Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Siân Berry Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Public Bill Committees

Regulations

[Siân Berry]

I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 50, page 52, line 1, at end insert—

“(1A) Where any provision of this Act includes a power to make regulations and such provision or regulations would affect—

(a) the identification of victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,

(b) the provision of support to victims of slavery and human trafficking in Scotland, or

(c) any duties on Scottish public authorities relating to tackling slavery and human trafficking in Scotland,

the Secretary of State must consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making such regulations.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with and receive consent from Scottish Ministers before making regulations relating to slavery and human trafficking which affect Scotland.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 134.

Clause stand part.

Government amendment 127.

Clause 51 stand part.

Government amendments 128, 135, 129, 136 and 46.

Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

[Siân Berry]

It is great to have you finishing up the Committee for us, Dr Murrison.

I have tabled amendment 69 in relation to clause 50 and part 1. That area of the Bill gives the Secretary of State quite broad power to make regulations that are consequential to the Bill. As it stands, the Bill has quite a range of implications for Scottish trafficking laws and how they are carried out. The amendment aims to ensure that the Government receive consent from Scottish Ministers before introducing regulations affecting slavery and human trafficking.

The amendment refers in particular to clause 11, which creates a new legal procedure for claim notices requiring people to notify the Home Office of any reasons or grounds for why they should be allowed to enter, remain or not be removed from the UK. In that respect, the Bill tries to shift the burden of responsibility on to survivors by creating the obligation to treat a failure to disclose relevant details at the earliest opportunity as damaging to one’s credibility.

The way things are looked at in Scottish law seem to be different from the English approach. This kind of restrictive approach to vulnerable groups seeking sanctuary in the UK seems to contradict the commitments in Scotland to the UN refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under the inter-agency co-ordination group against trafficking. Those obligations require victim identification procedures to take into account the possibility of trauma, coercion and subsequent delayed disclosure. The amendment would help by forcing the Government to look again at how clause 11 might interfere with the obligation placed on Scottish Ministers via the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 to provide support to victims of trafficking.

Section 9 of that Act requires Scottish Ministers to secure necessary support and assistance for adult victims of human trafficking, and gives Scottish Ministers their own statutory duty. That duty is triggered by a reasonable grounds decision. The new credibility penalty in clause 11 seems therefore to conflict with the statutory framework established by the 2015 Act and with the approach enshrined within it—a fundamental human rights approach to believing survivors.

That statutory inconsistency between the two provisions poses a question of how reserved powers within the Bill and devolved functions will interact. Consideration must be given to the Bill’s implications for those devolved powers, particularly in relation to trafficking frameworks, and to whether the Bill’s provisions can be enacted without undermining existing statutory duties in Scotland.

I worked with the Scottish Refugee Council on the amendment. It recommends that Scotland should maintain its greater flexibility to provide secure immigration status for trafficking survivors, and its goals of supporting recovery and reducing the risk of re-trafficking. To do that, the Bill should explicitly protect the operation of the 2015 Act and preserve Scottish Ministers’ discretion to provide support. The amendment is therefore needed to ensure that UK immigration measures do not impede the fulfilment of devolved duties on trafficking.

Although I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote, I hope that the Government will look again and discuss this matter further with Scottish Ministers before the Bill’s final stages.

[Blake Stephenson]

We have reached the final provisions of the Bill—“Hurrah!”, I hear everyone say. These provisions cover regulations, extent and commencement. Such clauses are often treated as housekeeping, but how and when the Bill comes into force decides whether anything in it actually happens. And here the Government’s amendments tell a revealing story.

Government amendment 134 would mean that regulations made under the core protection powers are subject to affirmative procedure where they amend primary legislation. That is right; where Ministers change Acts of Parliament, Parliament should be able to vote. I only wish that the Government had applied that principle consistently. My amendment 142 would have done the same for regulations exempting further categories of people from contributing to the cost of their asylum support. As drafted, Ministers can widen those exemptions by negative procedure without a single vote. If the principle is good enough for Government amendment 134, it is good enough for amendment 142.

Government amendments 127 to 129 and 136 deal with extent to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and with aligning commencement dates with the provisions that they amend. They are technical amendments, and you will be pleased to hear, Dr Murrison, that we do not intend to divide the Committee on them.

Government amendment 135 deserves the Committee’s attention, however. As the Bill was introduced, part 3—on core protection—would have come into force automatically two months after Royal Assent. Under Government amendment 135, it will come into force only when the Secretary of State chooses to make regulations. A fixed date of implementation has become an open-ended discretion. Government amendment 46 gives the Lord Chancellor a new power to rewrite tribunal rules around the start of the new appeals authority, again by negative procedure and with no vote required.

The Government can move quickly when they want to. Government amendment 47 brings the new deportation provisions into force on Royal Assent. The question, then, is not whether Ministers can set a firm date, but why, on the central reforms of the asylum system, they are now choosing not to. The Government’s message on asylum has been about urgency: “The system is broken and must be fixed.” Yet when it comes to the provisions that are meant to fix it, the start date slips from a certainty to a maybe. We saw the same pattern on settlement this week. It started with a policy announced a year ago; it was delayed from April to the autumn; and when it finally arrived, it was softened. There is tough language, but the Government are quietly kicking the can down the road.

Amendment 69 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion would require the Secretary of State not only to consult Scottish Ministers, but to obtain their consent before making any regulations under the Bill that affect the identification or support of victims of modern slavery in Scotland or the duties of Scottish public authorities.

I recognise that victim support in Scotland operates within a devolved framework. Ministers should talk to their Scottish counterparts, but consultation and consent are very different things indeed. Consent is a veto. Immigration is a reserved matter and the national referral mechanism is a UK-wide system—one that is too often used by those facing removal to delay it. Handing the Scottish Government a block on changes to that system would create precisely the kind of divergence that people smugglers and those rigging our laws are quick to exploit. There has been an obvious pattern throughout the Committee where the Green party has tabled amendments to leave out clause after clause of the Bill. Amendment 69 is another attempt to slow down a system that already moves far too slowly, and we will oppose it.

Earlier in the Committee, we sought to put deadlines in the Bill, requiring the first time period regulations to be made within six months of the new authority being established and limiting how long cases could be routed back to the first-tier tribunal. The Government did not accept them. Amendment 135 shows why they were needed. Without dates in law, there is nothing to hold Ministers to. I therefore ask the Minister two questions. First, will she set out a timetable for commencing each part of the Bill? In particular, when does she expect part 3 to come into force? Secondly, why have the Government moved part 3 from automatic commencement to commencement by regulations, and will she commit to publishing that date before Report? If the Government are serious about fixing the system, they should be willing to say when.

As this is likely to be the last time I speak in this Committee, I thank you, Dr Murrison, and the Chairs of previous sittings; the Clerks, for their very patient work indeed on a substantial amendment paper; and the Minister and Members on all sides for this debate. We have disagreed—often sharply, but politely. The Committee has given these issues the scrutiny they deserve and we will no doubt return to many of them on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to pose another devastating challenge. I hope hon. Members feel the intentness with which we listened and absorbed the discussion and debate. Many things from this Committee will influence a lot of our thinking.

To conclude, I just want to say a few more things on the Bill. We are proud of the protection that we provide in this country to those fleeing war and terror. However, we also know we must bear down on abuse and restore order and control to our borders. This Bill provides protection to those in need while bearing down on abuse of the system. It ensures swift and fair decisions, giving sanctuary to those in need while removing those with no right to remain. It provides robust legal protections while tackling abuse of human rights laws. It ensures that the right to support comes with responsibilities and expectations on those who receive it.

Abuse of our system is eroding public support for the very idea of providing asylum at all. This Bill ensures that our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and earns the consent of the British people, who are open, tolerant and generous, but rightly expect that we restore order and control to our borders.

[Siân Berry]

I echo some of the comments from other hon. Members on the Committee and thank the Minister for engaging with the many amendments I have tabled to the Bill, because I think they are necessary. I believe that the Bill does not reflect the long-held British value of welcoming refugees, which is still the view of the majority of people in our country. I do not think that obstructive and unfair processes, damaging attitudes and downgrading human rights will stop the criminal gangs or the boats, or tackle the lack of safe routes, which feeds the market for that kind of organised crime. However, I believe that we have had a constructive debate about many of these things, and Parliament will hopefully convince the Minister and the Home Secretary to think again. I also very much appreciate the excellent chairing that we have had.

Finally, I want to thank the many different charities, grassroots support networks, non-governmental organisations and independent experts who have helped and supported the scrutiny I have given to the Bill, not least the Refugee Council—an amazing organisation that rightly essentially won “The Traitors” last week, after Romesh Ranganathan gave his well-deserved prize money to support their work. May they long continue to be faithful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 134, in clause 50, page 52, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) regulations under section (Core protection: amendments) which amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of that section);”.—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment is consequential on NC36. The effect of it would be that regulations made under the power in the new clause inserted by NC36 would be subject to the affirmative procedure if they amended primary legislation, and otherwise subject to the negative procedure.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51

Extent

Amendment made: 127, in clause 51, page 52, line 21, at end insert—

“(3) Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 (and section 1(3) so far as relating to that paragraph) also extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1981 (see section 50(1) of that Act).

(4) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide—

(a) for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modification, to the Isle of Man, and

(b) for any of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4, and this Part so far as relating to Parts 3 and 4, to extend, with or without modification, to the Bailiwick of Guernsey.

(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised—

(a) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;

(b) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Jersey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2 or 5 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates;

(c) so as to extend (with or without modification) to the Bailiwick of Guernsey any amendment or repeal made by or under Part 2, 3 or 4 of this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.

(6) Those provisions are—

(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971;

(b) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997;

(c) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;

(d) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

(e) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004;

(f) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;

(g) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007;

(h) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;

(i) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016;

(j) section 86(4) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;

(k) section 64(4) of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.”—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment provides for the consequential amendment of the British Nationality Act 1981 in paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 to the Bill to extend to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. The amendment also provides powers for other provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52

Commencement

Amendments made: 128, in clause 52, page 52, line 23, leave out “(5)” and insert “(5B)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments 129 and 136.

Government amendment 47, in clause 52, page 52, line 30, at end insert—

“(ba) section (Liability to deportation of certain residents despite section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971);”.

This amendment would mean that the new clause inserted by NC5 would come into force on Royal Assent.

Government amendment 135, in clause 52, page 52, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment would change the way in which Part 3 (core protection) is commenced, so that instead of it commencing automatically two months after Royal Assent it would be commenced by regulations.

Government amendment 129, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—

“(5A) Section (Enforcement of decisions of the Immigration Services Commissioner) comes into force at the time when paragraphs 9 and 14 of Schedule 1 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 come fully into force.”

This amendment makes provision about the commencement of the new clause inserted by amendment NC33.

Government amendment 136, in clause 52, page 53, line 7, at end insert—

“(5B) In Schedule (Core protection: amendments)—

(a) paragraph 9(c) comes into force at the same time as paragraph 3(3) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016;

(b) paragraph 28 comes into force at the same time as section 59(3) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes fully into force;

(c) paragraph 51 comes into force at the same time section 135 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force.”

This amendment would delay the commencement of three amendments made by the new Schedule inserted by NS1, so that they come into force only when provisions being amended are brought into force.

Government amendment 46, in clause 52, page 53, line 25, at end insert—

“(11) The Lord Chancellor may by rules made by statutory instrument make amendments to Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with regulations under subsection (1) that bring Part 1 into force.

(12) Before making rules under subsection (11), the Lord Chancellor must consult the Senior President of Tribunals.

(13) A statutory instrument containing rules under subsection (11) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Anna Turley.)

This amendment would give the Lord Chancellor the power to amend Tribunal Procedure Rules in connection with the commencement of the powers of the IIAA. This may be especially needed if commencement regulations make the kind of provision mentioned in clause 52(8). (See also amendment 43.)

Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I would like to reflect on everyone’s comments in conclusion to today’s proceedings, which were well made, and add my own. I thank officials and all colleagues for the thoughtful way in which they have approached these matters.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.