Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

As I have raised in discussions on other amendments and in other comments, it must be the top priority for the Home Office to get decisions right the first time. That would allow people who have a protection claim to start rebuilding their lives, getting jobs, finding their own housing, and allow the Home Office to focus on processing people who do not have a claim and speed up the removals of those people where it is possible to do so. It would be useful to hear what plans the Home Office has for improving the quality of decision making and whether it would accept this kind of incentive. Amendment 80 is also about cancelling the liability under certain circumstances.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142.

Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who

“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.

That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?

Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those?

Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force.

Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.

Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.

Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that

“the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]

Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest.

Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report?

Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what?

Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

I welcome the Government’s approach to these clauses and I support the principle that underpins them. I look forward to seeing the regulations translate that principle into an effective and proportionate system that delivers for taxpayers, supports proper administration of asylum and helps restore public confidence in our immigration system.

[Mr Kohler]

As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details?

Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence. How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face.

I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point? Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.

[Siân Berry]

I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work.

I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out.

Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this.

It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers?

The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration.

A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax.

Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments?

Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share.

The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.

[Mr Kohler]

I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help.

Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.

[Mr Kohler]

The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.

[Anna Turley]

I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so.

The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Melanie Onn]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I agree that the commonality is men. I would also say that there is great fear in communities. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, there is already suspicion when there are new arrivals. There is work to be done to demonstrate the reality that, where there is criminal activity, this country has strong institutions in place that are prepared to set the record straight. There can often be unfounded rumours that lead to vigilante groups and the targeting of individuals—I have seen that happen in my constituency, and it is completely unacceptable.

When there is criminal activity, swift action should be taken to apprehend that individual and, whatever their background, they should be subject to the full force of UK law. They should be dealt with quickly, and where appropriate, if they are a foreign national offender or an asylum seeker, they should be deported as quickly as possible. Immediate deportation after sentencing would address the issue and comfort people in communities around the country. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and perhaps I have not given him enough comfort that we share entirely the same perspective. There is certainly more that can be done.

We have to do all we can to strengthen public confidence and to restore trust in our systems. We have to be honest about the scale of the issue, the backlogs and the delays. Removing people more reliably and quickly through improved co-operation with receiving countries, as the Minister mentioned, will go a significant way towards doing that.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I know I am a voice in the wilderness, but I wish Parliament would use these Committee sessions to try to improve legislation instead of collapsing into the pantomime of the Chamber. That is not a criticism of the hon. Lady by any means, or any of the contributions I have heard, but sometimes we fall into political discourse when we should be trying to improve things.

[Melanie Onn]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because this is his first appearance and we are now five days into the Committee. He will have no doubt looked at Hansard or listened to the recordings and seen that we have gone through the detail of this legislation line by line in previous sittings.

[Mr Kohler]

That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said—[Interruption.] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that.

The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question. I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it:

“The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence. UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.”

If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. We support clause 22, and I rise in support of new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Both address the same question: what happens when someone claiming our protection is a danger to this country?

Clause 22 says that a person who falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention is

“not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom”.

That covers two categories: someone whom there are reasonable grounds to regard as a danger to our national security and someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community. Those are, by definition, the most serious cases our asylum system deals with. The public will understand why such a person should lose the rights that depend on lawful stay, such as the right to work and access to public funds, but they will ask a far simpler question: why are they still here?

Clause 22 changes how we describe someone’s stay. It does not cancel their leave, make a deportation order or remove the human rights barriers to sending them home. In particular, article 3 of the European convention on human rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose, so the clause on its own does not give Ministers a clear route to removal.

New clause 61 addresses that gap. For decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by proposed new section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, it would disapply section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it is incompatible with the convention right. It would apply only where the refugee convention already permits return. The measure is targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals identified by clause 22.

The Minister may say that the new clause would not change our obligations under the convention and that cases could still go to Strasbourg. That is true and is precisely why we believe this country should leave the ECHR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that.

As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence.

To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes.

I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.

[Mr Kohler]

Has anything changed? In all those discussions, has any position moved at all?

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I recognise the point the hon. Lady is making. However, as I pointed out in my opening statement, some people pay more and benefit more already. We have an accepted system that there is a general balance between those who pay higher rates of tax and others who pay lower rates, and between those in receipt of more NHS care and support, and others who rarely need it. We must recognise that we will not be able to get everything exactly right or accurate for every subsection of society.

[Mr Kohler]

Will the hon, Lady give way?

[Melanie Onn]

Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on my broad, non-specific contribution?

[Mr Kohler]

I am just trying to understand the hon. Lady’s point. When someone is in receipt of benefits because of poverty, we do not ask them to repay it, do we?

[Melanie Onn]

That is a slightly different argument. I was trying to explain how we have a broad group of existing British citizens who pay, contribute and get some benefit. It is the same for asylum seekers: those who benefit should contribute at a later stage when they are able. That is a fair and reasonable point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Onn]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am going to come to that, because making sure that what is and will be expected of people is clear and up front, without any ambiguity, will help those applying to understand the expectations that will be conveyed upon them. That will also give some reassurance to the UK public that this country is not seen as a soft touch. It might help to reset some negative views about how migrants who arrive here to claim asylum are, in some way, only here to milk the system and get all they can, or that they only want to take, take, take, and are not prepared to give, give, give. My hon. Friend’s example proves the exact opposite: people claiming asylum want to contribute.

[Mr Kohler]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Melanie Onn]

I will not, because I am on my final sentence.

Rather than having a negative perception of those asylum seekers, this could help the public to understand that they are making a contribution—that they are willing to make a contribution. Then we will see a settlement that is deemed to be acceptable and that hopefully contributes to a much more cohesive society.

--- Later in debate ---

I doubt that any Committee members will be surprised that the Opposition welcome the principle of the scheme, not least because it was a Conservative proposal. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked, and I paraphrase, “What is the point in scrutiny?”, but the shadow Home Secretary has previously pointed out the similarities of clause 23 to the asylum support repayment scheme, based on the student loans model, which we proposed by tabling new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 when it was under consideration. There are opportunities for the Government to listen, and they do so from time to time, as we see in the similarities of this clause.

[Mr Kohler]

Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.

[The Chair]

Order. I remind hon. Members again not to use “you”.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Anna Turley)]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us. More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made. Can you give us some indication of why you think that is and, building on your previous answer, what would help to challenge that?

Eleanor Lyons: Thank you, Minister, for your engagement so far on the Bill. It is very much appreciated. Building on what I was saying, we really need a system that allows for early identification and support of victims of exploitation. That includes all victims of exploitation, UK nationals and non-UK nationals. When I first came into my role three years ago, the big conversation was about what mandatory training would look like for first responder organisations, so that they would know how to spot a potential victim of modern slavery. Many victims themselves do not even recognise that they are being exploited. To introduce early support into the system would make a huge change on that side of things.

I am concerned about the Home Office data on already high-risk flights. Less than 2% of the total number in the national referral mechanism are on those flights. The Home Office has five days to make a “reasonable grounds” decision. It only protects a victim of modern slavery for five days if they are referred into the national referral mechanism. If the Government decide that, actually, they do not think that there are grounds for those people being a victim of modern slavery, after that point they do not get any extra enhancements for indefinite leave to remain, so I do not think that that provides extra protection for victims. All we try to do in that period is to provide them with the support and care they need in their recovery period, if they need it.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Q Would you reject the view that the referral system is exploited?

Eleanor Lyons: I would say that, from the evidence that we have seen—this has been looked at across the years by different Select Committees and academics—there is no evidence of widespread misuse of the system. Of the flights that did not go ahead in 2025 after 3 pm, that is less than 1% of the number of potential victims of modern slavery whom we identified in the UK last year. As I mentioned, if you make these sweeping changes in the legislation, you will also have a negative impact on all victims of modern slavery, in particular cases where we have taken too long to identify them. For example, the survivors of al-Fayed have reached out to me, and they have serious concerns, because we failed them; we did not identify them when we should have done. The Bill would have a negative impact on them, too.

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

Q If I understand this correctly, the central point that you are making, Eleanor Lyons and Will Prescott, is that the issues that the Bill seeks to address are with not, in your view, so much the law as it stands, but the administration of that law—training, interpretation and the exercise of functions by all sorts of officials. If there are any issues, that is where they lie, rather than the substance of the law as it stands. Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?

Dr Prescott: We have talked about this in our report. You have to be very careful about the sequence in which you do this. At the moment, there are all sorts of gaps in identifying modern slavery victims. A lot of people in first responder organisations—as Eleanor mentioned, you cannot refer yourself into the NRM—are not aware of their responsibilities. There is no dedicated modern slavery lead and, because there is no dedicated lead, everyone is responsible, which in practice means that no one is responsible.

A lot of victims also do not necessarily realise that they are a victim of modern slavery. They obviously do not understand what their rights are. In particular, if they are in an unfamiliar environment and speaking to unfamiliar officials, they will not necessarily be comfortable discussing certain practices that have happened to them. If you are going to tighten the criteria, you really need to fix the gaps in the existing system first, before you look to a much tougher approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Q I pass on my thanks to everyone at the NCA for their excellent work. We know how important it is for disrupting the organised, industrial crime that is taking place across borders. It is critical that we intervene and prevent dangerous crossings as early as possible. I wanted to put my thanks on the record for everything that the agency does.

You mentioned the importance of deterrence. That is critical, and it is one of the key things that we want to achieve in the Bill. Could you say a little more about how you think the measures in the Bill will help to deter people and make interventions earlier in the process of illegal immigration?

Helen Rance: In terms of deterrence, we are obviously a law enforcement agency, and we would not make specific definitive judgments on the different effects that the measures will have on deterring crossings or immigration. We very much think that deterrence is about a combination of factors, and is, ultimately, a matter for Government policy. However, we believe that the measures contribute to a system that is seen as firm, fair and less susceptible to exploitation by organised crime groups. It is likely that that will help the overall deterrent effect. The changes to appeals, protection status, asylum arrangements and the removal process might contribute to making the UK a less attractive target for the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration.

[Mr Kohler]

Q I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and have spoken to your colleagues about smashing the gangs. The NCA has been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there anything missing from the Bill that would help you to smash the gangs? What is your view on how far the NCA has progressed in smashing the gangs?

Helen Rance: If “smashing the gangs” means reducing small boat crossings, crossings are down this year compared with last year, and the number—

[Mr Kohler]

Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened?

Helen Rance: There is a combination of factors. The law enforcement approach to reducing small boat equipment, to working closely with international partners and to using our international intelligence reach has certainly contributed to that. We would not claim that the work is complete or that we have fixed this, but our efforts have certainly contributed to the reduction in crossings.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q You are right to say that boat crossings are down 43% this year. Do you feel that the NCA has the resources it needs to continue that trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill?

Helen Rance: Yes. We have very much moved our operational capacity towards immigration crime. Of course, like all agencies, we have a finite budget, but we are focusing it on the disruption of the highest-harm organised immigration crime, individuals and networks. I do not think we would ever say that we have enough money, because more money could always be spent on increased intelligence capability and unique capabilities that we utilise, but we have certainly done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime, and we have had some excellent results with that pivot.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kohler]

Q I would like to turn to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I was in Denmark last week—hardly a slouch when it comes to asylum claims. People there were astounded that we were moving from a judicial to an administrative process for judging these matters. What is your view on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority?

Dr Casey: I think that if you want to help bring down the quite large backlog in the tribunal system, you will need more first-instance appellate decision makers. Numbers are hard to come by, but I think there are 90 salaried judges in the first tier tribunal and then an indeterminate number of part-time judges. I think the full number might not be more than 200 or 250—so not a lot when it comes to processing tens of thousands of appeals.

If you were to expand the pool of decision makers by requiring less onerous legal qualifications, it would stand to reason that you could recruit more people to process the backlog. That is the positive picture that I imagine the Home Secretary would articulate, and there is a lot to be said for it. But as I see it the risk is that on the current design you just risk moving the backlog. If you have a large pool of people without legal training applying a complicated body of law—extraordinarily complicated: ECHR law, UK domestic law, immigration rules, statutes—they will be more likely to make mistakes and errors of law. Then there would be a right of appeal to the upper tribunal, where there will still be judges. They may then grant more leave to appeal. So you might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal. That is the risk.

I am loath to say things on the hoof about complicated points of designing institutions, but it might not be a choice between having no legal qualifications and being fit for judicial office with over 12 years’ experience. You could simply require some level of legal qualification, and that would still keep the pool of possible decision makers much broader than it is with the first-tier tribunal. Those are just some initial thoughts on that part of the Bill.

Professor Ekins: For my part, I think it is too strong to say this is a move from a judicial process to an administrative process. It is certainly a change and, if enacted and put in practice, it moves us closer to a model of departmental adjudication. However, that is still not departmental adjudication, as the relevant adjudicators will be at some distance from the Home Secretary, and they will be adjudicating claims appeals and so on.

I think there could be some advantages in the proposed change, namely trying to integrate the process of reviewing particular cases more closely to the immigration and asylum system, and making the public interest in the enforcement of migration law a more pressing consideration. However, there certainly are considerable risks—not least of which, as my colleague has pointed out, is the sheer complexity of this body of law.

To my mind, part of the problem with the body of law is the fact that sometimes, in some critical respects, its application turns on the relevant adjudicator’s individuated assessment of the relevant harshness, proportionality, fairness or otherwise of removing this person who is in violation of migration law. That makes things unpredictable, and it makes the disposition of the relevant adjudicators awfully important, which I think will result in more litigation and appeals.

Changing the persons who are doing that kind of individuated assessment might well result in a different set of outcomes. I do not know who will be recruited for this, but it is conceivable, for example, that former police officers would constitute persons for appointment. They might well—I do not know—take a different view on the fairness or otherwise of removing some persons whose claims come before them from the view taken by the existing cadre of first-tier tribunal judges. However, the same body of law is being applied, and it is complex—that is certainly true—so I think one can expect a lot of appeals.

In addition to that—this a crucial point for the Committee to bear in mind—I think there could be considerable collateral litigation to challenge decisions of the new adjudicative body, and those challenges might be at a high level. If the Bill proceeds into law, when the Home Secretary comes to promulgating secondary legislation and making critical decisions about the structure and operation of the adjudicative body, many of those decisions will be challenged by judicial review. When the adjudicative body is under way, particular decisions will be challenged by way of judicial review, as well as by appeal to the upper tribunal.

Clause 1(8) looks like an attempt to limit the judicial involvement in decisions of the adjudicative body to appeals to the upper tribunal only. If that is the intention, with respect, I think it is going to fail. That is not an effective ouster clause. You can certainly expect—and I do—much litigation and ordinary judicial review proceedings challenging particular decisions of the adjudicative body. Although more adjudicative capacity is certainly welcome, and you need that if you are going to deal with the existing and growing backlog, you have to reckon with the risk that it is not quite as straightforward as is hoped.

[Mr Kohler]

Q Are there examples of other jurisdictions that have tried this? I am thinking of Australia.

Professor Ekins: I cannot answer that question offhand, I am afraid. It is certainly the case that different common law and civil law countries take different views, especially those outside the ECHR, of the relevant role of the Department in deciding cases, and the role of courts in reviewing claims about the nature of decision making.

Certainly, if you go back not that long ago in our history, you would have had the Home Office making decisions about the application of the relevant migration law. Those decisions would have been subject to judicial supervision, but that would have been supervision with the court thinking, “Has something gone fundamentally wrong here? Is this a misconstrual of the legislation or a perverse decision, which sometimes happens?” What we have now, and have had, effectively, since a pivotal judgment in 2007, is the relevant judicial body thinking that it is its job to decide on the proportionality, fairness or justice of removal, not the Home Secretary’s. The Home Secretary takes her view, but the judge and the court take their view, and it is the court’s view that prevails. That is a different model, and it does not have to be that way.

European Entry and Exit System

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I might contest the idea that we do not do very much European scrutiny in this place. That would be very difficult to say, because I do not recall ever standing at the Dispatch Box without talking about the European Union—it seems there are some colleagues who seek to talk about nothing else. We do have the chance to look at these plans adequately.

On the point about off-site infrastructure and similar matters, the issue is not with the infrastructure available. We can have the best infrastructure available, but if the technology that pulls through to it does not work, the system will not work. My absolute belief, which the hon. Gentleman will get to challenge in due course, is that when that tech is operational, the infrastructure will be in place and in the right parts of the ports, but we need the tech to work before we can properly test that.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Despite the unholy alliance between the Minister and Members on the Tory Front Bench, this issue is clearly a product of Brexit. I visited Dover with the Home Affairs Committee last week. Dover has invested more than £40 million in infrastructure, but the software is not working, and there will be chaos unless the EES is suspended this summer. This is a Brexit dividend, but will the Minister emphasise to the French that, rather than enjoying the schadenfreude, they should know how much their economy will be damaged by the chaos that will ensue?

[Alex Norris]

On the point about alliances, I have always taken the view in this Chamber that if I agree with somebody, I say that I agree with them; if I disagree with them, I say that I disagree with them. It does not really matter which party or what part of the UK they come from. That is in the interests of all our constituents.

The hon. Gentleman has heard my answer to the point about Brexit. Whatever the well-meant and different positions we may hold, I know for certain that if we went tapping on the windows of people in queues to say, “By the way, do you know that this is about Brexit?”, they would not consider that a suitable or sufficient answer from their leaders.

I do not recognise the point about the French and schadenfreude. I have not heard that in this debate, and it is certainly not the view of the Government. We always see these things as shared challenges with our neighbours. We have what we think is a very important way forward, and we are having conversations with our neighbours.

Protest Policing

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Any conditions that may or may not be placed on a static protest are matters for the police—those are operational matters. They have the powers available to them and I am sure they will make use of them, in the way they have been doing with protests that have been taking place across the capital for some time now. They would, of course, take into account many of the factors that the right hon. Gentleman raises in his question to me.

Let me caution a little on the description of the difference between a static protest and a moving procession of public assembly. It is not a loophole. The law deliberately treats the two things differently, because the policing challenges of a static protest are different in nature from the challenge of policing a march that is moving from one location to another. The Public Order Act recognises the difference between those two things. The police have the powers to place conditions on the way a static protest takes place. In my opinion, they have made use of those conditions very well to date and I am sure they will continue to do so.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

Notwithstanding my liberal instincts, I too agree with the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit this march given Iran’s targeting of UK nationals abroad and our allies overseas. That targeting also occurs here in the UK. It occurred in my constituency with the stabbing of an Iranian dissident journalist two years ago. What specific steps is the Home Secretary taking to protect Iranian dissidents here in the UK who might be targeted by the Iranian state?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will bank the fact that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my instincts on this one—perhaps I am not so authoritarian after all. He raises a more serious point about dissidents. We know the threat posed to dissidents here on UK soil by the Iranian regime. He rightly noted an earlier case. Let me assure him that we work very closely with Counter Terrorism policing and our security services on monitoring the threats posed to all individuals in the UK by foreign states. We are always ready to take any appropriate action. Indeed, the police and the security services take action every day.

West Midlands Police

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is presenting a particular picture of operational independence, which he knows is a difficult line to tread for all Home Secretaries and something that is guarded very closely by police. It would have been wholly inappropriate for me to try to carry out my own risk assessment, and if I were to challenge West Midlands police on the basis on which those decisions were made—as I was subsequently able to do once a decision was made—I would have been dependent on what they were telling me in the first place. I was not told that they would seek a ban on visiting fans; I was told that all options were on the table and that that was one of the things that was being considered. I was not told that it was going to be done. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Sir Andy’s letter: the first paragraph of the final page of that letter sets out what actually happened and I absolutely refute any suggestion that I was told definitively on 8 October in the way that the chief constable has suggested. That did not happen.

On contact between the Home Office and No. 10, that would have happened in the usual way, but the first any of us were aware of the decision being brought forward and being made earlier than anticipated and that a ban was going to be pursued was on 16 October. I was not aware of any intelligence about any planned armed attacks by local people; that was never put to me.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I asked Chief Constable Guildford on two occasions whether AI was used in the preparation of the police report and he denied it both times, so I am pleased the truth has emerged and he is now considering his position. However, may I press the Home Secretary on the use of AI? I hear what she said, but while we await the Home Office’s guidance, will she issue preliminary instructions to chief constables asking them not to use AI in such circumstances?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman particularly for his assiduous work on the Home Affairs Committee in relation to the hearings on this matter. I would hope that all police leaders have heard loud and clear the issue in relation to AI. I do not think any of them would want to fall foul of an AI hallucination. At best that is a deeply embarrassing finding, but it is also pretty damning of the overall approach taken in this case, and I am sure all police chiefs will want to make sure they do not get into the same position. The Home Office will set out our broader vision for how AI should be used in policing, because it clearly has a role to play, and how the police should hold themselves to account and the regulations under which the use of AI should be monitored, so that we can all have confidence that it is being used appropriately.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Member is right. I am very familiar with Sutton Coldfield—and my husband is a Villa season ticket holder, as are my twin boys. It is in some ways the bane of my life, because I never see them as they are always at Villa. It is worth saying that Villa fans are lovely and it is a lovely club. They are devastated that there would be any of this controversy. They just want to play football, watch football, support football, support their players and get on with it. Having talked to lots of them, I know that they have found the whole thing upsetting. They just want to watch the football.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, Birmingham is a great city. I pay tribute to the faith communities in his area and, I suspect, in many of our constituencies where the Faiths Together groups meet and bring different leaders together to ensure that we are all learning from each other and living side by side in peace.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

According to the response to the Home Affairs Committee by the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, the Home Office was fully briefed in advance on the likely recommendation to ban visiting fans from the match, so can the Minister explain why the Government failed to offer additional support for the match to go ahead until after the ban was finalised?

[Sarah Jones]

We were not fully briefed in advance of the decision; we were told when the decision was made. As we have already said, we knew that options were being considered. This is the way in which these processes work: a safety advisory group makes recommendations, and the local authority responds accordingly. In response to what has happened, we are asking the inspector to look at the safety advisory groups and tell us whether we need to make some changes.

Asylum Policy

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do believe it complies with those principles. At the moment at the end of the five years there is already supposed to be a safe country review. We will bring that forward and make the safe country review a real thing. As I have said, we will also create, alongside the core protection route, the protection work and study route, because we want to encourage people to make a contribution to this country.

Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend raises the crucial part of the equation. Over the past year, we have made significant inroads in our efforts to disrupt organised crime and the people who use this model to prey on others. We have done 350 disruptions—an increase of 40% on what we inherited. These are embedded gangs who have had a six-year head start on this Government thanks to the Conservatives. That work is vital, but underpinning the gangs’ business model is the attraction of this country. We have to remove the hotels and illegal working to make sure we are not so attractive.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

My colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) made an excellent point. The asylum accommodation contract signed under the previous Tory Government gifted scandalously high profits to private providers. Frankly, it is a PPE-type scandal. Clearsprings’ profits soared from £6,000 per employee in 2020 to £300,000 per employee in 2024, with its owner Graham King entering the Sunday Times rich list. Vast sums are still being wasted on asylum hotel accommodation under those same flawed arrangements, despite this Government having been in power for 16 months, and the numbers housed in hotels has increased by 8% over the past year. Will the Minister please explain how any new asylum accommodation will be provided in a cost-effective manner that does not allow private companies to make further obscene profits on the backs of the UK’s hard-working people?

[Alex Norris]

We have to work within the parameters of the contracts that we inherited from the Conservatives, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we have reduced that bill by £1 billion, including £500 million from hotels. We are looking further at the profit-sharing elements of those contracts, and are recouping money for the taxpayer by making sure we get the best deal possible.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Paul Kohler Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on leading this important debate. I begin by declaring an interest: a previous donor to my election campaign has an interest in Stay Belvedere Hotels, a sub-contractor of Clearsprings, which is one of the three principal providers of asylum accommodation under the Home Office contract. I am also a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which recently completed an inquiry into asylum accommodation and will be issuing its report later this month. Although I will not be speaking in my capacity as a member of that Committee or revealing conclusions from the forthcoming report, I will make reference during my speech to evidence given to the Committee in open session that is already in the public domain.

As we have heard, the British taxpayer is wasting obscene amounts of money on the provision of asylum accommodation, not through generosity, but because of the incompetence and cynicism of the previous Conservative Government and the failure of the current Labour Administration, I am afraid, to address those deficiencies. The processing of applications was deliberately delayed under the Tories as they sought to make political capital from their flawed Rwanda scheme. According to the latest figures, nearly 90,000 applications are outstanding in respect of 110,000 people, with 60% having waited over six months and one third over a year. That represents a huge waste of public money, which is why my party is calling for the establishment of nightingale processing centres to clear the backlog within a year, paid for by an immediate and dramatic reduction in accommodation costs, which are far too high, particularly in respect of hotels.

Why are hotel costs so high? As I have seen, it is not as if the accommodation is luxurious, with two or three to a room in hotels that have turned into overcrowded hostels. The cost is so high because the Conservative Government agreed contracts that gave the three principal providers of asylum accommodation huge incentives to house applicants in hotels. The profit clawback clause in the contract was based on a fixed percentage of the cost of the accommodation provided. As the base cost of a hotel accommodation is up to eight times more expensive than other accommodation, providers could make up to eight times the profit before the clause kicked in. The private providers consequently had a huge disincentive to move applicants out of hotels after the pandemic ended, and that is why more than 30,000 are still in hotels. Despite what the Government say in the media, those numbers are again on the rise, with the latest figures showing an 8% increase in the number of applicants housed in hotels in the last 12 months.

The flawed accommodation contract is the reason why Clearsprings’ profits rose from £6,000 per employee in 2020 to a staggering £300,000 per employee in 2024. Yet, when I asked about the profit clawback clause during a Home Affairs Committee evidence session, it was clear that neither the Minister—not this Minister, I hasten to add, but his predecessor—nor her senior officials even knew how the profit clawback clause worked. Neither did they show any appetite for renegotiating the provision or any great enthusiasm for exiting the contracts, despite a break clause that becomes operative from next year.

In addition to the hugely inflated costs of providing accommodation, asylum seekers are an excessive drain on the public purse because, unlike in other countries, those awaiting a decision in the UK are banned from working for at least a year. In contrast, Canada allows applicants to begin working immediately, and Germany after three months. The UK stands as an absolute outlier in taking such a restrictive approach, despite evidence showing that early work boosts integration and the economy, reduces dependency, restores dignity and saves taxpayers money. The UK’s current position is indefensible, which is why the Lib Dems have joined with many groups in civil society in calling for an end to the ban.

The asylum system is failing both those who seek refuge and the public who fund it. Endless delays, costly hotels and flawed contracts provide neither justice nor value for money. We need faster processing, an end to the ban and an accommodation system that does not allow the private sector to make obscene profits. Finally, I remind hon. Members that undocumented migrants became an issue only with the advent of Brexit. Under the Dublin accord, would-be applicants could be returned to their first point of entry into the EU. In answer to the point that the Tories have kept making this afternoon, it acted as a huge disincentive to crossing the channel.

While the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) fathered Brexit, his friends in the Conservative party delivered it and Labour sadly chose to be its nursemaid. They vowed to make Brexit work, but it appears today, in reports from across the Atlantic, that the Chancellor is finally seeing that that might not be possible. I asked the UK Border Security Commander at the Home Affairs Committee last week if he could give me just one example of how Brexit had secured our borders, and he was unable to do so, as can be seen on TikTok. That is why the only way to properly secure our borders is to re-engage with Europe.