Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.

New Clause 35

Core protection: protection claims and protection status

“(1) This section applies for the purposes of the Immigration Acts.

(2) A protection claim means a claim made by a person that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom—

(a) would breach the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention, or

(b) would otherwise cause them to face a real risk of suffering serious harm in their country of nationality (or, where they do not have a nationality, the country of their former habitual residence), in circumstances where they would be unable or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), serious harm means—

(a) the death penalty or execution,

(b) unlawful killing,

(c) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or

(d) serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict,

which is inflicted by an actor of serious harm mentioned in subsection (4).

(4) The actors of serious harm are—

(a) the State;

(b) any party or organisation controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State;

(c) any non-State actor, if it can be demonstrated that the actors mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), including any international organisation, are unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection against the serious harm.

(5) The Secretary of State may refuse a protection claim under subsection (2)(b) on the grounds mentioned in Article 1F or Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention (commission of crimes etc).

(6) A person qualifies for protection status if they would be able to make a successful protection claim; and a person has protection status if the Secretary of State has decided to allow a protection claim made by the person.

(7) The Secretary of State may revoke a person’s protection status.

(8) The Refugee Convention means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.”.—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause, together with the clause inserted by NC36 and the Schedule inserted by NS1 would replace clause 21. This new clause and the provision in the new Schedule aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 36

Core protection: amendments

“(1) Schedule (Core protection: amendments) contains amendments that are consequential on or otherwise related to section (Core protection: protection claims and protection status).

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision that is consequential on or otherwise related to section (Core protection: protection claims and protection status).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular—

(a) amend any legislation so as to change references to human rights claims or asylum claims to references to protection claims;

(b) insert, amend or remove references in any legislation to ‘protection status’, ‘protection claim’, ‘human rights claim’, ‘asylum’, ‘refugee’, ‘humanitarian protection’ or any related terms;

(c) confer rights and impose obligations or requirements on any person (including the Secretary of State) in relation to a protection claim or protection status.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may amend, repeal or revoke provision made by primary legislation passed—

(a) before this Act, or

(b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act,

(as well as amending or revoking provision made under such primary legislation).

(5) In this section ‘primary legislation’ means—

(a) an Act,

(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru,

(c) an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or

(d) Northern Ireland legislation.”.—(Anna Turley.)

This new clause introduces the Schedule of amendments which are consequential on, or otherwise related to, the new definitions of protection claim and protection status in the new clause inserted by NC35. It also gives a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

Negotiations on UK participation in the EU Migration and Asylum Pact

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commence negotiations with the European Union and any such other relevant authority with a view to the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Union’s Pact on Migration and Asylum.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the progress of negotiations under subsection (1)—

(a) within one month of their commencement, and

(b) every six months thereafter until negotiations conclude.”.—(Mr Paul Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the EU on UK participation in the EU's Migration and Asylum Pact.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union on UK participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

Dangerous small boat crossings were sporadic and rare before Brexit. In diverging from European immigration policy, we have weakened our ability to deal with this crisis. We removed the deterrent of collective enforcement and lost access to the Eurodac biometric database. Being outside the EU is the single biggest pull factor driving this crisis. Failed asylum seekers in the EU know that the UK is a second bite at the cherry, because without access to the EU’s biometric database, we have no idea who they are or whether they have already been refused asylum by our neighbours.

Without a watertight returns agreement, we have no way to send asylum seekers back to the safe countries they passed through before arriving in the UK. A report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that, in interviews, migrants in northern France often cite the departure from the Dublin accord as a reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, particularly if they have already been refused protection in the EU.

Chris Philp admitted in a leaked audio recording that just before the Conservative Government exited the EU transitional arrangements, his Conservative colleagues realised that Brexit meant losing the Dublin agreement—

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for some time. As he will be aware, we refer to colleagues by their constituency seat, not by name.

[Mr Kohler]

I apologise. The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said that they realised they could no longer

“rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.

In spite of the Home Secretary’s statements to the contrary in the recent Home Affairs Committee evidence session, the Prime Minister was quoted in The Times as saying

“the small boats crisis has arisen in the last 10 years because we lost that returns agreement”.

There seems to be a belated admission—in No. 10, at least, if not in the Home Office—that Brexit has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration to this country.

We cannot continue to be on the outside looking in. The security needs of our border demand closer alignment with Europe.

The Home Secretary has signalled her desire to negotiate access to the Eurodac database, and we are asking the Government to go further in working with our European neighbours by joining the migration and asylum pact. Our new clause would mandate negotiations to join the pact, so that we can share the benefits of European collaboration on immigration. Although Border Force has had some success in reducing dangerous crossings, there will always be a market for criminal gangs to exploit unless we join the EU’s comprehensive framework. Does the Minister acknowledge the potential for the migration and asylum pact to deliver more effective border security, or was the Prime Minister wrong to draw attention to the negative impacts of Brexit?

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control.

The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels.

The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. Does she know whether the migration pact will be discussed in the forthcoming summit with the EU?

[Anna Turley]

I would not want to get ahead of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be having at that summit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are clear that greater co-operation and international partnership are crucial for us to manage the big global challenges that we face of immigration, migration and illegal migration. We believe that co-operation is the solution, not the problem, but it is about making sure that we do that in the right way that works for this country within our sovereign powers.

We should also recognise that irregular migration still existed while the UK was part of the EU. Closer co-operation with our European partners is important, but experience shows that no single agreement or institutional framework can solve this challenge on its own. Under previous Dublin arrangements when in the EU, the UK become a net recipient of transfers between EU member states, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, largely as a result of family reunification provisions, so we cannot pretend that UK participation in EU frameworks solves all migration challenges.

However, we will of course continue to work closely with our European partners. As I have said, illegal migration is a shared challenge, and co-operation is essential, but it would be a mistake to suggest that simply signing up to the pact would provide a quick or automatic solution. There is no silver bullet, and I am afraid that the new clause is unworkable in practice. It would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union, but Parliament cannot legislate for the EU to agree to such negotiations with us. Whether discussions take place, and on what basis, ultimately depends on both parties and is not for the UK to unilaterally dictate. It is therefore right that the UK retains the flexibility to pursue the forms of co-operation that best serve our national interest and respond to rapidly evolving migration challenges.

The Government’s approach is clear: we will pursue practical co-operation with European partners wherever it advances the UK’s interests and delivers operational results. As the Prime Minister set out, we are already working with the EU to strengthen co-operation on migration, border security, data sharing and tackling the criminal gangs that profit from human misery. Our objective is not to focus on a single mechanism but to build a stronger and more effective long-term partnership with the EU on shared challenges, including illegal migration. That builds on the progress we have already made since the UK-EU summit in 2025, and I am looking forward to further partnership and co-operation with this year’s summit. For those reasons, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

[Mr Kohler]

I am saddened by the responses from both the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who do not see that this is a collective problem that we must work on collectively to address. Beginning negotiations would help us to start that process and to not sit in isolation, as we do now. I will press the new clause to a vote, because it is important to make it clear that we think the Government should be negotiating with the EU. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate on many issues. This is a particularly important issue and, let us remember, one that was caused by Brexit, as the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also one that can be solved by closer collaboration with Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I was grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the previous new clause, even though she did not agree with me. I hope new clause 7 will help her to address the evidential issues she referred to and examine whether entering the pact would be more sensible for the UK.

The new clause would require the Government to conduct an annual cost-benefit analysis of the UK’s bilateral immigration and asylum agreements and arrangements. The assessment would consider the costs and outcomes of each arrangement against the cost of the UK’s participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

How much does the hon. Member think that undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis would cost, given that we are outside the EU, and who would bear that cost?

[Mr Kohler]

I think we all believe in evidence-based policy making, and we need to do things such as cost-benefit analysis. To argue that one cannot do a cost-benefit analysis before making any policy change is not a solution; it ends up meaning that we just guess. We have to actually plan policy.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

The hon. Member said that he believes in making evidence-based decisions, but he is unable to say what it would cost to make this change. If that is his belief, can he explain what the cost of the new clause would be?

[Mr Kohler]

We are talking about civil servants doing a cost-benefit analysis as part of their role. To suddenly say that that is a huge expense, and therefore that we cannot examine policy changes, is a strange argument.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend not find it a bit rich that Members of the governing party are talking about the cost of a cost-benefit analysis, when earlier clauses and amendments—such as on the implementation of a new training scheme and getting people up to speed—have already been included in the Bill, with no assurances from the Minister about exactly how much they will cost?

[Mr Kohler]

Of course, that is true. We have to move forward; making debating points when these are important issues is not the way forward.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I agree that the Government quite like cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps they could do a cost-benefit analysis of the hon. Member’s proposal for a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to support it. That is just a suggestion.

[Mr Kohler]

That is an excellent idea. I am, of course, willing to go along with the Government on such a compromise—I thank the hon. Member.

[Melanie Onn]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Kohler]

Yes—we are going to be here a long time.

[Melanie Onn]

There is a serious point here, but I also recall the hon. Member schooling all of us in this Committee on the importance of interrogating line by line, rather than giving grand, broad political speeches. I am simply asking how much he thinks his proposal would cost. He has brought it to the Committee for us to consider, and that is a reasonable question.

[Mr Kohler]

The hon. Member is simply repeating herself and taking party political positions. The Bill has many policy positions and clauses without cost-benefit analyses. The Liberal Democrats believe in evidence-based politics. I realise that Labour Members simply like to take positions that look good to the red wall, but we are actually trying to move things forward.

[Melanie Onn]

I take the hon. Member’s point about other clauses in the Bill. Has he at any point queried or questioned the Government about the costs, given that he is part of the Opposition?

[Mr Kohler]

We are trying to push forward a cost-benefit analysis. As I said in my first intervention in this Committee, we do not use Committee stage well when we sit like this—pretending we are in the Chamber—and get into party political arguments with each other. The House should address how we use Committee. We should sit as a Committee, discuss things and really enter into line-by-line scrutiny. I have covered that before, so I will not bore the hon. Lady with it any more.

I have now utterly forgotten where I had got to, so I will start again. In fact, I had not yet said this bit, and it will goad the official Opposition even more, I suspect: the Liberal Democrats enjoy talking about the European Union. We make no secret of the fact that closer relations with the bloc would go a long way to resolving the small boats crisis and illegal immigration. However, it should not be a question of ideology or party political posturing; it must be a question of what works and how much it costs. The Government talk about reducing pull factors for migrants, but they seem unwilling to face the realities. Ensuring a coherent international approach to irregular migration is the single most powerful weapon that the Government could utilise to reduce the pull factor. I suspect that Government Members secretly agree with that.

I understand the Minister’s reticence about new clause 6, but understanding the costs of joining the migration and asylum pact would enable us to do a value-for-money comparison with the current bilateral deals that the Government have made and are negotiating.

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

The hon. Member’s new clause proposes a cost-benefit analysis of each bilateral immigration and asylum agreement or arrangement in force. How many individual agreements are we are talking about?

[Mr Kohler]

I will start with one: since Brexit, the Government have spent more than £1 billion on the agreement with France. We do not yet know the costs of intelligence sharing with Belgium, so I cannot give an answer on that. However, those deals fail to recognise that people who seek asylum are desperate. Sadly, making the French coast a more difficult place from which to embark pushes asylum seekers towards longer, more dangerous routes. Small boat departures from Belgium used to be rare, but that has changed since the start of 2026. There were 32 attempts to launch small boats from Belgium between January and April of this year, of which five were prevented. In comparison, there were just two launch attempts in the whole of 2025. We believe that agreeing a deal with the entire bloc would be more effective in preventing dangerous small boat crossings, by implementing a deterrent that encompasses all of Europe.

I take the Minister’s point, however. We do need some evidence, which is why the Liberal Democrats suggest a cost-benefit analysis. New clause 7 calls on the Home Secretary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral arrangements, to compare their costs with the estimated costs of joining the pact. Does the Minister acknowledge the benefits that that information could yield? Hon. Members have shown that they are interested in the answer, so let us give them the answer. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks.

[Blake Stephenson]

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wimbledon be so supportive of rejoining the EU—I think we have all learned something this morning. We have also learned that the Liberal Democrats feel that that would be a silver bullet to fix all these issues. Yet still the hon. Member comes forward to ask for a cost-benefit analysis to prove it. His statutory duty to benchmark every bilateral agreement against the EU pact is designed to build a case for joining the pact, not to improve returns, and for that reason, the Conservatives oppose it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are proud of those arrangements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referenced agreements with Belgium; we are co-operating with all our partners on the frontline of illegal migration.

[Mr Kohler]

Does the Minister know how many migrants were sent back under the one in, one out deal?

[Anna Turley]

I think the number is around 1,200, but I would have to check the exact figures. That deal was a really important opportunity to pilot the idea of safe and legal routes. We learned a lot from that pilot, and it was disappointing that it could not continue, but we are taking what we learned from it further in our discussions and conversations with other countries.

[Mr Kohler]

Does that not show that these bilateral arrangements are not sufficient and we need a collective approach? That deal cost a lot of money, but not many people went back via that route. We need to take a collective approach to this issue, because the problem is shared across Europe.

[Anna Turley]

I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said today, but he is right on that point. There is opportunity for broader co-operation on many of these fronts, which is why we will continue to explore co-operation. However, signing up to these restrictive pacts would limit that opportunity. I think we have the best of all worlds here: not only can we have direct negotiations with other countries, but we can scale up things such as the one in, one out deal when we think there is potential to do so with other countries. On that note—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I will abide by the Chair’s ruling, but I am happy to pick that up with the hon. Member later and send him plenty of information backing up the statement that it was a temporary arrangement.

On that note, I will not detain the Committee any further. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

[Mr Kohler]

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was surprised that I want to rejoin the EU. Has he not been listening?

[Melanie Onn]

I think there was a little bit of irony there!

[Mr Kohler]

Was it ironic?

[The Chair]

I think, strictly speaking, it was sarcastic.

[Mr Kohler]

The Dublin accord—our previous arrangement, when we were in the EU—was a success. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South made clear, the previous Conservative Government did not realise until the last moment the problems that would be caused by no longer being in the Dublin accord after Brexit. The Minister is right to say the accord’s successor is only just starting—I understand that—but at some point we must make a decision on whether to join it. A cost-benefit analysis would surely be useful. We will again press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would establish a new Department for immigration and border security, transferring the immigration, asylum and border security functions of the Home Secretary to that office. The Home Office is a large organisation, and its functions are various: immigration and borders, passports and security, counter-terrorism and homeland security, policing and crime, drugs and alcohol policy, and public protection. Serious questions must be asked about the capacity of any single Department to handle all those responsibilities.

Those concerns manifest when Department inefficiencies become clear. The average wait time for an asylum decision has come down substantially since Labour took office, but over a quarter of cases still take more than a year to process.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Of course, we all want an efficient, fair, secure and sustainable asylum system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging our really good success recently, but how would setting up a new Department help us to speed up those processes and get the asylum system back under control?

[Mr Kohler]

As I have said, we believe that the Home Office is too large and cannot focus on all things for which it is responsible. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the disaster of asylum hotels. Why was that a disaster? Because the Home Office was not concentrating on that particular issue. It signed contracts that made millions for businessmen but did not help asylum seekers at all.

[Catherine Fookes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. We have cut asylum hotel use by 50% since we have been in charge, so we are already having success with the Home Office as it is.

[Mr Kohler]

But that mistake was made because the attention of the Home Office was diverted to other issues at the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member looks at me quizzically, but a mistake was made. Yes, the Government have started to solve that mistake, but asylum hotel numbers went up by 8% last year, so the idea that they have just gone down and down is not accurate.

The new clause would create a new Government Department that could put its entire focus on effective immigration policy. It would produce an annual immigration plan—subject to scrutiny and a vote in Parliament—setting out how the Government will deliver a fair, controlled and effective system. It would also work across Government to develop long-term workforce plans for public services and critical national infrastructure, ensuring that migration policy is designed in tandem with investment, domestic skills and training, to strengthen our services. This plan would ensure that British people and services finally get a system built to work for them—a system based on evidence that works across Government and different sectors to deliver better public services and a growing economy.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart.

I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea.

I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities.

The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that

“A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration”

should be

“taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.”

On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have

“joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services”

to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says:

“The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”.

Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms.

The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were

“designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”,

and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do.

The current work and remit of the Home Office

“covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”.

I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that

“the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.”

Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future.

Despite repeated attempts at reform,

“the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,”

with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes:

“The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”.

It says:

“The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”.

I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to refer to some of the points the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion made about co-operation on community cohesion. When we discuss some of her new clauses later on, I will set out the levels of interaction and engagement that we are having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because that is crucial. The hon. Lady is right to acknowledge the interactions that these issues have. We play an important role in those partnerships, and I look forward to discussing that later on. At this point, I respectfully request that the new clause is withdrawn.

[Mr Kohler]

I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire that, because the Home Office is now beginning to solve one of the problems it caused for itself, that somehow proves that it does not make mistakes. It makes mistakes because it does not have the bandwidth. The Home Office signed asylum contracts it did not even read, which incentivised providers to spend money, and surprise, surprise, the providers did spend money. Why did the Home Office make that mistake? Because it was not focusing on that issue at the time—it does not have the bandwidth.

As the Minister anticipated, the new clause is a probing amendment. We will not be pushing it to a vote. However, I am sure that I am not telling too much of a secret by saying that I suspect the Home Affairs Committee will be addressing issues such as this in the not-too-distant future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Refugees: Anti-Homelessness Taskforce

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a taskforce (‘the Taskforce’) to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.

(2) The purpose of the Taskforce is the elimination of homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom.

(3) The Taskforce must include representatives of—

(a) the Home Office;

(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(c) local authorities;

(d) non-governmental organisations with experience of or expertise in working with and supporting asylum seekers; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must—

(a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated;

(b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core protection status are promptly provided with essential documents;

(c) develop and oversee arrangements for the early identification of persons at risk of homelessness following the grant of protection status; and

(d) keep under review the appropriateness of the length of the period during which a person may occupy asylum accommodation following a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection (‘the move-on period’), including by considering evidence on the extent to which persons are successfully moving into work and settled accommodation within that period.

(5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on—

(a) the work of the Taskforce;

(b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and

(c) any changes made, or proposed to be made, to the move-on period or to related policy as a result of the work of the Taskforce.

(6) In this section,

‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided under sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce, whose stated aim is preventing homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce whose stated aim is to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees. The Prime Minister has, to his great and huge credit, made ending homelessness a priority, but why, then, is the Minister pursuing the measures in this Bill that contradict such a noble aim? We have already seen that the refugee tax and core protection introduction risk exacerbating the precarity experienced by refugees with settled status.

In December 2024, the Government doubled the grace period refugees were given to move out of Home Office accommodation to 56 days. They did that, as they stated at the time, to provide refugees with more time to find alternative accommodation, reducing the risk of homelessness and putting pressure on overstretched council housing services. The Home Office has now reduced the grace period to 42 days, which would increase such pressures. The longer move-on period was shown to be effective. According to the Refugee Council, an estimated 1,000 refugee households in England avoided homelessness in 2025 thanks to the increased time they had to begin rebuilding their lives in the UK. I am concerned that a reduction in move-on time would lead to increased refugee homelessness, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has seen any data on refugee homelessness levels since that reduction in the grace period.

The issue of a shorter move-on period is compounded by systemic issues identified by the Refugee Council. Those include refugees receiving documentation in stages instead of all at once, delayed access to e-visas, local authority uncertainty on refugee entitlements and challenges of low digital literacy. Those challenges require a tailored approach, which is why our new clause would establish a taskforce to combat refugee homelessness. It would be responsible for co-ordinating the different services, moving people out of asylum support, ensuring that people who are granted refugee status get their essential documents promptly, identifying those at the greatest risk of homelessness and monitoring the impact of changes to the move-on period.

Asylum has become a politically charged issue, but we cannot lose sight of our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. We must ensure that move-on initiatives deliver. The National Centre for Social Research found that constraints of systemic housing shortages and the concurrent roll-out of e-visas were holding us back. It made recommendations that included restoring the move-on period to 56 days, better data sharing and strengthening the support on offer. It would be within our taskforce’s remit to ensure that those recommendations are properly implemented. Having a body dedicated to protecting homeless asylum seekers is a way to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities and action those recommendations.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that. The root of the pressure is the number of people arriving and the time that they spend in the system. Fewer arrivals and faster outcomes would do far more for councils than any taskforce.

We will not support the new clause, but let me ask the Minister a question, building on the one that the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked. What is the current move-on period after a grant of protection, and what assessment have the Government made of the cost of refugee homelessness to local authorities throughout England?

[Anna Turley]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority.

As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce.

Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face.

We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days.

We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.

[Mr Kohler]

On my specific question, though, has the Home Office studied whether the move from 56 days to 42 days made the situation of homelessness worse for those granted refugee status?

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that there is sometimes a lag in us being able to publish statistics on that, but I am hopeful to be able to share statistics with hon. Members shortly. In June this year—these are the latest published figures—there were 99 people sleeping rough in this country who had left asylum support in the last 85 days. Our internal data suggests that the numbers of people leaving asylum support are extremely low, but, as I said, information on that will be published.

We are working closely with other partners and charity organisations, including Migrant Help, which offers positive move-on advice to all supported newly granted refugees through the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract. That includes guidance on accommodation, finances and employment, and support for individuals to integrate into the UK when Home Office support ends.

As we have discussed a lot during the Bill’s passage, it builds on the “Restoring Order and Control” statement that the Home Secretary made, and it is essential if we are to restore control to our immigration system. As the Committee will know, core protection is a key part of that, and will simplify the current system of protections. That will of course be shared in due course.

This is not the place to make party political points but, having witnessed the impact of austerity on local government, I find myself biting my tongue when Opposition Members express concern about local government support. Our focus should be on improving support and delivering better outcomes through these existing arrangements, rather than creating an additional statutory structure and reporting process. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

[Mr Kohler]

I thank the Minister for her answer. On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for asylum applicants to take up employment while their application is being determined where it has been over three months since the application was made and no decision has been made.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—(Mr Kohler.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to enable asylum seekers to take up employment, if it has been over three months since they applied.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mr Kohler]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where—

(a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and

(b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application.

(2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must—

(a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person;

(b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary;

(c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom;

(d) persist until—

(i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or

(ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and

(e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months.

[Mr Kohler]

Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts.

In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban. According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP.

Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality. We must remember that if this country works for refugees, refugees will work for this country.

The argument that giving asylum seekers employment rights will encourage further illegal immigration is well worn but ultimately unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little to no role in people’s destination of choice, whereas factors such as language and familial relations are far more influential. The Government’s position is disputed by their own Migration Advisory Committee.

Indeed, asylum seekers come here in spite of the fact that our working regulations are a complete outlier in comparison with other states. EU law requires access to work after six months at most, while Canada allows it immediately and the US after six months. Even Denmark, which is always held out as being quite hard-line on immigration issues and undocumented migrants, allows it after six months. A three-month limit would be in line with our allies and may incentivise the Home Office to improve the efficiency of its decision making.

Allowing refugees to work after three months would be worth £437 million per cohort, which is five times the cost that would be recovered with a £10,000 payment scheme. Importantly, the public support this measure. Lift the Ban research found that 71% of the public agreed that people seeking asylum should have the right to work. Ultimately, people who work while they wait for an asylum decision are more ready to support themselves when they get status. This is good for the taxpayer, good for the asylum seeker and good for the country.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would give asylum seekers the right to work after three months, and the Green party’s new clause 24 would give them an automatic, unrestricted right after six months that lasts through every appeal. We oppose both new clauses.

People who enter the UK illegally should not be able to claim asylum here at all. The new clauses go in the opposite direction. They would make the UK a more attractive destination for people deciding whether to pay a smuggler to cross the channel. Everybody wants to reduce pull factors so that we can reduce dangerous crossings, and I am afraid that the new clauses would introduce additional pull factors.

I will keep my remarks brief and just ask the Minister a question. How many asylum seekers currently have permission to work, and what assessment have the Government made of the effect that earlier work rights would have on the number of claims?

--- Later in debate ---

I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the ability to work of those who are refugees, of those who have been proved to need and deserve our sanctuary and who have our protection. They should have the opportunity and dignity that work provides, which is why those granted protection under our new system will have the opportunity to move on to the protection work route by securing employment and beginning their journey to integrate into society. I assure colleagues that more details on those routes will be available to hon. Members soon. For those reasons, I ask that the new clauses be withdrawn.

[Mr Kohler]

I am saddened that the Minister will not move on that point. The Labour party, when out of power, supported this proposal. As my party knows, supporting something when out of power, but not when in power, is not a good message to send to the electorate. The dignity of labour is important, and work is important to the ability to integrate into the community. The new clause would also make money for the Treasury. Why is work a pull factor for the UK but not for every other country? Why are we such an outlier? No answer has been given. The existing policy simply excludes migrants from society. It makes them vulnerable to the black economy and the criminals who frequent it, and simply does nothing to improve the lives of people, many of whom will be granted asylum. I am saddened—as I suspect are many Labour Members in their hearts—that the Government will not concede the point.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.