asylum hotels.