Migration: Settlement Pathway

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Health Secretary and his Department are always reviewing and considering the arrangements. We need to ensure that we have a workforce capable of sustaining the national health service. We have an ageing population, which brings its own specific challenges. We are not talking about preventing people from working in our national health service; it is about the pathway to settlement. It is about extending the pathway from five to 10 years, and then thinking about the rules we need to bring that number down from 10 and closer to five years, or that might increase it instead. In that spirit, I encourage my hon. Friend to engage with the detail, and I would be happy to talk to her offline.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Home Secretary announced a consultation on a five-year pathway to settlement for those who work in the public sector to recognise the particularly valuable role they play in society. Will she please put that to the vote, so that MPs can ensure that those who work in organisations that are fundamental to the public sector—such as those who work in hospices, like the amazing Woking & Sam Beare hospice in my constituency—are always included in the five-year pathway?

[Shabana Mahmood]

All the measures will be taken through in the usual way.

Injury in Service Award

Will Forster Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Police officers, firefighters, paramedics and members of other emergency services and public services face real risks every day to keep people safe. When those risks lead to life-changing injury, it can bring a sudden and permanent end to a career built on service. We need to show our support and appreciation for them, whether they be emergency service workers, our NHS heroes or others.

Recognising the amazing work that they do for us every day is the least that we can do. They put themselves in harm’s way and they prioritise our lives over their own, regardless of the circumstances, to keep us safe. They protect us, rescue us and put us back together when we are sick or injured. We need to be forever grateful for their sacrifice, dedication and commitment, and we must not take that service for granted. As we have heard, at the moment, this country does just that and we do not reward their effort as we should. People have given everything in service, and yet they feel overlooked.

I wholeheartedly commend the initiative of retired Sussex police officer Tom Curry, who has led the campaign for the recognition of police officers injured on duty. His work, alongside that of the National Association of Retired Police Officers and others, has shown the strength of feeling on this issue. I also support the Fire and Rescue Services Association in calling for a medal for emergency workers who are severely injured and then have to retire for medical reasons.

Debbie Adlam, the mother of the late PC Andrew Harper, has warned that many injured emergency workers feel brushed aside. She has spoken powerfully about colleagues of her son who suffered both mentally and physically through their bravery, yet have had no official recognition.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

There has been a lot of discussion about police officers and other emergency service workers injured in the line of work, and there has been some mention of issues such as PTSD and other mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see those as being just as important? The experiences that some of these frontline servicepeople encounter on a regular basis have long-lasting effects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Forster]

My hon. Friend is completely right. Being injured in the line of duty needs to be about physical and mental health, and we have heard many examples of that so far. Debbie reminded us that what might be five minutes on the news becomes a story that affects an individual for the rest of their life.

Let me go back to Tom Curry. He left Sussex police in 1989 because of the serious injuries he received while on the job. He has talked about being only a few weeks away from receiving his long-service medal before he was injured, and now he has nothing to show. The example I have from my constituency in my area of Surrey is that of PC Geoff Newham, from Surrey police. He was named as the winner of an award from the Police Federation back in 2020. He was an outstanding police officer and a member of the Surrey roads policing unit, but he was involved in a collision during a pursuit in 2018 that left him with serious back injuries that prevented him from being able to do his previous job.

Despite that injury, Geoff’s tenacity and positive attitude saw him utilise his first-class criminal intelligence skills and experience to support colleagues, allowing them to target and disrupt a number of high-level organised crime units in Surrey, go after a number of county lines gangs and help to lock up numerous offenders. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that deserves to be rewarded.

I have been moved by stories from colleagues across the Chamber. Over several years, whether it be in 2018 or 2022, Parliament has increased sentences for criminals who have targeted our emergency services. If we are increasing their sentences, we should be able to reward and recognise emergency workers at the same time. For all those reasons and more, I support the creation of an official injury on duty award scheme, which would provide the recognition and dignity that those people deserve.

I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for bringing this debate to the House and for his work on this issue. I am sure that Jane Notley, with her distinctive pink walking sticks, would be really proud to have him as her MP.

The Home Office has said that it is considering proposals to recognise emergency service personnel injured in the line of duty. It is time for this House to make those proposals reality. I hope the Minister will confirm that today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats and I want to stop dangerous small boat crossings. We want to stop the smuggling gangs and bring them to justice. The former Conservative Government failed to do either. My constituents in Woking and people across the country need this Government to deliver a compassionate, effective and fair immigration and asylum system. If this Government thought that this Bill and the amendments were enough to do that, the Home Secretary would not have come to the House on Monday to announce another raft of immigration measures.

[Pete Wishart]

Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary?

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Gentleman and I, and others, worked really hard in Committee, proposing humanitarian visa amendments, and trying to lift the ban on asylum seekers working—both measures that would have made things better for taxpayers and for vulnerable refugees. Sadly, we were not listened to, but I hope that we will be listened to if we have the pleasure, or the unfortunate duty, of serving on the Bill Committee for the next Bill.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

Since we all served on the Committee for this Bill, the Government have announced a “one in, one out” deal with France, and this week, new safe routes were announced by the Home Secretary as part of the new package. Under the “one in, one out” deal, the “one in” will arrive by a safe route, so will the hon. Gentleman welcome the Government’s reforms to the immigration system, given that that is what he has been calling for?

[Mr Forster]

I am pleased that the Home Secretary and the Government are finally listening to what I and others have been saying for years: that safe and legal routes are important. However, the “one in, one out” deal with France is not delivering what the Government wanted. The humanitarian visas and the safe routes that we proposed would have done so. We have not seen a flood of Ukrainians crossing the channel, because we have a genuine safe route for them, and we need to expand such initiatives to others.

Let me make some progress. The Liberal Democrats—and others, I assume—welcome parts of this Bill, but the glaring reality is that it falls far short of what is needed to keep our borders and people safe. The Government say that the Bill gives authorities stronger tools, and some of that is true. For example, clauses 19 to 26, which were added in Committee, give the Border Force and the police further powers to seize electronic devices, and I think that is broadly sensible. A Government amendment on Report on tightening offences linked to the supply of equipment used in organised crime was also a reasonable step.

The Liberal Democrats and I also welcome changes that our peers pressed for in the other place, including the exemption for hygiene products, which came from a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I know the Minister mentioned that. I am grateful to the Government for listening in this instance to the suggestions of my colleagues.

The Government were defeated in the other place on an amendment that required the collection of data about overseas students who had visas revoked due to criminal offences. That Conservative Lords amendment would not help to tackle organised crime, or to improve border security, and I do not believe that it strengthens this Bill, so Liberal Democrat MPs will not support it today.

The Government pushed Lords amendments on data sharing, the EU settlement scheme and conditions on leave or bail, many of which tidy things up, or respond to the Liberal Democrats’ human rights concerns. Those are fine as far as they go, but they do not change the overall picture.

In summary, if the Government truly want to stop small boat crossings, they must work more closely with our European partners. Tough talk at home will not achieve what co-operation abroad can, and this Bill and the tabled Lords amendments will not tackle the huge asylum backlog, or reduce the hotel bills that this Government inherited from the Conservatives. Unless the Government support what we are calling for, this Bill will not deliver the safe borders and fairer system that the public expect, and they will remember that at the ballot box.

[Chris Murray]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support that my office receives from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project.

It is good to see us making progress on this really important Bill, which is utterly essential to what the Government are trying to achieve on the reform of asylum. Nobody can argue that the asylum system in Britain does not need reform. Public trust has been draining from it, because of the growth in illegal crossings and asylum hotels, and because asylum seekers are drowning in the channel as a result of this vile trade. Only last month, a one-month-old baby drowned off the British coast. That is unacceptable. Some 14 children died last year; if that number of children were dying in any other circumstances, people would call on the Government to go hell for leather in tackling it, and to do anything it took to do so. We must do the same for children who are asylum seekers.

I strongly welcome Lords amendment 8. Asylum crossings in the channel are driven by two factors: supply and demand. “Demand” means the causes of asylum, such as war, climate change, conflict and repression. “Supply” relates to the supply of small boats, gangs who facilitate the crossing, the ability to get over the channel, and the networks upstream funnelling them to Calais. A big part of the operation is the social media enterprise.

More than 10 years ago, I was a justice and home affairs attaché in Paris, working on channel crossings. They took place on lorries at the time, and we were able to clamp down on that, but the fundamental difference between now and then—it was more than 10 years ago—is the existence of social media. There is an incredibly sophisticated network of human traffickers, who are incredibly well financed, as a result of the costs that they put on migrants and organised crime. They use social media, exploit migrants and put them in the boats.

Lords amendment 8 is really important in criminalising the facilitation and advertisement of illegal immigration. My question to the Home Office is whether it is properly stepping up its capabilities, and its engagement with private sector and social media firms, to ensure an impact. It will change the calculus for asylum seekers on the path to the UK if they are given proper information, not misleading information by traffickers.

I turn to the Opposition’s Lords amendment 37, on data collection and international students. Public data on migration is incredibly important. The public want to see control of the immigration system; transparency and data are central to that. However, this Lords amendment is not the way to go about getting proper data and scrutiny of the migration system. That is partly because amendments to primary legislation lead to selective, partial or mandated publication of data that is highly controversial and can be selectively and partially used by people on all sides of the migration debate to make their specific point.

Draft Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 General Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

After years of mismanagement by the Conservatives, our immigration system is a mess. Public trust has been shattered, and it is up to this Government to restore that confidence and rebuild our broken immigration and asylum system. It is right for the Government to increase the immigration skills charge in line with the rate of inflation, and it is right that it was introduced in the first place to ensure that we invest in our domestic workforce. However, the Liberal Democrats believe that increasing this charge for those in the health and social care sector is a mistake. It makes zero sense to penalise hospitals and care homes that are trying to hire the staff they desperately need. It transfers money from the NHS to the Home Office at a time when our GPs, hospitals and hospices desperately need money, so please will the Minister consider putting the health and social care sector on the reduced rate?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

The crossing rates are very similar to those of 2022. In 2018, 400 crossed; more than 150,000 have crossed since then. There is no doubt that we inherited open borders from the Conservatives, and that is why the amusement continues. We have said that we will do whatever it takes. By that we mean that there is more to come. I am not going to ruin the party with policy announcements in this Committee.

Regarding the Gazan refugees, we are a firm but fair Government. Where we need to help people, we will. It is a shame that that view is not shared by the Opposition. I will touch on the pilot scheme with France, which was criticised. It is what it says on the tin: a pilot. The Conservatives were begging for that pilot from the French, but obviously could not strike the deal. The scheme will grow and as it grows, it will form more of a deterrent to those sitting in Calais. We look forward to that.

I welcome the questions of the hon. Member for Woking about the NHS. His points are valid. However, we are clear that we need to ensure that the public sector, as well as the private sector, recruits from the British workforce. There are plenty of young people, and elderly people, who would love to—and could—work in the NHS. The measures will encourage that.

[Mr Forster]

Will the Government agree to study the impact on the health and social care sector of increasing this charge?

[Mike Tapp]

When we froze the social care visa route, lots of consultation was conducted to ensure that we fully understood the implications. We fully understand that to go in the right direction for this country we need to incentivise the public sector and the private sector to recruit from the skills that we have here. We are the sixth richest nation on Earth: there is a lot of talent here; we did not get there by accident. We must continue to encourage all companies and the public sector to recruit from within.

Question put and agreed to.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is clear from both the petitions that people across the country are angry and frustrated about the state of our asylum system. The Liberal Democrats understand why people have signed the petitions. The situation has been badly mishandled for years, and in my opinion the petitioners are right to call it out. We should not have 30,000 people in asylum hotels, nor should we have a backlog of 90,000 asylum cases. We certainly should not be spending £6 million every day on asylum accommodation.

Despite the chaos in the asylum system, we know that immigration brings huge benefits to this country. Contrary to what we have heard from some Conservative and Reform Members today, people are more likely to be treated by an immigrant in the NHS than they are to be behind one in the queue for treatment. We should recognise the value that refugees have given to our country. In Woking, more than 500 refugees have settled locally in the last 10 years, whether that be from Afghanistan, Syria or Ukraine.

Among those refugees was the Shafaee family, who resettled in Woking in 2021 after the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. The father now works as a BBC journalist, translating world news for regional audiences. That former asylum seeker is playing his part in expanding this country’s soft power, and countering fake news and misinformation from our rivals in Russia, China and other countries. Their children are doing amazingly well and excelling in education. The oldest daughter, Asma, secured a two-year scholarship to study in a sixth form that many in this Chamber would not have been bright enough to get into. Their youngest daughter, Marwa, is such an amazing art student that she has had her paintings displayed at Woking railway station. That family alone highlights the value of refugees and of us supporting them. That support has helped that family, my constituency and our country.

I am proud of the role that refugees are playing in Woking, but the system is still a mess. Why did it get like that? Because the Conservatives lost control of our borders. They deliberately slowed the claims process, saying that that would act as a deterrent. That failed. After Brexit, both channel crossings and immigration went up, not down. The Conservatives’ failure has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and increased community tensions. They spent more than £700 million on Rwanda, and that policy sent only a few refugees to the country.

In the last financial year, the Home Office spent around £4 billion on asylum support, including more than £2 billion on hotel accommodation. According to the National Audit Office, hotels accounted for more than three quarters of the total cost of asylum accommodation while housing only a third of asylum seekers. Hotel use has been appalling value for money. Under the Conservative Government, the private sector started to make a fortune out of contracts to protect our border, while clearly not delivering. Other hon. Members have talked about hotel profits, so I will move on.

According to the Refugee Council, at its height in 2022 the trade in people smuggling was worth around £230 million to the smugglers themselves, yet just one contract for border security, which lasted two years, was worth £1 billion. As a country, we have spent an inordinate amount of money compared with what the smugglers are making—even the 10th most expensive contract was worth more than £65 million. This industry is leeching off our country, and some people are going after asylum seekers and refugees while not criticising those businesses. We have effectively privatised protecting our borders, but those companies are making a shedload while not solving the problem. It is actually in their best interest not to solve the problem and still to take taxpayers’ money.

It is not just the Conservatives who are responsible for this dire crisis. To the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), and above all to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I say that their politics is causing this problem. After Brexit, we no longer have the European Union’s Dublin rules, so we can no longer automatically send people back to Europe. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has called that the Brexit effect: asylum seekers are trying to reach the UK because they know they cannot be returned. As a result, small boat crossings have gone up significantly since the post-Brexit deal. While Reform causes problems and blames everyone else, we Liberal Democrats actually have an antidote to the problem, and we will happily vaccinate the country against the populism that Reform is spouting.

Turning to Labour, the Government need to go further and faster to reduce channel crossings and cut the cost of asylum hotels. Earlier this year, they had an opportunity to reduce the bill. We tabled an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to lift the ban on asylum seekers working. If we talked to many of our constituents, they would be frustrated that we are spending so much money on asylum hotels, yet banning asylum seekers from working.

We must be honest about the right to work. Allowing asylum seekers to work after three months would reduce the burden on taxpayers and help them to build a stake in their new society. Instead of being trapped in limbo and relying on Government support, they could be contributing to our local economies. It is common sense to let people build their own lives, not rely on a state—let alone a new state—to offer accommodation and measly benefits. If Labour, the Conservatives and Reform had voted for the amendment, we would have lowered the burden on the taxpayer. Reform says it wants to solve the problem, but it threw in its lot with the political establishment by voting against that proposal.

In Australia, most asylum seekers have the right to work straightaway, although it is temporary. In Canada, they can apply for a work permit while their asylum application is processed. The US allows asylum seekers to work after six months. From June next year, the EU will require member states to let asylum seekers work after nine months, while some go further: Sweden allows them to work straightaway. Our one-year restriction is out of kilter with the rest of the world. The Minister was not in his position when we debated the border Bill, but will he reconsider the ban now that he is in post, or at least reduce its length so it is more comparable with those in other countries?

This problem can be tackled, and the Liberal Democrats have set out a clear five-point plan to fix the broken system. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for Horsham (John Milne), for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) for speaking today and highlighting some of that plan.

First, we would lead global action to stop the smuggling and trafficking gangs that profit from human misery. This is an international problem and needs international co-operation, and Britain should be leading that effort once again. Secondly, we would process applications swiftly and deport those with no right to stay. The best deterrent to dangerous crossings is an efficient and fair system that makes quick decisions and enforces them properly. Thirdly, we would crack down on modern slavery here in the UK. Trafficking gangs bring people here to exploit them with forced labour. We must get the Fair Work Agency up and running and bring those responsible for that exploitation to justice.

Fourthly, we would invest to support refugees closer to their home countries. Most people fleeing conflict want to stay near their home, but our aid budget, which would help people to do that, has been cut by both the Conservatives and Labour, who are then surprised that we have small boat crossings in such record numbers. Restoring that support—that international aid—would help to save lives and reduce those dangerous crossings across Europe, in the Mediterranean, and closer to home in the English channel.

Finally, we would allow asylum seekers to apply from outside the United Kingdom, whether at our embassies or consulates or through other initiatives, so that people can travel safely if they are granted protection, rather than risking their lives at sea. How successful has the Ukrainian visa scheme been, given we have had almost no Ukrainians make an illegal crossing? We need to have safe, legal routes.

That is what a fair deal on the asylum and immigration system would look like. It would save taxpayer money, restore public confidence and uphold Britain’s proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those fleeing persecution. Reform, like many of the private sector companies that I have already highlighted, has a perverse incentive to keep the migration crisis going. It wants all attempts to stop the boats to fail so it can continue to profit politically from the crisis. It wants migrants to come across so that the country stays cross. The remedies it is selling would make the quacks of old blush—these snake oil salesmen are not to be trusted.

To the people of my Woking constituency and to others across the country who signed these petitions, I say this: I am sorry that Conservative mismanagement has broken our system, that Reform’s Brexit tore up the Dublin rules that stopped the channel crossings in the first place, and that Labour’s border Bill does not solve the problem. That is why we have come up with a plan. The Liberal Democrats have an antidote to this crisis.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I hope very much that there is consensus across the House about the desperate situation in Gaza and the middle east. I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government will do everything they can to work with partners and allies to seek to bring a resolution to that desperate situation. He referred to the age of the protesters. I just say to him that the law has to be applied fairly and universally. Therefore, if someone is of a particular age, that does not enable them to break the law, in the same way that it would not enable someone of a younger age to do so.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

With over 800 people arrested this weekend, proscribing Palestine Action clearly has not worked as intended. Will the Government urgently review our terrorism legislation to ensure that those who legitimately protest in favour of the Palestinian cause are not treated as terrorists for simply wearing a T-shirt or holding a placard?

[Dan Jarvis]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that have been published recently by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Will Forster Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

We will now start a three-minute time limit.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions.

The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it.

I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them.

Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored.

New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right.

New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. If we want integration, why not let people work in their communities and build English language skills?

Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours.

Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

I aim to please with my tie. The hon. Gentleman can probably attach as much importance to the policy paper as he sees fit, as he does with anything else I might or might not say; it is for him, and for readers of the debate, to determine the value and weight they add to that. Another proposal we have put forward is on salary thresholds and what someone should be earning in order to remain in this country. I think that is a big deal; I will go on to outline why I think it is important, but yes—it is a big deal.

As I was saying, The Economist said only last week in one of its leaders that

“governments must also learn from the policy mistakes that lend it credibility. It was foolish to admit lots of newcomers without liberalising housing markets. Also, since migration flows to rich countries cannot be unlimited, it makes sense to favour highly skilled economic migrants over lower-skilled ones nearly all the time. Arguments for low-skilled migration built around supposed labour shortages are flawed.”

Interestingly, in countries outside the UK, research has shown the importance of income in long-term migration. A report in the Netherlands, which used detailed microdata on fiscal contributions and benefits to the entire population to calculate the discounted lifetime net contribution of the immigrant population present in 2016, was published in December 2024 and concluded:

“If the parents make a strongly negative net contribution, the second generation usually lags behind considerably as well. Therefore, the adage ‘it will all work out with the second generation’ does not hold true. High fiscal costs of immigrants are not that much caused by high absorption of government expenditures but rather by low contributions to taxes and social security premiums. We also find evidence for a strong relationship of average net contributions by country with cultural distance, even after controlling for average education and the cito-distribution-effect.”

Although we should acknowledge that the Netherlands is a different country with its own unique systems and that its situation does not necessarily apply to the UK, the finding highlights the need to examine the impact of migration decisions in comparable nations. New clause 32 takes steps to do that, ensuring that migrants contribute to our economy.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

This is a very different hon. Member for Stockton West speaking now from the one who spoke last week, when he spoke against and voted against the Liberal Democrat amendment to allow and encourage asylum seekers to work so that they could benefit our economy. Does he not remember last week? Where was his concern for the taxpayer then?

[Matt Vickers]

I would suggest that that is quite a creative interpretation of last week’s events. This debate is about what people contribute when they are legally able to, rather than creating anything that would draw more people to make that crossing and to turn up in this country.

New clause 32 would revoke indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances: that a person

“is defined as a ‘foreign criminal’ under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007”;

that the person

“was granted indefinite leave to remain after the coming into force of this Act,”

but has not spent 10 years resident in the UK;

that the person or their dependants

“have been in receipt of any form of ‘social protection’…from HM Government or a local authority”;

or that the person’s

“annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period, or subsequent to receiving indefinite leave to remain.”

Let us be absolutely clear about one thing, because it is a cornerstone of this proposal and speaks volumes about who we are as a nation and what we stand for when the chips are down: anyone who has entered this country under the carefully crafted, well-designed and wholly principled safe and legal routes—those lifelines that we have extended through the Ukraine scheme, the British nationals overseas scheme or the Afghan schemes—would find themselves entirely exempt from the rigours of new clause 32, and rightly so. Those schemes are not just policies, but promises; they are solemn commitments that speak to our national character, and we stand by those we have pledged to protect.

Let us think of the more than 200,000 Ukrainians welcomed since 2022, fleeing Putin’s bombs—families clutching what they had, offered sanctuary through the Ukraine family scheme and Homes for Ukraine.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)

Will Forster Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Katie Lam]

Clause 46 allows the courts to impose an electronic monitoring requirement as part of a serious crime prevention order. The clause is helpful for investigating suspects who are already in the UK, and we broadly support it. Will the Minister confirm that the requirement for electronic monitoring will apply to those who are on immigration bail? What value does the Minister feel serious crime prevention orders might have as a deterrent for those operating abroad?

Clause 46 specifies that there will be a code of practice to outline the expectations, safeguards and broad responsibilities for the data gathered, retention and sharing of information on these orders. When will that code of practice be issued, and can the Minister please outline what the Government expect to be included?

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I would like the Minister to define electronic monitoring for us, if she can. I do not believe that there is such a definition in the Bill or in other Acts of Parliament. As a result, I worry that there is confusion, so I would welcome her thoughts.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

We are talking about electronic monitoring in the context of serious crime prevention orders; we are not talking about monitoring simply in connection to being an asylum seeker or migrant. I would not want Opposition Members to worry or mix up those two things.

This part of the Bill is about dealing with serious and organised criminality, some of which will involve people smuggling, and some of which will involve drugs, firearms or other serious organised crime. This is electronic tagging in the context of the granting of serious and organised crime orders, or interim serious and organised crime orders, which are designed to disrupt and prevent the activities of serious organised crime groups, not just general asylum seekers or migrants. Obviously, there may be some connection between the two, but it is not direct in this area.

Those orders and their conditions, such as electronic monitoring, therefore will not apply to migrants generally. Law enforcement agencies use serious crime prevention orders to manage individuals who have been convicted of, or are suspected of, serious criminality, where the order will protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting the person’s involvement in serious crime.

Serious crime prevention orders can be imposed on offenders for a range of offences relating to people smuggling. The specific conditions of the order will be a matter for the judge in the High Court who makes it, and for the law enforcement body that makes the application. This is very focused, and it is all about the context of the individual who has been served with such an order. For that to happen, there has to be evidence of their involvement in serious and organised crime.

Clearly, tagging is about being able to check where people are, while electronic monitoring can also apply to other activity. It will apply in a particular context to a particular person for disruption reasons, so there is not one definition of electronic tagging. I hope that helps the hon. Member for Woking to understand the monitoring that we are talking about. On that basis, I hope members of the Committee will agree to clause 46.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Interim serious crime prevention orders

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Will Forster Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It has been a while since the sitting began, and it is easy to overlook that I have not been up on my feet so far. We have had an interesting debate. The amendments before us range from, at one end, the Opposition, whose amendments seek to criminalise everyone who gets in a small boat and presumably cart them directly to prison, through to the other end of the argument, represented with his usual passion by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, who feels that, if someone is an asylum seeker, they should be exempt from being judged at all on the behaviour that happens on the boat.

I will deal with some of those points in turn, but I also want to compliment my colleagues who have made their own comments and some very important points in this debate. It is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh said, that we are clear-eyed about what is happening in the channel. We can be romantic about it in many ways, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire often appear to be, or we can regard all those who come over as criminals and a threat, but the truth is somewhere in between.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made a moving speech about the realities of what can happen in these circumstances; it is easy to forget, when we are sat in a nice warm Committee Room—although it is not always warm, facing as it does on to the river. Imagine ending up in the water in the channel, Mr Stuart; you can last only so long. You could easily have a heart attack in that cold water and not be resuscitated. Clearly, if you are a child, or vulnerable in any other way, then that is likely to happen—and it will happen to you first.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw, for Clwyd East and for Dover and Deal made important points about the realities too. I will come on to what the Government are trying to do with this offence and why it is in the Bill, but I will deal with the amendments first. I hope I will be able to answer some of the questions that have been asked during this important debate—[Interruption.] I also hope that my voice is going to last out.

Amendment 15 focuses on the length of the sentence attached to clause 18 and seeks to increase the sentence from six to 14 years where an irregular entrant arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK. Clause 18 introduces a new criminal offence that is to be inserted into section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. The current sentence for the offence of arriving in breach of a deportation order under section 24(A1) of the Immigration Act is five years.

Because clause 18 will be inserted into section 24 of the Act, the intention of the clause is to ensure that, given the egregious and serious natures of the acts committed under the new offence, the maximum sentencing is increased, albeit remaining in line with the existing sentencing framework in section 24 of the Act. The issues about the length of sentence are all about keeping sentencing in that section of the Immigration Act coherent. Grabbing extra, lengthier sentences out of the air to insert them into the Act can create inconsistency and mess up the structures of sentencing involved in the Act, making it less coherent than it should be. The sentence of five years was reached after discussions with partners about all the sentences and offences in this particular area, and it rightly reflects that coherence.

An increased sentence of six years is considered to be appropriate for the endangerment offence. It furthers the deterrence aim of the policy, but is not so severe as to deter prosecutors from bringing a prosecution in the first instance. That is another area in which the rhetoric of even longer sentences deters prosecutors from bringing charges at all. We have seen that with the facilitation offences, where the introduction of a life sentence has led to fewer prosecutions being pursued; prosecutors think that for a sentence of that length, more obvious evidence has to be accrued, so they charge fewer people. An increased sentence can sometimes have a perverse effect on the system. We think that the sentence in the Bill is in keeping with the Immigration Act and is about right.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I am pleased that the Minister talked about the length of the sentence, which we have not talked about very much in the debate so far. Fourteen years is the maximum sentence for placing explosives with intent to cause bodily injury, and for such other offences as causing death by dangerous driving. To me, 14 years is more applicable in those cases. Does she agree? I do not understand the rationale for 14 years.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, and it is not for me to get into the head of the hon. Member for Stockton West. Perhaps he will talk to us about why he picked that particular number. I agree with the hon. Member for—is it Worthing? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Woking—I knew it began with a W, and my own constituency begins with a W, so we are there or thereabouts in the dictionary.

Similarly, amendment 16 seeks to increase the sentence from five years to 14 years where an irregular migrant or arrival has caused or created a risk of serious personal injury or death to others during a sea crossing to the UK and is entering without the requisite leave to enter, entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation. As with the approach taken to those who arrive in breach of a deportation order, and as discussed in relation to amendment 15, clause 18 will provide an increased sentence compared with the offences under section 24(B1), (D1) and (E1) of the Immigration Act.