Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2025.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off, or switched to silent mode? We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sitting is available in the Committee Room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on the declaration of interests, as set out in the code of conduct. I also remind Opposition Members that, if one of your new clauses has already been debated and you wish to press it to a Division when it is reached on the amendment paper, you should please let me know in advance.

Clause 51 - Validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Dame Siobhain, and to contribute to Bill Committee proceedings on this important piece of legislation.

I will briefly state the purpose and effect of the clause before I make some more detailed remarks. The purpose of the clause is to ensure retrospective power for the charging of fees currently provided on behalf of the Home Office and the Department for Education in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK from any time to the point at which the Bill comes into force. The effect of the clause is that fees charged by, or under, arrangements with the Secretary of State in relation to the comparability, recognition or assessment of qualifications obtained in and outside of the UK will have been charged lawfully.

I will now lay out how this situation came about. In spring 2024, under the previous Administration, an issue was identified with the legal arrangements to charge fees for three services provided by a third-party supplier on behalf of the Home Office and the DFE. Those are the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, the Department for Education’s UK European network of information centres services, and the Department for Education’s non-UK early years qualifications recognition service. A statutory basis for those fees has not been in place for a part, or the whole, of the period of their being charged. Although we do not have an exact date from which that may have run, the estimate is from around 2008 to the present day.

Regulations have been made for the charging of services recently for the Home Office’s visas and nationality service, and are being made for the Department for Education’s UK ENIC services. The fee for the non-UK early years qualifications recognition service was removed. We are bringing forward the clause to ensure that fees charged before the Bill comes into force are lawful.

We recognise that retrospective legislation should be used with caution, however, we consider that there are important reasons for it in this case, and indeed, that it was assumed that there was a legal basis for those fees in the past. In considering whether retrospective legislation is the right approach, it is important to be clear that customers who paid a fee received a service that they were able to use as part of, for example, a visa or nationality application, or to understand the comparability of qualifications to support access to education or work.

Other options, such as repaying fees, would require placing a considerable and unfair financial burden on UK taxpayers, who have not, on the whole, directly benefited financially from income generated by these services. That is why we believe that this measure is the right course of action to ensure that there is no doubt about the charges being lawful while protecting taxpayer money and Government resource. I repeat the fundamental point that a service was received for the fee that was paid.

It is important to make sure that we learn lessons and ensure that that situation does not happen again. Both Departments now have robust guidance and processes in place to support policy leads where legislative powers are needed to support the charging of fees in relation to the provision of public services.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 51 details the validation of fees charged in relation to qualifications. We support this measure.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Great—we are off to a flying start.

Clause 52 - Financial provisions

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 20, in clause 53, page 55, line 23, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsection (1) which amend, repeal or revoke an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament following consultation with Scottish Ministers.”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult Scottish Ministers when making regulations under Clause 53 (1) which amend, repeal or revoke an enactment in or under an Act of the Scottish Parliament.

Clauses 53 and 54 stand part.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Clause 52 enables money to be provided by Parliament for expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Bill and for any increase in expenditure attributable to the Bill. Clause 53 allows the Secretary of State to make consequential or minor amendments to the Bill by regulation. Clause 54 confirms that regulations under the Bill must be made by statutory instrument.

Regulations under the provisions of the Bill listed in clause 54(3) will be subject to the affirmative process and will therefore require a draft statutory instrument to be laid and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before they can be made. I commend the clauses to the Committee, but I will answer any questions or queries the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire has in his speech on amendment 20.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

Dame Siobhain, we have to stop meeting like this. Amendment 20 is a rather simple amendment, and one that I hope the Minister takes seriously. Clause 53 has a massive and dramatic impact on Scottish legislation that has been passed under devolved powers by the Scottish Parliament. It says that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that are consequential on the Bill. Those regulations could,

“in particular, amend, repeal or revoke any enactment passed or made before, or in the same Session as”

the Bill.

The power granted to the Secretary of State is overly broad, affecting all legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish statutory instruments over the past 25 years. Importantly, that includes enactments in or made under an Act of the Scottish Parliament as well as similar legislation passed by the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is unreasonable that the Home Secretary could amend, repeal or revoke that body of law through regulations that bypass proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Requiring consultations with Scottish Ministers before making those regulations is the bare minimum and could help to identify potential issues and prevent unintended consequences. The use of Henry VIII powers —or James VI powers, as we would prefer to call them in Scotland—is unconstrained and could have significant implications for the law in Scotland. For that reason, it is crucial that the Secretary of State consults with Scottish Ministers and with other devolved Administrations before moving forward with those regulations.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Amendment 20 seeks to add a requirement to the Bill that Scottish Ministers are consulted before any regulations are made under clause 53(1). I recognise the sentiment behind the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and fully expect it. I support his general point about the importance of collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. The Prime Minister was clear when this Government were elected that it is our intention to ensure close collaboration between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. I hope that my counterparts in those Governments have felt that that rings true in the case of this Bill; I was pleased to discuss it with them in February.

I can assure the hon. Member that—he will be surprised to hear—this amendment is unnecessary. The standard power in clause 53(1) simply enables regulations to make any further necessary consequential amendments. Where such regulations amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, clause 54(3) provides that the regulations would follow the draft affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of each House.

In line with normal practice, the Home Office and other UK Government Departments work with officials in the devolved Governments when legislation is being developed that would have an impact on the devolved nations, including where there is an interaction with legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd or the Northern Ireland Assembly. For this Bill, I and officials in the Home Office have had regular engagement with the devolved Governments. I put on record my thanks to the officials and my ministerial counterparts in the devolved Governments their constructive engagement and contributions to the development of this legislation. They are considering the Bill, and I have asked them to seek legislative consent in their respective legislatures where appropriate for certain measures.

I also note that since the relevant regulations cover only those provisions consequential on the content of the Bill, and since that content has involved continued engagement with devolved Governments over many months, what the amendment seeks is already accounted for. That said, I reiterate that normal practice would be for the devolved Governments to be engaged where legislation, including secondary legislation, is expected to have an impact on their nation. This legislation largely concerns matters that are reserved to this Parliament. For the areas where it does not, legislative consent motions are in the process of being considered in the devolved Administrations.

Given those reassurances and the general good will that has come out of the meetings we have had with all the devolved Administrations, I hope that the hon. Member will consider his concerns to be unjustified in this instance and will not push the amendment to a vote.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I will not push the amendment to a vote.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Clause 52 details the financial provisions. Clauses 53 and 54 set out the regulations. Clause 55 extends the Act to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Clause 56 details when the sections of the Act come into force. We welcome the clarity provided by the Minister on collaboration. We will not oppose these measures.

Clause 55 - Extent

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 55, page 56, line 28, after “12,” insert “24, ”.

This amendment removes clause 24 (which amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001) from the power to extend provisions of the Bill to the Isle of Man by Order in Council.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 23 and 24.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Government amendments 23 and 24 add to the existing provision at clause 55(4):

“His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions…to extend…to the Isle of Man.”

Certain provisions are, as appropriate, excluded from extension. The amendments make the same provision to extend provisions by Order in Council to the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey. That follows the Government receiving confirmation from the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the Bailiwick of Jersey that they wish for a permissive extent clause to be included in the Bill. I am grateful for the engagement of officials and the consideration by respective legislative assemblies on these matters. Confirmation from the Isle of Man has been received before the introduction of the Bill, hence provision already being made at introduction.

Government amendment 21 amends the list of provisions excluded from extension by Order in Council with the effect that clause 24, which amends the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, may not be extended. That is on the basis that that Act does not have an equivalent permissive extent clause, and any extension would therefore not be required or appropriate. That is a little tweak to the Bill.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am surprised to be raising this issue and that I do not immediately know the answer. The Minister has raised issues with Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, but that poses the question: what about our other overseas territories and areas such as the Falklands? The Government clearly considered the impact of our complicated relations with some places when drafting the Bill, but what about the others? Have the Government considered all those issues?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we certainly have considered those issues. The tweak with the Isle of Man relates to a technicality that was discovered after the Bill was drafted. The two other amendments, which extend certain provisions to the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey respectively, were added after work was done between our Parliament and those legislatures to ensure that they were happy for that extension and wanted a permissive extension clause to be added. That is what the amendments do.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 55, page 56, line 28, after “39” insert “ and (EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc)”.

This amendment to the extent clause is consequential on NC31.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 25.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I turn first to new clause 31, which is on EU citizens’ rights. It will confirm in law what the UK has in practice sought to do since the EU settlement scheme was established: to ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the UK.

Part of this is quite complicated, so it may be useful to try to simplify it. In order to meet free movement rules, those who were here as residents from the European Union before the end of the transition period, which was the end of December 2020, needed to have been financially self-sufficient, studying or working for the previous five years. That meant that they had the rights of permanent residence in the UK. If their family members, who may have been partners or children under the age of 21, were also here before the end of December 2020, then at that point—it was a bit like census day—it did not matter whether they were outside the UK; under permitted absence rules, they could have been abroad for whatever reason but coming back. The point is about the definition of meeting free movement rules. They were resident here and effectively living under EU law, so they would be eligible for rights under the EU withdrawal agreement.

The issue is a technical one. There is a cohort described as the extra cohort, rather than the true cohort. The true cohort is those who were self-sufficient, studying or working, and therefore ticked all the boxes of meeting free movement rules. But those who, for example, were not in work on 31 December—they might have lost their job, or there was some other reason why they were not technically meeting the rules—are described as the extra cohort. While they were not technically meeting those free movement rules at that moment, we moved forward with citizens’ rights after we left the European Union at the end of the transition period by treating those two cohorts as the same, as if it had been census day.

Those technicalities have meant that the withdrawal agreement rights apply completely to the true cohort, but arguably, given case law, have sometimes become a bit more complicated when applied to the extra cohort—who, as far as the UK is concerned, should be treated the same. It is important that we clarify in law that we treat the cohorts the same. At the end of December 2020 they might technically not have met all the definitions under the free movement rules, and therefore technically not have been complying with EU law, but for all intents and purposes they should still have their citizens’ rights. The source of those rights is the withdrawal agreement. New clause 31 clarifies that so that we do not have case law challenging it or defining it differently.

It was always the UK’s intention to treat those cohorts the same, but as case law has evolved it has become more difficult in practice. I thank other parliamentarians, including those in the other place, and stakeholders who have raised this issue. We want to ensure that there is clarity in law and that what we intend is actually the case. It is better all round to make the position clear. New clause 31 will mean that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the EUSS who were resident in the UK before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020—I remind the Committee that we left the EU at the end of January 2020, but had the transition period until December 2020—will be considered beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement and accordingly have rights in UK law. That is regardless of whether they belong to what I have described as the true cohort—the vast majority, who were compliant with all aspects of the free movement rules—or whether they technically did not and fell within what we have called the extra cohort. The new clause means that they all be able to rely directly on the rights in the withdrawal agreement for as long as they hold EUSS status. I am sure that, like all of us, Dame Siobhain, you consider it important for your constituents to have clarity about their rights in law.

The Government take citizens’ rights very seriously, and we continue to work constructively with the EU to ensure that citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement are properly implemented in the UK and the EU. The EUSS opened on 30 March 2019, when the withdrawal agreement was still in draft; some of us still remember those slightly heady days and late nights. From the start, the UK’s approach has been that, as the withdrawal agreement requires, all EU citizens resident in the UK before the cut-off date, which proved in the end to be the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, are eligible for the EUSS, irrespective of whether they resided in the UK in accordance with EU law at the end of 2020. The EUSS, our scheme in the UK, does not therefore assess whether, at the end of the transition period, the EU citizen was exercising treaty rights in the UK by being a worker, self-employed, a student or self-sufficient, or whether they had an EU law right of permanent residence here, possibly on the basis of having spent five years working here.

The approach we took was fair and ensured a smooth transition. It was a priority for the whole of Parliament during that time that EU citizens with a right to be in the UK and British citizens in the EU did not have their lives disrupted by the consequences of Brexit. That approach has greatly simplified the operation of the EUSS, under which 5.7 million people now have status. It also simplified it for applicants and caseworkers. That is important, because we want consistency and accuracy in the processing of cases.

Just by virtue of these technicalities, two cohorts of EU citizens and their family members have status under the EUSS: the true cohort, who derived their rights from the withdrawal agreement, and the extra cohort, who were not within scope of the withdrawal agreement for technical reasons and derived their rights from domestic legislation. The UK has sought as a matter of practice to treat those cohorts the same in how we have interpreted and treated those cases in relation to their status in the UK, but as case law has evolved, very small technical points have had consequences where rights have been derived technically from the withdrawal agreement or domestic legislation.

The new clause will make the position clear in law. It removes the distinction in UK law between true and extra cohorts, making it clear that both are to be treated as if they were in scope of the withdrawal agreement at the end of the transition period in December 2020, meaning that they benefit from the rights contained in part 2 of the agreement.

The new clause will also apply to the equivalent parts of the separation agreement with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and to the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. For example, an EU citizen resident in the UK before the end of the transition period—that is, December 2020—together with their family members with EUSS status, will be treated as being within the scope of the withdrawal agreement despite the fact that a significant gap in their employment in the UK before the end of the transition period means that, technically, they fell outside it. They will now be able to rely on the withdrawal agreement as the source of their rights in the UK. The new clause will confirm the equal treatment of the true and extra cohorts in UK law, removing any differences in treatment between them. It will reinforce the policy approach that has in fact been in place since the end of the transition period.

I turn briefly to other amendments in the group. Government amendment 22 is consequential on Government new clause 31, which, as I have said, will confirm as a matter of UK law what we have sought to do in practice since the EUSS was established—ensure that all EU citizens and their family members with status under the scheme have equal rights in the UK. Government amendment 25 is also consequential on Government new clause 31, and will ensure that it commences two months after Royal Assent.

Finally and briefly, clause 55 confirms that the extent of the Act will apply to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The appropriate elements listed under clause 55(3) also apply to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the British overseas territories. Other measures within the Act, aside from those listed in clause 55(4), can be extended to the Isle of Man. Clause 56 confirms the Secretary of State’s ability to specify, through regulations, when the Bill will come into force; that the measures listed under clause 56(3) will come into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent; and that those listed in clause 56(4) will come into force two months after Royal Assent. Clause 57 confirms that the Act may be cited in short form as the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I do not think I missed it in the Minister’s speech, although I apologise if I did. Can she advise on how many people have applied for and been granted settled status under the EU settlement scheme?

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I have another question for the Minister. I believe that she said that the true cohort had about 5.7 million applicants, but I wanted to understand more about the numbers of those who would fall under the extra cohort, given that they will be benefiting from rights. Can she give a little more of an explanation as to why the issue has come to light at this point, and was not in the original drafting?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I want to ask one simple question: does the Minister remember the good old days, when we had freedom of movement across the continent?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank hon. Members for those comments. I can clarify the numbers that I have; if there is anything that we have not covered, I can make sure that Members are written to. I mentioned that 5.7 million people now have status, but 4.1 million have settled status and have met the requirements for that. On why the change has happened now, the main point is that the issue has been ongoing and we had to work out the best time to bring it forward. We have now been able to bring it forward as a new clause in the Bill.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

On the timing of this measure, does our experience not show us that it is better to do these things in advance rather than later, when migrants come out of the woodwork having been let down? That happened with the Windrush experience.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I would probably put it slightly differently. This is an example of where we are being fair and generous—going beyond what was technically within the withdrawal agreement—because that is right for EU citizens who were here. In line with the approach that we took across the whole of Government, we should make sure that there is a smooth transition and security for EU residents here in the UK and also for British citizens in the EU.

I spent four years on the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union—I was a veteran, from the first meeting to the last. Early on, citizens’ rights were important and central. Policy has sometimes become a bit more difficult because of case law—we cannot always predict where that ends up—so it is right that we look at where we can make the position clear in law, which is what we are doing today.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Just to follow up on the numbers and check that I have understood this correctly, the Minister said that 5.7 million people have a grant of status, of whom 4.1 million people have settled status; presumably the remainder have pre-settled status. Are those numbers entirely the true cohort? Are the numbers of people that we are talking about today extra to that?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

The hon. Lady asks a good question. The extra cohort is a minority in that. There are estimates. I am not sure whether I have here the estimate of the specific number of the extra cohort, which it is quite difficult to have an exact number on. But I will make sure that she is written to about the best estimate or the best way in which we can consider it. The extra cohort is a minority, but it is important that we clarify that their rights, too, are derived from the withdrawal agreement.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I thank the Minister; that is very helpful. As I understand it, settled status under the EU settlement scheme entitles individuals to welfare payments, social housing, surcharge-free NHS care and more. Of those people who have been granted settled status, is the Minister or anyone in the Home Office—or indeed anyone anywhere in Government—making an assessment of how many of those individuals are net contributors to the public purse, and how many are a net cost to Britain’s taxpayers?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will just make this point first. In a sense, the new clause will have a very limited impact on access to benefits for those with pre-settled status, or limited leave, under the EUSS. To access income-related benefits such as universal credit, they would be required to evidence relevant qualifying activity, such as current or recent employment or self-employment. Those with settled status, or indefinite leave, under the EUSS already have full access to benefits where eligible.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, I know there is broader research, and there is some data but not other data, and there are different estimates, but I am sure that she will know and appreciate that the vast majority will be working. Her question is also relevant to a more general question about those who are here and have settled status: how many are working? We know that there is different research, but the vast majority are self-sufficient.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I refer the Committee back to the oral evidence that we heard at the very start of our work. Experts were asked whether they felt that the available immigration data, which could have been improved over 14 years, was robust enough for making strong assertions. Time and again, we heard from experts that it is very hard to make assessments about the net benefit or net cost of immigration flows into our country. Do the Government intend to work alongside the Migration Advisory Committee to improve the quality of immigration data so that we can make such assessments on a more robust footing?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

Indeed, it is important to have data that can inform policymaking and public debate. This is a separate matter to the one of those who come to work, settle and contribute to our economy and society, which I know we all want to see—that is indeed what we see in our constituencies—but it is also important that those who come through humanitarian routes are supported to access employability skills and employment, so that they can support themselves and their families. It is important that we look at how joined-up we are and to what extent that support is in place.

Clause 56 - Commencement

New Clause 30 - Conditions on limited leave to enter or remain and immigration bail

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause encompasses the conditions that can be attached to permission to enter or stay and immigration bail. Where a person is liable to be detained, for example because they are in the UK without the required permission or are subject to deportation proceedings, they may be placed on immigration bail. Where appropriate and in accordance with our European convention on human rights obligations, those on immigration bail can be subject to measures such as electronic monitoring and curfews.

Where a person does not qualify for asylum or protection under the refugee convention but cannot be removed from the UK because of our obligations under domestic and international law, they are granted permission to stay. Irrespective of the threat posed by the person, our legislation prevents us from imposing the same conditions that they may have been subjected to while on immigration bail.

The new clause will end that disparity in the powers available to protect the public from the particular migrant who poses a threat. It also makes crystal clear the conditions that may be imposed when a person is subject to immigration bail.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The new clause makes provision about the conditions that can be imposed on a grant of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom or a grant of immigration bail. The new conditions focus primarily on electronic monitoring, and we are supportive of those. However, given that the Government are repealing the provision passed by the last Conservative Government to mandate scientific age assessment, I am interested to know how they intend to ensure that the requirement that an electronic monitoring condition

“may not be imposed on a person unless the person is at least 18 years old”

can be delivered. As the Minister may have noticed, I am deeply concerned about the repealing of mandatory scientific age assessment provisions, and this is another reason why. Can she give us any timetable for when the Government might return to the issue?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I am a little disconcerted by this new clause. It is disappointing that it was introduced so late in proceedings; it should have been included in the Bill as presented on First Reading. Regardless of that, the new clause seems to fit a trend that I have detected with this Bill: there seems to be a cavalier attitude, approach and relationship with international obligations and some of our human rights commitments. Whereas I think everybody would accept that we want to target high-risk criminals and offenders, and the Government require the necessary powers to do that, they do admit that there are issues to do with the ECHR. I want to hear the Minister explain clearly what she means by high harm and risk. I think she has to give the Committee examples of the type of person who would fall foul of the new clause.

Human rights protections are in place for really good reasons. They have been designed and concocted to ensure that people get the protections regardless of what they may have committed in the past. We muck about with them at our peril. All that this cavalier approach to human rights will do is encourage those who want to get rid of our international obligations and our human rights entirely. I am looking at my Conservative friends; this does nothing other than encourage them and push this Government to go further.

We need to hear from the Government what they actually mean by the new clause. Given this watering-down of our commitments, we need to hear a real commitment from the Government that they stand by our international obligations and everything that is included in human rights for everybody we have a responsibility and obligation for.

Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. Given what we have seen play out in the last few weeks, I welcome the measures outlined in the new clause, which answers some of the issues highlighted by new clause 44, which was tabled by the Opposition.

I draw attention to the amendment of section 3(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971, which would put in a place a robust suite of measures to monitor and manage those coming into our country. Let us not forget that the new clause focuses on those who are coming here illegally and who are known to have been involved in criminality. The use of curfews, as well as inclusion and exclusion zones, with the possibility of extending conditions where the Secretary of State sees fit, will be a marked improvement on the incoherent approach currently in use. As we have debated in previous sittings, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 are not fit for purpose.

I believe that new clause 30, with greater intelligence and the duties of co-operation outlined in clause 5 relating to the role of the Border Security Commander, will create a foundation for better communication and data sharing between our intelligence agencies and their international counterparts. I feel that it will greatly improve on the current situation, in which, in the past few weeks, criminals and those with links to terrorist organisations have entered the country with limited restriction under the flawed legislation of the previous Government.

Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham and I welcome the new clause. British citizens must be safe, and they need a Government who act to protect them. I believe that the new clause will give them reassurance that we have the ability to impose tight controls and monitoring of an individual if it is deemed necessary by the authorities. We must have legislation that puts the security of our country at the top of the agenda, and the new clause gives the police the powers to impose electronic monitoring, curfews and movement bans on people who are perceived to be a threat when ECHR obligations are protecting them.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I want to comment briefly on the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I understand the importance of being sensitive to possible infringements and abuses of international law; indeed, in recent years, we have seen states around the world traducing it. However, I gently say to him—I hope it has not missed his attention—that the Prime Minister is a lawyer and, as a consequence of that background, he is deeply wedded to the law. In most of his speeches and statements, he refers consistently to the importance of the UK being a leader on the world stage by respecting international law.

I say that because the Committee has just repealed the Safety of Rwanda Act, which was deemed unlawful by the courts. We have a Prime Minister who deeply respects international law; around the world, we have states and actors who traduce it. Having a Prime Minister and a country that are so committed to it at this point in history is really important. I gently say to the hon. Member that it is important that we are sensitive to possible infringements of international law, but we ought not to overplay the possibility of it happening here in our country, when all the evidence from the last eight months should give us confidence and hope.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I would be interested in the Minister’s assessment of the operational utility of the new clause. What impact do the Government expect it to have on lowering the rate of abscondence from immigration bail?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We have had a small but perfectly formed debate on the new clause. I seek to reassure the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and explain to those who have made contributions the effect of the provisions.

I say gently to the hon. Member that the Bill is in compliance with international human rights laws. The powers in the new clause are necessary to protect the public from a very small cohort of migrants who pose a threat to them, but who cannot be removed because of our obligations under domestic and international law. In other words, they exist only because we are observing our obligations under international law. If we were simply to ignore international law and seek to deport people against the standards of international law to which we have signed up, we would not need to have these extra powers. We are debating new clause 30 only because we are adhering to international law. The hon. Member says that we are being cavalier about our commitment to adhering to international law. I gently say that he has got it pretty wrong.

In these cases, we will continue to frequently assess each person’s circumstances to ensure that they are removed at the earliest opportunity from measures such as a requirement to report, a curfew or electronic tagging, if it is safe to do so from the point of view of protecting the public. The powers will be used only in cases involving conduct such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, extremism or serious crime, or where the person poses a threat to national security or public safety. That is a pretty high bar.

The idea is that if somebody is on immigration bail and we are trying to detain them to deport them, but it transpires that we cannot deport them because of the threat to their safety and they have to be looked after here, it is wholly proportionate, if they present a real threat to the public, that the powers to electronically tag them or subject them to exclusion or inclusion zones can be attached to them. We are talking about people who come off immigration bail because we cannot deport them and, without the new clause, would suddenly find themselves much freer to cause the damage that we fear they may cause if they are left unwatched. That is the very narrow purpose of the new clause in the circumstances that I have talked about. To impose these tough restrictions there has to be a proportionality test, and of course all that is testable in law.

We are seeking to make certain that we can satisfy ourselves, more than we can at present, that that small category of people who, on a case-by-case basis, will be assessed to present this kind of risk can be properly managed and watched. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree to add the new clause to the Bill.

New Clause 31 - EU Settlement Scheme: rights of entry and residence etc

New Clause 1 - Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Additional safe and legal routes—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations specifying safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

The Government’s intention with the Bill is, as we have heard on numerous occasions—practically ad nauseam—to smash the gangs and disrupt their business model. In their attempt to do that, they have focused the Bill exclusively on what Ministers and various other Labour Members have called “deterrence measures”. That seems to include the further criminalisation of a number of new offences, and the extreme and exclusive focus on asylum seekers. Throughout the Committee’s proceedings, we have been encouraged to believe that all this is necessary for the Government to secure their objectives. We will see in time whether they are successful, but I have my doubts; the Bill is pretty much the same as others I have seen over the past 20 years.

The reason it is likely to fail is that what is entirely missing is the stark reality of those making the journey themselves. There is not even the remotest bit of curiosity as to why people are making such dangerous crossings or why they are prepared to put themselves and their families at such huge risk. Asylum seekers do not want to be at the mercy of these gangs and this vile trade—of course they don’t—but other than a few distinct and narrowly defined legal routes, asylum seekers are completely and utterly dependent on, and at the mercy of, the gangs.

The Government have designed a series of further criminalisation clauses that they hope will disrupt and smash the supply side of the small boat equation, but they have done utterly nothing to tackle the demand side of the equation. The demand side is the increasing number of asylum seekers and refugees who get on these small boats in the first place. Does it not interest the Government that so many people are using these small boats to come to the UK in the first place? What are the conditions that compel people to make a dangerous journey of thousands of miles to then get on a flimsy and probably unseaworthy boat to cross a frozen channel? Surely that is worth just a little bit of attention. Something in this Bill should take into account that situation and those conditions.

There is no way of someone claiming asylum in the United Kingdom unless they are in the United Kingdom, and the only way to get to the UK for nearly all asylum seekers is to board one of those small boats, organised in most cases by an illegal gang. These gangs have a monopoly on this business. They have exclusive rights to the irregular migration trade and, for them, business is booming. I will tell you something, Dame Siobhain: it is only going to get more lucrative for them, as international aid is cut by this Government and other Governments across the rest of the world, putting even more pressure on these particular regions.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the statistics that show that around 90% of people crossing the channel are men, and on the fact that men in Ukraine are typically committed to fighting the Russian invasion?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

That may well be the case, but I suggest to the hon. Member that Ukrainians are not getting on small boats across the channel because they have an effective and efficient safe route to get to this country that is not available to most other nations. There is no safe route, for example, for Eritreans or Sudanese people. There is just nothing available. The only means they have to get to the UK are small boats.

There is also the Hong Kong scheme. We do not see very many people from Hong Kong getting on board small boats to come across because, again, they have an efficient, effective scheme that is inclusive and deals with most of the problems. The Ministers also say that safe routes will do nothing to stop people getting on small boats and nothing to stop these journeys. No one is claiming that the establishment of safe routes would end all unsafe journeys. I do not believe that that is the appropriate test. It would not end small boat crossings, just as Ministers do not make ending all people smuggling and human trafficking the test of this new Bill, and their policy of smashing gangs and stopping the boats.

Safe routes cannot be expected to end all dangerous journeys or exploitation by smuggling gangs, and their capacity to reduce them depends on their accessibility. We also support safe routes because they are morally right—it is the right thing to do—and because safe routes save lives. The more available and accessible safe routes are, the more lives will be saved. Safe routes undercut smuggling gangs. The more available and accessible they are, the more they will do for the effort to smash the gangs and the people involved in this vile trade.

We have discussed the whole Bill in the last two weeks and it focuses primarily on increasing offences. Although tackling organised crime is necessary, it addresses only one side of the problem. Without safe routes, desperate people will continue to attempt dangerous crossings. We have a choice in front of us. We can continue with a range of policies that ignore the root causes of these journeys, or we can take meaningful action: expand safe routes, uphold our humanitarian commitments and make migration safer and more manageable. A truly modern and compassionate asylum system must include safe routes as a central pillar as well as all the other things this Government want and intend to do. Surely we should be looking to save as many lives as we can, and we know that safe routes save lives.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I have listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. We need to go back to the evidence we heard from the researcher from the Migration Observatory who I keep quoting. He said that demand for channel crossings is essentially “inelastic”. The hon. Gentleman is predicating his argument on tackling the demand side of the equation. We have been told by the experts that policy will have only a limited impact on the demand, and that is particularly salient when we think about safe routes.

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct; we already have safe routes in this country. We have the Afghan scheme, but because that is not available to everyone from Afghanistan, some of those who are not eligible come across on unsafe routes. Although the Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes are not specifically refugee schemes —they are analogous, I accept that point—they are open to a much broader cohort of people. There are some 254,000 Ukrainians and 120,000 Hong Kongers in the UK right now. Those figures are off the top of my head; I am ready to be corrected. It is because of the comprehensiveness of that safe route that we see such high numbers in the declines in the channel.

If we followed the hon. Gentleman’s advice, we would fall into the same logical trap as the Conservatives did with the Rwanda scheme. With Rwanda, the so-called message to the migrants was, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you’ll be sent to Rwanda.” First, it was not credible. Secondly, it clearly had no impact on people’s decision making. The hon. Gentleman is proposing that we say, “Don’t get on a boat—there’s a 1% chance that you can come in on a safe route.” I would argue that that would have the same impact on people crossing the channel.

The only way we could have a safe routes phenomenon would be to open them to a select group of people from a select few countries. That would basically be deciding who we thought was the most deserving and who was not, which is not how the refugee system should work. People’s cases should be judged on their merits and on individual circumstances. People can come from ostensibly safe countries but face things such as LGBT discrimination. People could be from a country at war but ineligible because they are one of the perpetrators of that war. We need to judge people on their cases.

Finally, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that safe routes are the only way to stop people getting on boats and freezing in the channel. Let us be really clear: that is the whole purpose of the Bill. However, the channel crossings are a new phenomenon. They were not happening five or 10 years ago, when we did not have safe routes either. The way to tackle people getting on those boats is by tackling the supply of boats and ways to cross the channel by tackling the gangs. Safe routes may have other values, but not for the purposes of stopping channel crossings.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am happy to support new clause 1—in fact, I enthusiastically support it. The challenge of speaking after the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire is that most of the things worth saying have already been said. In the evidence session I highlighted that safe and legal routes are a key part of us tackling the problem. The Ukrainian scheme is a clear example of success, as is the Hong Kong scheme, yet this Government, like the last one, seem reluctant to go down that route.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh was just saying, that we listen to the refugee voice and think more broadly about what asylum seekers and refugees actually want?

In a previous life, I worked for an international development charity where I led UK campaigning on safe and legal routes. In so doing I took away a major learning, which is that the UK cannot be overwhelmingly the country that receives refugees and asylum seekers via safe and legal routes. That is in part because the UK alone cannot be asked to shoulder such a large responsibility, but also because many asylum seekers and refugees wish to return home and therefore want to be located in a safe country that is nearer to their home country. Is it not right that we think about this in a broader and international sense, rather than assuming that the UK has to always be the country that shoulders the responsibility, when there are other ways that we can support?

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I have some sympathy for what the hon. Member says. We talked about listening to the refugee charities. One of the notes that I made of our evidence session is that they criticised the Bill as only being half the story—saying that it tackles the supply but not the demand. They said that we needed an integrated approach, and to them this Bill was not that; it was a blunt instrument. They were sympathetic to some of the Bill, but they said that it will not fully solve the things that we want to solve.

I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point that it might not be a full solution if the UK is the only country to agree safe and legal routes; but we made an agreement with Europe agreed about the Ukrainians. The hon. Member could have tried to amend the new clauses to say that the Government should be working with international partners to introduce safe and legal routes, but it seems that the Government want to dismiss any discussion of safe and legal routes whatsoever, even if working with partners.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Is it not the case that the Government do not think that primary legislation is the way to secure international negotiation about safe and legal routes? Actually, those conversations will be happening with the Government and partners. In fact, one of the highlights of having a new Government is a reset of our relationship with the European Union, which—in time, once it matures and restores—can help in negotiations for better routes for humanitarian assistance and support. Primary legislation is not needed for everything.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I would really like to hear the Minister confirm that the Government are going to work with international partners to encourage a co-ordinated programme on safe and legal routes. One option, I would hope, is to agree to the new clause, but if the Government will not agree with this version, will they agree to consult on how to introduce safe and legal routes with partners? I am trying to be as moderate and practical as possible. A lot of requests from MPs do not require immediate action, but they do require the Government to consult. Is that something that the Minister would consider?

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for making a compelling argument around the balance between our decency and humanity and not creating a pull factor that will cause more risk. I draw the Committee’s attention to our work as a Government with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has resettled individuals from Ethiopia, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen. Combined with the other resettlement routes that we have in place, such as family reunion, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, and the Hong Kong and Ukraine schemes, we have resettled over half a million individuals since 2015—I do not know the exact stats. There are ways to come here safely for people who need it.

When it comes to illegal migration, it is important that we take out the smuggling gangs. The Bill will help us do that with disruptive measures so we can get there first. This counter-terror approach is the right way.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

SNP new clause 1 and Liberal Democrat new clause 6 seek to establish, within six months of the passage of this legislation, safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals can enter the UK. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said, it was very good that the previous Conservative Government set up the Afghan resettlement programme, which was a route that Afghans could use to come to the UK. However, in that same year, 2022, over 8,000 Afghans arrived on small boats—the second-highest number of people by nationality. The trend has continued, as Afghans were the top nationality arriving by small boats in 2023 and 2024. This shows that safe and legal routes do not necessarily lead to an end to crossings in small boats. The point is especially important now, as the EU has begun to take action to tackle illegal migration, such as looking again at the 1951 refugee convention.

I ask hon. Members what criteria they would seek to apply to the establishment of additional safe and legal routes. What safe and legal routes do they believe should be in place that are not already? Have they made any assessment of the increase in numbers of people coming to the UK that might result from their new clauses? The SNP and Liberal Democrat plans risk the UK becoming a magnet for people across the world at a time when our allies in Europe are looking at curbing asylum policies. How do the SNP and the Liberal Democrats plan to stop us becoming the soft touch of Europe? Do they believe that British taxpayers should be paying more than their European counterparts if asylum seekers start coming to the UK in large numbers amidst the crackdown in the EU?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The fundamental question of safe and legal routes seems to be that of how many people the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire thinks Britain might need to let in to achieve the aims he sets out. There are over 120 million people in the world who have been displaced from their homes, of whom nearly 50 million are refugees. That is nearly three quarters of the population of this country. On top of that, the 1951 refugee convention now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 million people, for—as well as internationally displaced refugees and modern slaves—there are all those who could potentially face a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion, who may flee their home country. Some of those people—many of them, perhaps—are living lives that might seem to us in the UK unspeakably and unthinkably hard and sad. It is also true, though, that there is a limit to what this country is able to do to help through migration. The answer to global suffering cannot be that all those people come here.

New clause 1 calls for a strategy on safe and managed routes, but that does not reflect the challenge of these routes and the way that they are created. By their very nature, specific asylum routes are often opened up in response to specific circumstances: usually, emergencies that could not be foreseen and anticipated in a neat strategy. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal is right to highlight the work this country does with the UN to identify those in the world in the greatest need of our help and where that help, in the form of resettlement, would be most appropriate. It seems to me that it would be impossible to publish in advance a strategy for something that is mostly centred around emergencies that cannot be foreseen.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

This has been a very good debate and we have got to the heart of some of the issues. I will push the new clause to a vote because, of all the things that those involved with the welfare of and looking after refugees and asylum seekers tell us, their main ask of this Government is to look at a strategy for safe routes. I think we are getting to the equation at the heart of all the issues that we are considering today: the demand side and the supply side.

We are supporting Government measures to ensure that they tackle the demand side—they might have useful armoury, like this Bill, to achieve that—but surely we should give even scant attention to the supply side: the reasons that so many people are coming here. The fact is that they have no other option but to get on an unseaworthy boat to sail across the channel to get to the UK, as they can only make a claim for asylum when they are based in the UK.

I am not asking the Government to open the country up to 247 million refugees. That would be absurd and ridiculous. I do not think anybody is suggesting that at all. All we are asking is for the Government to see if they could do something more to ensure that there are routes available for some of the most wretched people in the world who are looking to come to the United Kingdom, and that we do not leave them exclusively at the mercy of the people that I know the Government are sincere in wanting to tackle.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Might the hon. Gentleman tell us how many people would be satisfactory for him and what he is trying to achieve?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

That is a very difficult thing to say. We have some rough ideas when it comes to the Ukraine and Afghan schemes. These schemes are really worth while. We have seen them work, because there are no Ukrainians crossing the channel—we have had five individuals. It is absurd and ridiculous to suggest that every single refugee in the world is going to come, but the Government—we passed this in a clause earlier—are putting a cap and a quota on people using these safe routes. They are not interested in opening up and developing these safe routes; they want to stop and put a quota on people using them.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is not a binary choice between, on the one hand, safe and legal routes to the UK, and on the other, getting into a death machine boat to reach the UK? Actually, we could have refugees and asylum seekers who travelled through safe and legal routes to other countries.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

Absolutely. I think we are starting to get into territory where there is general agreement. With these amendments, we are asking the Government to look at what more they could do to achieve their clear objective of smashing the gangs. The gangs are successful and will adapt to whatever is put in their way by the Bill. These people know how to work this business. People have said it has only been going five years, but this business is developing at pace. They will amend their business model and practice to adapt to whatever the Government throw at them in the new criminalisation clauses. Their trade will probably get more lucrative as a response, so let us beat them. Let us take them on. Let us really spike their business model by offering an alternative way and means to secure entry to the UK so asylum can be claimed. All we are looking for is an opportunity to develop this and have a conversation.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is the same dynamic as the Rwanda programme? If we are offering only 1% of people safe routes, it is the same as saying to 1% of people that they will be sent back. The impact on those people’s decision making is exactly the same.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I have been impressed by his contributions thus far in public, but it is utterly absurd and ridiculous to suggest that offering safe routes is somehow on a par with the Rwanda scheme. It disrespects the hon. Gentleman’s case to suggest there is any similarity about this. We are trying to ensure that the business model of the gangs will be smashed and tackled.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Who and where does the hon. Gentleman see the scheme applying to? It is very easy to go along with the case for compassion, but who and where? The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot give an indication of numbers or costs, but who are the priorities, and who exactly will benefit from such a scheme?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

If we look at the international situation, we know the hotspots and the areas and issues that have difficulty, because there are people queuing up in France to come to the United Kingdom. Safe routes should not be the only solution; they are part of a solution. We also have to look at what we are doing on the ground in these countries about particular difficulties and issues. We seem to be making the situation 10 times worse by withdrawing international aid from a number of these countries, which will only put more pressure on these areas. The scheme is part of a package. It looks at the criminalisation clauses and uses safe routes as a means to assist that process, getting involved in countries where there are difficulties and issues and trying to help resolve the tensions and difficulties there. For every single organisation that works with refugees and asylum seekers and is concerned about their care, this is their main ask. We should listen to them.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

The hon. Gentleman speaks passionately and with a great deal of compassion, which I respect, and I understand his point. However, I return to the point from this side of the Committee, which is that there is a limit to how many people we can look after and help. We also owe a duty to those who have already come into the country, and a duty to our own population, to offer them services. There is currently a real stretch, and I think that, without knowing the details about how many, and where they will come from, we will really struggle.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

rose—

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

Before I take an intervention from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, does the Minister want to contribute?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

Thank you, Dame Siobhain. It is a pleasure to speak to these new clauses, and to acknowledge the genuine questions and important aspects that have been raised in the debate so far. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross-shire and for Woking for tabling the amendments. Contributions also came from my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh and for Dover and Deal and from the Opposition.

The point I want to make on this subject is in response to both new clauses, although I recognise the slight differences. New clause 1 seeks to require a strategy, laid before Parliament, for the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK, and new clause 6 seeks to require the Secretary of State to

“make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes”.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said that he was pretty good at predicting the responses from colleagues. I gently suggest that I might say some things that he may not expect about certain aspects of the subject. That is because some parts of what we currently do have not been raised at all in the debate. They are in relation to safe and legal routes, and how they are working, outside the Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong schemes. I want to go through those points because they are important.

I also make a broad point in relation to, in particular, the comments and the question from the hon. Member for Woking about consideration and having a conversation. The Government will, as he knows, shortly set out our approach to immigration as part of considering how we bring down net migration, tackle abuse and put more controls in the system. The system has lost public confidence. I think we all know—the Conservatives themselves have acknowledged it—that we lost control of immigration. The system was and is chaotic. It is not just a problem in relation to how people feel about an immigration system that is not fair, controlled or managed; it is about the consequences for individuals, such as asylum seekers caught up in backlogs. Their lives are on hold until their claim is considered.

It is important to return to the subject of the utter chaos that the whole system has been in, and why the Bill is important to what we are looking to do to strengthen our borders and go after the smuggling gangs, which hon. Members have mentioned. Those gangs do so much damage to the lives of migrants. They also undermine our border security and make money—millions—from putting lives at risk. It is important that we look at how we are tackling the demand. Several hon. Members made that important point. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire did not talk about going even further with what he is suggesting.

It is absolutely right that the international community should look at how we stem the demand. Some of that is about looking in a more integrated way—with the Government as a whole, with the work of the Foreign Office, and the work that we do with nations around the world—at the increasing challenge of global displacement and seeking to address those root causes. How do we continue to offer resettlement in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome and integrate refugees?

The work that needs to happen on how we perceive our role in the world is important, because with climate and conflict there is increasing risk of displacement in the future. We must work to tackle what those risks and where those locations could be. UNHCR data analysis tracks where a conflict begins, what displacement may happen, and who might be on the boats in the next year or two. That is why it is important to think about how we deal with those who may feel forced to leave where they are for safety or environmental reasons, such as flooding or other climate issues. Those topics featured at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women this week. It is important because it affects whole families, children, education, where people are settled, their homes, their work and so on. In tackling the demand side, I encourage the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire to participate in the broader strategic debates that look at what could be coming in the future.

The UK has a strong history of protecting those who flee war and persecution around the world. We operate several global safe and legal routes for refugees, in partnership with the UNHCR. It is through the UK’s resettlement scheme that we can respond to developing crises anywhere in the world. The UNHCR refers individuals for resettlement in accordance with their standard resettlement submission criteria, which are based on an assessment of protection needs and vulnerabilities. The UK does not seek to influence the cases that the UNHCR refers to us, and our resettlement schemes are not application based. It is important to note that the UK partners with the UNHCR to resettle the most vulnerable refugees through our existing routes. It is the UNHCR, independently of us, which identifies refugees registered with them and assesses their protection needs in accordance with resettlement criteria. Those who are determined by the UNHCR to be in need of resettlement may be referred to the UK for consideration. A number of refugees have already been identified and accepted by the UK; they have not yet been able to travel, which is partly in line with our capacity to welcome, house and support those refugees when they arrive.

Between 2015 and December 2024, the UK resettled more than 33,000 individuals under refugee resettlement schemes. That includes the UKRS, community sponsorship —we have around 200 community sponsorship individuals and organisations around the UK who support the work to settle people and families when they arrive—and also the mandate resettlement scheme. The figure does not include those resettled or relocated under the Afghan schemes. I encourage the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire to look perhaps more closely at what other routes there are; I would welcome a conversation about that. There have been routes through the displaced talent programme for those who may apply to come and work here, supporting our economy and contributing to our growth and to our society.

Alongside working with UNHCR—particularly where there are large populations of refugees, such as those bordering countries with conflicts, where resettlement may be the only durable solution for them—we also want to look at where we can support safe places, working in areas of conflict, as I know the FCDO will be doing in line with international partners, so that people do not feel that they need to leave the place where they live, where they may have lived for generations, because of conflict, and to find a way for them to live there safely again. We also have the bespoke routes for sanctuary, as the hon. Gentleman has already said, for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, and information on those routes is available on the gov.uk website.

However, there is no provision in our immigration rules, as the hon. Gentleman intimated, for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum or temporary refuge. I think we can all sympathise with and want to see support for people in difficult situations around the world and, as has been discussed, it is extremely difficult to think how we can do that on our own. We cannot do these things on our own; they are international problems and they require international solutions.

We have systems by which people who are in need of international protection can be supported, but there is an important principle that those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety, which is why there is no provision in our immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK in order to seek asylum or temporary refuge.

I hope that that addresses the reasons why our response to the hon. Gentleman’s question about tackling demand —it is an important question—is to look not only at what works, to work internationally and to look upstream, but at how that works together as part of a future immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. That will be an important part of the considerations in the White Paper and the debates that follow.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I realise and understand that it is me standing between everybody else around here and lunch, so I will be brief. I am grateful to the Minister, and there is very little I disagree with her on: we have to tackle the upstream situations and do all we can to ensure that we alleviate some of them. I agree with all that. All I am seeking to do with the new clause is to add to the armoury for taking on the gangs. That is the intention of this Government, but without this new clause, the whole system is not complete; we are just leaving all those asylum seekers at the mercy of these illegal gangs and their vile trade. All I am asking is whether we can devise a strategy that would help the Government in their mission. I will press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 3 - Scottish visa scheme: Scotland Act

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Scottish visa scheme: immigration rules—

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for the establishment of a Scottish visa scheme.

(2) A scheme established under subsection (1) must be administered under the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.

(3) No scheme may be established under subsection (1) until consent has been given by Scottish Ministers with respect of the criteria, extent and duration of the scheme.”

In conjunction with NC3, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide for a Scottish visa scheme administered under the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I thought we were ready for lunch! I am ill prepared. This Committee has a strong work ethic—I am desperately trying to find my notes.

The new clauses are practically the exact opposite of everything about this Bill. I am delighted, if quite surprised, that they have been selected for debate. As you would expect, Dame Siobhain, I am going to use the opportunity to promote this cause. Unlike everything about the Bill, the new clauses have at their heart the recognition of the value of immigration, how it is a benefit and why it is necessary to keep our communities and workforce healthy and sustainable.

Scotland has an emerging demography and population crisis, and that is only going to get worse unless we do something about it. With our falling birth rate, we are reaching the stage where we have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population. We are already experiencing issues and difficulties in the health service; the care service in Scotland is heading for a workforce crisis; and hospitality outlets and businesses are closing in rural constituencies like mine because they have not got the staff. The simple fact is that Scotland needs more working-age people to refresh our population. If we fail to secure the people we require, we will be in serious trouble.

Scotland is not alone in this—we are just a little bit further along than some other nations. All over the world, advanced democracies are facing the same range of problems and are now positively addressing their own issues with a range of interventions that they hope might spare them the worst of the consequences. Ironically, the global population is still growing and it is uncertain when population growth will peak, but most predict it will come as early as the 2060s.

When I heard that we had a demography professor as a witness in our evidence session, I was quite excited, given my interest in population and demography, but he seemed to be more interested in eugenics than global trends. I think we almost got him to confirm that almost all predictions show that we will soon be heading to population decline. Given his particular and weird worldview, I do not think he accepted even that.

All reputable sources agree that the world population will soon peak and then fall rapidly. As population growth slows down, we are starting to see the difficulties occur. They will start to be felt in nations that experienced rapid growth in the 20th century, like the United Kingdom and most other European democracies. Already we see countries in Europe, such as Italy and Spain, starting to see the real difficulties of population stagnation. Even China is beginning to experience the wider impacts of population slowdown. Japan stands out as a stark example: it is not just at population stagnation, but population decline, which might see it fall from third in the GDP ranks to eighth, because of the impact on the economy.

Far from being a burden, by the end of the century we might be in a situation where immigrants could be at a premium—a highly sought commodity. I am sure that is a prospect that would make our Reform colleagues’ heads explode, as well as those of some Conservatives.

The conventional Westminster consensus view from both Labour and the Conservatives is that immigration is a burden—it is out of control and something that must be tackled and controlled. They might look at the general UK population trends and believe they validate the point. The UK population is currently 68.3 million. It is apparently going to grow by another 5 million to 72.5 million by the mid-2030s, then it is going to fall. But it is going to grow by that scale only because the Tories made such a hash of their mission to cut immigration that they inadvertently quadrupled it.

The Tories did not even understand the post-Brexit visa system they were building, believing that just halting freedom of movement and focusing on Rwanda would solve all their immigration woes. That Tory blunder will actually assist the UK as it starts to deal with its population and demography stagnation issues, but this bit of good news could not make the Tories more miserable. All it has done is spur them into further action against immigration.

Unfortunately, in Scotland we do not share the good fortunate. Our population is currently around 5.43 million, and has grown modestly over the past few years because of the UK’s immigration debacle, but we are set to be one of the first parts of the UK to decline, and that could come as early as 2030. With 22% of our population over 65, compared with 19% in England, and a very low birth rate of one child for every three women, we are in just about the worst possible position when it comes to addressing our demographic challenges.

That is why we have been so persistent, resolute and committed in calling for a distinct Scottish visa. We need Scottish solutions for our own Scottish predicament, and we need the same range of tools to address these issues as other countries. There is no disagreement in Scotland about that. Every single business organisation now agrees that we must act, and there is even consensus among all the political parties that we have real demography and population challenges and need the tools to address them. Everybody knows the difficulties we are in, and every sector is starting to feel the consequences.

The UK Government are not in the least bit interested. Every time I have raised the issue in Parliament, I have been totally rebuffed. Every time Scottish Government colleagues have tried to engage the UK Government, they have been told where to go. I am fully expecting—my great prediction of what the Minister will say—that I will get told where to go again, because they are not in the least bit interested in our distinct, specific population and demographic challenges. But the Scottish people are. The Scottish people are beginning to see the impact on their health service, care services and businesses in rural areas. They are beginning to know that we need the tools to do it.

If the UK Government are not going to provide us with the assistance, support and help we need, we are going to have to do it ourselves. I am pretty certain that when the independence debate begins to develop once again, this will be a big feature of it, because we need to ensure that we have the tools and resources to challenge all the difficult issues we will face in the future. I know Ministers will tell me that I do not need this change, and there is one UK immigration system. They will say, “Don’t you worry, Scotland; we will think of some little thing you might get,” but it will be insufficient. We need these tools, so I am never going to stop insisting that we get this change to help our nation with our difficulties.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I admire the hon. Gentleman’s forthrightness in putting forward his argument. I have thought about this issue for a long time. Two cantankerous Scotsmen talking about their hobby-horse while everyone else waits for lunch is an exquisite torture to subject the rest of the Committee to.

I was surprised even to see the new clause on the amendment paper—

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

So was I.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Because the Bill is about border policy and asylum policy, which have very little to do with visas, migration and the running of the immigration system. I do not think this Committee is the place for it, but I am learning that people sneak amendments in wherever they can in this place.

The new clause refers to the granting of visas

“to enable certain workers to work in Scotland only.”

First, let us be clear: that is absolutely a part of our immigration system. An international student who wants to study at the University of Edinburgh, or Queen Margaret University in my constituency, gets a visa to that university. I suppose they could commute from Worthing or Dagenham, but in reality they live locally. Equally, when people get a job, they get it on the basis of a specific role, so it is tied to that location. The immigrants we currently have in Scotland are obviously allowed to move around the country, as we have free movement within the UK, but we already have the component of their job location, so the new clause is completely irrelevant.

Secondly, we have had some international examples of a federated country or state introducing a specific visa system, such as Canada and Australia, and 20-odd years ago we had the Fresh Talent scheme in Scotland. The evidence is that specific systems are not very effective at either achieving the aims they set out or tackling any of the deep-rooted challenges that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire alluded to. All the evidence shows that such schemes are not the right tool to address those challenges.

To come to some of the points the hon. Gentleman made, we have to be honest about the challenges we face in Scotland. Even in this era of record-high net migration to the UK, the figure for which is 900,000—way higher than the goal the Conservatives set—parts of Scotland still struggle to attract migrants. When we had access to European free movement, or 300 million potential people to come and fill vacancies in our labour market, we did not attract them. We have been talking about demand and supply and migration, but the problem is not the supply of immigrants coming to Scotland. It is that we are not generating the demand for them to come to our part of the UK. That is what we need to work on.

The reason for that is the Scottish labour market: it is not dynamic or attractive enough to solve the challenges we have. I would argue that after 20 years of the SNP Scottish Government running our economy and leaking our taxes, that is the cause of our challenges.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I cannot let the hon. Gentleman get away with this, because it is utter and total bunkum. I ever so gently encourage him to look at the migration figures within the United Kingdom and at how many people are leaving Scotland and how many are coming from the rest of the UK to settle in Scotland. It is at a record high, and it is growing. We have never seen figures quite like this before. They are attracted to Scotland because we have a better health service, we have a better taxation system and there are more opportunities.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I have given the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude in the Committee, and I suggest that what he is doing is not an intervention.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I do not think it is the state of the Scottish health service that is attracting people to Scotland. Other Members are seeing what it is like dealing with the Scottish nationalist party. To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail. To the SNP, the solution to every question is Scottish independence, or some specific Scottish legislation. Where there are specificities in Scotland, such as our health service and some of our labour market, there absolutely should be action from the Scottish Government to deal with it. However, this problem is not that. The issue is not that Scotland needs to become independent to attract people. We need to reform our labour market so that we can deal with the demographic issues.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire makes the point that people are coming to Scotland now, but once again the SNP is making the mistake of seeing all of Scotland as some monolithic whole, rather than trying to think about what is happening in Scotland. My constituency of Edinburgh East and Musselburgh is seeing record population growth, at 15%, and it is 20% in the East Lothian part of the constituency. We are struggling to put in houses because we are so attractive and wonderful.

But other parts of Scotland are not finding that. The hon. Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West is present, and there are serious challenges in Inverclyde as population is declining. We are seeing a move in Scotland from the west coast to the east coast, as Scottish people move about, and we are also seeing international migrants focusing on certain parts. Some areas have vacancies, especially the highlands and the north of Scotland, because moving there is not attractive to people within Scotland. A Scottish visa could end up with everyone moving to Edinburgh, which would not at all solve the problems that other Members in the room face.

I made the point at the beginning that if we want to use migration to solve our demographic challenges, we are falling into the same mistake as the far right: we are forgetting that migrants are people. They are not just cogs that we put in a machine to be placed in and taken out at will. They are people who grow old, get sick, fall in love, move around and do stuff. We do not suddenly put people in and find that we have solved our demographic challenge. There are whole sets of things that we have to do. Most of all, the main point is that this is a debate that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and I need to have at length over the course of this Parliament, not as part of the Bill.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

SNP new clauses 3 and 4 seek to set up a separate visa scheme and immigration rules for Scotland. Can the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire explain a little more about how this would work in practice? Who does he expect or anticipate those “certain workers” to be? How does he expect that to work in isolation from the wider UK economy? What would prevent someone from applying for a visa to Scotland and moving to other parts of the UK? Is the SNP advocating that there should be checks on people moving between Scotland and the rest of the UK? Why is the SNP not spending more time getting those who are economically inactive into work, rather than reaching for the immigration lever?

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I think that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire implied Professor David Coleman was talking about eugenics in the session. I want to put on record that he was not talking about eugenics and that he is an emeritus professor of demography; I know that was a line of questioning raised by the Minister. I want to put on record that that was not what he was there for. He was there to talk about his work with Migration Watch.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

He is a eugenicist.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

The Minister says that the professor is a eugenicist, but he actually explained a different relationship. It is important that that is put on record, because it is taking away from his role as emeritus professor for demography.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I am a little surprised to see the suggestion from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire because my sense, from the rest of what he said in the debates we have had over preceding sessions, is that he would like to see less of a distinction between British people and those who come to this country as migrants. Indeed, his new clause 5, which we will debate after this, will explicitly set this out, particularly on the question of British citizenship. A scheme like the one he proposes in new clauses 3 and 4 would have the opposite effect, since any citizen of the United Kingdom can freely move between England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, living and working wherever they choose, and can change the location of their home or employment without permission or notice from any authority. We can pass from one area to another without being stopped or questioned, without having to evidence who we are, where we are from and going, and if and when we might return.

A specifically Scottish visa programme would presumably only work if none of those things were the case. Whatever the details, it would surely involve people coming to Britain but promising only to live and/or work in Scotland, over and above the situations where such things are already implied by the specific conditions of their visa—like the university at which they are studying or the company employing them, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh already laid out.

How would this be evidenced, tracked or enforced? Would individuals moving from a few metres into Scotland to a few metres into England be deported? Why would this be a specialist visa programme? If our friends north of the English-Scottish border are especially keen to attract people of working age, be they migrants or not, why would this be the right solution? What steps are already being taken to attract such people, or to make it easier for them to move to or work in Scotland?

Finally, I am interested in the view of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire on why Scotland currently has within its borders so few asylum seekers within the system. Given what he has previously said, it would be interesting to understand why he thinks that the number of asylum seekers—either in hotels or in dispersed accommodation in Scotland—is less than half of what it should be, proportionate to population of the rest of the United Kingdom.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for this important debate, Dame Siobhain. It is probably the fourth time we have discussed this matter. I want to acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will be aware—perhaps this is one point I can acknowledge that he would have predicted my response—that we will not be introducing a Scottish visa scheme or devolving control of immigration policy. This has also been a discussion that we have had, and a point that we have made to the Scottish Government. In my remarks, I will perhaps make a few points that will be useful for his ongoing deliberations on this issue, and suggest how he may direct them towards working with the Scottish Government on some matters that it may be useful for him to be aware of.

The key point is that we must work together to address the underlying causes of skills shortages and overseas recruitment in different parts of the UK, and that is what we are seeking to do. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we believe net migration must come down—under the last Government, it more than trebled and reached a record high of over 900,000 in the year to June 2023. Immigration is a reserved matter, on which we work in the interest of the whole of the UK. The previous schemes that we have talked about have succeeded only in restricting movement and rights, and creating internal UK borders. Adding different rules for different locations will also increase complexity and create friction when workers move locations.

The hon. Member may see want to see migration as a solution to some of the depopulation challenges in rural areas faced not just in Scotland but in other parts of the UK. We recognise those challenges and have debated them—it was an important debate—but visa holders may not want to stay in particular areas for much the same reasons that UK nationals do not want to stay in them, and we cannot compel them to do so indefinitely. The reasons for workers or residents leaving must also be addressed, with investment in jobs, infrastructure and public services. Many of the levers to address depopulation are powers that the Scottish Government already have at their disposal. I think it would be of value if the hon. Gentleman were to bring to the House examples of where he has been working with the Scottish Government, how they have been using their powers, the investment that is taking place, and their strategy to address depopulation in Scotland. That would enrich the debate, taking it beyond discussions and into a solution space.

I will make some final remarks, including about the situation in some of the fishing communities. I have visited Scotland recently, and I will comment on workplace shortages in line with what the Home Secretary outlined in the inter-ministerial group that she chaired in January. She set out the UK Government’s approach to linking migration with labour markets, including the quad, which we have discussed: bringing together skills; the Migration Advisory Committee—on which Scotland is represented by a member from Scotland with expertise in the Scottish economy; labour market access; and our approach to employment. The Home Secretary acknowledged that a lot of that work is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is therefore important for the UK Government to work with the devolved Governments to identify how to work together on these agendas. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s Minister for Equalities noted the common themes with other devolved Governments, and welcomed the joined-up and evidence-based approach. She also highlighted—as the hon. Gentleman has—the Scottish Government’s request for a Scottish graduate visa.

It is important to acknowledge that although the Home Secretary confirmed, as I have, that we will not develop devolved visas or visa administration—I will make some remarks to explain why we will not support the hon. Gentleman’s new clauses—she recognised that labour market challenges are different across different nations and regions, and asked officials to work across the four Governments to develop structures for UK-wide analysis and bring that work back to the next inter-ministerial group. That will also involve discussion of the immigration White Paper, in which we want to make sure we have inputs from across the whole of the UK.

Finally, I turn to the new clauses—not least in the light of the comments I have made, which addressed the issues in a different and more strategic way than he is calling for. The technicalities of the new clauses would complicate the visa system: they would potentially work against wider immigration policy; the scope is unclear; and there is no definition of the “certain workers” mentioned in new clause 3. New clause 4 would put the Home Secretary in the unacceptable position of having to act unlawfully in the event that a scheme was not ready to go within the proposed six months. These are not straightforward measures, but it is important that we tackle the issues that the hon. Member has raised. I look forward to continuing debates with him on how we do that.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I will be brief, but a lot of the questions that were asked were relevant and deserve a response. First, it is not me that the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh needs to debate and speak to about this; it is Scottish businesses, business organisations and the political consensus in Scotland. The hon. Member should sit down with Jackie Baillie, who raised visas as a live issue during the general election campaign. I do not know what happened to that ambition from Scottish Labour. It seems to me that it was totally slapped down by the bosses down here in the Home Office, who wanted absolutely nothing to do with it. We do not hear about it as much anymore, but it was a real ambition from Jackie Baillie and the Labour party to secure this provision for Scotland. We only need to look back at the last Labour Government to see what imagination can do and what effective Government can deliver. We had the Fresh Talent scheme—a fantastic scheme that gave us a competitive advantage when it came to university students.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

The hon. Gentleman mentions the Fresh Talent scheme, which allowed graduates of Scottish universities to remain and work for two years after graduation without needing a sponsoring employer. In practice, many Fresh Talent participants did not remain in Scotland and took up employment elsewhere in the UK. That is precisely the challenge we are talking about.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I remind the Minister that we have a hard return at 2 o’clock, so the longer we go on, the less likely it is that anybody is going to get an opportunity for lunch.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I will try to be as brief as possible, because I understand that we have got a time constraint.

Fresh Talent possibly did do that, but it would be different this time round because we have a distinct tax code in Scotland. We have Revenue Scotland as a result of further devolved powers from a few years ago. To address the questions from Conservative Members as to how a scheme would work, because of that tax code anybody who came in through a distinct Scottish visa scheme would be bound by that, and the obligations and qualifications would be to work in a list of occupations that is designed in Scotland.

Members are talking about this as if it has never been done anywhere else in the world. When I chaired the Scottish Affairs Committee, I took it to Quebec, and we sat down and examined exactly what happened there. We saw a fantastic scheme that has given Quebec, and particularly the Montreal metropolitan area, huge advantages over the rest of Canada. It works there and it works in Australia. Through imagination and making sure they are done in the right way, these schemes work and bring real benefits. International examples show that distinct tax codes that would allow people to stay within a distinct area in Scotland could be easily delivered.

We are going to continue to debate this issue as this Bill goes forward. The whole Scottish business community and the care sector are saying to us, “This is a priority.” It is not going to go away, but again it is rebuffed. Is a place on the Migration Advisory Committee really the best that the Government can with this range of difficult circumstances? I will be back to the issue and we will make sure that we take things forward. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I congratulate everybody on arriving so promptly; I hope there is not too much indigestion about.

New Clause 5 - British citizenship

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I trust everybody enjoyed the five-course banquet we had in the 20 minutes available to us. I apologise if I seemed to be unnecessarily detaining the Committee and depriving them of a good and solid lunch; we will make sure that that does not happen again, Dame Siobhain.

It was with a gasp of astonishment that we learned of this Government’s intention to change the nationality good character requirement guidance—it came totally out of the blue. I think we are all still reeling a little bit, thinking about what this involves and what is at stake. It establishes a new standard that individuals who previously entered the UK illegally or without valid entry clearance, particularly in what is described as a “dangerous journey”, will now be refused citizenship. That is a huge departure from previous practice, where illegal entry was typically considered a barrier to citizenship only if it had occurred in the past 10 years. Regardless of how long a person has lived in the UK, their mode of entry could now be used to deny them the right to naturalise.

This policy has been implemented without prior consultation or parliamentary scrutiny—it is going to get a little bit this afternoon, but that is only because we have brought the issue to this Committee—and that raises serious concerns about its fairness and legality. The majority of refugees arrive in the UK through irregular routes; safe and legal pathways remain extremely limited, as we learned in the previous debate. By effectively banning these individuals from citizenship, this policy risks permanently disenfranchising those who have sought protection in the UK and who have built their lives here.

We already heard from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which wrote to the Committee to say that the decision to deny citizenship based on mode of entry contradicts the UK’s commitment under international law, particularly article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention. This article’s non-penalisation clause states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”

The denial of citizenship based on how someone arrived in the UK is a clear penalty, which goes contrary to the convention. The UNHCR notes that it previously highlighted in its legal observation on the Illegal Migration Bill 2023 that restricting access to citizenship under section 31 to 35 of that Act would constitute a

“penalty under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention and be in breach of that provision. It further stated that the provisions ran counter to Article 34 of the Refugee Convention and Article 32 of the 1954 Convention on Statelessness which requires States to ‘as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of’ refugees and stateless people”.

Despite the proposed repeal of these provisions, updates to the nationality good character requirement guidance issued in February 2025 appear to reintroduce similar barriers, further restricting pathways to citizenship for those affected. In addition, the policy change is likely to deter many from applying for citizenship altogether, given the high costs involved and the lack of an appeal process in case of refusal. Even if the guidance states that an exception may be made, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will tell me, those who would be likely to obtain citizenship due to their personal circumstances will be deterred from applying.

Currently, a naturalisation application costs £1,605, with an expected increase of £1,685. That financial burden, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the application process, creates significant barriers for refugees and stateless persons who would otherwise seek to integrate fully into British society.

The application of the policy will go beyond individual applicants. Citizenship is a key factor in social integration, providing security, stability and full participation in civic life, including the right to vote in general elections. Without access to naturalisation, many individuals who have lived and worked in, and contributed to, the UK for years—if not decades—will remain in a precarious status. Although the Home Office guidance allows for some discretion in decision making, it provides no real criteria on how that discretion will be applied. The lack of transparency makes the process unpredictable and risks creating a system where citizenship decisions are inconsistent or arbitrary.

The changes also highlight the broader issue of immigration law being shaped through administrative guidance rather than through democratic scrutiny, which is our role as parliamentarians in this House. By changing the interpretation of the statutory good character requirement without parliamentary oversight, the Home Office has effectively reinstated elements of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that were meant to be scrapped through this Bill. The lack of accountability is deeply concerning.

Granting citizenship is a key step in ending an individual’s status as a refugee or stateless person. It also benefits the host country by fostering economic, social and cultural integration while promoting social cohesion. Restricting access to citizenship undermines those objectives, and that is why I tabled this new clause.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that people who entered the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will normally be refused citizenship. The new clause states that illegal entry—in other words, breaking into this country—should be disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement. Effectively, both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP want to ensure that entering this country illegally is not a bar to gaining citizenship.

British citizenship is a huge honour and privilege, and the benefits that come with it have attached costs. Can hon. Members see what a pull factor this measure would create for making dangerous channel crossings in small boats? There is nothing compassionate about allowing small boat crossings to continue, and this new clause would do nothing but encourage more. The Labour Government are already repealing provisions in our Illegal Migration Act that prevented illegal migrants from getting citizenship. It seems that the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Government are all in agreement that illegal migrants should get British citizenship. Do the SNP and the Liberal Democrats agree with the Prime Minister that British citizenship is not a pull factor for illegal immigrants?

If people believe that crossing in a small boat will ensure that they can not only stay, but stay for evermore with all the attached benefits of British citizenship, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. Even the Government’s own Border Security Commander has said that we cannot smash the gangs without a deterrent. British citizenship and all its associated benefits would provide an incentive for making that small boat crossing, inducing people to feed the model of the evil people-smuggling gangs. The Conservative party believes that British citizenship is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a reward for illegally crossing the channel. We do not support the measure.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I want to put on record again the importance of the rule of law. This new clause would essentially allow someone rights when they have entered the country illegally. The rule of law and compliance with the law are fundamental within our system, so I cannot accept the premise that acting illegally should be waived or permitted. We are a country of fairness and there has to be fairness and equality under the law. This provision flies in the face of that. If we make an exception here, no matter how desperate the situation, we set a dangerous precedent.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, it is a privilege to have British citizenship, and so many people abide by the law. The system proposed by the new clause for those trying to enter the country via illegal routes fundamentally undermines that. We have to be incredibly careful in how we proceed with these things; if something is illegal, the clue is really in the name.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am happy to support the new clause tabled by my friend the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. I will also speak to new clause 13, which does essentially the same thing. This issue is about fairness and reasonableness. Ensuring that effectively no refugee or asylum seeker can get citizenship is not reasonable. Refugees will forever become second-class citizens if we allow that to go ahead. I am concerned that that would deepen divisions within society by disenfranchising our newest constituents and residents. The refugees I have spoken to in my constituency of Woking are so proud when they get citizenship, and it encourages integration. Banning them from citizenship, which is what current guidance amounts to, is wrong. I am happy to support both new clauses.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

To quote my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), British citizenship is—or at least should be—

“a privilege to be earned not an automatic right.”

Citizenship should be available only to those who have made both a commitment and a contribution to the United Kingdom. For example, it should be a fundamental principle of our system that people who come to this country do not cost the public purse more than they contribute to it. It should also be a fundamental principle of our system that those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should never be able to become British citizens. To state something so obvious that it sounds almost silly, those who have come to this country illegally have broken the law. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party are proposing that we ignore that fact.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Northampton- shire just said, how can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? It seems to me outrageous, unfair and completely against what we understand to be the wishes of the public to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has broken the law when it comes to determining their character and thus whether they should become a fellow citizen of this great country.

Separately, the Conservatives feel that the timeframe the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire suggests in new clause 5 is far too short. In line with our party’s wider policy, we feel that five years is not enough time to qualify a person for indefinite leave to remain. Immigration, as we are all well aware, was at well over 1 million people a year in 2022, 2023 and 2024, and net migration was at, or is expected to be, at least 850,000 people for each of those years. If we accept that the immigration policy of the past few years was a mistake, we should make every effort to reverse the long-term consequences. That is why the Conservative party is advocating that the qualifying period for ILR should be extended to 10 years, rather than the five years in the new clause.

Finally, I return to my earlier point about Scotland, the Scottish National party and the proof of its compassion as compared with its words. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire shook his head when I was speaking about the number of asylum seekers and where they are located. The latest data released on that is for December 2024. As I read it, in Scotland, there are 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels, compared with 36,658 in the rest of the country, and 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation, compared with 61,445 across the rest of Britain.

I appreciate that that is challenging mental maths, so I will tell hon. Members that that means that Scotland houses only 5% of the asylum seekers currently accommodated by the state in this country. Scotland is underweight relative to population and dramatically underweight relative to size. Given everything that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his party stand for, would we not expect the opposite to be true—that Scotland would be pulling its weight more, rather than less?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in response to the debate on new clauses 5 and 13. I want to clarify a few points. There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship. In February, the Home Secretary further strengthened measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. This change applies to anyone who entered the UK illegally, or those who arrived without a required, valid entry clearance or valid electronic authorisation, having made a dangerous journey, regardless of the time that has passed since they entered the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, which I will say a little bit more on shortly. It is also the case that the previous Government’s Illegal Migration Act was never operationalised or enacted. We have always kept citizenship policy under close review, and we continue to do so. The guidance builds on statutory requirements to be eligible for naturalisation as a British citizen, such as requiring the person to have become settled, alongside criminality checks.

New clause 5 seeks to create a right to naturalisation for refugees who are settled and have lived in the UK for five years. It is important to note that no one has the right to naturalise—citizenship is a privilege—and an applicant must meet the statutory requirements, including being of good character. Many people applying for naturalisation cannot meet the statutory requirements until they have lived in the UK for a minimum of six years. New clause 5 would see a faster and more generous approach to citizenship for refugees than for others applying for citizenship. It

That would lead to people who would not meet the good character requirement, because of their criminality or other behaviour, being granted British citizenship. We believe that rules must be respected and enforced for the asylum and immigration system to work. That is part of the reason for making this change to the good character guidance, strengthening measures to ensure that anyone who enters the UK illegally faces having a British citizenship application refused. However, that will continue to be on a case-by-case basis—this is in the guidance—considering factors such as where, for example, someone has been trafficked here through modern slavery. That is important for a robust and fair approach.

We continue to assess citizenship applications on a case-by-case basis, in line with the UK’s obligations under domestic and international law. When it comes to a good character assessment, it is important that consideration is given to all aspects of a person’s character—both negative factors such as criminality, immigration law breaches and deception, and positive factors such as the contributions that a person is making to our society. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire will consider withdrawing his new clause and that we can continue the conversation about citizenship, which I am sure this House will return to.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I remember saying on Second Reading that this Government were carrying on in the vein of the Conservatives. Doing something so all-encompassing and denying as this is probably worse than what the Conservatives would ever produce. They did not conceive anything like this. They are capable of having the warped imagination that produced the Rwanda Bill, but they did not even come close to something like this.

As well as being a privilege, surely British citizenship should be available. What the Government are doing with the change to the good character reference is denying all asylum seekers and refugees the slightest opportunity to become a British citizen, except in narrowly defined circumstances, as the Minister pointed out. What about all the things about cohesion, and giving people opportunities? I thought that was the British spirit.

I am a British citizen. It is not a particular definition that I want to hold on to for much longer, but I am a British citizen. To me, it strikes me as just not British to deny a whole swathe of people in this country the right to achieve that status.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

Does the hon. Member realise how ironic it is for him to be lecturing us on British citizenship when he does not particularly want his?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman and I will have the opportunity to discuss these issues in the future of this Parliament and I very much look forward to that.

I did not hear anything at all from the Minister about anything to do with the quite stern rebuke to this Government from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in its written evidence. It is concerned that this measure drives a coach and horses through the UK Government’s commitments to certain sections of the various conventions. Is the Minister even slightly embarrassed about what has been presented to them?

This is a nasty, pernicious move by this Government, and it is not particularly in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve with the Bill. It is a continuation of the ethos of the previous Conservative Government. It even introduces through the back door certain aspects of the Illegal Migration Act that we are very keen to move on from. I hope that the Government reconsider this measure, and I will certainly be testing the Committee with a vote on the new clause.

New Clause 6 - Additional safe and legal routes

New Clause 7 - Duty to meet the director of Europol

New Clause 8 - Duty to establish a joint taskforce with Europol

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I will be relatively brief. The three new clauses concern Europol, and the Liberal Democrats and I think that they are vital to ensuring that the Bill goes further and is more effective. Cross-border co-operation is key to reducing small boat crossings—something that the former Government made it harder for our country to do. However, the Bill misses the opportunity to better tackle them. We believe that this Government should strive for greater cross-border co-operation, including by working with Europol. Including that as part of the Bill seems a sensible step.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clauses 8, 9 and 10 attempt to establish a joint taskforce with Europol and provide annual reports to Parliament to reduce levels of people smuggling and human trafficking.

Most Governments accept that international partnerships and cross-border co-operation have a role to play in solving the problem, but the new clauses could restrict the Government’s ability to negotiate in this regard while creating a cost by way of the need to provide further adequate resources to enhance that partnership and participation. They would also impose a responsibility to create yet another report. The National Crime Agency has said that no country has ever stopped people trafficking upstream in foreign countries. The Australians have done it, but that was with a deportation scheme. Why do hon. Members not think that a strong deterrent—that people who arrive in this country illegally will not be able to stay—would not be more effective in stopping people smuggling?

I realise that the Lib Dems seem to think that Europe has the answer to all the world’s problems, but surely even they must appreciate the need for a deterrent, rather than an incentive. In fact, as Europe reconsiders its approach to immigration by looking at what it can do to deter illegal entries, it is even more important that we do the same, rather than becoming the soft touch of Europe.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

In the light of the comments that Government Members have made on other provisions in the Bill, these new clauses seem to us completely unnecessary. Exactly as my hon. Friend just said, they do not seem to us appropriate for primary legislation and seem more likely to constrain rather than empower the Home Secretary and Ministers in their difficult job of securing the border.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I will keep my comments brief.

I read the new clauses from the hon. Member for Woking with interest. I understand the important point that has been raised—I think by hon. Members on both sides—about the importance of working internationally on this issue. I suppose my question to him would be: does he not think that an international outlook in tackling the issues that we have here, which is the sole purpose of the Bill, has already been exercised? In December last year, we agreed the Calais Group priority plan with our near neighbours and the joint action plan on migration with Germany. In November last year, we had the landmark security agreement with Iraq, and we also have a well-established relationship with our counterparts in France to work closely to prevent the dangerous crossings and reduce the risk to life at sea.

We have talked a lot about cause and effect, and I can really see the intention behind the new clauses. However, I question their necessity, as well as some of the suggestions made about the intention of the Government, who have really shown a pragmatic outlook about how we deter those crossings.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I wonder whether the SNP and the Liberal Democrats are experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder, and I mean that in two senses. First, they query whether this Government are committed to international human rights, when they have shown time and again that they are, although I understand that concern, given what has gone before. With this situation—where they are trying to prescribe, in primary legislation, the foreign affairs of this Government and the regularity with which they meet international organisations—I wonder too whether they are experiencing some post-traumatic stress disorder, because they know that the previous Conservative Government resorted to sticking two fingers up at our international partners and international agencies. I hope they will withdraw the new clause because they should feel reassured that this Government have a respect for human rights, international law and working with our international partners and agencies.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I hope you, too, enjoyed a long and languid lunch, Dame Siobhain, after the way in which we overshot this morning’s sitting. This group of new clauses introduces requirements, in primary legislation, for the Secretary of State to put in place arrangements for closer co-operation with Europol, which includes seeking the establishment of a joint task force, providing adequate resources for participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations and the publication of an annual report.

Very few of us would quibble with what I suspect is the intended output of such clauses, but I would quibble with the means by which the hon. Member for Woking has decided to try to bring it about. He is putting things into a piece of primary legislation, which cannot be easily changed, moved or shifted about, and that creates more issues and less flexibility than what I am sure he is seeking to achieve.

I suspect that, with these clauses, the hon. Gentleman is using the Bill as a hook on which to hang requirements on the Secretary of State, so as to have a debate about how the Government will co-operate with international law enforcement agencies. I do not think he is really saying that we should be doing that in the quite rigid way that his new clauses suggest. I reassure him that we are doing what I think he wants us to do according to the new clauses, but in a much more flexible way that can be changed very quickly because it is not stuck in a piece of primary legislation. I think we also discussed it on day one in Committee.

The UK has a strong relationship with Europol, including significant permanent presence in the agency’s headquarters in The Hague. UK law enforcement agencies already collaborate with international partners through Europol-supported operations. The allocation of resources to that participation is an operational decision for law enforcement agencies, and certainly not one that should be included in primary legislation. There is regular interaction on both operational and strategic matters between Europol, this Government and the Home Office, including at the most senior levels.

As well as working with Europol, the Home Office will continue to work with a range of international bodies—including Frontex and operational work with many of the law enforcement agencies in European countries and beyond, for example—to deliver the Government’s border security objectives. That is because we recognise that border security is not just about one’s own border: quite often weaknesses in others’ borders along the traveller and migratory routes cause weaknesses for us. Indeed, sometimes visa regimes in other countries can cause problems in the UK. For example, the sudden appearance on small boats last year of large numbers of Vietnamese, who clearly had not walked from Vietnam, was caused by changes that had happened to visa requirements in other countries. Those things are interrelated. Fighting organised immigration crime is an interrelated operational, diplomatic and political matter, on which this Government are doing a great deal of work to try to strengthen it and make it more effective.

The UK regularly participates in operational taskforces with EU partners, and it is inappropriate to place on the face of a piece of legislation a statutory requirement to seek to establish a joint taskforce. That would force us to have a joint taskforce, whether or not we wanted one and whether or not it would do any good, thereby, in that case, diverting precious resources where they are not operationally needed.

I hope the hon. Member for Woking understands the points that I am making. The Border Security Commander will provide an annual report to Parliament, setting out their views on the performance of the border security system as it develops. Europol is an individual agency, among many with which UK law enforcement collaborates to achieve the Border Security Commander’s objective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my comments on his three new clauses in the spirit in which they are intended: we know what he means, but we think that we have a better way of bringing it about in a far more flexible way than through his new clauses. If he accepts that argument, I certainly hope he will withdraw the amendment.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I do not quite get the reasoning that says that we do not need the amendment in order to work with Europol because we already work with Europol. The amendment is about empowering Parliament and making the Executive act, which is what we are keen to do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 11 - Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is about allowing asylum seekers to work. It is commonly raised, by a lot of people, that this country discourages asylum seekers from working. It seems that it is viewed as being tough on them, but what it does is encourage an unacceptable welfare bill. We have a lot of research on it from the Lift the Ban coalition. Several years ago, it said that, actually, the fiscal gains from such a change would be significant. Originally it said that the gains would be £97.8 million a year, but that figure was later revised up to £108.8 million. I think the new clause would encourage work, lower the benefits bill for the taxpayer and ensure better integration.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is causing that huge bill is not the fact that people cannot work, but that they are waiting for a decision? They are stuck in backlog, but if they got a decision that would obviate this discussion completely.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I do agree with that. The system was broken by the previous Government; that is one of the very few things that the hon. Member and I completely agree on. We know that the system is broken, but we leave people stuck in limbo. Until the system has been fixed, let us enable them to work and use their skills to benefit our constituencies. If there were a quick decision in a matter of weeks, there would be no need for the new clause. But we know that is not going to happen. That has consistently failed to be implemented. In the meantime, we should let and encourage asylum seekers to work, for their benefit, the benefit of their families and the benefit of our constituents.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clause 11 attempts to remove the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment. It is yet another inducement for making that perilous journey, and another selling point for the people smuggling gangs as they make their pitch with the aim of profiting from the peril of others. New clause 11, coupled with new clause 10, seems to mark out a marketing plan for those evil and immoral people smuggling gangs.

Successive Governments have maintained that easing work restrictions could draw asylum seekers to the UK because they would believe that the reception conditions were more favourable. It creates a huge potential for an increase in applications from economic migrants whose primary motivation for coming to the UK is to benefit from work opportunities rather than to seek safety.

Do the Liberal Democrats not agree that lifting the ban will act as pull factor for migrants all over the world to come to the UK? Do the Liberal Democrats understand the impact that such a policy would have on other Departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? If the Liberal Democrats are worried about skills shortages, what plans do they have to get the 9 million economically inactive people already in the UK into those roles? What thoughts have the Liberal Democrats put into the measure, the legal issues it may introduce with employee rights, and the further challenges it will give the Home Office in swiftly removing those here illegally to their country of origin?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

In evidence for the Bill, Professor Brian Bell, who chairs the Migration Advisory Committee, spoke about what he sees as the incentives for people to come over here from France, which is of course a safe country. He spoke of the strong economic incentives to come to the UK and the challenge that poses for any Government because it would not necessarily benefit us to remove those incentives. He said:

“the unemployment rate is 7.8% in France and 4.4% in the UK. The gap is slightly larger for young people than for the population as a whole. I am sure the Government would not want to change that incentive, although the French probably would. If you have a buoyant economy relative to your neighbour, at least in the labour market, that is an incentive.” ––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 58, Q89.]

He went on to say that there are some things that we could do that might help, such as better enforcement of our labour laws, making it more difficult for people to work illegally.

What the hon. Member for Woking and the Liberal Democrat party are proposing is exactly the opposite of what Professor Bell was saying that we should do. Allowing asylum seekers to work before their claims are approved would make it easier for people to come here illegally and make money, and so it would increase the economic incentive for people to come, which we have heard is a pull—perhaps the primary pull—for people making those life-threatening journeys across the channel in the hands of organised criminal gangs. We consider it to be deeply wrong and counter to the aim of everything we are trying to achieve in securing the border against illegal migration. It is unfair and immoral.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

This is another rare moment of general agreement with the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Weald of Kent. We will savour this moment. I will make some quick points on the new clause. It does create an additional pull factor for those seeking to travel. We do not know who is a genuine asylum seeker until their claims have been processed. The new clause would put a lot of people who are not genuine asylum seekers into our workforce to then be pulled away when the deportation takes place. Having asylum seekers in work may also create funding for others looking to travel over on small boats, as they may send money back to others in order to come over.

The answer to this question is in what we are doing already. The Home Secretary and immigration Ministers are working hard day to day at getting the Home Office back doing their day jobs again and speeding up the processing so that those who should be in work can be and those who should not be here are deported.

Sarah Bool (Conservative, South Northamptonshire)

I have a few points about some of the legal issues around what it would mean if we allowed asylum seekers to work at this point. The Opposition already have concerns about the Employment Rights Bill and the day-one rights that will be accrued, so I wonder in this context how this would actually work. On another level, I wonder about how we would deal with tax that they pay and their national insurance numbers before they have had their asylum claims examined.

I see that subsection (2)(a) of the new clause talks about asylum seekers being able to take up a post that is included in the appendix immigration salary list. I wondered whether the hon. Member for Woking had more detail about what that means or entails—forgive me, I am not an expert in that area. I also note that they cannot do any self-employed work or set up a business. Although I can see the principle of what hon. Members were trying to achieve with the new clause, in reality I am not sure that, given how it is drafted, it would get them anywhere near that. I have quite a few concerns about it.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I wholeheartedly back the hon. Member for Woking’s new clause; I thought about tabling it myself, but he beat me to it. It is sensible and should be supported by the Committee—mainly because it is an utter waste that people with huge skills are languishing in hotels doing practically nothing all day. We host a number of asylum seekers and refugees in hotels in Perth, and I go and visit them. Can I just say to the hon. Member for Weald of Kent that Scotland more than has its share of the general number of asylum seekers across the United Kingdom? I do not know where she has got her figure from.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

No, I will correct her and then she can come back on that. Scotland hosted 5,086 refugees receiving support from local authorities. That represents 8.3% of total asylum seekers. The population of Scotland accounts for something like 8.8% of the total population of the United Kingdom, so we are hosting almost the same number as our population share—that is quite remarkable given the distance Scotland is from where most of the asylum seekers come in. We have a proud record of supporting asylum seekers. Not only do we have our fair share when it comes to hotels, but we give free travel to asylum seekers in Scotland—something we are very proud of. I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady if she wants to come back on that, but I do not know where she is getting her figures from.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

My figures are from the Government release of the data for December 2024. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has those figures or can break them down, but they state very clearly: 1,421 asylum seekers in hotels in Scotland; 4,262 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation in Scotland; and then 36,658 and 61,445 in the rest of the country.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I think the hon. Lady and I will have to trade these statistics privately, because the figure I have is 5,086 receiving support, and that is from the Office for National Statistics. That is where I got my figures.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

No, I am not going into this. I know that we are testing Dame Siobhain’s patience, so we will discuss this privately and might come back to it at another date.

As well as it being the right thing to do, this new clause would also let us use the skills available to us by giving people the opportunity for employment. The people I have met in some of the hotels in Perth have brought a whole range of skills that would be easily utilised by the community in which they are placed. It makes sense to take this change forward.

In the new clause, the Liberal Democrats suggest that work should be available three months after an application is made. That might be a little bit generous. If I was drafting the amendment, I would go for the six months that has been generally agreed with the all-party groups. I think that what we have done is introduce this issue as a debate item, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking for that. It is something that should be seriously considered.

There have been a number of questions at the Home Office about this and from a number of Members—not just from the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party but from Labour. I know that we have quite a compliant set of Labour MPs on this Committee, but a number of them have raised this in debates and in questions.

Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

rose—

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

And there’s one of them!

Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Can he tell me how many people in Scotland actually work, and how many are employed by the state? Where are these jobs that he is talking about, in which people are going to be employed? His Government cannot really get people employed just now. They have not been able to do that. They have not provided it. I do not see where the jobs are, but I am happy to listen to where they are coming from.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

Of course, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to have those statistics at my fingertips, so, as Ministers say, I will write to him to let him know how many people are in work in Scotland. But I say to him that we have the fastest-growing employment rates in the whole United Kingdom—something that he and I should be very proud about, given what has been created in our nation. He only needs to go and speak to some of the people in the care sectors in his constituency; they will tell him that they are crying out for available staff to come and fill the holes within their own sectors, as is the case in the health sector and in a number of others.

Kenneth Stevenson (Labour, Airdrie and Shotts)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the care sectors, and I take it that that includes palliative care as well. St Andrew’s Hospice is in my area; it costs £10 million to run it, and £3 million comes from his Government. That is an incredible shortfall. The hospice is talking about cutting numbers and not having as many staff as it would normally have, so where does the hon. Gentleman see all of these wonderful vacancy figures in care?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I am not entirely sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. I think jobs being available for ordinary Scots is the general thrust of his argument and debate, but I would just challenge him to go and speak to people who are actually working and serving in the care sector—people in the NHS. If he is really interested, he could come to my constituency and speak to those in rural sectors, and in hospitality and catering, who cannot get the people to staff their businesses, which is forcing them to close, or to open part time.

That is the reality of the situation, and here we have, sitting in these hotels, people who could do these tasks and functions. Not only that, but some of them are accountants, doctors and economists. The range of skills available in each of these hotels is quite outstanding. They speak perfectly good English. All of them could do these tasks. I think it is just such a waste that they are doing absolutely nothing other than waiting the months and months—possibly even years—for their applications to be processed by this Government.

I know this Government have improved on what was happening under the Conservatives, but there is still a long way to go before we are anywhere close to an efficient system in which people are having their applications processed readily and quickly. Therefore, I support the new clause; I think it is a good one to bring forward, and I really hope that the Government listen.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

New clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Woking, is about giving asylum seekers permission to work in the UK. The hon. Gentleman said that that would cut welfare bills, but he should be clear that those who are awaiting asylum decisions do not have direct recourse to social security, although we do have to spend money ensuring that they are not destitute while their asylum claims are processed.

Clearly, as hon. Friends on the Committee have pointed out, the answer to some of these issues is to recreate a fast, fair and efficient system of dealing with people’s asylum claims, rather than to have backlogs, particularly regarding appeals, which leave people languishing for months—and sometimes well over a year—awaiting asylum decisions.

To that end, it did not help that the Illegal Migration Act was so dysfunctional that it actually banned us from dealing with people’s asylum claims, and meant that this Government inherited a huge backlog of people—a perma-backlog, as I think we have heard during our debates on this Bill.

Clearing through that backlog and dealing with the resultant appeals for those who fail is the Government’s task at the moment, but, looking past the immediate task, my view is that the way to deal with this issue is to recreate a fast, fair and efficient asylum system. That is the first point that I want to make in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 11.

As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, our current policy allows asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months and the delay was no fault of their own, so there is already capacity to work for those who have been particularly delayed. Those permitted to work in that context are restricted to jobs on the immigration salary list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee—it is usually to do with shortages and the need in the economy at the time.

The policy is designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident. Lawful residence is a very important part of the system. That includes, of course, those who have been granted refugee status, who are given full access to the UK labour market. That is in line with those seeking to work in the UK under the points-based system. We consider it crucial to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules and come here legally. The UK’s wider immigration policy would be totally undermined if individuals could bypass the work visa rules by lodging asylum claims in the UK. The hon. Gentleman has to understand that context, because it is very important.

Unrestricted access to employment opportunities could act as an incentive for more migrants to come here irregularly on small boats or by whatever means, clandestinely—illegally, without permission to be here—rather than claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Although I would be the first to admit that pull factors are complex, we cannot ignore that the perception of access to the UK labour market is among the reasons why people take dangerous journeys to the UK. Therefore, opening up the UK labour market to anyone who happens to arrive on the shores, no matter how they arrived, would not help us deal with that issue, and would create incentives for more and more people to chance their arm and come here in dangerous ways.

In addition, removing restrictions to work for asylum seekers could increase the number of unfounded claims for asylum, reducing our capacity to take decision quickly and support genuine refugees. I acknowledge the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised, but the chaos we inherited from the Conservative party has led to the backlogs that we are trying to deal with at the moment.

We have been clear that individuals who wish to come to the UK must go through safe and legal routes by applying for the visas that are available. Where the reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route so they can be checked and agreed in the usual lawful way—either the points-based system, or reuniting under refugee family or reunion rules. Allowing those who have come here in an irregular fashion to work, as if there were no difference between applying for a legal visa and getting proper permission to come before arriving, would undermine the entire basis of the rules and would create many incentives that no one on this Committee would like to see.

Given that explanation and the fact that we do allow asylum seekers to work when there is a delay of 12 months or more, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I will start with some examples of best practice from elsewhere. In Australia, most asylum seekers have the right to work straight away, even though it is temporary. In Canada, they can apply for a work permit while their asylum application is being processed. The US allows asylum seekers to work after around six months. From June next year, the EU will require member states to let asylum seekers work after nine months. Some go further—Sweden allow them to work straight away. With a one-year restriction, we are out of kilter with the rest of the western world. That is why the new clause has been tabled. I would appreciate the Minister taking away the question about the last time we reviewed the one-year limit and the restrictions on it. How often is it reviewed? An answer to that would be useful.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I was listening carefully and had a lightbulb moment. Perhaps the Conservatives figured out what a deterrent was—it was crashing the economy and putting our country into such difficulty that it obliterated the pull factor. That might be a cruel thing to say. Does the hon. Member agree that we heard in evidence that there are pull factors in the UK in terms of our language, our diaspora and quality of life, and other countries may not have those same factors? If we agree to the new clause and make it easier for people who cross the channel illegally to work here, people may be even more incentivised to come here compared with other countries.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am happy to have given the hon. Member the chance to mention Liz Truss and attack the Conservative economic record. I take the point. If Government Members like the spirit of the new clause but do not like the detail, why have they not suggested that it should apply only to existing asylum seekers caught up in the backlog rather than new asylum seekers? I have not made that distinction. You are implying that there should be that distinction; you are not implying that, Dame Siobhain, obviously—the Government are implying that. I have not used “yous” for a while; I am afraid I did that time.

We will talk about this in a debate on a new clause that is still to come. The Government have identified that they need to improve the system. I completely agree. They have inherited a completely broken system. A further new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats would put a legislative framework around the system, to try to improve it. If the Government are so concerned about allowing asylum seekers to work, I hope they will support that new clause.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 14 - Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a minor new clause that would require the publication of a report on the impact of implementing the carers minimum wage on the level of net migration. As MPs, we want to understand the data and facts to enable us to scrutinise the Government. Without the data, we cannot do our job properly—it is as simple as that.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 14 would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of implementing a carers minimum wage on levels of net migration. It requires such publication within 12 months of the passing of the Act.

What outcome are hon. Members seeking to achieve with the new clause? What is the proposed minimum wage for carers that the Liberal Democrats would impose? Our care workers deserve fair pay. We are seeing the impact of the national insurance rise on the care sector and the organisations operating therein, who are now struggling to sustain themselves and deliver good jobs and good pay to the care workers they employ. What assessment has been done of the costs of such a minimum wage and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that this was fully funded?

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I am pleased to speak on new clause 14. It is unclear whether its intention is to commission a review of the impact of setting a minimum wage for new entrants or for settled workers in the care sector. I interpreted that its effect would be the Government commissioning a review into implementing a national minimum wage for workers in the social care sector. It is unclear whether it would apply to international workers or the whole labour market.

It is also unclear—I think this was the shadow Minister’s point—what the minimum wage for carers being referred to is; there are no sector-based minimum wage standards. The national living wage is currently £11.44 for people aged 21 or over. It is rising to £12.21 in April. International workers on a health and care visa are currently required to be paid £11.90.

I do not believe that it is necessary to lay a report before Parliament given that the Government publish details on migration on a quarterly basis, which will show the impact of changes in inwards migration. It will not be possible for that data to show the effect of this issue on net migration, as the figures will depend on other factors such as the number of people who choose to leave the UK, which might not be a result of care worker minimum wage requirements. It is also not clear whether the report would have to look at settled workers and other workers in the labour market as well as those who are on health and care visas.

We have already seen a significant reduction in the number of international care workers recruited for just over a year, and that is because employers have been unable to demonstrate that they have genuine vacancies that would guarantee sufficient hours to meet salary requirements. The most recently published data and statistics show that in the year ending December 2024, the number of international care workers reduced by 91%. The work that the Home Office is doing with the Department of Health and Social Care is increasing the role of regional hubs, with £16 million going into them. Regional hubs play an important role in supporting workers who may have left an employer or lost a licence to find other employment. That reduces the dependency on recruiting from abroad because we are already using those who are here on those visas and wish to work, alongside continuing to recruit home-grown talent.

Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not fully aware that we are introducing the first fair pay agreement to the adult social care sector, so that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for the important work that they do. The Government will engage all those who draw upon care, as well as those who provide care. We will also consult local authorities, unions and others from across the sector. Fair pay agreements will empower worker representatives, employers and others to negotiate pay, and terms and conditions, in a responsible manner. Crucially, they will help to address the long-standing issues with sustainability of resource, recruitment and retention that we all know exist in the care sector. That will address the workforce crisis in that extremely important sector and so support the delivery of high-quality care. Fair pay agreements are an important first step towards a national care service.

I hope that clarifies the Government’s position and why it will not be necessary to lay a report before Parliament—and that certainly should not be required under this legislation, which is about stopping criminal gangs in their awful trade. I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his proposed new clause and engage in this debate in other ways.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I am happy to take the Minister up on that suggestion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 15 - A three-month service standard for asylum casework

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the cause be read a Second time.

I highlighted this proposed new clause in a previous speech. The clause would ensure a three-month service standard for asylum casework, so that the Government can tackle the backlogs that they inherited. It would require UK Visas and Immigration to introduce that three-month service standard for decisions on asylum claims, to benefit both asylum seekers and the British taxpayer. The service standard

“must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”

That would help the Government as they rectify the mess they inherited. If the Government suggest that the period I have chosen—three months—should be six months, I am happy to talk about that. I think that setting a stretch target—the Government are setting several, such as the 1.5 million homes target—is appropriate.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 15 would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three-month service standard for decisions on asylum cases, meaning that

“98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.”

We agree with the principle that asylum applications should be determined as swiftly as possible, but the raft of new clauses proposed by the Liberal Democrats, including the unfunded proposals to create additional “safe and legal routes”, would surely only increase the queue, and the time required to make initial decisions on claims. The Liberal Democrats do not appear to have any desire to remove those who have entered this country illegally. We can reduce decision times by deterring people, rather than inducing them to enter the country illegally. Is the proposed new clause an attempt to speed up the granting of citizenship, as per Liberal Democrat proposed new clause 13, rather than speeding up decisions so that we can deport those who have entered this country illegally?

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

It is worth noting that, prior to February 2019, there was a six-month standard time. That was abandoned by the previous Government around the same time that they decided to open the borders. Home Office Ministers have been looking to speed up processing as much as possible. The new clause would be unhelpful because the Home Office is often waiting on outside checks to be completed. The Home Office is, of course, seeking to speed up decisions, but its control is limited because it is trying to get through such huge backlogs. The second important point is that, if we legislate for this and an international event like the Ukraine situation occurs, we would not be able to speed up processing by putting some of the people already being processed to the back of the queue.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The new clause—the hon. Member for Woking spoke about it, although I am not sure whether he tabled it—would introduce a new service standard to ensure that the majority of initial decisions on asylum claims are made within three months of a claim being lodged. It is good to make initial decisions, but if we are looking at asylum claims overall, and getting people through them in a fast, fair and efficient way, we also have to think about appeals, and think about such claims from the very start to the very end, rather than just the Home Office part. That is an important thing to consider. The new clause deals with only the first part of that. If one is looking at a system-wide approach, one has to look from the beginning to the end, rather than just at the initial decision in the Home Office.

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause and stress that we are in absolute agreement that it is important that our asylum process is fair, efficient, as fast as possible, consistent with fairness, and robust. We are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. Delays are not always our fault, but they sometimes have been in the past. We are committed to ensuring that those who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible so that they can start to integrate, rebuild their lives and contribute to our society in the way we all want to see happen. As such, I assure him that we are already taking important steps to achieve that.

The Government restarted processing thousands of asylum claims that were stuck in the perma-backlog that we inherited when we came into office, and we are clearing those at pace, making initial asylum decisions. We are also delivering a major uplift in removals when people fail and have no right to be in the UK; there were 19,000 removals between when we came into office on 4 July last year and the end of January.

The Government continue to restore order to the immigration system so that every part—border security, case processing, appeals and returns—operates fairly and swiftly. By transforming the asylum system, we will clear the backlog of claims and appeals, and that work is ongoing. We have taken action to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system, including simplifying guidance, streamlining processes, developing existing and new technology to build on improvements such as digital interviewing, and moving away from a paper-based system.

We have also changed the law to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which created the perma-backlog that we had to deal with when we came into Government. That allows decision makers to decide asylum claims from individuals who have arrived in the UK from 7 March 2023, with claims to be considered against the existing legislative regime under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which caused much of the previous delay.

I hope that the hon. Member for Woking agrees that the work that we have put in place is starting to have a real impact. I have considerable sympathy with what he is saying in the new clause, but I hope that we will be able to get to a fast, fair and efficient system with the reforms that we are making now, rather than with the new clause.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

An Opposition Member and a Minister are not normally meant to agree this much, but I think we do. We probably will not vote the same way, but we generally agree. Last year, there was an asylum seeker who had waited 16 years for a decision on their claim. At the same time, there were 19 people waiting 10 years or more for a decision. That is how broken the system is, and I do not envy the Minister her job. The new clause would support the Government’s work, and I hope that Members will support it.

New Clause 16 - Exemption of NHS workers from immigration skills charge

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am happy to introduce new clause 16, which involves an exemption for NHS workers from the immigration skills charge. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exempt the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees. Do the Liberal Democrats not believe that we should be recruiting British workers to work in the NHS before we look to recruit overseas workers? Do the Liberal Democrats understand that this new clause could result in the NHS recruiting more people from overseas, rather than from our domestic population, further driving up those numbers? What assessment has been done of the costs of such a scheme, and how would the Liberal Democrats seek to ensure that it was fully funded?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The hon. Member for Woking has tabled the new clause with a view to the role that migrant health and care workers play in UK health services. We are all deeply grateful to our doctors, nurses and care workers. They do rewarding jobs, but their roles can be difficult and gruelling, too. It is true that many people in the workforce are not British but have come to this country to do that work. We must thank them for helping to keep us and our families healthy and cared for, but it is our role in Westminster to look at the whole picture and be informed but not led by individual cases.

When we look at that picture, we see that the volumes for the health and social care visa are eye watering. Since 2021, more people have come to this country under the health and social care route than live in the city of Manchester—well over half a million, of whom many are dependents. Yes, that is because these jobs are tough, but it is fundamentally because they are underpaid. To quote the independent Migration Advisory Committee,

“the underlying cause of these workforce difficulties is due to the underfunding of the social care sector.”

Immigration alone cannot solve these workforce issues. Underpaying health and social care professionals is financially self-defeating, because the money the Government save in the short term is dwarfed in the medium and long term by the costs to the state. As we have discussed this afternoon, and as the Minister has heard me say in several different settings, after five years a person who has come to this country on a health and social care visa can apply for indefinite leave to remain. If they get it, and 95% of ILR applicants are successful, they will qualify for welfare, social housing, surcharge-free NHS care—everything. That must all be paid for, and the cost is far greater than those on such salaries will ever pay in tax and far more than they save the state with their artificially low wages. Those individual workers are also at risk of exploitation as a result of the poor pay and conditions that have been allowed to endure across the sector because we have brought in workers from abroad who are willing to accept them as the price of coming to Britain.

The next, related issue with the visa is the degree to which it is abused. The MAC describes its misuse as

“a significant problem and greater than in other immigration routes”.

That raises massive concerns about the safety of the patients and vulnerable people whom the system is charged with caring for.

The rules around the health and care visa need to be further tightened, not loosened through an exemption from the immigration skills charge, and they need to be enforced. That is for the good of healthcare workers and, as should be the Committee’s primary concern, for the good of their patients and the country. Exempting NHS workers from the immigration skills charge, or indeed doing anything that makes it relatively cheaper still to hire migrant workers, will make the fundamental problem in the health sector’s labour market even worse.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

This afternoon seems to be a bit of a Lib Dem fest because of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, I very much approve of this new clause.

To the hon. Member for Weald of Kent—I do not like to rebuke her, because that is not the sort of Member of Parliament I am, as you will know, Dame Siobhain—I say that so many people come through the health and care route because there is real need in the whole system. We need people to come and make sure that someone has those jobs. I challenge her to visit the NHS establishments in her constituency and find out the real difficulties that many health professional managers have in securing the staff they require. This new clause is a practical suggestion to deal with a real issue in our immigration system. It is unfair that those who come to do some of the most demanding and low-paid jobs in the UK are forced to pay that charge.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I do not disagree with the hon. Member at all about the problems in the sector. My point was that the fundamental reason for those problems is that the roles are underpaid.

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

We know those jobs are underpaid, and that is why so few people in the general community whom the hon. Lady would class as British-born are prepared to do them. We are dependent on people coming to our shores to do those jobs, and our health service would fall apart if they all decided to leave. We depend on them, and it is unfair that they have to pay that extra and excessive charge. I hope that the Government will look at this new clause, because I think it is reasonably good and one of the few that would make a significant and practical improvement to the situation.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I thank the hon. Member for Woking for tabling new clause 16, which would exempt the NHS from paying the immigration skills charge when recruiting skilled workers. I recognise that the intention is to protect the NHS and reduce the cost of recruiting those vital health and care professionals. As we all know, they do a fantastic and important job for all our constituents and families in looking after the wellbeing of people across the UK. It is worth recognising, however, that the new clause would run contrary to the Government’s position that we should reduce our reliance on international workers in all sectors of the UK economy, including the NHS.

The clue to what the immigration skills charge is for and why we have it is in the word “skills”, so removing it would send the wrong message. We would be removing an important tool to encourage employers to look first at the domestic labour market and at what more could be done to train and improve the skills of people already in the UK, rather than looking outside it and continuing our reliance on overseas trained workers to support our public services. In the light of what the immigration skills charge is for—to help and support the development of skills and, therefore, to support the growth of our skills and talent in the UK—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider and withdraw the new clause.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I will start with what I describe as the brass neck of the Conservatives for breaking the NHS, the immigration system and the social care system, and then criticising my proposal for tackling those problems. I find that extraordinary. We should reduce our reliance on foreign labour to support the workforce in the UK, including the NHS, but until we have done that, I do not believe we should make the NHS pay the immigration surcharge. That is the purpose of the new clause, and I hope some Members will support me.

New Clause 18 - Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences—

“(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 52 (Duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), after subsection (2), insert—

‘(2A) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to ensure that notification under this section does not include the supply of information to relevant persons or authorities that might indicate that—

(a) the victim has committed an offence under sections 24 to 26 of the Immigration Act, or

(b) the victim might otherwise meet the requirements for removal from the United Kingdom or for investigation pending removal.

(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “relevant persons or authorities” include—

(a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department;

(b) an immigration officer;

(c) a customs official;

(d) a law enforcement officer;

(e) the Director of Border Revenue;

(f) the Border Security Commander;

(g) a UK authorised person; and

(h) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.’”

This new clause would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

We need to understand the impact of our immigration laws on victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates into UK law the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and to report compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, in determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities or other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

I hope that the new clauses are taken in the spirit they are intended. If they fail—based on my experience in the last hour, I think they might—I hope that Ministers and their officials will work with their teams on our immigration laws to make sure that no vulnerable person who has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery falls through the cracks.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that incorporates the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings into UK law, and to report on compliance with the convention. New clause 19 would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence.

We have seen the abuse of human rights legislation by criminals who want to remain in the UK, such as an Albanian criminal who was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son will not eat foreign chicken nuggets. The judge in the case allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights. Foreign criminals pose a danger to British citizens and must be removed, but so often that is frustrated by spurious legal claims. The human right of our own citizens to be protected from the criminals is routinely ignored. How do the Liberal Democrats plan to stop the abuse of the clauses by people who know that their asylum claim is likely to be rejected, for example?

Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and Kinross-shire)

I rise in support of the new clauses, particularly new clause 18. There have been a number of references to ECAT throughout our proceedings. New clause 18 would give clarity and ensure that we are properly engaged in all the provisions of ECAT. It is designed to ensure that those caught up in human trafficking are protected, and that Governments do everything they possibly can to ensure that people are cared for and looked after. I fully support this important new clause.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I think everybody in this Committee—I am being very generous—thinks that it is important to protect the victims of modern slavery, and we have legislation in our country to try to ensure that that happens. We also signed the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and this country complies with the obligations under it.

The intention behind new clause 18 is to incorporate the convention into UK law, but UK compliance is already achieved by a combination of measures in domestic legislation, such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Nationality and Borders Act, the criminal justice system and the processes set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for identifying and supporting victims of slavery and trafficking. Implementation and compliance with those obligations does not require full incorporation into UK law, and therefore the amendment is not required. It will not really add a lot.

On new clause 19, the Modern Slavery Act provides certain named public bodies in England and Wales with a statutory duty to notify the Secretary of State when that body has reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking. The information provided for that notification enables the UK to fulfil its obligations to identify and support victims of slavery and trafficking. The duty to notify is discharged for adults by making a referral into the national referral mechanism where the adult consents to enter the mechanism, or by completing an anonymous entry to that mechanism on the digital system where the adult does not consent. The information provided via the digital system is used to build a better picture of modern slavery in England and Wales and helps to improve the law enforcement response, so it is important that that information is collected.

The information does not include that which identifies the person, either by itself or in combination with other information, unless the person consents to the inclusion of the information. So that information can be put in there anonymously. Child victims do not need to consent to enter the national referral mechanism. As such, the national referral mechanism discharges the duty to notify.

If a person is identified in the national referral mechanism as a potential victim of modern slavery or trafficking, they are eligible for a recovery period during which they are protected from removal from the UK if they are a foreign national and are eligible for support, unless they are disqualified on the grounds of public order or bad faith. Bad faith refers to lying about one’s circumstances, and public order refers to an individual who could be a danger to society. We have had some discussion about that with respect to section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Government have decided to retain but have not yet commenced. I think we also discussed section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act.

When we came into government, the national referral mechanism decision-making process was in disarray, with a huge backlog. We ensured that 200 more caseworkers were allocated to deal with the backlog, and there has been a great deal of very good progress in getting that backlog down. The Minister for Safeguarding, my hon. Friend for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), is particularly concentrating on getting the national referral mechanism back on track as part of the battle against modern slavery.

With those responses, I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the new clause.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 20 - Humanitarian travel permit

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is a comprehensive new clause, and I am tempted to be brief in my introduction to it. My Liberal Democrat colleagues would like to suggest the creation of a humanitarian travel permit to counter the gangs that the Government are seeking to attack and undermine through the Bill. We need to support those who genuinely need to travel here safely, and this new clause is an appropriate way forward. As I say, it is long and comprehensive. Hon. Members might want to ask questions about it, or they might want to take it apart, but it is a genuine suggestion about how we undermine the gangs and encourage people to come here safely.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 20, which would introduce a so-called humanitarian travel permit. The Conservatives have previously drawn up schemes such as Homes for Ukraine and the Ukraine family scheme for families seeking refuge from the war. We do not need a specific permit for people across the world to use to come to the UK, so we do not support the measure.

Seema Malhotra (Labour/Co-operative, Feltham and Heston)

I will keep my remarks brief, because there is some overlap between this new clause and the debate we had on safe and legal routes. New clause 20 proposes a new humanitarian travel permit. As we have mentioned, the UK has a strong history of protecting those fleeing war and persecution around the world.

I talked about the UK resettlement scheme that we run in partnership with the UNHCR. When people are assessed independently by the UNHCR and accepted as refugees, they may then be allocated to the UK under that scheme; it is then for the UK to provide visas to them in advance of their travelling to the UK, so that they can come here safely.

We previously discussed why there is no provision in the immigration rules for someone to be allowed to travel to the UK to seek asylum, as I think the new clause seeks to provide. There are risks: we may be sympathetic to the international system that I just mentioned, which supports people fleeing very difficult and dangerous situations, but it would be difficult to consider protection claims from large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come to the UK. It is the case that, as part of how the system works internationally, those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.

It is also important to be clear that the routes by which people come to the country are always kept under review, including safe and legal routes, humanitarian routes and other routes, such as work, family or study. The upcoming immigration White Paper will set out proposals on how we bring our immigration system back under some control, and how we ensure that it is fair, well managed and controlled, particularly after the utter chaos, in all respects, that we saw with regular and irregular routes under the previous Administration.

That is why we are taking a whole-system approach to the immigration system as part of this important debate, which will be led by evidence and will contribute data as further evidence in the future. It is also why, in relation to some of the underlying drivers of the new clause, we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly, and to ensure that rules are properly enforced.

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

The hon. Member for Stockton West highlighted that the scheme proposed by the new clause is not dissimilar to ones that the previous Government introduced for Ukrainians and people from Afghanistan, which I found an interesting comparison. If it is appropriate for some specific countries, why would it not be appropriate to have such a scheme on the legal shelf in case we were to need it, especially as the world is more dangerous than ever before?

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

To go back to what the Minister said, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the UNHCR schemes do precisely that?

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

I acknowledge that those schemes try to do that, but I do not think they are working—the exhibit for that is the number of small boats that we see and the number of people fleeing conflict. Those rules do not meet the framework that is currently required in the UK and in the world, hence this new clause. I am mindful of time, so I will be brief: I hope that hon. Members will support this new clause, which would be a good legal tool for attacking the gangs and protecting vulnerable people as they flee their homes in conflict.

New Clause 21 - Functions of the Commander in relation to sea crossings to United Kingdom

New Clause 22 - Access to mobile phone location data

Written evidence reported to the House