Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law.

It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.

In February, Amara Relf wrote an excellent blog post called “Students need misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime”. This is how the post starts:

“When we began our roles as sabbatical officers, one priority was clear: improving student safety. Very quickly, it became apparent that while serious sexual offences can carry severe sentences, the everyday behaviours that shape women’s lives, catcalling, groping, sexually suggestive comments, and harassment, are too often minimised, overlooked, or left entirely unpunished.

Sexual harassment, as its own category, is rarely criminalised in practice. As a result, many students are left asking a difficult question: why report something when it feels unlikely that anything will be done?”

This lack of consequence not only enables harmful behaviour but also actively discourages reporting. This is why we—Lily, Amara, and Holly—have launched a petition calling for misogyny to be recognised as a hate crime.”

I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for the petition, which has attracted 114,927 signatures, including 123 from my own constituency. Amara and her colleagues also commissioned a survey among Russell Group universities that found that 67% of students would be more likely to report their experiences if misogyny were treated as a hate crime. Amara argues that

“Legal change alone won’t shift deeply ingrained attitudes—but without it, cultural change becomes even harder to achieve.”

The ingrained attitudes that the petitioner is talking about are reflected in the fact that, according to the Office for National Statistics, 23% of women aged 16 to 24, and 16% of those aged 25 to 34, have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the previous year. That is compared with around 5% of women aged 35 and older. It is clear that younger women are bearing the brunt of this sexual harassment epidemic.

The petitioner is right that the law needs to change. Take the criminal offence of harassment, which is, broadly, unwanted conduct that causes a person harassment, alarm or distress. If the perpetrator of that harassment is motivated by hostility to the victim’s religion, it is a statutory aggravating factor, which in practice means the offender’s sentence is more severe. But if the perpetrator is motivated instead by hostility to the victim’s sex or gender, that is not currently an aggravating factor. That is, in my view, wrong.

Misogyny is not currently a centrally monitored hate crime characteristic in England and Wales, so data is not currently collected about offending with a misogynistic element specifically. I am pleased to say that we are seeing positive change with this Labour Government. Following an amendment tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill—now the Crime and Policing Act 2026—by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), the Minister agreed to bring forward a Government amendment in the Lords. The resulting clause on aggravated offences is now section 145 of the Act. That will extend the racially and religiously aggravated offences in sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which includes offences like assault, harassment and criminal damage, to also cover hostility based on sex, disability, sexual orientation and transgender identity. That means that the higher maximum penalties already available for race and religion are now available in those cases too.

I strongly support that change because tackling misogyny needs to be embedded in the Government’s approach to hate crime more generally. I also support it so that hostility based on misogyny is centrally recorded, and we can finally have a true national picture of the scale of this problem.

The petitioner has also called for tougher laws against online abuse and to tackle anti-feminist hate groups that target and radicalise young people online. As she said in her article,

“For students, the online dimension is inescapable—group chats where women are rated and degraded, anonymous platforms where harassment flourishes, social media pile-ons. The algorithmically-driven spread of ‘manosphere’ content means that young men are being radicalised into misogynistic worldviews at scale, and women students are experiencing the consequences in their seminars, their societies, and their relationships.”

Last October, Ofcom issued guidance to tech firms requesting that online platforms introduce measures, such as abusability testing, time-outs for repeat offenders, easier mass-blocking tools and the demonetisation of misogynistic content. I support those measures and they all sound good in theory, but the fact that the guidance is voluntary means that it is unclear how platforms will be forced to act. As the End Violence Against Women Coalition told the Women and Equalities Committee last year, nothing less than a binding violence against women and girls code of practice is required for us to stand a chance of turning the tide against the wave of online misogyny that we are seeing.

There is also the question of the capacity of the criminal justice system to respond sensitively and effectively to victims who are brave enough to raise a complaint. The Equality and Human Rights Commission tracker notes that there is currently no compulsory training for existing police officers on responding to rape and sexual offences; only new recruits are covered. The UN Committee against Torture specifically recommended that the UK provide mandatory training on the prosecution of gender-based violence to all justice officials and law enforcement personnel, not just new recruits. Extending mandatory refresher and specialist training to serving officers would close that gap.

Women’s Aid has also called for specialist domestic abuse training to be provided to all judges, not just those in jurisdictions that frequently see VAWG cases. My constituency caseload indicates that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women presents system-level challenges. I pay tribute to brilliant local organisations, such as Rising Sun domestic violence and abuse service, Home-Start Shepway and Beech House, as well as the local police force for everything it does to support victims in our community.

There is always further that we can go, and the need for better specialist training is underlined by evidence given to the Women and Equalities Committee last year suggesting that police and safeguarding professionals often do not recognise manosphere-linked misogyny or incel ideology as a warning sign in the same way that they would with other radicalisation indicators. Training gaps often mean that genuinely concerning behaviours do not meet thresholds for intervention, such as through the Prevent programme, because they are misogynistic rather than linked to a proscribed organisation.

The petitioner is right to hope that stronger criminal laws, stronger awareness among criminal justice and safeguarding professionals, stronger support for victims and stronger online protections may help and are needed to help turn the tide of misogyny, but that is a whole-of-society effort that requires everyone, particularly men, to demonstrate what healthy attitudes to women look like.

The petitioner has made a compelling case: misogyny constrains women’s daily freedom, safety and willingness to participate fully in education, work and public life. I welcome the important progress made through section 145 of the Crime and Policing Act, but legislation must be matched by properly trained police, prosecutors, safeguarding professionals and judges; by meaningful support for those who come forward; and by enforceable action by online platforms against the abuse and radicalisation they too often enable.

We cannot wait until hatred escalates into the most serious offences before we act. We must recognise misogyny where it is present, challenge it wherever it appears and make it clear to every woman and girl that the law is on her side. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will build on that important legislative framework so that women and girls, including students in Folkestone, Hythe and Romney Marsh, can live, study and participate in a public life—free from harassment, intimidation and misogynistic abuse.

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for making an excellent speech, which I agree with wholeheartedly. Before he finishes, does he agree that it is also important for us to reflect on the intersectional nature of hate crime? Women will experience hate crime for lots of different reasons, including being a woman who is gay or a woman who is black, Asian or minority ethnic. Would he say a little about that and its importance?

[Tony Vaughan]

I defer to my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work that she has done in this area over many years. It is important that she has raised that issue, because it is something that the petitioners wrote about in the article that led to the petition and this debate.

The way that discrimination and prejudice operate is not compartmentalised by protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. Quite often, a number of those characteristics are present at the same time. It is important that we have a system that understands that first and foremost, so that we can ensure that the way that victims are dealt with actually takes account of those different needs. We will not necessarily treat everyone the same, but we will treat them in the way that they need to be treated, having regard to their protected characteristics. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.

In her summing up speech, will the Minister address some particular questions? First, when will section 145 of the 2026 Act be commenced? I understand it is not yet in force. Secondly, what assessment have the Government made of the merits of introducing sex as an aggravating factor in respect of all offending, not just offences under the Crime and Disorder Act, which is the ask of the petitioners? Finally, do the Government have any plans to require existing police officers to undergo training on gender-based violence, given that it is currently only for those being brought into the system? I look forward to hearing from her.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant policing Minister to ensure that that is explored fully.

Before I conclude, I want to cover the other issues that have been raised. On data gaps and reporting, I want to highlight that the Enough campaign is bearing fruit, but it is obviously a big piece of work. Specialist VAWG teams are also going into local areas, and a part of their role is ensuring that local police forces work with local communities so that there is an uptick in reporting, which must be taken more seriously to help address data gaps, because we know that is an ongoing concern.

I was asked about conversations with police forces, and those are ongoing. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) has left the Chamber, but he mentioned what happened to the female protester at the Reform conference. That was disgusting and unacceptable, and I know that the police are encouraging the victim to come forward; I feel we should all do the same to ensure that justice is done.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the Minister for her response, but I want to highlight the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) about cracking down on platforms that facilitate misogynistic abuse. Forgive me if the Minister has covered this, but Ofcom has come out with voluntary guidance that suggests various mechanisms for providers to follow. Ultimately, however, if they are not mandatory requirements in the same way as Ofcom’s amended codes of practice, how will that ever force these platforms to stop the monetisation of misogyny and the sorts of practices that are leading to the mass indoctrination of young people? Can she say something about how we might be tightening that up?

[Satvir Kaur]

On online abuse and harm, it is right and fitting that we work with tech companies because, fundamentally, we all have a responsibility. Where they are failing to come forward, legislation must always be the backstop. Of course, legislation is not the solution and the answer to everything, and working proactively should always be the first step, but we must ensure that we use all possible levers. The VAWG strategy makes it absolutely clear that we will continue to do that.

To conclude, I thank all Members who have participated today. The Government share the determination behind this petition. As I have set out, we have already taken significant action in this area through the Crime and Policing Act, and any further changes to hate crime legislation will be informed by the findings of Lord Macdonald’s independent review on public order and hate crime legislation. More broadly, our work to tackle violence against women and girls continues at pace. The VAWG strategy sets out a blueprint, and this Government are determined to deliver on our mission.

Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and it is one of the biggest challenges of our time. The Government recognise that it is far too serious and important an issue for us not to act firmly on it, and we will continue to do so until women and girls—whoever they are and wherever they live—feel safe and can live free from fear.

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank Amara, Lily and Holly for creating the petition that resulted in this debate, and for the opportunity to ask the Minister a lot of important questions about this vital issue. I also thank the Members who spoke in the debate, all of whom supported tightening up the current laws through the amendment to the 2026 Act. The online dimension to this problem came across particularly strongly in Members’ contributions. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the horrendous practice of nightlife videos; on the other, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) rightly underlined the critical importance of cracking down on platforms that facilitate and promote online misogyny. As the Minister said, non-contact abuse does lead to contact abuse, which is why it is particularly insidious. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) also rightly raised the important question of ensuring that support is available for victims as the systems change.

I thank the Minister for all her remarks. The petitioners will have heard them: Lord Macdonald is a former Director of Public Prosecutions and he knows the system; I do not know what he has recommended, and neither does anyone else apart from the Minister, perhaps, but it will contain the answer to the petition regarding misogyny as an aggravating feature in all cases. As the Minister has said, it is important that changes to the law have the intended effect and that is something that has to be looked at carefully. It was also encouraging to hear from her that there is expanded specialist training for police officers and that the Prime Minister has recently sped that up.

I again thank the petitioners for their petition. I also thank all those Members who have attended this debate and I thank the Minister and the Government for the significant and strong range of measures that we are taking to tackle VAWG. There is always more that we have to do. We have to go faster and we have to go further to address this issue; as the Minister says, it is one of the most important issues of our time, and we owe it to the young people here and listening across the country to succeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 746640 relating to crimes motivated by misogyny and hate crime law.

Immigration and Asylum Bill

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Well, I disagree with my hon. Friend, the Bar Council and other groups on this matter. In fact, I will shortly set out the many tribunals in which people make decisions of great import every single day without being required to be legally qualified professionals before they do so.

We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue. Some are genuine appeals, but others have been made simply to delay a legitimate removal from this country. By placing themselves last in the long queue for a hearing, people delay the date of their removal, continue to receive taxpayer support and use the time to accrue rights that could strengthen their appeal. The best way to prevent this gaming of the system is to speed up decision making while ensuring that claims are heard fully and fairly.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will in a moment. I will make a little more progress—I think I have been rather generous.

As many here will know, appeals are currently heard by judges in the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. This model, which relies on judicial availability, simply does not have the capacity to meet the scale of demand, nor does it have the flexibility to respond to sudden surges in cases. Part 1 of the Bill will therefore establish a new independent immigration appeals authority, staffed by independent adjudicators, not judges. That will allow us to recruit from a far wider pool of candidates and therefore respond more rapidly to increasing and changing demand.

To those who say that such decisions can be taken only by a judge, I need point only to the complex and weighty decisions taken each and every day by those without law degrees, such as magistrates, parole board members, ombudsmen, planning inspectors and many others. A person does not have to be a judge to have good judgment.

[Tony Vaughan]

The Home Secretary refers to the “gaming of the system”, but will she clarify the basis on which she says that? Around half of Home Office initial asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, so there is a huge issue about the quality of Home Office decision making, as various National Audit Office reports have shown. It would be useful to know the proportion of appeals that are actually, in her words, abusive.

[Shabana Mahmood]

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that the multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country are a real problem in the system. That is why our proposals include a single appeal route. With the new authority, we are seeking to change the totality of the behaviours that are designed to frustrate lawful, legitimate removal from this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I will focus in the short time that I have on part 1 of the Bill on immigration appeals reform and specifically on whether it will cut the appeals backlog.

I start by making the point that Home Office decision making is a significant driver of appeal numbers. The Home Office’s internal quality checks show an error rate of around 48% in the most recently published figures, and around 45% of Home Office refusals were overturned on appeal, according to MOJ statistics for the year ending March 2025. It is important to make the point that if those decisions were right first time, there would be substantially less pressure on the appeals system.

I fundamentally agree with the Government that the asylum appeal backlog must be addressed urgently. They were right to enact a six-month target for asylum appeals in accommodated cases in section 49 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. Since then, around 70 first-tier tribunal judges have been recruited. My first question for the Minister is this: given the increase in FTT numbers, the increase in sitting days and the impact of section 49 and other measures, where can we find the Ministry of Justice and Home Office assessment that explains why the FTT is unable to clear the backlog? Without that kind of assessment, and in particular an estimate of how much it will cost, it is impossible to understand why these far-reaching reforms are better than improving the existing system.

My second question is, why are the Government bringing forward a new model for appeals, when the Home Office’s impact assessment says that it will have an “uncertain” effect on the appeal backlog, with no evidence that the appeal reforms will actually work?

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is incredibly important that there is certainty that the reforms we are making will create a better system, rather than risk making things worse?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. Another hon. Member referred to the importance of evidence-based policymaking. When I look at the impact assessment, it is not clear to me that the case has been made. I think it fair to say that the only evidential basis for these reforms is a hope that they will be better than the current system, but that, I suggest, is not a basis on which to abolish an arm of the judiciary of this country and undertake major structural changes to a key part of our asylum system.

There is evidence to suggest that a lay adjudicator system will not work. Last week the Justice Committee heard evidence that Denmark tried to bring in lay adjudicators about 15 years ago, but, as non-lawyers, they struggled to apply the law to the facts. They made numerous errors and ended up being either too sympathetic or too harsh, and they were got rid of. Danish asylum appeals are now heard by a judge, a lawyer and a civil servant. As another Member pointed out, Australia tried the same system some years ago, but it too was got rid of because it increased the backlog.

That brings me to my third question to the Minister: what assessment has been made of the impact of this new system on the upper tribunal? I believe that the new appeals body will simply shift the backlog, or a major part of it, from the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal, because lay judges will make more legal errors that will have to be corrected on appeal to the upper tribunal. I say that on the basis of 18 years of full-time practice in the courts and tribunals of this country, when I appealed against decisions made by both lay decision makers and judges. However, that is not just my view but the view of witnesses who came before the Justice Committee last week, including a former judge of the upper tribunal itself.

Let me add that the way in which the Bill has been sold—for example, its purpose is said to be to crack down on abuse of appeals—is incorrect, given that about half those appeals are allowed. The idea that all unsuccessful appeals are abusive, as was suggested at the outset of the debate, is wrong. A case that was clearly unfounded would not go to appeal. We already have a filter to get rid of weak cases before they start.

To end, I quickly point out that in respect of every element of the reforms, the Home Office’s own impact assessment says that the effects are uncertain. There is, I suggest, scant evidential basis for believing that these measures will actually work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

We are ensuring that each police force has the additional funding that it needs, and we are rolling out our target of 13,000 additional police officers. The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question about new towns and ensuring that we have policing in them. We are reviewing the police funding formula, which is outdated, as everyone in this place knows. Through all those things together, we will ensure that his community is supported.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to community sponsorship of refugees who come here under proposed new safe and legal routes; we have several good examples of that in my constituency. What steps is she taking, in line with the recent asylum policy statement, to allow more communities like mine to sponsor refugees and support the Government’s safe and legal routes programme?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. and learned Friend knows that we have announced three specific types of safe and legal route for students and workers, as well as a community sponsorship scheme. The student scheme will go live later this year, with the first applicants arriving in the autumn of next year. We are designing the community sponsorship route with community organisations and international partners. I am sure that he will want to make representations on what his community wants to contribute to the new routes, but the design is under way, and the routes will be rolled out in due course.

Immigration Policy

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have removed 60,000 people with no right to be in this country—a 31% increase on our predecessors. It is not possible to effect return in every case; everybody knows that. There are certain countries to which we are unable to do so. In those cases, we are not effecting returns, but we have to have a system that has a backstop of removal. I think that is an accepted principle.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I acknowledge the considerable challenge that the Government have in winning back public confidence in the asylum system. The Home Office published a report last year concluding that there was insufficient evidence that restrictive asylum policies reduce claims, so will the Home Office publish evidence to show that cutting refugee leave from five years down to 30 months will deter claims in the UK? Does the Minister accept that a substantial settlement pathway of 20 years-plus is also unlikely to deter those claims?

[Alex Norris]

My hon. and learned Friend knows that we bring forward our impact assessments alongside the policies as we publish them, and as we seek to debate or implement them. He knows about the case that we made in our document in November as well. With regard to whether these policies work, I would gently say that Germany and Denmark have a similar period of time for protection, and both are seeing reductions in asylum claims. In the UK, there have been over 80,000 asylum claims for the last two years; for the previous decade, claims averaged 27,500. I do not think we can say that no change is an option.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727372 and e-petition 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I open this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I am grateful to the 330,000 people who have signed these two petitions. Evidently, they have generated a lot of interest, given the high number of hon. Members in attendance.

The Government are currently consulting on changing the rules around whether, how and after how long somebody who is legally here is entitled to permanent residence in the UK, which is known as indefinite leave to remain or ILR. The first petition was started by Laurence Bansil, who is sitting in the Gallery, and it calls on the Government to protect legal migrants and scrap the proposed 10-year settlement route. The second petition was started by Pulasthi Weerasinghe, and it calls on the Government to keep the five-year route to ILR, but to restrict access to benefits to protect the public purse.

My mother once had ILR. She came from the Philippines in the 1970s on a work visa. She worked in London hospitals, got ILR and then got British citizenship. She built a life here and cared for generations of patients right to the end of their lives. One of those patients was a former member of the House of Lords and a senior judge, and I remember my mother recounting her many conversations with him about his distinguished career, as well as about my own legal studies and aspirations, which he showed a keen interest in.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. Many of my Slough constituents, especially healthcare workers, have signed these petitions about indefinite leave to remain. Many feel that the goalposts are being moved and that this policy will have a hugely detrimental impact on their lives. Does he agree that there should be no retrospective implementation of the change? That would be truly unfair on them and on the rest of us.

[Tony Vaughan]

I do agree, and that is the exact point I was going to make.

Returning to the example I was just recounting, my mother attended this patient’s funeral, as she did for many. That shows that roles like hers are not just work; they provide a real service to the public. Her profession is extremely important during critical, vulnerable times in people’s lives. It is hard work, but vital work. However, the sector has been plagued by labour shortages for many years. After Brexit shut off the social care worker recruitment pipeline from the EU, and with a pre-existing recruitment crisis in that sector, a large vacancy problem had emerged by 2021, which led to the Home Office putting social care on the shortage occupation list. Those who came here to work have moved their entire lives here; they brought their families here as they were entitled to do. They did so when the rules said that, after five years, they could apply for settlement in the UK—that was the deal.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a compelling case. The position is particularly acute in island communities, where we need to bring people in to be part of our community. Their role is welcomed, as we cannot just ship workers in from another town or village 10, 15 or 20 miles down the road. This extended period of ILR will make it less likely that people will want to settle in communities like mine, because they will not want that extended period of uncertainty in their lives.

[Tony Vaughan]

The situation in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is similar to that in my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, where there has been a long-term recruitment and retention crisis. As a coastal area, workers can only go one way. There are massive problems and, as he said, they will be worsened by this proposal.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making a fantastic speech, and I thank him for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. According to the Royal College of Nursing, 60% of internationally educated staff without ILR have said that it is very likely that extending this qualifying period will affect their decision to remain in the UK. That equates to 46,000 nursing staff at risk of leaving the UK. Does he agree that this policy would worsen the retention crisis? Also, does he agree that the Government ought to produce an NHS-specific impact assessment for this policy?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree, and will go on to make those very points.

That was the deal. The Government are now considering doubling the wait for settlement from five years to 10, and up to 15 years for care workers. One of the most contentious elements of the consultation is that that will apply to people who are already here. I fundamentally oppose that rule change. Migrants entered this country on a contract, and the deal was simple: if they came to work in the sectors where we needed them, obeyed the law and paid their taxes, they could stay. Changing the terms of that contract after people have spent years building a life here is not just bad policy but a breach of trust. It makes Britain look unpredictable and like a country that does not keep its word. We cannot talk about earning settlement if we keep moving the goalposts after the game has started. In my view, retrospectivity is un-British and undermines our sense of fair play. The position of the two petitioners who sit in the Public Gallery is that it should be abandoned, and I wholeheartedly agree with them.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend’s mother is very proud of him. My constituents, a same-sex couple with a child, fled from Russia because of fear of persecution. They work here, they pay tax and their child is in a local school. They are fully integrated into the community, but have written to me to say that they are 10 months away from gaining ILR and feel that changing the rules retrospectively does not honour the commitments that were made to them when they were granted refugee status. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is very shameful for our country to row back on what was promised to my constituents when they first arrived here?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. It is the moving of the goalposts that most colleagues in the Chamber find really problematic.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree, as a fellow lawyer, that it is rather unusual to bring retrospective legislation into effect? There have been previous cases where legislation has been made retrospective, but that has been to punish crime. We are talking about ordinary, decent people who have come to this country to better not only their own lives but our lives and those of the rest of the community. Does he agree that it is absolutely wrong to have the law applied retrospectively, and that it puts the legal system to shame?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree. The common law sets its face against retrospectivity, and that principle should preclude this change.

I want to address other elements of the consultation. The Government suggest a system of credits, for things including “social contribution”, to shorten the 10-year wait. On the face of it that sounds reasonable, but its proposed definition is dangerously narrow. It includes the police and the NHS but inexplicably, in my view, excludes care workers in the private sector. Why are we proposing a bureaucratic minefield of “volunteering credits”, which could be very difficult to verify, while ignoring the immense social value that care workers give during a 12-hour shift looking after our elderly? Their job is their contribution, and that should be the credit.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. and learned Member is making a really important case. In my constituency, the care sector is one of the largest employers, but local providers tell me that the proposed changes could drive 10% to 20% of people out of it. Does he agree that, before proceeding with these changes, the Government must do a proper impact assessment on the care sector and address the fact that, if the NHS has different criteria for allowing settlement routes, that could punish the care sector, which is particularly struggling already?

[Tony Vaughan]

Those are exactly the points made by the first petitioner, who works in the care sector and is sitting in the Public Gallery.

I am also concerned about the proposal to place lower earners, including most care workers, on the 15-year route to settlement. We have heard about the problems of recruitment, and that will certainly make the position worse. During that limbo, people cannot progress. As one of the petitioners, Mr Weerasinghe, told me, he must complete the entire qualifying period on the same job code, meaning he has to stay, essentially, in the same job. He cannot progress and move beyond the job that he originally came here for so, at the end of the 10 years, ultimately he pays less tax. That is not in the interest of the public, and it makes no sense. If we tell a care worker they must wait 15 years for security, while Australia offers it in three and Canada in five, they will simply vote with their feet. We risk becoming a training ground for economic competitors: recruiting talent, training them up and then watching them leave for jurisdictions that offer them a stable future.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for leading this very important debate. I apologise if I frightened people with my very loud voice—[Laughter.]—but I wanted to be heard.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposal is both unfair and dehumanising? The Government need to halt it immediately. More than 1,000 of my constituents signed the petition. I have met care workers in my constituency and here in Parliament and they are very frightened for their livelihoods and their futures. Does he agree that the proposal needs to be halted?

[Tony Vaughan]

I do agree. The people already in the system who do not have stability, who do not know what will happen and who made a huge investment fear for their future, which is at stake. I want to address very briefly—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Many Members want to speak in this debate. We will try to get them all in, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has to realise that every time he takes an intervention, there is less time for speeches.

[Tony Vaughan]

I will press on quickly to the end. I just want to address very quickly public funds and integration. Mr Weerasinghe’s petition does advocate for restricting benefits for new ILR holders, but in my view that is a political choice, not an economic inevitability. If we raise core care worker pay by around £4,000 a year, that is a step towards the sector-wide fair pay agreement that Unison is calling for. Then we could bring a single care worker up to the level where they are a net contributor in tax, reducing churn in the sector and finally rewarding people who hold our health and care system together.

Under the no recourse to public funds system, many migrant families are just one crisis away from disaster. Depriving migrant families of benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled contradicts the Government’s own child poverty strategy. If we want sound public finances, we need integration. Integrated families are stable—they are renters, homeowners and taxpayers. We do not build stability by keeping people on the edge of destitution for over a decade.

I do not deny that the Government’s consultation is based on the potentially legitimate aim of ensuring that the path to settlement for non-nationals is fair and serves the public interest. But on the key consultation points, I would say abandon retrospectivity, integrate those who are already here and honour the contract. Secondly, I understand the fear of so-called leakage, where care workers get ILR after five years and then immediately quit for better pay in other sectors, but a 15-year trap is not the answer—it is a charter for exploitation and modern-day slavery. Instead, let us look at time-limited, sector-specific conditions, possibly requiring people to remain in a sector for a period of time. Thirdly, we must recognise care work as a valid social contribution, and fourthly, not overcomplicate the penalty system. We already have robust good character rules; we just need to apply the rules we already have.

I urge the Minister to listen to the voices we have heard in the petition and today in this debate. Let us drop the retrospective measures and rethink the 15-year wait. Let us be a country that has sustainable economic migration rules, but remain one that always honours its debts—not just its financial ones, but its moral ones, too.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I have not in any way implied that all migrants go into social housing. My point was the increase of 2.2 million people who would have access to it, with 1.34 million already on the waiting list and our ambition to build just 1.5 million homes in that picture. That simply is not enough, and that is just on social housing.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the Minister have evidence about how many people you think are going to switch from not claiming benefits to claiming benefits, or from not being in social housing to being in social housing, or is this just a political judgment?

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that when they say “you”, the convention is the same as in the main Chamber: they are referring to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I apologise, Ms Lewell.

[Mike Tapp]

What I am not going to do is make up facts and figures on the spot, but I do not have an absolute fact to give my hon. and learned Friend. What I can say is that around 15% of people on universal credit are not British nationals. That is a reflection on the demand that this can put on our welfare system and, of course, on housing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the petitioners, the 330,000 signatories and all hon. Members who have attended to speak in this debate over the last three hours. I have been struck by the fact that every single Back-Bencher who has spoken opposes the retrospectivity of the measures for those who are already here, on the basis that they undermine basic British fairness. There is no basis at all to apply these rules, even to those who have pending applications, given that they are even closer to the point where they would otherwise benefit.

The differing impacts of different ILR qualification rules on members of the same family was mentioned by various Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards), and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). It was also said that the changes could lock victims into situations of domestic violence. That is absolutely right. I have worked on such situations in the past, and have seen that that is a very real threat.

Many hon. Members talked about the increasing settlement period, which would entrench exploitation by being tied to a single employer, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and the hon. Members for Witney (Charlie Maynard) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).

Members were also concerned that the proposals will damage our ability to attract and retain the skills our country needs in a whole range of sectors. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). Those concerns came especially from Members from the more remote parts of the country, such as my constituency of Folkestone and Hythe; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart), my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and others.

The Minister cited the additional numbers who could qualify for ILR, but the view that that is a burden that we need to relieve ourselves of is too short term and narrow. It assumes that migrants will switch to benefits or reliance on local authority housing, and I cannot see any evidential basis for that assertion. The Minister said that 15% of those on universal credit are non-nationals, but looking at the UK population, around 20% are foreign-born, so it seems that group is less reliant on benefits than the population as a whole.

Across the Chamber today we have heard about the damage to community cohesion and integration—those are real points that must be very seriously taken into account. It is not about reducing immigration—I think it was only the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who wrongly suggested that it is. It is about settlement and who gets to belong here after they have contributed for so long.

I want to end on a point that was raised by other hon. Members. It is really important, given the strength of feeling that we have heard today, that there is an opportunity for MPs to express their views about these measures if they are to proceed in any form. I suggest that a motion passed by negative resolution is not an apt way to do that. It is important that everybody who has spoken today feeds into the consultation so the views that the Government have reflect the views of the country as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 727372 and 746363 relating to indefinite leave to remain.

Immigration Reforms: Humanitarian Visa Routes

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish]

The right hon. Member has been a tireless advocate for this group of people. I completely agree with everything that he said and I am sure we will continue to work together on these issues.

Over the weekend, I received hundreds of real-life stories from Hongkongers who fell into five main groups, of which a couple have already been referenced. Those groups are, first, self-employed people whose income has varied significantly from year to year since arriving here; secondly, primary carers, typically women, who have purposefully stayed at home to look after young or old dependants; thirdly, children still completing their education; fourthly, older couples who work limited hours for age and health reasons; and finally, families who for practical reasons will not be able to arrange for everybody to study and demonstrate linguistic competency in the next few months.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that this policy framework distinguishes between immigration control on the one hand and, on the other hand, how we treat lawfully present migrants? Does he agree that we must restore order and control to the system for those coming into the UK, but that once people are here, we need to encourage integration and value non-monetary contributions as well, so that we do not skew the system away from the integration that we ultimately need to see for those who are lawfully here?

[James Naish]

Absolutely. I think that the concept of a retrospective introduction of criteria is what is really concerning residents, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will have been listening to the point that my hon. and learned Friend just made.

With months to go until many BNO families hit the five-year mark, the possibility of a sudden shift has understandably caused anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the following questions. First, if the Government are to impose a financial test, could this be an assessed contribution at household level rather than for each person in isolation? Secondly, will the Government consider introducing transitional arrangements so that anyone already on a pathway to ILR is not subject to new conditions retrospectively? Thirdly, will the Government consider exempting the BNO route from the changes altogether, having openly acknowledged this group’s historic attachment to the United Kingdom? Fourthly, if these new rules are needed, will the Government look into common-sense exemptions for pensioners, children, disabled people and others whose earning and linguistic potential is likely to remain low?

Asylum Policy

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I would hope that we can move very quickly indeed. As I have said, though, we will do so as we restore order and control to the broken system that we have. To be candid with the House, the safe and legal routes will be modest to start with, but they will grow over time. As we restore order and control to the system, we will see those routes grow. We will work with partners from across the philanthropy sector, the UN Refugee Agency and other stakeholders as we design the new community sponsorship models that will in future bear the load of helping to bring refugees into this country, to settle them and, ultimately, to integrate them successfully into this country.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I acknowledge the gargantuan task that the Home Secretary has to regain public confidence in our asylum system. We must ensure that reflected in our asylum system is not only fairness and contribution, but compassion, which is also a quintessentially British value and is reflected in the work of charities like Napier Friends in my constituency, which supports those staying at Napier barracks.

My question is about the appeal reforms. What is the rationale for the professionally trained adjudicators when we already have a specialist judiciary with expertise to decide these cases? What is it about the adjudicator model that will mean that adjudicators are in a better position to decide these cases than those under the current system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. and learned Friend mentions compassion. The compassion of our reforms will be reflected in the safe and legal routes, through which we will accept refugees into our country under a community sponsorship model and resettle and integrate them successfully; that is what will bear the load of fulfilling our international obligations. I know that people across our country will be proud to do so because, as he rightly says, compassion is a fundamental value of all our people, along with fairness and contribution. Taken together, these reforms strike the right balance.

The appeal system is completely shot to pieces at the moment. It is riven with backlogs and even increasing judicial sitting days will not make the difference. It is absolutely appropriate that we design a new appeal system that is independent and has early legal advice available right at the start, and it is proper for the Government to set the framework for the speed at which cases can be heard, including fast-tracking claims that have no chance of success or are from countries with low grant rates in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend knows that listing within the current system is a matter for the independent judiciary, and we would never seek to interfere with that. With a new appeal system, the Government will be able to set the framework for the speed at which cases are heard, as well as providing legal advice at the start so that we have one claim, one appeal and certainty at the end of the process.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 705383 and 718406 relating to support and accommodation for asylum seekers.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I lead this debate for the Petitions Committee, and I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I receive from the Refugee, Asylum, Migration and Policy Project. I start by thanking the petition creators, Robert Barnes and Bob Clements, and all those who have signed the two petitions. Mr Barnes’s petition calls on the Government to

“Shut the migrant hotels down now and deport illegal migrants housed there”,

and was signed by more than 256,000 people. Mr Clements’s petition calls on the Government to

“Stop financial and other support for asylum seekers”,

and has more than 427,000 signatures.

Mr Barnes, whom I spoke with last week, does not oppose asylum. He believes that we should grant sanctuary to those fleeing persecution at home. He is absolutely right about that fundamental truth. It is who we are. Our British values of fairness and decency explain why, across generations, we have welcomed refugees from the across the globe—those escaping Hitler’s tyranny, Idi Amin’s brutality or Soviet oppression. Each time, some voices demanded closed borders, and each time, Britain chose humanity over heartlessness.

Those values were in action when, on 14 October 1914, 16,000 Belgian refugees reached Folkestone harbour in my constituency in one day, fleeing Germany’s invasion. Those arrivals instantly doubled the town’s population, yet locals immediately organised food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Some 250,000 Belgian refugees found sanctuary across Britain during world war one, which reflected the instinctive human compassion for others’ desperation—a compassion built into our British sense of fairness.

We see those values enduring in my constituency today, in the activities of the local charity Napier Friends, which supports residents at Napier barracks. The charity has achieved incredible things, running English classes and creating volunteer opportunities to help our local community, including litter picking and organising gleaning, which is essentially collecting extra local produce to donate to food banks for people who need that extra food. My recent Napier visit showed outstanding work both by Napier Friends and current staff, and I thank them for all their work and for the compassion they show in doing it.

The key question the petitions ask is simple: how should we treat people while they wait for their asylum decision from the UK Government? It is that waiting time that costs the state money, because asylum applicants cannot work for the first 12 months. There is a strong argument for shortening that period to around six months, as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain have done, to ease pressure on the accommodation system. Mr Barnes told me that he does not want to throw asylum applicants out on to the street. He wants to end hotel use. He wants to speed up asylum processing. He wants us to be quicker at removing people with no right to stay.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I am grateful for the hon. and learned Member’s opening remarks. I too would like to put on record the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum, Migration and Policy Project. The Government have managed to get the number of people waiting for initial decision down by 18% in the last year, which is good, but the number waiting for an appeal is up by 88%. One in two asylum seekers has no access to legal representation through the process, and that is what is slowing it down. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that ensuring that asylum seekers get that representation is just, and also will oil the wheels so we get people moved quicker?

[Tony Vaughan]

I agree with the hon. Member that we absolutely must ensure that those seeking asylum have proper access to legal aid. It is much quicker and cheaper in the long run if we can flush out all the claims at the outset, so that we do not have them raised at the last minute, when perhaps costs are higher. I am absolutely behind the hon. Member on that.

On the points that Mr Barnes made to me, I agree with him, and I imagine that the Government do too. Labour’s manifesto promised to end hotel use by the end of this Parliament, and we are already well ahead of schedule. Hotel use peaked in August 2023 at £9 million spent every day across 400 facilities; since taking power, Labour has already cut hotel numbers in half and slashed £500 million yearly from asylum hotel costs, closing 23 asylum hotels.

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

On the hon. and learned Gentleman’s claim that the Government are making progress, does he expect the total number of nights spent in hotels by asylum seekers to be higher or lower this year than it was last year?

[Tony Vaughan]

I do not know what is going to happen; I cannot predict the future. The point I am making is that the measures that are being taken are moving us faster in the right direction than even we had intended at the outset of the Parliament.

Labour also promised to clear the asylum backlog created by the last Government’s effective pausing of asylum decision making. This Labour Government have recruited more decision makers and sped up processing. In the first six months of this year, the Government processed about 60,000 asylum claims—around 70% more than the same period last year. On removing those with no right to stay, enforced returns have been increased by 25%, compared with the Conservatives’ final years in office.

There is of course still much more to do to win back public confidence in our asylum system. Mr Barnes supports the use of larger sites such as Napier barracks in Folkestone and former RAF Wethersfield. I visited Napier recently; while it has historically had poor conditions, they have improved in recent years. Napier costs the state around £106 per night, which is less than hotels, albeit not drastically so, and we should not forget that the set-up costs for large sites are huge—in the case of Wethersfield they were around £49 million.

The real alternative to hotels could be social housing. We must push for a better way than paying billions of pounds to private companies that make millions in profit, when that money could be spent on buying up assets and replenishing our national housing stock for the future. The BBC reports that the Home Office is looking into pilot schemes on that front. Any option that redirects even some of this accommodation expenditure into publicly owned housing assets, while supporting the asylum accommodation even temporarily, deserves serious attention.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent case. I understand that we are having this debate because 427,000 people signed the petition, but I hope that they are never in the circumstances that asylum seekers find themselves in. In terms of the accommodation, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that as we are moving people out of hotels and into better, community-based facilities, we need wraparound support in health and education, particularly learning English, legal support, integration into our communities and learning about British culture?

[Tony Vaughan]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I will turn now to the issue of asylum support, and make two key points. First, people claiming asylum cannot access the UK’s mainstream benefits system. They receive initial full-board accommodation for 90 days, plus about £10 weekly. After that they move to longer-term housing and get around £49.18 a week for food, clothing and toiletries, which is much less than universal credit rates.

Secondly, the UK’s asylum support system is not a pull factor, as some, including Migration Watch, have claimed. The UK rate of £49.18 weekly barely beats France’s €47.60. Once we add in the costs of making an illegal crossing from France, the UK benefits system does not leave an adult male asylum seeker in a better position than in France. Evidence also shows that family, community and cultural connections matter far more than the benefits system.

Picture this, Dr Murrison: imagine that tomorrow we cut all asylum seeker financial support and closed all asylum hotels. What would happen next? Without alternatives, it would increase rough sleeping by over 500%, with over 30,000 more destitute people on our streets. That approach would clearly be immoral, as I trust hon. Members would agree. It would also pile massive pressure on social services, local authorities, NHS emergency services and the police.

The petitioners’ alternative to state support in the community is mass detention. Migration Watch also calls for the detention of all asylum claimants, as its director told me in a conversation last week as I prepared for this debate. Let us think that through. It would clearly be unlawful. It would also be inhumane, financially ruinous and completely useless. There are about 102,000 people in UK asylum accommodation, but our immigration detention capacity is only 2,200, so we would need a massive new detention facility expansion for immediate mass detention.

What would that expansion cost? Based on Ministry of Justice prison expansion plans, the National Audit Office estimates that a single new prison place would cost at least £470,000, excluding land and other costs. That is £47 billion for 100,000 detention places, which is about a third of the entire NHS budget. On top of that, immigration detention costs are about £122 per day, adding up to around £4.5 billion per year for that number of people. Clearly, detention on that scale would mean massive cuts to public services and huge tax rises.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

We would all like to see an end to the use of hotels, which is both wasteful and very unpopular in local communities. However, would the hon. and learned Member agree that the long-term solution to that, releasing pressure across the entire system, is a proper returns agreement with as many countries as possible, but definitely with France, so that we do not need to use any form of accommodation, large camps or hotels?

[Tony Vaughan]

We did have a returns agreement with Europe before we withdrew from the European Union—the Dublin regulation. It was this Government that negotiated a new agreement with France in the UK-France deal. That deal, which is compliant with all the international obligations we have, is the potential way forward to solving the problem.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the hon. and learned Member accept that under the Dublin regulation the United Kingdom was a net recipient of refugees?

[Tony Vaughan]

The reality is that, if we do not have a mechanism in place—and it was essentially jettisoned by the Conservative party—there is no way of creating either a deterrent or a way of working with our colleagues in Europe to address these problems upstream. If we took the position of the Conservative party, which is to withdraw from the European convention and other international instruments, who would work with us upstream? France would not have signed that UK-France deal—signed in the summer by the Prime Minister—if we had been outside of the European convention on human rights. It is Brexit 2.0 from the Opposition. The Government are offering serious alternatives that simply are not being offered by anyone else.

What would mass detention actually achieve? The answer is nothing at all. It would not make it easier to carry out removals, because detention is already used for people who are ready for removal. Somebody with an outstanding asylum claim or who has no travel documents cannot be removed anyway. Would mass detentions stop people from coming? That is highly doubtful.

It is easy to underestimate how incredibly desperate many of the people who are arriving on small boats are. We assume that deterrents will defeat desperation, but both the Rwanda gimmick and other populist plans assume too much about the psychology of the people making these dangerous journeys. Mass detention is easy to say, but it is just another gimmick—inhumane, extortionate and, I am afraid, completely pointless.

During my recent visit to Napier barracks, I met an Iranian teacher who said simply, “I just want to live safely.” I believe that we can show the compassion to give him that chance, while keeping order and control in our asylum system. The Government’s current path of clearing the backlog, cutting hotel use, and increasing removals where claims have been refused deserves our full support. Most people simply want a fair, competent asylum system that commands both our conscience and our confidence.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Member said he met an asylum seeker at Napier barracks who said that they just wanted to be safe. Assuming that they had come from France, did he investigate with that person why they were unsafe in France?

[Tony Vaughan]

The logic of that is that every country neighbouring a conflict zone should take all the refugees. That is an absurd proposition. We have to take our fair share of refugees. We take fewer than other European countries, and a responsible approach to this issue accepts that there is not an obligation to claim asylum in any particular country. The question is whether we are taking our fair share and complying with our international obligations—which, as I have said, the UK-France deal will achieve if it can be scaled up.

Most people want a fair, competent asylum system that processes claims in months rather than years, with a sustainable asylum support system that ultimately upholds the values that make us who we are as a nation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

When President Macron visited earlier this year, he said part of the problem was that there were far too many pull factors in Britain. Giving people the right to work would, to my mind, be another pull factor. The Government would quite rightly say, “Well, you didn’t manage to do it either,” but I would much rather we were able to control our borders ab initio, so that we did not have to face the problem of asylum hotels.

[Tony Vaughan]

I want to underline the point I made in my speech, which is that France has a six-month period before work is permitted, so there is not that pull factor, or certainly not at that point.

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention.

I am going to be a bit “beggar thy neighbour”-ish, I am afraid, but my reason for highlighting the Stanwell hotel is that I believe a number of the other contracts run to two or three years longer than the one there. Given that it is Government policy to close all asylum hotels within this Parliament, I encourage the Minister to place the Stanwell hotel at the top of the list. Not only is it not good to renegotiate a contract when we do not have to, but if the Government are going to do all this in the space of this Parliament, they need to start somewhere, and I recommend that they start with the Stanwell hotel in my Spelthorne constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I hope the Government’s policy is successful. It is just that in the 12 months since they took office, the problem has got worse by 50%. I will explain why. The large numbers of young men we see crossing the channel in small boats are not refugees; they are economic migrants. They have travelled through several safe countries before reaching Calais. The reason that people are prepared to pay to cross the channel in a small boat is that they know that having reached Britain, there is virtually no prospect of their ever being deported. This Government are guilty of self-harm in closing the Rwanda scheme before it started. Had the scheme been allowed to operate and large numbers of those crossing the channel been deported to Rwanda, the economic model of the people smugglers would have been broken. Instead, Labour lets them stay indefinitely.

Labour is increasing the use of hotels in town centres. In June 2024, 29,585 people were in hotels; now, the figure is 32,059. The numbers are going in the wrong direction and we cannot allow that to continue. We should close the asylum hotels and deport illegal migrants.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the hon. Member accept that under the Conservative Government asylum applications were essentially paused, which had a huge knock-on effect on accommodation costs and the number of people who had to be accommodated, and that that caused the crisis that we are in?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Of course; that is part of creating a deterrent in which we say to those crossing the channel, “If you enter the country illegally, you will not be entitled to claim asylum and you will be transferred to a third country.” Interestingly, the European Union is now exploring that, and the facilities in Rwanda are currently being used by the United States, so other countries understand the need for a deterrent.

If we want to reduce the number of refugees in hotels and temporary accommodation, we need to change the way we deal with refugees. In my view, Parliament should decide how many refugees Britain accepts each year, exactly as we did with the Syria scheme. We should then provide a safe and legal route for those refugees, who should be taken exclusively from UN refugee camps. At present, we have the morally repugnant situation that millions of people are sitting in refugee camps around the world with no prospect of being rehomed, while those who jump the queue and pay money to get into a small boat are given licence to live in Britain forever. Does the Minister think that is moral? That creates a perverse incentive, which puts lives at risk, funds organised crime and stops us controlling who we let into our country. The Government must reintroduce the deterrent of deporting illegal migrants if they are ever to solve the small boats problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Pochin]

I will make a bit of progress. The immediate action needs to be that all these hotels are closed to illegal migrants, and that they are moved out of the community into holding centres to be processed and sent home. The conditions in which they are held in these processing centres will be humane but not luxurious. There will be no free tickets to theme parks and no free trips out into the community.

I had an asylum hotel—the Daresbury hotel—in my constituency. My campaign in the recent by-election saw the hotel eventually shut down, but the implications of shutting the hotels are that these illegal migrants are dispersed in houses of multiple occupancy in our communities. In Runcorn, we have approximately 900 illegal migrants in 80 HMOs that we know about. Once in those HMOs, they are lost to the authorities, yet still live free at the taxpayers’ expense.

[Tony Vaughan]

From the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying, we would detain everybody—we would put the 102,000 people currently in asylum accommodation in a detention centre. Does she accept that that will cost around £47 billion, which is not credible at all?

[Sarah Pochin]

I accept that we have to start doing something radical that sends a message, will stop people coming to this country, and will stop the pull factors that send people to our shores.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hundreds of Mid Leicestershire residents who took the time to sign the two petitions. I want to speak directly to each and every one of them: you are absolutely right to sign, and you should not feel ashamed, belittled or even embarrassed for doing so; your views come from a deep sense of national pride, a strong belief in the rule of law and, above all, a commitment to fairness. They reflect a widespread feeling that the immigration system is failing. It is failing law-abiding British citizens, the British taxpayer and the integrity of our borders. We in this place must do better. Today, I proudly stand with my constituents, who deserve better.

[Sir John Hayes in the Chair]

It is deeply disrespectful to the hard-working families in Mid Leicestershire and across the UK—who get up early, work long hours, pay their taxes and contribute to society—that individuals who come here illegally stay in hotels with access to three meals a day, healthcare and all the other benefits. Meanwhile, my constituents are struggling with the cost of living, and watching their purse strings tighten month after month. That is not sustainable, and it is simply not fair.

We must put an end to this open-door policy, which is placing unbearable pressure on our welfare system, public services and communities. We must close the hotels and deport those who are taking advantage of our system. It really is that simple—we just need a Government with the gumption to do it. As a country, we cannot continue to spend £6 million on these hotels every single day. Our once-great nation—the nation of the NHS, world-class education and the rule of law—is choosing to spend billions on illegal migrants. That is money that could be better invested in our schools, police and hospitals. Hotels that once welcomed tourists to showcase the best of Britain are now occupied by individuals who in many cases have no respect for our borders, culture or rule of law, all while veterans sleep on the streets, local economies die and housing waiting lists grow rapidly. The system simply is not fair, and it is not what the British people voted for.

What did we get from the Government in response to the petitions? Bluster, what-aboutery and a clear lack of understanding. Governments of all colours have made mistakes on migration over the past 40 years. Many new MPs, particularly on the Conservative Benches, have articulated this point brilliantly to those Members who were in the House before us.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition gets this and has a plan. First, we will end the endless lawfare surrounding illegal migration. Then, as some Members have expressed it, we will deport, deport, deport. It really is that simple. The Conservative party is united in its commitment to leave the European convention on human rights and the European convention against trafficking and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.

[Tony Vaughan]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that withdrawing from those conventions will actually make those things easier? There is no basis for saying so. The truth is that we need those agreements to solve the problem—the deal with France is the start of this process of having a returns agreement again.

[Mr Bedford]

Many of these agreements were established 50, 60 or 70 years ago, in a completely different world. They are completely outdated and are not applicable to modern Britain. With regard to the hon. and learned Member’s comment about the returns agreement, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, when an agreement was in place before Brexit, we were a net recipient, so his argument simply does not hold water.

Time and again, these outdated frameworks have been used by activist do-gooders to block any form of deportation. We will never have control of our borders and do what the petitioners have asked for until we leave these conventions. A clean withdrawal from them will enable a future Government to act in a tough but fair manner for the people of Great Britain. We will not be deterred by woke protests or sneering lectures from the chattering classes; we will secure our borders and we will restore fairness.

And that is not all. A future Conservative Government will establish a dedicated removal force with real power and financial backing. That force will deport all illegal migrants within seven days of arrival, to ensure that foreign criminals have no place in the UK and to stop economic migrants abusing our system. Ultimately, we must put the British people first and restore fairness to the system.

Yes, my words today have been direct; they have been stark. That is because every petitioner from my constituency has had enough—I have had enough. It is time to stop the lawfare, deport those who have no right to be here, and restore confidence and fairness to our immigration system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank the Minister for his response, and I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. It is extremely important for everyone who signed the petitions to see that we are listening, and that we are considering and debating these very important issues.

I am not sure I heard anyone dispute the proposition that asylum hotels need to close. They are inappropriate for people seeking asylum, as was said by my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). They are extortionate, as we have all heard, and they contribute to the sense of unfairness in our communities, as my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said; the latter pointed out that an accommodation provider appeared on the Sunday Times rich list thanks to public funds. The current situation is utterly acceptable.

I am happy to be corrected, but I also did not hear anyone specifically argue that support should be removed from people seeking asylum. However, I did hear some hon. Members—the hon. Members for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford)—arguing against the very principle of an asylum system. That is not actually what the creators of these two petitions believe. I spoke to one of them and received quite a detailed briefing note from the other, and the way they talked to me about their concerns very much chimed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool said earlier. There are concerns here, and they need to be listened to very carefully. Ultimately, they are about the communities that the petitioners live in. They have the compassion to accept that we should grant sanctuary to those fleeing persecution—I genuinely think that that is where the vast majority of British people are on this issue—but the question, of course, is how we have compassion and how we have control over our asylum system.

As the Minister said, Labour is getting on with the job of closing hotels, speeding up decision making and removing those who have no right to be here. I fully accept the challenges, but it does not lie in the mouth of the Conservative party to criticise the measures that this Government are taking to clear up the mess that the Conservatives helped to create. Brexit caused us to lose our returns agreement with the EU—I accept that it was underutilised, but nevertheless it was an agreement—the pausing of asylum decisions massively increased the application backlog, and the pressure on the asylum and accommodation system then increased massively.

The idea that we could just junk our international obligations and deport everyone if we withdrew from the treaties is complete fantasy. As I said, we need the ECHR to solve the irregular migration issue. Had we not been in the convention, the UK-France deal would not have been signed, nor would we have had the credibility to work with international partners such as Bulgaria, Germany and France on the upstream issues. We would also jeopardise peace in Northern Ireland without those measures. The truth is that the common law has set its face against torture for centuries, so I am afraid the idea that without the refugee convention and the ECHR we would be free to send a person back to torture is legal nonsense and morally repugnant, and it would make the UK an international pariah. It would also run contrary to our British values of fairness and decency.

We do need to consider innovative solutions to address the asylum support and accommodation challenges: increasing asylum decision-making capacity; providing early access to legal aid and identifying claims as early as possible; deciding appeals more quickly; expanding our housing stock and applying break clauses to accommodation contracts. We must do all those things, and we must do them more quickly. I support the Government’s approach, which the Minister set out. He knows better than anyone that winning back public confidence in our asylum system is essential. I wish him luck in that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petitions 705383 and 718406 relating to support and accommodation for asylum seekers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a bit of time to look at the speech I made to the Council of Europe just before the summer recess, in which I made a very similar argument to the one he is making. For those of us who are supporters of the convention and who want to see it stand the test of time, we have to recognise that it is a treaty formed many decades ago in a different reality and we should have a conversation about whether it is still fit for purpose. It is a conversation that others in Europe are having, and we are taking a leading role in those discussions. We will pursue international reform and also reform of our domestic legislation.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

By leaving the EU, the Tories tore up our returns agreement with the EU, and they completely failed to negotiate a new one, but this Government have now rectified that. Does the Home Secretary agree that the Tories and Reform are in cloud cuckoo land if they think that the French would have signed a returns deal with us if we had left the European convention on human rights?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

T4.   I echo the Home Secretary’s remarks about the 7/7 attacks. Alcaline Transport in my constituency was fined £10,000 after it reported that a clandestine migrant was found in one of its vehicles. When will improvements to the clandestine entrant civil penalty scheme be fully implemented, so that hauliers who report issues responsibly are supported, not penalised?

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. While the clandestine entrant penalty scheme has to be rigorously enforced in order to be effective, it also provides a very fair process of appeal for hauliers against penalties that are not justified by the facts of a case. I am sure that my hon. Friend will assist the company in his constituency through that appeal process.