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.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Smart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is one of a number of utterly hideous stories that any of us could hear through any of the wonderful bodies and non-governmental organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees who are coming to this country. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend from the other place, Baroness Hamwee, who has done a huge amount of work on family reunification. This is about basic humanity. These children need safety and the support of their families to truly rebuild their life.

People smuggling of the type that this Government are trying to crack down on is an international problem, and we cannot solve it by going it alone. New clauses 23 to 26 will bolster our co-operation with Europol, encourage regular meetings with its leadership and establish joint taskforces, ensure more resources and provide a transparent system of reporting back to Parliament. To dismantle these smuggling networks, we need to work hand in glove with our European allies. This Bill could go further to strengthen those vital ties. The UK should be leading on this, not lagging behind.

The Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for a system that is fair, fast and humane, in which there are safe routes, families can be reunited, and those who come here are treated with dignity and can contribute to their new communities. Our new clauses offer practical steps to rebuilding an asylum system that works for all of us, and I urge the House to back them today for practical, humane and effective solutions.

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

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. I thank the Ministers and members of the Public Bill Committee for their work on this Bill, which I continue to support as a whole.

My constituents in Folkestone and Hythe want to see Parliament give our law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to tackle these highly sophisticated, organised criminals. The small boats industry, which was allowed to run for years under the Conservatives, flourished in part because of the lack of powers for the National Crime Agency and the lack of co-ordination with our European partners. We absolutely do not need the performative politics of the Conservatives, including their new clause 14 to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration functions.

We have just had the VE Day 80th anniversary, and it was that fundamentally important victory over tyranny in Europe that led to European democracies uniting to safeguard the rights of everyone living in Europe. When I met Ukrainian politicians at the Council of Europe in January this year, they were very clear that they need human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unity of values in Europe, and they need us, the United Kingdom, to help them in their fight against an enemy that lacks those principles.

We are at a point in history when it is more important than ever to be clear about our values, what makes our society one to be proud of, and what we have in common with our neighbours and friends. Rightly, the Government will not disapply the Human Rights Act from one group today; maybe the Conservatives would want to deprive another group of it tomorrow. The Opposition’s new clause, which I will oppose, is a reminder of this important dividing line in our politics.

I also want to comment on new clause 3 on safe and managed routes to asylum. I raised this issue in the Chamber on Second Reading. I fully accept that safe routes will not, on their own, stop small boat crossings; that is why we need the enforcement measures in this Bill. However, it is unsustainable to continue to make it virtually impossible to claim asylum lawfully, and then criminalise those who have made valid claims, but who have no lawful means of accessing the asylum system. I am grateful to the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for agreeing to meet me next week to discuss this issue. A recent report by the APPG on refugees proposed a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here, so that their claim could be fully examined on UK soil. That would build an evidence base on the issue, to inform future policy.

Finally, on British citizenship, though the Government are repealing the measure that bars citizenship for those arriving unlawfully, they have effectively reintroduced it via policy. I would ask them to rethink their approach. By the time a person in that situation applies for citizenship, they will have been granted asylum, having a well-founded claim. They will have been here for over five or six years; they will be of entirely good character; and they may be making a valid contribution to our society. However, because of their method of entry all those years ago, they could be prevented from accessing citizenship and integrating in this country. We need measures to promote, rather than hinder, the integration of those lawfully present here. Despite these points, I support the Bill, and thank the Government and Members for their work on it.

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

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my work with the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.

New clause 21 would help the Government to tackle poverty, prevent homelessness and demonstrate competence. Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget because they could instead support themselves. It would help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if asylum seekers were seen to be paying their way. It would also reduce the need to use hotels to house asylum seekers. Those seeking asylum should have the dignity of being able to work, and the taxpayer should get the benefit of the massively reduced costs that that would bring.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I am not going to comment on leaks.

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

I welcome the decision to close Napier barracks in my constituency, where there have been long-standing concerns about conditions, among other issues. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents, as well as those being held there, that this site will be operated properly until it closes in September?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

If my hon. and learned Friend wants to talk to me about any of the details, I would be happy to listen, but of course we want to operate that site properly and appropriately until we hand it back to the Ministry of Defence in September.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.

I commend those on the Government Front Bench for their work on the Bill, which will give law enforcement agencies the powers that my constituents in Folkestone and Hythe expect them to have to tackle the smuggling networks. It is a lamentable failure of government that the Conservative party prefers gimmicks to practical, workable solutions to take down those gangs. The only winners in this multimillion-pound industry, which burgeoned under the previous Government, are organised criminals who exploit the desperation of others and force many to work in criminal enterprises in the UK.

In my 18 years as a lawyer, I worked with many victims of modern slavery and saw how organised criminals use brutal, dehumanising tactics to destroy the will and dignity of their victims. Instead of addressing that complex issue, the Conservative party wasted £700 million on an expensive Rwanda gimmick and created a massive asylum backlog, all while stoking division and disregarding the rule of law. I am pleased to see this Government draw a line under that by taking a different approach and repealing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and most of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. I am pleased that their answer to these problems takes the common-sense approach of tackling organised crime with stronger law enforcement tools.

I wish to use my remaining time to make two points about something that the Bill leaves in and something that it leaves out. First, I thank the Minister for repealing the worst aspects of the Tories’ Illegal Migration Act when it comes to modern slavery, but do we really need to keep the uncommenced provision in section 29, which would block modern slavery protections on public order grounds, and could well undermine our efforts to combat trafficking?

Section 29 would deprive police of the vital intelligence needed to imprison traffickers, who intimidate victims into silence by convincing them that they will be harmed if they speak out. Victims need to trust that their coming forward will lead to protection, not punishment, but under section 29, anyone arriving in a small boat could be prosecuted for entering without a visa, and excluded from trafficking protections as a result. Victims are likely to think, “What’s the point in going to the police and making myself a target, when the police won’t protect me anyway?” That would support the traffickers’ business model and violate our international obligations. When the Bill reaches Committee, will the Government reconsider the need for section 29, together with section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022?

Secondly, the Bill tackles the criminal groups that drive small boat crossings, but it does not address the other dimension of the problem: the lack of avenues through which to seek asylum without making those dangerous crossings. The Home Secretary rightly said that the Bill is focused on the gangs, but pre-arrival processing is an important outstanding issue. We have schemes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, and we should be thinking about increasing the resettlement of refugees who have already been recognised abroad, for example through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Will the Minister commit to looking seriously at a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here so that their claim can be fully examined on UK soil? That would build an evidence base on the issue to inform future policy and lawmaking. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the safe country list.

The Bill is a long overdue step towards fixing the foundations of our asylum system so that it is a fair, managed and compassionate system that the public can once more have confidence in. It pursues practical, workable solutions, rather than the gimmicks and divisiveness of the other parties, which I am proud that this Government reject.

Violence against Women and Girls

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege to speak under your chairship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this incredibly important debate.

I am ashamed that, on average, one woman is killed by an abusive male partner or ex-partner every five days in England and Wales. This violence has to stop and we must all play our part—especially men. I want to think about this issue in relation to the attitudes of young men, as my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) has just done. I am the father of two boys and I am deeply concerned by the social media influencers and YouTubers who promote misogynistic attitudes and behaviours towards women. Algorithms push this vile material on to impressionable young minds and, as my hon. Friend just said, notions of consent to sex have been entirely distorted.

Obviously, we need to understand better the causes of misogyny but, in my view, the concept of masculinity needs to be rescued from the toxic clutches of self-interested and corrupt influencers such as Andrew Tate. The popular idea of masculinity must include the qualities of compassion, empathy, solidarity and co-operation. All too often there is a chain reaction where isolated young men become manipulated by influencers.

I also want to raise the question of women who lack the right kind of immigration status, or who do not have any status. The system currently makes it much harder for those women to leave an abusive situation, because the policy, the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession, excludes many domestic violence survivors from its protection based on immigration status. I pay tribute to the Southall Black Sisters, who have tirelessly campaigned on this issue and with whom I have worked on it.

I thank the Minister for her many years of work on this issue and ask her what the Government intend to do to level the playing field for that group of women, as well as what steps the Government are taking to educate young men about the causes and consequences of misogyny and to call it out.