Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025.

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)

Good morning, everyone. Would everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? We will continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The grouping and selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. I remind Members about the rules on 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 let me know in advance, please.

New Clause 24 - Immigration Tribunal: hearings in public

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The Conservative party has tabled the new clause to ensure that proceedings of the lower-tier immigration tribunal will be heard in public. We have seen absurd outcomes in some of the cases heard in the upper tribunal in recent months, and we feel it is important to make sure that the system is transparent and that the public have full access to the tribunal records at both levels.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—I suspect that you will be bookending our proceedings, if we make reasonable progress today. Does the shadow Minister acknowledge that increases in appeal backlogs are a result of the legacy process that his Government undertook, because people whose claims were not granted in that process have appealed and added to the backlog?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We know that significantly more people are arriving in the country. In fact, since the election, the number arriving illegally is up 29%, as is the number of people staying in hotels. The Government are actually removing fewer people than arrive by small boat now. The more people arrive, the more the backlogs will become an issue. Transparency in these tribunals is essential.

Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)

I am really trying to get my head around the new clause. Why would decision making in public be different from decision making in private?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Public trust in these decisions is completely and utterly broken. The answer to that is not to allow a good chunk of them to go unseen by the public. The public deserve to see and the people making the decisions deserve to be held to account. We need to ensure that the law is fit for purpose. We need to see the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR. That needs to be there for all to see. Public accountability and transparency are a good thing. The taxpayers out there, who fund all this, have a right to know what is going on, at any level, in the tribunals.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. I agree that there is a lack of trust in our immigration and asylum system, but does the hon. Member agree that the cause of that is not the conduct of courts in public or private, but the backlogs that have been created and the inability of the Conservatives to tackle the problems in our immigration and asylum system? Will he also reflect on the fact that the Conservatives in government had the opportunity to introduce this change but chose not to? Is he perhaps playing a bit of politics?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have seen what has happened since the election. We will not go into the fact that numbers are up significantly, and whether the number of people arriving by small boat is down significantly, but actually, regardless of when it is changed, here is an opportunity, with a piece of legislation, to change this. The trust that the public have in the system is completely battered by these decisions, so it is right to have that transparency. The answer to the need to build public trust is not to hide a good chunk of what is going on, but to let more people see it. The light of day would be very good at getting rid of some of this toxicity, holding people to account and ensuring that the legislation that we have tomorrow is fit for purpose. As parliamentarians, we should be held to account for the legislation that we are putting forward. We should be held to account for its consequences, including in the tribunals that are making so many decisions on these cases.

Public trust is pivotal when advocating for Opposition new clause 24. It transforms the subject of the debate from a dry procedural tweak into a fundamental issue of democratic accountability. The British public’s faith in the immigration system has been battered by the bizarre tribunal rulings highlighted earlier—decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants but for taxpayers, who fund it.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

The hon. Member has a lot to say in Opposition, but the big question is: why did he not do this when the current Opposition were in government?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We were doing lots of things. I am sure we will come on to some of the progress that was being made, including the Albania agreement, which has taken thousands and thousands of people back to Albania and reduced the number of people coming. That deterrent stopped people setting off in the first place. It was real progress.

The Bill—this is the reason why we are sitting here today—is the opportunity to shape what comes next, what impact that will have on the number of people coming across the channel and what impact that will have on public confidence in our courts system. That is what we are here for. It is why we have bothered sitting here for so many hours—to ensure that the legislation that goes forward tomorrow is fit for purpose.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Not that many!

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Well, we will see how much longer we get to sit. Time will tell, but I will move on.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

The hon. Member is making a very powerful point about the importance of restoring trust and, to be fair to him, he has been making that point for many years. On 20 July 2021, he said in debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill:

“Our asylum and immigration system is not fit for purpose. It lines the pockets of criminal gangs and people smugglers, and it is not fair on genuinely vulnerable people who need protection. It is also not fair on the British public, who pick up the tab.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 902.]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman about what happened in 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and, in fact, the years before that. Does he agree with the 2021 hon. Member for Stockton South, as he then was, that in fact the cause of the mistrust in our asylum system is the management of it, not what he is trying to address here?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am glad the hon. Gentleman is a fan; I made an effort today with the tie. I think I was speaking as much common sense then as I am today. I agree that the system does not work. That is why we are here. It is why I hope these proposals will make a difference. It is why we are trying to improve the system. And that is why I think we should have transparency in these tribunal outcomes.

As I said, we are talking about decisions hidden behind closed doors that defy common sense and insult victims. By mandating public hearings at the first-tier tribunal, we can signal that justice is not just for claimants, but for taxpayers who fund it and citizens who live with its consequences. Transparency exposes these absurdities, has the potential to curtail judicial overreach, and could reassure a sceptical public that the system prioritises their safety and fairness over secretive leniency, because trust, once lost, is hard to rebuild.

It is only right that the general public, who foot the bill for these cases time and again, are allowed to fully understand what their money is being used for. It is only right that the public can see these sessions so that there is a place for scrutiny and accountability. It is only right that such a shameful abuse of the UK’s legal system be exposed to the taxpayers of this country.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The hon. Member for Stockton West has made a creative argument, and I will try to bring some sense to it. First, we have to look at what the new clause would actually do for the country and our judicial system. Public hearings could expose vulnerable individuals, including victims of persecution or trafficking, to undue public scrutiny, which could deter genuine applicants from seeking justice. There are also security risks. Sensitive information about applicants’ backgrounds, including details that could endanger their families in their home countries, could be exposed.

There is also the risk of the legal system being overloaded further, given what we have inherited. Increased public interest in the hearings could lead to more appeals and challenges, which would cause more delays and inefficiencies in the system. Finally, the new clause is simply unnecessary as courts already have the discretion to allow public access when appropriate. It would remove vital judicial flexibility.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. After years of broken promises, it should come as no surprise that the public do not trust politicians in Westminster on immigration. The distrust is compounded by regular reports of individual cases in the immigration system, the most shocking and nonsensical of which are often those of foreign criminals allowed to remain in this country due to human rights laws.

The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see. Our basic decency—our desire to do the right thing—is exploited by paedophiles, rapists, terrorists and hardened criminals, who threaten not just individual members of the public, which is terrifying enough, but the broader social fabric of our country. The news reports that we read are possible only because upper tribunal judgments on asylum and immigration are published at regular intervals. The publication of those judgments allows everyone in the country to see what tribunal judges have decided in asylum, immigration and deportation cases. Crucially, it allows us to scrutinise both their decisions and their reasoning. We can see why the judgments were made and what that says about our laws, and decide for ourselves whether we think that is right. Judges are not accountable to the public, but transparency allows everyone to see our laws in action and to form a view about whether they are the right ones.

However, upper tribunal judgments do not tell the full story. All immigration and asylum cases are first heard by a lower-tier tribunal, the judgments of which are not made available to the public. Unless the initial decision of the lower-tier tribunal is appealed, the public do not ever get access to the details of any given case. Given the absurdity of the cases that we do hear about, many members of the public will rightly be wondering what is happening in the cases that we do not see.

If we want to restore public trust in the immigration system, we must restore transparency. Publishing the decisions of lower-tier tribunals is not the biggest or most consequential change in the grand scheme of our broken immigration system, but it is a meaningful one. The public have a right to know about the way our tribunal system works, to know about the rules judges use to make fundamental decisions about immigration and asylum—about who can be in this country and why—and to see how those rules are applied in practice so they can decide for themselves whether that is right or wrong and whether it serves Britain’s interests. That is why we tabled this new clause, and we sincerely hope that the Government will consider making it part of the Bill.

Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)

It is an honour to serve on your Committee, Dr Murrison. I do not see how turning border security into public discourse on a case-by-case basis is beneficial to the process, either for those administering or presiding over the hearings, or for those subject to the tribunal process. I accept that there is an argument for greater transparency, but given the circumstances of people’s arrival at our borders—they are fleeing trauma, in a vulnerable state—I feel it is inappropriate to parade the lives of asylum seekers in the public domain.

I have every faith that the Bill will create a robust system that is effective and accountable. The new clause would add nothing to its overall strength. The hon. Member for Stockton West says that trust has been lost in the asylum system. I think it will take this Bill and this Government to bring that trust back.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I have to compliment the hon. Member for Stockton West on his tie, since he raised it, and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent seems to have good taste in the colour of her jackets. I promise that that is the last fashion statement that I will make in our proceedings today.

On new clause 24, we agree that accountability and transparency are absolutely vital for building trust and credibility in the immigration system. Under rule 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014—note the date—the presumption already is that hearings at the first-tier tribunal must be public unless the first-tier tribunal gives a direction that it or part of it is to be held in private. Indeed, the majority of hearings at the first-tier tribunal are public. However, there are sometimes appropriate reasons for a hearing not to be public. For example, hearings may be held in private to preserve confidentiality in respect of sensitive medical details or to protect the privacy of a victim of a serious crime—for example, of a sexual nature. It may also be done to protect a party or witness from duress.

That is precisely why the Tribunal Procedure Committee has broad discretion to determine what practice and procedure in the first-tier tribunal will best support the overall interests of justice, and why the judiciary has a range of case management powers under the tribunal procedure rules to decide how individual cases should proceed. Those tribunal powers were published and written when the party of the hon. Member for Stockton West was in government, in 2014. It is expected that judges will have a wide discretion in dealing with these sensitive issues.

On making rulings of the first-tier tribunal available to the public, currently judgments of the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal are not routinely published. The decision about whether to publish a judgment is a judicial one. However, members of the public and the media can apply to the tribunal for a copy of the judgment in a specific case. I know that the Lord Chancellor will continue discussions with the judiciary about how we can bolster accountability and transparency to build public confidence, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps certain people who might work for a certain newspaper are getting to the end of their search engines for absurd cases that they can publish, and want a whole new database to search. If they want to bring these issues out into the open at the first-tier tribunal, perhaps they should send some reporters to listen to the case or apply on an individual basis for the judgment to be published. Perhaps that might assuage their ongoing interest in these issues.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I thank the Minister for her opinion, but we stand by this new clause. We want greater transparency, and we think this is an opportunity to do just that and allow the public to see what is and is not going on, so we will press it to a Division.

New Clause 25 - Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

The Conservative party is clear that the ability of immigrants to remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom and to acquire British citizenship should be not an automatic right, but an earned privilege, reserved for those who have made a real commitment to the UK. New clause 25 would increase from five to 10 years the period before a person can claim indefinite leave to remain, and add conditions to ensure that those applying for indefinite leave to remain have not claimed benefits or relied on social housing while here on work visas. Those claiming indefinite leave to remain must also be able to demonstrate that their household would be a net contributor and that they do not have a criminal record.

It is only right that individuals prove they have made a positive contribution to the United Kingdom and that their place in society is justified. For too long, the United Kingdom has been seen to have an open door policy, and this has been abused. Enough is enough. The 10-year rule would prove commitment—five years lets you settle; 10 years lets you prove you belong. It is enough time for people to learn our language, adopt our values and pay their dues.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

This proposal has emerged before the Leader of the Opposition sets in train her new policy commissions, including one on immigration, so it is good to get a teaser today. Under this proposal, will a person who would seek to apply for indefinite leave to remain after 10 years be required to apply for limited leave to remain every 30 months?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The hon. Gentleman has got me. I was hoping he was going to spout some more of the common sense that I have contributed to Hansard.

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

He doesn’t know!

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have said 10 years. That is a principle actually—

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The IPPR, which listens to the voices of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees navigating that 10-year process—people who look to settle here legally—and which looks at the data, published a report, “A Punishing Process”, which talks about some of the administrative costs and difficulties of the process. As part of the Leader of the Opposition’s new commission on immigration, will the hon. Gentleman be able to provide an assessment of the true cost to the Home Office of an individual applying for LLR every 30 months? Will he would maintain the requirement that people have to pay £2,608 as an adult and £2,223 for a child in visa fees? One of the concerns of the IPPR report is that poorer people often get pushed into greater poverty by having to apply every 30 months.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have processes in place that determine this, and they do come with a cost. However, the cost to the British taxpayer of allowing this to go on unabated is that much greater. There are processes in place and there are costs attached to them, but there are huge costs attached to allowing people indefinite leave to remain on shorter terms than we are suggesting.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which evidence base supports that assertion?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

There is huge cost. I will come to what the cost will be in the next few years of the number of people who are about to gain indefinite leave to remain.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Can he give me the name of the report?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

No, I will not give him the name of the report.

Applying the 10-year rule, rather than the five-year rule as now, would prove commitment. As the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said:

“A British passport is a privilege, one that has been debased by benefit tourism for too long. Our plan gets it right, making sure that those who pay their way get to stay.”

The Prime Minister, bizarrely, does appears to think that British citizenship is not a pull factor, so much so that the Government are seeking to repeal swathes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 passed under the previous Conservative Government. In doing so, this Government will scrap rules that meant that almost all those who entered the United Kingdom illegally would not be entitled to British citizenship, and that asylum seekers who failed to take age tests would be treated as adults. Those were common-sense policies. We are calling on all parties, and especially the Government, to support this new clause. We need to ensure that everyone who comes to this country is willing to contribute and to integrate into our society.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Madeleine Albright, the former US Secretary of State, was first a refugee in the UK, and she said that, in Britain, people would say to refugees, “You’re welcome here…and when are you going home?” whereas, in America, they said, “You’re welcome here…and when will you become a citizen?” Does the hon. Member not think that the problem the last Government created was that they moved to a high-churn model of migration, with huge numbers of people coming in, working in low-paid jobs, not integrating and then leaving, and more people coming in? We want to incentivise people to learn the language, engage with our institutions and follow our rules, which means that pathways such as this are really important, not the model that we have seen for the past 14 years.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The principle here is that we are saying, “You will get indefinite leave to remain, not after five years but after 10 years.” We have already had the debate about British citizenship and what that means—all the benefits that come with it and all the costs to the taxpayer that are attached to it. I therefore I think that this principle is right: if someone is going to stay here, they have to have been here longer, earned their keep, contributed and integrated properly. I think that 10 years allows that. I think that this is the way forward, and I stand by it.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I thank the hon. Member for his patience in allowing me to intervene again. Is it not fair of the Government to accept only those amendments whose details are actually known and worked up; and is it not, therefore, unfair of the hon. Member to press a new clause when he has not worked out the details of what its implementation would look like?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The details and the need for people to engage with the authorities are already in place. This new clause is literally about saying “10 years” instead of “five years”. No part of it amends existing provisions regarding migrants’ responsibility to account for themselves during that period. There is no suggestion of any change to that; it is beyond what we are amending through the new clause. If we wanted to change that, there would certainly be a debate to be had, and there would probably be opportunities to bring forward amendments, but that is not what we are proposing here. We are proposing to increase the period from five to 10 years.

Our country is our home; it is not a hotel. We can guess what the Government’s response to this will be—more deflection and criticism—but they must remember that they are in government now and have a duty to protect the British taxpayer from unnecessary costs. If they do not act, every UK household is forecast to pay £8,200 as a result of between 742,000 and 1,224,000 migrants getting indefinite leave to remain in the next couple of years. The Government must act to ensure that everyone who stays in the country is a net contributor.

It may interest the Government to know that changes to indefinite leave to remain have happened before—and can and should happen again now. In 2006, under the then Labour Government, the Home Secretary extended the time required to obtain indefinite leave to remain from four years to five years, an extension that applied retroactively to those already actively pursuing indefinite leave to remain. It is hoped that this Government will make a similarly bold move and support new clause 25.

Before the accusations start to be thrown around, let me make it crystal clear that new clause 25 is not some cold-hearted exercise in exclusion; it is a robust, principled stand for expectations—a line in the sand that says that if someone wants to live here, stay here, and call Britain their home, that comes with a reasonable cost. That cost is not measured just in pounds and pence, but in commitment, in responsibility, and in proving that they are here to lift us up, not weigh us down.

A recent study undertaken by the Adam Smith Institute found that, according to figures produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility, the average low-wage migrant worker will cost the British taxpayer £465,000 by the time they reach 81 years of age. It is clear that opening the ILR door to millions of new migrants will impose a considerable and unwanted financial burden on the British taxpayer for decades to come.

The OBR report explores the opportunity to reform indefinite leave to remain rules, which new clause 25 seeks to do, to help mitigate the long-term fiscal burden of low-skilled migrants, who are unlikely to be net contributors to the public purse. A refusal to back new clause 25 is not just inaction, but a choice to prioritise the untested over taxpayers—to keep the welcome mat out while the costs pile up. The Opposition say no, this is our home, and we expect those arriving to treat it as such.

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

It is a pleasure to once again to serve under you as Chair, Dr Murrison. When I look at the Tory amendments in their totality, they are quite frankly an absolute and utter disgrace. It is as if the Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the Rwanda debacle and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Some of the amendments that we will be debating are simply heinous, lacking in any reasonable standard of compassion and empathy. What a country they would create: one devoid of human rights and international protections, where people are simply othered and deprived of any rights whatsoever. Some of the most desperate and wretched people in the world would be denied and booted out.

I used to say that the Tories would never beat Reform in the race to the bottom, but looking at the collection of amendments that we are debating today, they are going to give it their best shot. It is just possible that they will out-Reform Reform colleagues in the House of Commons. The amendments are not only terrifying but ludicrously unworkable—blatant political grandstanding, designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. We have the grim task of having to debate them one by one; I just hope that the Committee will reject them totally out of hand.

New clause 25 was raised in a blaze of publicity at the end of the self-denying ordinance from the Leader of the Opposition when she announced her new immigration policy, which I understand has been changed and finessed over the course of the past few weeks, but is still as grotesque underneath as it started. The Conservatives do not believe that British citizenship should be a privilege; they believe that British citizenship should be virtually unobtainable, and that the strongest possible tests must be applied before anybody is ever going to get the opportunity to call themselves a British citizen. That is totally and utterly self-defeating.

The provision will apply to work-based visa holders, skilled workers and global talent, who can currently apply for ILR after five years. Extending that period to 10 years could deter highly-skilled workers and investors from coming to stay in the UK. It may lead to workforce instability, particularly in sectors reliant on international talent. It would also disadvantage certain migrants and people who have lived legally in the UK for 10 years but do not hold one of the listed visas. This is an unworkable, crazy proposal that can only be self-defeating and have a massive impact on our economy. It would create a massive disincentive to the very people we need to come into the UK to fill some of our skills gaps. I hope the provision is roundly rejected.

Jo White (Labour, Bassetlaw)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. We should never be surprised by the audacity of the Conservative party, which now exists in a state of amnesia following the previous 14 years of failure, collapse and chaos. Let me take a moment to remind Opposition Members of their failed promises.

A good place to start is the general election campaign of 2010, when David Cameron said that his Government would reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. At that point, net migration stood at 252,000. In 2011, he went further, saying that his target would be achieved by the 2015 general election—“No ifs. No buts.” But when the ballot boxes were opened in that election, numbers had risen to 379,000. Then along came Theresa May. At the snap 2017 general election, net migration stood at 270,000, and she had an election pledge to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, but by 2019 the number had risen to 275,000.

Next, Boris Johnson promised yet again to bring down net migration, saying he would reduce the number of unskilled workers coming into the country. In 2020, net migration rose again, to 374,000. With the labour shortages following covid, more visa routes had to be urgently opened for lorry drivers, bus drivers, the hospitality sector and for high-skilled roles, after the Conservative Government failed to invest in British workers.

Then the small boats crisis began, with the Conservative Government failing to do anything to stop its source, its methods or the routes. Under Rishi Sunak, they came up with a wizard idea that sending a group of arrivals to Rwanda would stop the boats. Well, we all know the outcome of that failure: 80,000 people arrived on small boats during that period. By June 2024, net migration stood at 728,000. Now we have the leader of the Opposition wanting to act tough on migration, but with her party’s recent history, how can anyone believe a word she says? All the Conservatives’ credibility is gone. This Government are focused on sorting out their mess. In my view, new clause 25 is yet another wheeze—speak big, but do little.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

How can I begin my remarks without repaying the Minister’s kind words about my clothing? This is one of my favourite jackets and I am delighted to see that it might also be one of hers.

It is no secret, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has just set out, that previous Governments of different parties have failed the British public on immigration. The level of immigration to this country has been too high for decades and remains so. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) has said, the last Government, like the Governments before them, promised to do exactly that, but again like the Governments before them, they did not deliver. Because of that failure to deliver, the British public may face a bill of more than £200 billion in the years ahead, unless we change the rules on settlement.

Under current rules, after just five years in the UK, migrants on work or family visas will become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. If they are successful, and 95% of ILR applicants are, they are entitled to welfare, social housing, surcharge-free access to the NHS and more. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, some 800,000 migrants could claim ILR over the course of this Parliament. Given the profile of those who are likely to qualify, that could come at a lifetime cost of £234 billion.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I will gladly.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Sorry, I coughed and laughed at the same time, partly because I think the hon. Member anticipated the point I was about to make. I will put this on the record again, as I have consistently. She may have more information to come back to me with and I will come back to her. The Centre for Policy Studies report is flawed. It has skewed information; it uses assumptions that are unreasonable and the financial modelling that ensues is therefore unreasonable. As a consequence, it feels like the Centre for Policy Studies and the hon. Member are reaching for a very large number to create the impression that there will be a very significant financial burden.

I make two additional points. First, even if that report relied on reasonable assumptions and therefore the modelling was correct, the Boris wave was caused by her party’s Government. She is nodding her head; she affirms that. I welcome that, in her speech, she has so far acknowledged the failings of that Government. Secondly, the report makes some very big assumptions about the future behaviour of the people currently in the migration system in our country. That is not a wise move, particularly when she is extrapolating £235 billion to £240 billion across a very long timeline. In fact, if we were to break it down on an annualised basis, even using the report’s flawed assumptions and flawed modelling, the figure would be far smaller. We need to have some integrity in the data that we use. Does she agree?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

As Professor Brian Bell said in evidence to this Committee—in a session to which the hon. Member for Bournemouth East has referred a couple of times—

“It is actually extremely difficult to work out the fiscal impact of migration.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 27 February 2025; c. 59, Q92.]

That is clearly true: forecasting the lives of millions of people over decades will obviously have a substantial margin for error.

The only way to avoid that error would be not to try to forecast in the first place. I have repeatedly asked the Home Office, over several months, whether anyone in that Department or any other—indeed, anyone in Government—is attempting to forecast the cost to the public purse of the ILR grants that will come in this Parliament. I am yet to receive an answer. To me, that clearly says that nobody in Government is thinking about the impact the issue will have and how much it will cost. When they do, I will happily use those numbers. Until and unless that happens, the modelling from the CPS is the best we have—in fact, it is all that we have.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

This is my last intervention on this matter. I take the hon. Lady’s point entirely, but will she not acknowledge that the modelling has deep, fundamental flaws? Although it may be the only modelling and therefore the best, on the strength of what is in that report it is still not worth considering or using in parliamentary debate.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I have already acknowledged that the margin for error is massive—that is clearly true. If everything that the hon. Member is saying is correct, I would like to see Government figures to replace the CPS figures. I think that is a reasonable request.

The £234 billion cost is equivalent to £8,200 per household, or around six times our annual defence budget, and this about not just money but capacity. Our public services are clearly already overstretched and this could push them to breaking point. If we accept, as we should, that previous Governments have failed on migration, then we should do everything in our power to limit the long-term impacts of that failure. That is why the Conservatives propose to extend the qualifying period for ILR and reform settlement rules to ensure that only those genuinely likely to contribute will be eligible for long-term settlement. That would give us an opportunity to review visas issued over the last few years. Those who have come to this country legally on time-limited visas and have subsequently not contributed enough, or have damaged our society by committing crime, should be expected to leave.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that the levels of immigration under the last Government were wrong and that it was a mistake to allow so many people to come to the UK. This amendment would allow the Government to limit the long-term consequences of that mistake, so why would they oppose it? It is not too late to change our rules around settlement. By refusing to extend the eligibility period for indefinite leave to remain, the Government are actively choosing to saddle the British taxpayer with a likely bill of hundreds of billions of pounds. We must make difficult decisions on this reform and the many others required in our migration system. Those decisions may be painful, especially in the short term, for individual people, families or businesses but they are the only way for any Government’s actions to match their words. The public have had enough and rightly so.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East talked about LLR, which must be applied for every two and a half years on the existing 10-year route. That is the case only because, as it stands, the 10-year route, by design, is for those not on eligible visas. The five-year route that we here propose to change is exclusively for those on eligible visas. I therefore cannot see why, within the existing rules, there would be any requirement for LLR applications. I hope that reassures the hon. Member.

Margaret Mullane (Labour, Dagenham and Rainham)

The new clause is not in keeping with the provisions outlined in the Bill, which primarily focus on border security through new and strengthened law enforcement powers, providing intelligence to address organised immigration crime.

I fundamentally disagree with the context of the new clause. Subsection (2) relates to existing legislation whereby the qualification of indefinite leave to remain applies to people on skilled work visas, scale-up worker visas, entrepreneurial or investor visas, innovation founder visas, or UK ancestry visas, and people with a partner who holds citizenship. Those people are, for the most part, contributing to our society through work. If somebody has been living and working here in a skilled role, or innovating in our country—and possibly even supporting job creation—for five years, that is long enough for them to identify Britain as their home. They will have friends and community networks. In most instances, they are boosting our economic productivity. The increased qualification period set out in the proposed new clause would move the goalposts for skilled workers after years of contribution.

I will bring the conversation back to the purpose of the Bill: the Committee’s focus should be on those entering the UK illegally and those engaged in organised immigration crime, not the construction workers, nurses, doctors, investors and business owners in Britain on work visas.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I will speak briefly. I welcome the hon. Member for Weald of Kent’s clarification of the Conservative party’s position on the amendment, but that clarification also raises further questions; I wonder whether the hon. Lady could respond on the spot. If there is no requirement every 30 months in the 10-year period for an individual to pay fees of £2,608—or, for a child, £2,223—to the Home Office, how will the Home Office fund much of its work? The fees paid by adults and children contribute significantly to the Home Office’s budget. The point is particularly important because the Home Office has had to borrow from the official development assistance budget in order to fund asylum hotels. I worry that there is going to be a significant financial gap here, and I wonder if the hon. Lady could clarify what her costings are?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I think the hon. Gentleman is eliding two different routes. At the moment there is a five-year route, which is for people on eligible visas, and a 10-year route. The 10-year route has LLR requirements that have to be applied for every two and a half years, and is the route that generates the fees that he is talking about. Under the amendment, that would not change; we are proposing changes only to the five-year route. The five-year route at the moment does not have LLR requirements because it is for people on eligible visas. The income for the Home Office from the same people should be no different under the amendment that we are proposing. I hope that that is clear.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I am happy to accept that clarification. If that is correct, I look forward to seeing more information about the particular policy, what financial costs would be involved and what the financial benefits would be.

Finally, I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh about the importance of settling. We talk here about the financial costs: it is going to be more costly to our country and public services if somebody is having to go through many years of unsettled status. It is going to be harder for them to have all the infrastructure and anchors that they need within society. As a consequence, I would love to know whether the Conservatives have done any modelling of the impact of increasing the period of limbo, including—as mentioned in the IPPR report that I referenced earlier—the cost to public services when people find themselves homeless, with difficult mental health conditions or unable to take their child to the school that they want and have to travel significant mileage.

The hon. Lady and I share a desire for the integrity of data and its greater availability. In proposing the amendment, does she have access to any of that information?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I will come back briefly. If I have properly understood the hon. Member’s question, he is asking what we think the impact will be on the number of people who would still apply for ILR after 10 years.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

indicated assent.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

He is nodding.

Part of what we are trying to say by extending the time is that we feel that a person’s commitment to the UK before they apply for settlement should be longer than five years. If application numbers go down because people feel that they do not want to commit for 10 years before getting settlement, that is something that we are happy to accept as part of the amendment.

It seems from the numbers that we have at the moment that the number of people who would apply over an extended period would go down because fewer people would qualify under the rules that we are stipulating. The reason why they would not qualify is that they would not be making a sufficiently significant contribution to the public purse over that period. Our calculations are that all of those lost applications would be net fiscally positive.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

In which case, I will close by saying that the Home Office data shows there is not that drop-off of people—people do not leave the country because they have to wait longer for their status. In fact, those people try to get that status by serving within our country and economy. The Home Office data, which is publicly available on gov.uk, records what the stay and departure rates are each year. I am not sure that the amendment and the policy within it are going to achieve the goal that the hon. Lady is seeking.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I totally take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is answering a slightly different point. What we are saying is that the combination of the extension of time and the change in criteria would lead to lower applications. It is not so much about a choice on the part of the individual migrant, but a structural change within the system.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

The very last point I will make is that I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but that is not what my point was about. This would not be a deterrent or an incentive for people to leave the country. People would still remain in the country. The health impacts and the limbo that people would experience through their inability to settle would still create a fiscal drag.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison, and to make a few remarks at the end of this interesting debate. I will make a few general comments first and then make more detailed comments on new clause 25.

It is worth re-stating some of the shadow Minister’s points. He said that, for too long, we have had an open-door policy that is open to abuse. He also said that we should remember that we are in government. He is absolutely right that the Tories lost control over our immigration system. We do not need reminding of that—nor do we need reminding that we are in government clearing up their mess.

The context for a lot of the debate today has been the massive backlogs that have built up in every part of the system, the failure to have controls over our system, the levels of abuse and the fall in returns for those who have no right to be here. It is worth mentioning that the steady increase in settlement grants in 2017 reflects high levels of migration in previous years. It is almost as if the Tories are attempting to close the gates to the field from which the horses have long bolted, and everyone else is now picking up the pieces.

It is worth correcting the impression that the shadow Minister gives about our policy. We agree that settlement in the UK is a privilege; it is not an automatic entitlement. However, we understand that the immigration system needs to account for people in a range of circumstances beyond those specified in new clause 25. We also recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country and believe that the immigration system needs to be much better controlled and managed.

Provisions for settlement are set out in the immigration rules, so the Bill is not the correct legislation for debate about requirements for settlement. What we are doing with this Bill is strengthening our borders, going after the criminal smuggling gangs that have caused so much damage to the lives of migrants already and put lives at risk daily, and securing our borders against systemic abuse.

New clause 25 would restrict settlement in the UK to a handful of economic routes and partners of British citizens. Other routes to settlement in the current immigration system would therefore be excluded from settlement should the new clause be accepted, including settlement for refugees. The shadow Minister may have a view about, for example, a situation facing an Afghan interpreter for the British armed forces who put their life at risk, was evacuated to the UK after the chaos in Kabul in 2020 and was then put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation after arrival in the UK. Correct me if I am wrong, but under clause 25 they would be banned from ever settling in the UK.

It is important that we understand that settlement in the UK is privilege, the argument for which was rightly made. It is right because settlement conveys significant benefits, including the right to live here permanently and to access work, study and public funds, as well as a pathway to citizenship. We also have rules and processes to recognise the expectation that people should serve a period with temporary permission before being eligible to apply for settlement.

There is a range of periods of time that people need to spend in the UK before they can qualify for settlement. Many are five years, but there are shorter periods for exceptional routes. The hon. Member for Stockton West did not lay out his view on some of those specialised routes that may offer a shorter path to settlement, such as the global talent route or the innovator founder route. They allow settlement within three years to help the UK to attract the best talent from around the world, and they reward those working in business who are making some of the greatest economic contributions.

While I want to quote from the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute, as they are the most important references in these debates, the new clause does not really think through the immigration system as a whole. We must think about it being fairer, more controlled and managed, and we must ensure that it recovers from the chaos that the last Government left it in. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Stockton West will know, the Government will also set out our approach to immigration, including how we bring net migration down and how we link skills policy with visa policy, so that we reduce our dependence on recruiting from overseas. We will be setting out that coherent approach to a future immigration system in a White Paper that is coming out later this spring.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am stunned—shocked. In fact, I cannot believe that the SNP is less than enthusiastic about our new clause. The Minister and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw were keen to talk about records, but at the risk of repeating myself, immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it. I would love for the Government to succeed in doing so, but I am not convinced that they will, particularly without a robust deterrent. I say it again: since this Government were elected, the number of people arriving here illegally is up 28%, and the number of people in hotels is up 29%. There are 8,500 more people in hotels in communities across the country, and fewer of those people who arrive by small boat are being returned.

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

Does the shadow Minister also agree that, since we came into government to the end of January, returns were almost 19,000, which is up around a fifth on what they were 12 years before, including an increase of about a quarter on enforced returns? He may want to talk more about that.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am sure the Minister will agree that a large part of those are voluntary returns. I am sure a large part of them may also benefit from some of the agreements made by the previous Government. Actually, when we talk about the people arriving here illegally on small boats, the number is up significantly in the last two quarters, since this Government came into office. That is a fact.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I am reading from the Home Office website, which says:

“Comparisons of arrivals between the same months in different years may also be affected by differences in conditions. As a result, we do not make comparisons between shorter periods where arrival numbers…may fluctuate considerably.”

The Home Office also comments:

“Financial, social, physical and geographical factors may influence the method of entry individuals use and the types of individuals detected arriving… These factors may also change over time.”

Therefore, is it not the case that looking at just two quarters, and trying to make a comparison, is not really the most robust way of doing this? Is it not better to reflect on the Bill and the changes it is seeking to introduce, and to realise that it will make a significant difference in the medium to long term?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Two quarters is a significant amount of time. This is a record. The hon. Gentleman might not be comfortable with it, but the number of people who have arrived here illegally being returned is going down significantly. It is a fact, and this new clause matters. More than 742,000 people will qualify for indefinite leave to remain in the next couple of years. As we have said, that could cost our constituents £8,200 per household. That is a significant cost to people in my part of the world. Because of that cost to my constituents, I would like to press the new clause to a Division.

New Clause 26 - Age assessments: use of scientific methods

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The Bill repeals sections 57 and 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which concern scientific age assessment methods. The Conservative party completely disagree with that decision. Every European country apart from ours uses scientific age assessment techniques such as an x-ray of the wrist, although there are other methods. More than 50% of those claiming to be children were found to be adults after an age assessment in the quarter before the election. Without a scientific age assessment method, it is very hard to determine their age. There have been cases of men in their mid-20s ending up in schools with teenage girls, and that carries obvious safeguarding risks. We have tabled the new clause to ensure that scientific methods for assessing a person’s age are used, and to disapply the requirement for consent for these methods to be used.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

With regard to migrants’ diet before they come to the UK, can the hon. Member tell us whether he expects them to have or to lack normal calcium?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have said that there are several methods. If we are unhappy with one, we can use alternatives. This is something that British taxpayers want to see. They want to ensure that our classrooms and social care settings are safe.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

What are the other methods, and how accurate are they?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

There are a raft of methods. I am happy to be directed, but every country in the EU uses the method I have mentioned. It is tried and tested. It is easy to criticise, question and find holes in a plethora of methods, but I think this is the right thing to do.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

What are the other methods, and how accurate are they?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We can debate the methods at length, I am sure, but I think we have a responsibility to have a method. The fact that the rest of Europe is doing it means it is something we should be doing.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

The rest of Europe is doing free trade, but the shadow Minister does not want to do that. We should reflect on Europe and what we want to import into our country.

On the bone age assessment, can the hon. Gentleman tell us with confidence grounded in science that it would be able to determine the range of relevant ages? Can he tell me what the margin of error would be for someone aged 18 or 19, and what an assessment of bone density and bone age would tell us if they posed as 15 or 16?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that these age assessments could go some way to ensuring that a 20 or 30-year-old does not end up in a classroom beside a teenage girl. There is an opportunity to provide a power that can be used, along with all the knowledge that the agencies have, to make an assessment. The science can be determined, and the agencies can look at it in the round. We know that people have turned up without any form of identification. This is an opportunity to draw a line in the sand. Where agencies think this is the right thing to do, they can use the power. Of course, they will use it in moderation and in the context of the question marks around any method that they would use to assess age.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

How safe would be the procedures that the hon. Gentleman is not telling us the names of to detect whether somebody is a child or an adult? How safe would they be, particularly if the person turned out to be a child?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I would trust our agencies to use them in context and apply all the other things that they might apply in any given context. This would be another tool that agencies could use, on top of all the knowledge that they might have of people coming in and what their ages might be. This is an opportunity to give our agencies another tool, and it is the right thing to do.

That is why we tabled new clause 26, which would ensure that scientific methods for assessing a person’s age are used, while disapplying the requirement for consent for these methods to be used. That would ensure that adults could not claim to be children. It also gives the Government an opportunity to undo the mistake of repealing the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act and allow age assessments for those claiming to be children.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

It is a privilege to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Murrison. Given that the hon. Gentleman’s concern is about children, we should recall the evidence session in which we heard the Children’s Commissioner’s concern that spending extended periods of time in asylum hotels leaves unaccompanied asylum-seeking children vulnerable to organised crime, notwithstanding the mix of ages in those hotels. Why does he still stand by the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, when they are part of the reason why those children were in asylum hotels for so long?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I will stick to the new clause and the age assessments. This is a tool. It would not be used unabated. It is another tool that our agencies could use alongside whatever other assessments they might make. We would be giving them the opportunity to require people to undergo an assessment, and that is a good thing. That is why the rest of Europe is doing it. The agencies and experts—the professionals on the frontline dealing with these very troubling, difficult cases—should have all the tools they could possibly require to handle them. I see no reason why we would prevent them from doing so.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire for our frontline staff to have all the tools they need. The Bill will expand the number of tools, but those are the tools that frontline staff are requesting. We could have scientific age assessments, and the Government are certainly not ruling them out entirely; there is work going on in the Home Office to consider their efficacy. Does he agree that we need tools that will help our frontline staff achieve the goals that we set them? The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that age determination is an inexact science, and that the margin of error can sometimes be as much as five years either side. I myself am not a scientist or a member of the royal college—I assume that the same is true of the hon. Member—so is it not better that we listen to such expert bodies, and develop policy in line with them, rather than just saying, “Because Europe is doing it, we ought to do it”?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

That is a safe assessment of my scientific qualifications.

We are not saying that this is the only thing that agencies and experts on the frontline, who deal with these cases day in and day out, will be able to use; it is something that they can use. If we have ended up with adults in classrooms alongside children, that is wrong. We need to give the agencies every tool in the armoury to make the situation work. This is one thing that they can use—with their knowledge and with every other assessment they would make—and it is the right thing to do.

We have talked about kicking this down the road. I think we have a commitment that the Government will do something on this issue some day, or some time. But here is an opportunity to keep the power in the legislation for agencies to use here and now, rather than in six months or a year. I am sure that the Minister will give me a timeframe on whether the Government will come back with such a power.

The SNP’s new clause 43 is almost the polar opposite of our new clause. It states:

“A person who claims to be a child must not be treated as an adult by the Home Office for the purpose of immigration control.”

We know that there are adults coming to this country who claim to be children. Believing them without question would make it harder to control our borders and create significant safeguarding concerns. Why does the SNP think it should be made harder for the Government to determine the true age of those entering this country illegally? How does this best serve the interests of the British people? Given the SNP’s blind adoration for the European Union, we must question why they are happy for the United Kingdom, of which Scotland is a key part, to be the only European nation that does not use medical tests to determine the age of those coming to the country.

Why does this matter? The issue has not decreased in significance. The number of asylum age disputes remains high, particularly in the latest available figures. Of those about whom a dispute was raised and resolved, more than half were found to be over the age of 18. The fact that a record number of asylum seekers pretend to be children should be the wake-up call that we need to ensure that we have the checks in place to verify age and stop those who seek to deceive from entering the UK. As the available figures show, this tactic is becoming commonplace, and action must be taken to stop this abhorrent abuse.

If the figures were not evidence of the need to support new clause 26, perhaps the facts of the cases will be. A 22-year-old Afghan who had murdered two people in Serbia claimed asylum in the UK by pretending to be a 14-year-old orphan, when in fact he was 18. There is the utterly horrific case of the Parsons Green terrorist, Ahmed Hassan, who posed as a 16-year-old before setting off a bomb on a tube train in west London, injuring 23 people. Although the Iraqi’s real age remains unknown, the judge who jailed him for 34 years in 2018 said he was satisfied that the bomber was between 18 and 21. The clock is ticking. The crisis is not slowing; it is surging.

In quarter 2 of 2024 alone, 2,088 age disputes landed on the desk of the Home Office. That is 2,088 claims where someone said, “Trust me, I’m a child.” By the end, 757 were unmasked as adults, and the deception rate was a staggering 52%. That is not a blip, but a blazing red flag. That is more than 750 grown men, and potentially dozens more uncaught, slipping through a system that Labour has crippled by repealing the scientific age checks in the Illegal Migration Act, leaving us guessing in the dark while the numbers climb.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I will deal with some of the broader points in my response, but we do age assessments. We do not simply accept—just as his Government did not—asylum seekers’ claims about their age as if they were the truth. I would not like the shadow Minister to give the Committee the impression that that is happening—that we are accepting claimed ages without any kind of check. I will go into much more detail in my response to the debate about precisely what we do, but he must not give the impression that we are not checking; we are.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I hope the Minister agrees that we should be doing more, rather than less. We need to give agencies all the opportunities and powers to do so, with or without the consent of people who aim to deceive. That is the right thing to do.

If we rewind to 2022, 490 disputes in quarter 1 ballooned to 1,782 by quarter 4. Now we are at 2,088 and counting. This is not a fading headache; it is an escalating emergency. It is a conveyor belt of fraud clogging our borders and spilling into our schools. Failure to conduct these vital checks would mean that we are not just blind, but complicit in handing traffickers a playbook that says, “Send adults, call them kids and watch us flounder.” The public sees it and parents feel it, and every day we delay, the risk festers. We need science, not sentiment, and we need it now.

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

I rise to speak to new clause 43 on age determination by the Home Office. The one thing we can agree on with the Conservative Front Benchers is that my new clause could not be more different in objective and tone than what we have heard from the shadow Minister. My new clause aims to uphold a simple yet vital principle that no child should be wrongly treated as an adult, subjected to detention or placed in inappropriate accommodation, as happens right now. The new clause would ensure that the Home Office treats as an adult an individual who claims to be a child only in exceptional circumstances or following a Merton-compliant age assessment conducted by local authority social workers. Furthermore, any decision to treat a young person as an adult would have to be made by an appropriately trained official, with reasons recorded and subject to independent oversight. Where such a decision results in the person being placed in adult accommodation or detention, the relevant local authority would have to be notified immediately.

Labour Members are right to have a go at the shadow Minister, but it is imperative that we get this right. This is life-determining and life-shaping for the individuals at the sharp end of these age assessments. The consequences of flawed age assessments at our borders are severe.

Recent data reveals that between January and June 2024 alone, at least 262 children were wrongly assessed as adults and placed in adult accommodation or detention, exposing them to significant safeguarding risks including exploitation, violence and even criminal prosecution. It is worth noting that in many cases, those children endure months of uncertainty before being correctly identified and moved into appropriate care settings. Such errors not only violate child protection principles but undermine the credibility of our asylum system.

The current process of visual assessment, often conducted at the border by immigration officers, is wholly inadequate. Assessments based solely on appearance and demeanour are inherently flawed and have led to serious misjudgments. International and domestic guidance is clear that age assessments should be undertaken only when necessary and should be conducted using holistic, multidisciplinary approaches, yet that is far from the reality.

Concerns about visual assessments have been raised not just by non-governmental organisations, but by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Children’s Commissioner, parliamentary Committees and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In response to those great concerns, the Government have argued that they are improving the age assessment process through the national age assessment board, and by introducing scientific methods of assessing age—we are back to that debate again. It is important to note that neither of those initiatives has any impact on visual assessments made by officials at the border. Biological methods such as dental X-rays and bone age assessment remain highly unreliable, as medical and scientific bodies repeatedly state. I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton West make great play of saying that that is what all of Europe does, but there are countless cases that the EU and other European nations have got wrong. I can send them to him; he can spend most of the day looking at them. They get cases wrong, just as we do with visual assessments.

It is right that in this Bill the Government seek to repeal clause 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which would have meant that children who refuse to undergo these invasive and questionable procedures are presumed to be adults by default—an approach that runs contrary to any safeguarding principles. The previous Government attempted to justify that policy by highlighting the risk of adults falsely claiming to be children to access benefits and services designed for minors. However, the reality is that the greater danger lies in the wrongful treatment of children as adults, which places them in unsafe environments, denies them their rights and can have devastating long-term consequences. The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs the number of cases where an adult has falsely claimed to be a child, so we have the balance totally wrong.

Crucially, there are greater risks and consequences to placing a child among adults, where there are no safeguards in place, than to placing a young adult in local authority care. It is essential that we restore local authority-led age assessments as a primary mechanism for resolving age disputes. As child protection professionals, local authority social workers are best placed to conduct those assessments in a manner that is thorough, fair and in the child’s best interests. The new clause would ensure that young people who assert that they are children are treated as such unless and until a proper assessment proves otherwise. It also guarantees transparency, independent oversight and accountability in decision making, thereby restoring trust in the system.

This is not an immigration issue—it is nothing to do with immigration. It is a safeguarding issue, and it is about making sure that we have the best interests of children at heart. It is an opportunity to uphold our commitment to child welfare and to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under domestic and international child protection frameworks. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause and ensure that no child seeking refuge in this country is wrongly treated as an adult and then placed in harm’s way.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

On 23 January 2023, Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai was sentenced to life imprisonment at Salisbury Crown court. Nearly a year earlier, Abdulrahimzai had murdered 21-year-old Thomas Roberts in Bournemouth town centre by stabbing him to death in the street following a dispute over an e-scooter.

Abdulrahimzai was an Afghan asylum seeker who came to this country in December 2019. He entered the UK illegally, claiming to be an unaccompanied 14-year-old. He was placed in school and in foster care, but he was in fact already an adult when he came here. Not only was he an adult, but he was also a murderer, having killed two men in Serbia before coming to the UK. He should never have been allowed to come to this country and he should certainly not have been allowed to masquerade as a child.

Assessing a person’s age is surprisingly difficult, but we have a range of tools to do so—the Home Office is just not using them. If we had acted sooner, using the full suite of tools at our disposal to assess Abdulrahimzai’s age, Thomas Roberts might still be alive today. The case of Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai is particularly shocking, but it is unfortunately far from unique.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I wonder whether there have been any new scientific discoveries in the last seven months for identifying someone’s age that the Home Office would not have been aware of over the last 14 years. Is it not the case that the methodologies used are very imprecise and do not often actually lead us, in the liminal cases, to draw the distinction that the hon. Lady is advocating for?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I will come on to precision and the ways of determining age slightly later in my remarks.

Ahmed Hassan, an Iraqi asylum seeker, claimed to be a 16-year-old when he arrived in the UK. In 2017, he set off a bomb at Parsons Green tube station, injuring 23 people. His real age is still not a matter of public record. In 2018, a Home Office probe found that Siavash Shah, an Iranian asylum seeker, spent six weeks as a year 11 pupil in Ipswich despite being 25—the list goes on. In fact, between 2020 and 2023, the Home Office identified almost 4,000 cases of adult migrants claiming to be children—45% of those who originally claimed to be children when they arrived here—and every other person of that cohort was in fact an adult. Some were at least 30 years old. That puts British children at risk, puts genuine child asylum seekers at risk and takes valuable school and care places away from the young people who genuinely need them.

I feel this particularly keenly as a Member of Parliament for Kent, the county into which all small boats arrive. Our laws mandate that the people who come to this country illegally and claim to be under 18 must be prioritised for care equally with Kentish children. That puts enormous pressure on the system and makes it harder for our children to be cared for. That is madness when we know that half of those arrivals are in fact adults, and we must put a stop to it.

It is completely rational, albeit morally wrong, for adult migrants to claim to be children. Under-18s who come here have a greater entitlement to care and support, do not have to live in accommodation with adults, and are not subject to the same rules as adults—or the rules are applied less strictly. Of course, there are people who cross the channel without their parents who are under 18; most, though not all, are male 17 and 16-year-olds, and some are younger children. No one disputes that, and children should be treated as children, but we must be realistic about the scandalous degree to which our system is exploited by the cynical and the sinister.

We have to protect actual children, and we should use every tool in the box to do so, including scientific testing. Where people refuse such tests, the Government should be able to override that refusal. We are acting in the interests of public safety and to protect the security of our children. Labour Members have asked for exact details of the scientific methods. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, there are many methods and several different ways of doing it. The ones that can be implemented in short order are the dental and skeletal tests.

Other methods are currently at an earlier stage of development, such as facial age estimation and DNA methylation, which is a process by which people much cleverer than me can assess how a person’s genes are read by their body, which changes with age. In 2022, the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee stated that the

“teeth, clavicle, and hand/wrist or knee… have been shown to have a significant research and publication credibility and provide a consistent age range over which changes occur.”

Later, the same report states:

“The committee has relied on areas and methods that have been repeatedly tried and tested and shown to have consistency.”

As the report makes clear, and as Government Members have said, scientific age assessment is not perfectly precise and is not magic, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West also correctly says, our proposal is that scientific age assessments should be used not to replace other methods and judgments, but to supplement them.

The situations that my hon. Friend and I have set out are horrifying. We can see no reason why the Government would not want to have the widest possible set of tools available to them to stop such things happening, including the option in future to bring in scientific methods that are currently at a nascent stage.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for raising the absolutely horrific and awful circumstances involving Thomas Roberts, who would have been my constituent and whose mother, Dolores, is my constituent. She is racked by grief and unable to sleep at night. Her health has worsened because, as she said to the Minister and me last night in the Minister’s office, with her son being murdered, she feels that half of her whole life has completely disappeared.

I do not want to name the murderer in this debate; I name Thomas Roberts, the victim. I want to talk briefly, with your permission, Dr Murrison, about Thomas Roberts, because it is important for the Committee to know who he was. It is important for Dolores, so racked with grief, to know that her MP and the Committee are focused on what happened.

Thomas was 21 years of age when he died on 12 March 2022 in Bournemouth town centre, the victim of a stabbing by an asylum seeker. His mum has told me several times, and she told me again with the Minister last night, that Thomas was known by everyone and, when his mother wanted to go into town, to Littledown or to other parts of the constituency, he would say no, because he was so well known and he did not want to be seen by his friends out with his mum.

Thomas was an aspiring Royal Marine and, in order to become one, he was in the Sea Scouts. He was physically fit—so fit, in fact, that he would actually bench press his mum and his brother. Dolores told me that the passing of his driving test on the first go was one of her proudest moments. It is one of the things that she remembers so fondly and so closely now, as she comes to terms with her grief.

Thomas was also an aspiring drum and bass DJ, and by all accounts a very good one, who was up and coming on the south coast. If he had not made it as a Royal Marine—there was every certainty that he would—he could easily have taken up a drum and bass DJ career. He was a member of the Christchurch boxing club. He was active in his community, and deeply loving and caring about his family.

Thomas lost his life—or rather, his life was taken from him—because an asylum seeker was in our country. That begs the question: why was that person in our country? Why were they able to wield the knife that cut short Thomas Roberts’s life, and that took away all the hopes and ambitions that his mother had for him? It is because we did not have access to the necessary database to track criminality and find out more about who the asylum seeker actually was. I am deeply sad that Thomas is not with his mum, in his community, or with his friends who loved him so much, because the last Government broke our asylum and immigration system, and created the conditions for that tragic killing and other tragic killings that have happened in our country.

Scientific age assessment, as the hon. Member for Weald of Kent said, is not a magic wand; it is imprecise, as we heard from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. We know what works, and that having a functioning asylum and immigration system will make all the difference. I just wish we had had that on 12 March 2022 when Thomas was denied his life opportunities because of the breakages in that system.

I thank the Minister for meeting Dolores yesterday—I know that that provided her with much-needed comfort and clarity. I am absolutely confident that the Bill and its measures will make the difference that is so needed to protect our society. I also note the contribution of Councillor Joe Salmon of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, who has been such a support to Dolores and her wider community, because she will be grieving for a very long time. It is incumbent on all of us in public service to speak the truth, look at the facts and bring forward the measures that will make the biggest difference.

If I may, I will return to the question of scientific age assessments. I referred to the concerns of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and of experts, but I now refer to the House of Lords debate on 27 November 2023, which is worth a read if Opposition Members have not had a chance. It goes into significant detail and depth about the concerns that I had about that as a possible policy at that stage of its development.

The Minister has been clear that scientific age assessments are not off the table; there just needs to be certainty that they are an effective tool. To avoid any further deaths and injustices, we need to have the right tools to protect the people of this country, secure and protect our borders, and make sure that we are truly able to restore confidence and trust in this system and in our ability to manage who comes into our country and who stays here.

Becky Gittins (Labour, Clwyd East)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for playing a respectful part in quite a heated discussion, which has done honour to Dolores and her family at an incredibly difficult time. It is really poignant that such case studies are discussed in these debates; they show what can happen on the limited and rare occasions that things go incredibly wrong with such systems. It is worthwhile that we have these discussions.

I must say that I was disappointed by Opposition Members’ contributions in support of the new clause, however, because although they successfully focused on occasions where things have gone wrong, they were limited on detail. I was also disappointed by their inability to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh. We need that detail, and we need to understand how that would be different from the tools in the Home Office’s arsenal during the 14 years of their Government.

When we are discussing new clauses that could be added to the Bill, that level of indecision is also concerning. The new clause’s inclusion would render the Bill unachievable and potentially undeliverable. If we want to see an example of putting unworkable things into Bills, we need just to look to the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and how that ended up being defunct. I do not propose to make big political points about that, because I do not need to: the previous Conservative Government made those themselves in their failure to commence or implement much of the Act. The House agreed to 34 major clauses that were never commenced because Ministers knew that they would not work. A further 16 clauses were commenced but never operationalised because they were simply unworkable.

We should be considering what the Bill is about. I remind the Committee that the Bill is about action, and we need to ensure that what comes out of Committee is a workable and operable Bill that will do the hard work to tackle the criminal gangs that are fuelling illegal immigration, and to fix our broken asylum system.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

It was a privilege to hear about Thomas Roberts’s life. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East did himself great credit in telling us about him so movingly. Thomas’s mother, Dolores, whose pain is impossible for us to imagine, has also done his memory great credit by finding a way in her grief to talk about her son to her Member of Parliament and to the Minister.

Securing the border is a genuinely difficult job, and the Opposition are genuine in our desire to support the Government in doing that. We really believe that the new clause would help the Government to expand their ability to do that job. We deeply hope that they will consider it. I also thank the hon. Member for Clwyd East for her generous words.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I start by endorsing what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said about Dolores, Thomas Roberts’s mum, whom I met last night. She has gone through a searingly awful life experience. It is difficult even to think about that, let alone to offer any comfort. Unfortunately, I do not think that her experience would have changed much had scientific age assessment been in place, although the person in question had been assessed by his local authority as a child and was therefore in a separate environment from that which he would have been in had he not been assessed.

I am determined to see whether we can connect up our information about people coming from Europe, following Brexit and the disintegration of our access to Eurodac and various other pieces of information collected in Europe on asylum seekers and those arriving illegally—not all of them are asylum seekers. Reconnecting, if possible, to those databases would give us more comfort than we have at the moment. However, I emphasise that when people come to this country, we do check them against all our biometric records and the terrorism lists and watch lists that we have. It may be possible for us to do more in future.

We have had a debate about new clause 26 from the Opposition and new clause 43 from the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire on behalf of the Scottish National party. That has again demonstrated the wide range of opinion that there is at both ends of the argument whenever we consider such issues. I will deal with both arguments in my response, and I hope to find a middle way.

First, repealing section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which the Bill seeks to do, does not stop our capacity to do age assessments. Listening to some of the contributions from members of the official Opposition, one would have thought that repealing section 58 will take off the table—completely and utterly—all age assessment. That is simply not true. The age assessments in section 58 were about the duty to remove somebody to Rwanda; they were not connected to anything else. As I understand it, the issue with that legislation was that the then Government’s intention was not to remove children to Rwanda, so it became more important to have a way of assessing whether somebody was a child. The Safety of Rwanda Act and the IMA—the previous Government’s approach to this issue—would have created even bigger incentives for people to claim that that they were children, because they would have avoided being sent to Rwanda, not that anyone ever actually ended up there. The previous Government’s approach of deportation permanently to Rwanda actually created even more incentives for people to lie about their age.

The fact is that there are people who are genuine asylum seekers who are children, people who are not genuine asylum seekers who are adults who claim to be children, and children who sometimes claim that they are adults. When that happens, one has to look at modern slavery issues and coercive control. There are safeguarding issues on both sides of the age assessment argument. Children pretend to be adults for reasons that we can imagine, but we will not go into those, because they are not very pleasant. There are also incentives created by the way in which the Children Act 1989 deals with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As a Kent MP, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent knows exactly what happens with the Kent intake unit and the pressure that her own local authority has been put under. However, she also knows about the Government support that her local authority has been given to disperse unaccompanied asylum-seeking children around the rest of the country so that some of the burden can be shared.

We are dealing with people who arrive without papers. Some of them wish to lie about their age, and some have been told to lie because the people-smuggling gangs perceive it as a way for people to access more resources than they could if they were seen as adults. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire pointed out, the system can get it wrong on both sides. People who are children have been judged to be adults and put in inappropriate places, and people who are adults have been judged to be children and put in appropriate places. There is no guaranteed scientific way of making a judgment. We can make judgments about people who are much older, but we are dealing with that uncertain four to five-year range on either side, which is the difference between 18 and 24 or 17 and 23; you will know about that, Dr Murrison, from your work as a medical doctor.

On new clause 26, I want to reassure Opposition Members that there is already provision in law for the use of age assessment, and our repealing of section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act does not remove that provision. That is because the Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2024, which followed scientific advice from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee in the Home Office, specify for the purposes of section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 the scientific methods currently recommended for age assessment. We have retained those bits of legislation; neither the 2024 regulations nor section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act have been repealed by the Bill, so the capacity to use scientific age assessments remains on the statute book.

The hon. Member for Stockton West did not seem to know which age assessment methods we were talking about. The 2024 regulations specify the power to use X-rays and MRIs, and that it is possible to take a negative view of the credibility of a person who refuses to consent, where there are no reasonable grounds for refusing that consent.

With those measures on the statute book, the Government continue to explore methods to improve the robustness of age assessment processes by increasing the reliability of the scientific methods being used. At the moment, we do not have enough certainty about the gap that exists in the current assessments, which are still being assessed. The hon. Member for Stockton West and the Conservative party put these things on to the statute book but then did not operationalise them. At the moment, we are doing as much work as we can to see how reliable they are, with a view to operationalising them. But as I wrote in a response to shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South, when he wrote to me about this issue, we are in the middle of that process. I hope that we will soon be in a situation to make announcements one way or the other, and those announcements will be made in the usual way.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

New clause 26 does not specify the method to be used; it commits the Government to coming back within six months with a statutory instrument. How long does the Minister think it will be before the Government are in a position to do that? Is it six months’ worth of people coming here without our having the ability to assess them without their consent using these methods? Is it a year? Is it 18 months? How long does she think it will be before we are in a position to make these decisions?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

We are making a scientific assessment of how accurate and effective the methods are that could be used to make age assessments, and I hope to have some results from that work soon. What I do not want is to have a clause in primary legislation telling me that I have to do that by a set time.

I am trying to reassure the hon. Gentleman that despite the repeal of section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which this Bill brings about, the capacity to do age assessments and apply them scientifically is still on the statute book. We are looking closely into how we can operationalise these methods if we feel they will give us a more trustworthy result, but we will not do that if we do not. We are in the middle of getting to the stage where we can make that judgment.

I will also address new clause 43, which says that we should not use age assessments at all, other than in exceptional circumstances. Given what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire said when he moved it, I think it accepts that we should continue with Merton assessments, which are the other way of dealing with age assessments currently. Those usually involve two social workers and various other experts interviewing the person concerned to try to get a handle on their real age.

However, new clause 43 would remove Home Office immigration officers’ ability to conduct initial decisions on age at the border. Those important powers enable us to try to get the system working as well as possible at Western Jet Foil and Manston if people arrive undocumented on small boats. The initial decision on age is used as an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment and to ensure that individuals are routed to the correct adult or child immigration process—and they do differ, as we have discussed this morning. If there is doubt following the initial decision on age, individuals are referred for further consideration of their age.

The new clause would mean that even those who were very obviously adults would need to be referred into local authority care for an age assessment, placing burdens on already stretched local authorities and causing significant safeguarding risks as a result of adults having access, alongside genuine children, to children’s services, including accommodation and education.

Merton assessments do not happen overnight. They take time to organise, and in some ways have been so slow that the previous Government created the national age assessment board, which is a decision-making body of Home Office social workers who can conduct Merton-compliant assessments centrally. The national age assessment board, which launched in March 2023 and has now been made available nationally, continues to offer significant improvements to our processes for assessing age. It currently employs over 50 social workers, with recruitment ongoing to increase capacity and expertise in the system. I can assure all hon. Members that national age assessment board social workers are required to engage in a comprehensive training programme, regardless of their previous experience. Successful completion allows them to become designated and to conduct Merton-compliant age assessments on behalf of the national board.

Subsection (5) of new clause 43 would require the Home Office to establish through regulations a new independent review framework to oversee age assessments. Although there is no review body that inspects local authority decisions on age, I cannot see the merits of setting up a new review framework for the Home Office when age assessment already falls within the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration. The ICIBI has recently conducted an investigation on age assessment, and I look forward to seeing the report and its findings, which will be published in due course. The capacity to oversee age assessments and how they are conducted therefore already exists.

Lastly, the new clause would require the Home Office automatically to notify local authorities where an individual is claiming to be a child and in adult accommodation, even where they have already been assessed to be an adult by the Home Office, and that would include individuals who have been assessed to be significantly over 18. I can assure the Committee that where Home Office or accommodation provider staff have concerns that an individual might be a child, it is standard practice for a local authority referral to be raised. Even where a referral is not made by the Home Office service providers to the local authority, that does not prevent them from approaching a local authority for further consideration of the person’s age. So a lot of the issues are covered, and the new clause would make it harder, paradoxically, for us to try to get this right.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I welcome the fact that the Government will come back with scientific age assessments that also do not require consent. But if six months is too long, at what point would the Minister expect to be concerned? If we have not been applying these assessments and we have ended up with the wrong people in the wrong classrooms for years, at what point should we be concerned? If six months is too soon, is it 18 months?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The hon. Gentleman is being a bit mischievous. We are in the middle of an assessment of whether scientific age assessments work and at what level of capacity and detail we can trust them. I expect reports fairly soon, and once I have them I can make a decision on how we go ahead with them. I will let Parliament know in the usual way when that has happened, but it is not useful or effective to have the hon. Gentleman’s new clause setting a deadline for that in the Bill. I hope he will accept that in the helpful way in which I intend it. We are not in disagreement on principles, but if we are going to use scientific age assessment, we need to ensure that it is as effective and useful as possible, so that it can be taken seriously and play an effective part in the battle that all of us want to be involved in: ensuring that children do not end up in adult settings and adults do not end up in children’s settings.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

People who arrive here deceptively claiming to be children cannot be allowed to succeed. We should make use of the best scientific age assessment methods available to us, with or without consent. Those will not be used in isolation, but alongside all the other possible assessment methods available to us. We can debate the science all day. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to define those methods within six months through a statutory instrument, using expert advice to do so. One deceptive adult migrant in a classroom or care setting alongside children or vulnerable youngsters is one too many. Giving our agencies the ability to use the best scientific methods available to them to assess age without consent can further their ability to protect children. I would therefore like to press new clause 26 to a Division.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my new clause 43, but a lot of what she claims is in it is not actually there—I hope she accepts that. Those of us who visit asylum seekers in our constituencies will recognise that the determination is probably the most contentious issue that asylum seekers bring to us; it is the thing that perplexes and concerns them the most. They are very sensitive to it being done wrong, and it gets done wrong in both directions, as the Minister said.

The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs quite significantly the number of cases where an asylum seeker has falsely claimed to be a child. Everybody is right that there is no scientific or other method to determine age that is 100% effective—visual assessments certainly are not. Surely, however, the people who are best qualified to make these assessments are people who work with children—whose main business is to make these sorts of judgments about children. That is why we have asked for Merton-compliant age assessments, so that an holistic view is taken of the individual and they are assessed properly by social workers trained to work with children. Surely that is the most effective means to determine these things.

I am not saying that we should not use other things, but where the issue is in dispute—perhaps I should have included that in my new clause; clearly, the people sitting in this Committee could not be classified as children—we must get it right. That is so important as we go forward. It is life-changing, dangerous and damaging to be misclassified. As I said in my initial contribution, this is not an immigration issue, but a safeguarding issue. We must get it right. That is why I will press my new clause to a vote as well.

New Clause 27 - Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022

Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire)

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

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. The new clause would enable replacements of large portions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 —in particular, sections on asylum, immigration control, age assessments and modern slavery—to ensure the upholding of the refugee convention, to provide for safe and legal routes to sanctuary for refugees and to help prevent dangerous channel crossings.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clause 27 seeks to repeal provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 passed by the previous Conservative Government. By attempting to repeal section 29 of the Act, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to prevent the Government from removing people, including criminals, to a safe third country.

Rewind back to 2022 when 45,000 people crammed into small boats, flimsy rafts teetering on the channel’s unforgiving waves—a swarm, spurred by the hope of slipping through our borders, hammering coastal towns and stretching security to its limits.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

Did the hon. Gentleman really mean “swarm” in that context? That is quite emotive language.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Well, hot air is required in this room this afternoon, and I intend to provide it.

We fought back with the Nationality and Borders Act third-country removals, which helped the Government to deter crossings by 36% in 2023 from 45,000 to under 29,000—not by chance, but by design, sending a message to traffickers and migrants alike that Britain is no soft touch or guaranteed prize. Now, the Liberal Democrats barge in with new clause 27, desperate to repeal section 29 to shred that deterrent and plunge us back into chaos, flinging the channel wide open not just to the weary but to every chancer or criminal. That is not tweaking policy; it is torching a firewall, inviting all those to Dover’s cliffs and Deal’s shores and erasing every inch of progress that we have clawed from the crisis. The Lib Dems owe us hard answers. How many boats—50,000 or 60,000?

The Albania deal delivered a masterstroke of border control. That pragmatic triumph has turned a torrent of illegal crossings into a trickle through sheer diplomatic grit. Back in 2022, Albanians dominated the small boats surge. A 12,000-strong, relentless wave of young men were lured by traffickers with promises of easy UK entry for £3,000, clogging Dover’s processing centres and fuelling tabloid headlines of chaos. Then came our 2023 pact with Tirana—a no-nonsense agreement that flipped the script with fast-track returns, joint police operations and a clear signal: Albania is safe and you are going back.

By 2024, the results were staggering. Weekly flights were whisking deportees home, with each jet a nail in the coffin of the smuggling networks that once thrived on our porous borders. That was not luck or loud threats but cold, hard execution, bolstered by UK-funded cameras on the Albania-Kosovo frontier and Albanian officers embedded in Dover.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat overstating the impact of the Albania policy. After the initial agreement was signed, we saw a massive spike in numbers coming from Albania, and the numbers had already started to fall before the communiqué was signed. The correlation and causation arguments that he is making on the Albania scheme do not add up at all.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

What is effective? The deal reduced the number of people coming from Albania by more than 90%. If we could get a few more agreements like that, we would be on the way—that would be huge progress. The Albania deal represented huge progress; to suggest otherwise is wrong. It choked off routes before boats had even launched and had a real impact.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Would the hon. Gentleman at least accept that the Albania returns were largely due to large numbers of foreign national offenders, who are a completely different category of people from those we are talking about in either this clause or this Bill?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We would want to return foreign national offenders; that is really positive. But the number of people choosing to cross because of that deterrent effect went down by not 10% or 20%, but by more than 90%. More than 90% fewer people arrived from Albania in small boats. That is huge progress. If we can replicate that elsewhere, I will be a very happy boy because we would see a huge impact on those crossings across the piece.

New clause 27 is hellbent on repealing that backbone, oblivious to how crossings from Albanians were successfully slashed, while the Rwanda threat kept smugglers guessing. If the Liberal Democrats prevail, every bilateral deal will be on the chopping block. Imagine Albanian numbers roaring back to 12,000, with other current surges unchecked. That is not progress; it is sabotage—a reckless bid to unravel a system that is finally biting back at the chaos. Do the Liberal Democrats not want to be able to remove people from this country who have entered illegally? Do they believe that any national of a safe country should be able to seek asylum in the UK? Can Liberal Democrat Members explain why that would not create a massive pull factor and encourage people to cross the channel in small boats?

The Liberal Democrats are also seeking to repeal sections 15 to 17 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which specify that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of an EU member state inadmissible. Why would the Liberal Democrats believe that anyone from the EU needs to claim asylum here? Picture this scene, which is so utterly ridiculous that it strains the bounds of credulity: an EU citizen, perhaps some laid-back Amsterdamer, pedalling along the city’s picturesque canals one sunny afternoon, tulips nodding in the breeze, then suddenly deciding to chuck it all, hop on a ferry and pitch up on Dover’s pebbled shores, requesting asylum, as if the Netherlands’ orderly bike lanes and windmill-dotted horizons had morphed into a scene from—

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

We are witnessing some particularly theatrical prose, perhaps for the first time. Has Boris Johnson got a new job as the hon. Gentleman’s speechwriter?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

His writing seems to be going quite well at the moment. I do not know that I have the cash for him.

What I have described is not asylum. We cannot pretend that the EU’s 27 nations and its vast tapestry of safe, stable and prosperous lands—we can take our pick of France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and so on, each a bastion of peace and plenty—somehow warrant the same desperate lifeline that we reserve for those fleeing real and genuine chaos. This is the same organisation that the Liberal Democrats supposedly want to build closer ties with. They also want the UK to grant asylum to people who come to this country having already been in a country where they have claimed and been granted asylum. Why are the Liberal Democrats encouraging people to cross the channel when they already have asylum or can claim asylum in a safe third country?

Just like the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats want to remove sections of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that allow local and public authorities to conduct an age assessment on an age-disputed person. As we discussed before when the SNP did not wish those who claim to be a child to be treated as an adult, every European country apart from ours uses scientific age assessment techniques such as an X-ray of the wrist. As we have said, there are also other methods. More than 50% of those claiming to be children were found to be adults after an age assessment in the quarter before the election. Without a scientific age assessment method, it is very hard to determine age. Given the horror stories in this area, why do Liberal Democrats want to put the people of this country at risk, and blindly allow unverified people into the UK?

Let us now talk about a nightmare unfolding right under our noses: one that the Liberal Democrats seem hellbent on making worse. In the first quarter of 2021 alone, 560 adults—grown men with stubble, receding hairlines and years behind them—had the gall to pose as kids, slipping through the cracks until scientific age checks, such as wrist X-rays and dental scans that every sensible European nation uses, caught them red handed and stopped them cold.

The Lib Dems’ new clause 27 would axe those checks and rip out the one tool keeping us from dumping people who are 25 years old or even older into classrooms alongside children. That is not some abstract risk. It has happened and it is real; it means men in their 20s sitting at desks meant for teens, all because we have let sentiment trump science. That would not protect children, but endanger them—a reckless gamble that would turn schools into hunting grounds and parents into nervous wrecks, all so the Lib Dems can pat themselves on the back for being compassionate. If they get their way, every classroom will have a question mark. How many 25-year-olds will slip through before the damage is done?

What do the Liberal Democrats believe should happen if the authorities believe a migrant who is claiming to be under 18 is actually an adult? Do they believe that such people should be placed in schools with schoolchildren? Again, it seems as though the Liberal Democrats want to strip the Government of any power to control who comes to the country. That would see net migration drastically increase.

The issue cuts deeper than policy, however; it is about what people expect, and the Liberal Democrats’ new clause pulls hard against that grain. Voters have signalled what they want loud and clear, with 68%—nearly seven in 10—backing tougher border controls in surveys: a call echoing from Dover to Folkestone, where residents live with the reality of arrivals day by day. That is not a passing opinion; it is a steady demand—rooted in years of debate, from the 2016 Brexit vote to the 2019 landslide—for a system that prioritises their say.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman had for lunch, but perhaps we should find out and get some of it ourselves. We can then all compete with the poet laureate and the virtuoso performance that we have just heard.

I am going to talk about the new clause, however, which is in respect of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire is proposing that numerous sections of the 2022 Act be repealed under the Bill.

I should start by making it clear that we are determined to restore order to the asylum system, so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly, and ensures that the rules are properly enforced. That is a financial necessity to deal with the backlogs that we have inherited—the permit backlog in particular, but also others, especially in the appeals space—so that the costs do not continue to mount up at the expense of the taxpayer. Getting the system moving again is an important part of what we have been doing.

Following the election, the Home Secretary acted rapidly to change the law to remove the retrospective application of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which allowed decision makers to decide asylum claims from individuals who arrived in the UK from 7 March 2023. Previously, there was a ban on that, because of the duty to remove, which was never going to be sensibly put into effect.

I am not going to speak to every section of the Nationality and Borders Act, but the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire wants us to repeal very large chunks of the Act under the new clause. I will mention only a few, and I hope that she will forgive me for not talking about every section.

The introduction of the national age assessment board, for example, in March 2023, relies on a piece of the Nationality and Borders Act that the hon. Lady wishes to repeal. In the interim, since that Act has come into being, we have introduced the national age assessment board and made it available across the country. It continues to offer significant improvement to our processes for assessing age, including creating greater consistency in age assessment practices, which can be very inconsistent in the practical delivery of Merton-compliant assessments in different local authorities—some are more experienced and some better at it than others. The national age assessment board creates a standard and a bar below which it is hard to go. It sets important standards in age assessment, improves quality and ensures that ages are recorded correctly for immigration purposes.

The Nationality and Borders Act also placed protections and support under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings on a legislative footing for the first time in the UK. That includes the right to a recovery period in the national referral mechanism, during which potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking are eligible for support and are protected from removal from the UK. The Act provides the means to disqualify individuals—I suspect that this may be the bit that the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire objects to—from protections or support on the grounds of public order or bad faith. However, that is in line with article 13 of the convention; that part of the Nationality and Borders Act put the convention into UK law. I am surprised she is suggesting that we should remove it.

The Act also sets out the circumstances in which confirmed victims of slavery and trafficking may be granted temporary permission to stay in the UK. The Government will be launching a public consultation, before summer recess, on how we can improve the process of identifying victims of modern slavery. We will provide details on that consultation in due course.

The Act also introduced the establishment of a clear two-limb test for assessing whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution and raised the standard of proof that an asylum seeker must satisfy for certain elements of the test to the higher “balance of probabilities” standard. That is helping to ensure that only those who genuinely require protection are granted it in the UK, while those who do not qualify will be removed. The Government are committed to restoring order to the asylum system, and the Bill supports our aim in ensuring that the system operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. The examples outlined demonstrate the practical benefits of keeping the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 on the statute book. It follows that I do not agree that new clause 27 should be added to the Bill.

Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire)

I thank the Minister for her clear outline. The Liberal Democrats want to enable the replacement of large portions of the Nationality and Borders Act and ensure that we uphold the refugee convention. We wish to push the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 29 - Refugee family reunion

Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire)

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

This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. Through the clause the Liberal Democrats seek to support refugee family reunion and to help people to integrate into the community, learn the language, make a home and work to contribute to society, exactly as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh discussed.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Liberal Democrat new clause 29 requires that within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State should lay before Parliament provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to family members of people granted refugee status and of people granted humanitarian protection. In the new clause, family members include: a person’s parent, including adoptive parent; their spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; and their child or sibling, including their adopted child or adoptive sibling, who is either under 18 or under 25, having been under 18 or unmarried

“at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum”.

Further, it can be taken to mean

“other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to…the importance of maintaining family unity…the best interests of a child…the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person.”

If those provisions were not already incredibly vague, the Liberal Democrats have included a proposal that other persons can be determined by the Secretary of State. That could obviously result in a huge number of spurious claims made by family members who will say that they have a dependency on another person so they must be allowed to come to the UK under the provision. We already have judges completely stretching the definition of “right to family life” under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Liberal Democrat clause would be subject to even more abuse.

Beyond the vagueness, new clause 29 risks piling unbearable pressure on an economy already creaking under migration’s weight. Each new family member, however loosely defined, brings costs—in housing, where shortages already top 1.2 million units, in healthcare, with NHS waits stretching past 7 million, and in schools, where 9 million pupils squeeze into overstretched classrooms. The costs of supporting asylum for individuals run into the tens of thousands of pounds. Multiply that by thousands of dependants under this elastic clause, and we are staring at billions more siphoned from taxpayers, who have already seen their council tax spike. The Liberal Democrats do not set a cap; they fling the door open ever wider, ignoring how finite our resources are. Britain’s compassion has no bounds, but its resources certainly do. Our generosity must have limits. New clause 29 pretends otherwise, and working families will foot the bill when the system groans under the strain.

The new clause does not just invite claims; it opens a legal floodgate that could drown our courts in precedent-setting chaos by letting the Secretary of State define “family” on a whim. Whether we are talking about emotional ties or financial need, new clause 29 hands judges a blank slate to scribble ever-wider interpretations, building on the already elastic right to family life under article 8.

We have seen what has happened. As has been mentioned, an Albanian stayed because his son disliked foreign chicken nuggets. A Pakistani offender lingered, citing harshness to his kids. Let us now imagine dozens or hundreds of cases stacking up, each further stretching dependency—cousins, in-laws, distant kins—all cementing new norms that bind future policy. The Lib Dems would not just be tweaking rules; they would be unleashing a judicial snowball that would roll over border control for years to come. “Family unity” sounds noble, but the sprawl under new clause 29 could stall integration in its tracks—a challenge we cannot ignore when one in six UK residents was born abroad. Bringing in broad swathes of dependants, potentially with limited English skills or ties, risks clustering communities inward, not outward.

If we look across the channel, we see that Germany tightened family reunification after 1.1 million arrivals, capping it at 1,000 monthly for refugees’ kin, citing overload. We are not outliers for wanting clarity. Other nations prove it works, yet the Lib Dems chase a boundless model, ignoring how allies balance compassion with capacity, leaving us to pick up the pieces when this experiment fails.

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

The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire proposes an amendment that seeks to significantly change the current refugee family reunion policy, and to expand the current eligibility to include siblings, children under the age of 25 and any undefined family member.

The Government fully support the principle of family unity and the need to have provisions under the immigration rules that enable immediate family members to be reunited in the UK when their family life has been disrupted because of conflict or persecution. Accordingly, in recognition of the fact that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict or persecution, and because of the speed or manner in which people may be forced to flee their homes, communities and country, our refugee family reunion policy is extremely important and generous. The route enables those granted a form of protection in the UK to sponsor their partner or child to come to the UK, provided that they formed part of that family unit before they sought protection. Increasing numbers of visas have been granted through this route under the current policy, and indeed under the previous Administration. In 2024, 19,710 people were granted family reunion visas—twice the number in 2023, when around 9,300 visas were granted.

On the specific proposals in the new clause, it should be noted that any expansion of the existing approach without careful thought, including where such an expansion would allow an undefined family member to be brought to the UK, could significantly increase the number of people who qualify to come here, and runs the risk of abuse of those routes. That would have an impact on the taxpayer and could result in further pressures on public services and local authorities, which may have to accommodate and support the new arrivals.

We believe that introducing a rule that allows children to sponsor their relatives would risk creating incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced, as we know can happen, to leave their families and risk hazardous journeys to the UK across the channel in small boats. That is a serious and legitimate concern regarding the best interests of those children.

Susan Murray (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dunbartonshire)

I thank the Minister. It is good to hear that the Government support the principle of family reunion, but we will press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 32 - Revocation of indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

It was remiss of me not to say earlier that I admire the hon. Gentleman’s tie—it is very nice. On the point he raises, I have said consistently that that particular report by the Centre for Policy Studies is flawed. As we move towards the Government’s new net migration White Paper, which will specify how we can bring labour into the country that is skilled only, rather than the low-wage labour that we saw under the previous Administration, there will not be that kind of burden in the future.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

Will Forster (Liberal Democrat, Woking)

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

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

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

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

that the person

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

but has not spent 10 years resident in the UK;

that the person or their dependants

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

or that the person’s

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

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

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

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Looking at the proposals set out in this new clause, how exactly is the hon. Gentleman proposing to calculate the £38,700? Is software available in the Home Office or in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? What if someone was found to have overpaid taxes after they were found not to meet the amount? Would the Home Office go and find them overseas and bring them back? This proposal sounds absurdly unworkable.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Lots of processes are in place, but we are putting down a principle. It is the same as the skilled worker visa threshold of £38,700. We have to set a line that requires people to be self-sufficient and not a drain on resources. This is the line that we are setting.

There are also Hongkongers. By 2025, nearly 180,000 British national overseas visa holders had escaped Beijing’s iron grip—huge British talent. More than 20,000 Afghans have been resettled since the Kabul airlift. Those were the right things to do, and we would exempt them from this proposal. These are not random arrivals; they are people we invited, whose stories of sacrifice and loyalty resonate with the values that we hold dear, from duty to decency. We would not renege on those commitments and tarnish the trust that we have built.

Let us cast our eyes across the globe, because other nations are not just theorising about this; they are proving that it works, day in, day out, with systems that do not just talk a good game but deliver tangible, measurable results that we would be foolish to overlook. Take Australia, a land of vast horizons and sharper borders, whose points-based residency system does not mess around. If someone is pulling in less than 53,900 Australian dollars—£28,000—and they are dipping into welfare, Australia will show them the door, an approach that is saving taxpayers billions.

These are not quirky outliers or flukes; they are lessons carved in policy stone and shining examples that tying status to contribution is not some pie-in-the-sky dream but a practical, proven playbook that delivers real savings and sharper borders, and stands up to scrutiny. New clause 32 lifts straight from that script, making £38,700 the line in the sand, with no benefits to lean on and no criminal record to tarnish the deal. It is not radical; it is road-tested, and echoes what works elsewhere on the globe.

Critics might cry, “Unworkable!” but the conditions in new clause 32 are trackable. HMRC already logs income for tax. The Home Office flags criminals under the UK Borders Act 2007, and the Department for Work and Pensions tracks benefits down to the penny. We are not reinventing the wheel—just syncing data to enforce the rules, with £38,700 as a clear line, 10 years as a fair test, and exemptions for the Ukraine, Afghan and British national overseas schemes, showing that we can tailor it.

This is a framework that says, “If you’re here for the long haul, you’ve got to bring something to the table, not just pull up a seat.” Australia and Canada have shown us the path with lower costs and tighter controls; we would be stupid not to take it. I would like to know why the Government would disagree with the principles behind the new clause. Why do the Government want foreign criminals to remain in the UK with indefinite leave to remain? If the Government believe in the £38,700 amount for skilled workers to obtain a visa, why would that not apply to people remaining in the UK indefinitely?

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

I was not going to speak to the new clause; I was just going to let the hon. Gentleman drone on, in the hope that we could possibly get away on Thursday morning, but I have been irked to my feet. I am not sure whether I prefer the new loquacious hon. Member for Stockton West. I do not know what he has done about his speechwriting, but I preferred the version that we had last week. That was probably more in keeping with the Conservatives’ contributions to this Committee.

This is a horrible new clause, which penalises lower-income workers, deters skilled immigration and harms vulnerable groups. The retrospective nature of some of the provisions is simply absurd, and would lead only to legal challenges and all sorts of administrative complications. The new clause would introduce retrospective punishments, taking ILR away from individuals who had received it under the previous rules simply because a future Government—thank goodness this will never be so—had later decided to raise the bar. People make long-term decisions to buy homes, raise families and contribute to communities based on the stability of ILR. Changing the rules after the fact destroys trust in the whole system.

The proposal sets an arbitrary income threshold of £38,700, meaning that a nurse, teacher or social worker—people the UK depends on—could lose their ILR. Many industries, including healthcare, hospitality and retail have workers earning below that level. Are we really saying that under no circumstances would they be welcome? The proposal also ignores economic realities. People face job losses, illness or temporary hardships. Should losing a job also mean losing the right to live in the UK?

New clause 32 states that ILR should be revoked if a person has received any sort of “social protection”, including housing support. This would punish people who have worked hard and contributed but who need temporary support due to circumstances often beyond their control. It targets families, disabled people and those facing financial hardship, effectively saying, “If you need help, you don’t belong here.” Skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs want certainty. If they fear that a downturn in income or a short period of hardship could see them lose their right to remain, they will choose other countries over the UK.

As we have also heard, how can this be enforced? Constantly monitoring ILR-holders’ income, benefits and job status would be an administrative disaster; it would be costly, error prone and unfairly target individuals. This new clause is simply cruel. It is unnecessary and unworkable, and I hope that it is rejected out of hand.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

We have spoken already about indefinite leave to remain, which is also referred to as settlement. We have discussed the most basic requirement for eligibility, which is time, and our suggestion that the timeframe be extended from five years to 10. The new clause covers revocation, or the circumstances in which we believe that indefinite leave to remain status should be removed from an individual to whom it has been granted.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West set out, the first of these conditions is whether a person has engaged in criminality. Our definition for criminality is based on that used in section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, under which a person is a “foreign criminal” if they are neither a British nor an Irish citizen; if they have been convicted of an offence, where that conviction takes place in the United Kingdom; and if the period of imprisonment to which they are sentenced is at least 12 months. It also applies to a person who is a “serious criminal”, as defined in section 72(4)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

It is already the case that individuals with settled status can be deported from the UK by having ILR status revoked at the discretion of the Home Secretary. This new clause makes that process automatic. We can see no reason why a person who has committed a crime—particularly based on the current legislation—that is so serious that they are sentenced to a year in prison should be able to continue to be in this country at all, let alone to retain ILR status and with it all the generosity and safety net of the British welfare state, including social housing, benefits and free healthcare.

Secondly, we have included in this new clause a condition that is effectively a knock-on effect from our earlier new clause 25, which would revoke ILR status conferred after this Act comes into force, where that status would not have been conferred under these new conditions.

Thirdly, the new clause applies to those who have been in receipt of social protection, as defined by the Treasury’s “Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses”, which includes personal social services in various different categories, as well as incapacity, disability and injury benefits, pensions, family benefits, income support and tax credits, unemployment benefits, universal credit and social housing. Social protection is a fundamental part of modern British society, but we should be honest that it is also incredibly expensive. Such generous provision should be available only to citizens. It must be a fundamental principle of our system that those who come to this country contribute fiscally more than they cost. What they pay in tax should more than cover the cost of the public services that they use. That is the opposite of the situation that we have now; only a small proportion of those who have come to this country over the past few years are likely to be net lifetime contributors. That is unaffordable.

That reality also underpins our final condition of income falling below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate. That figure of £38,700 was chosen to sit alongside the general skilled worker threshold, the minimum earnings threshold for skilled worker visas, and the minimum income requirement for a family visa sponsor proposed by the last Government. It was chosen as it represents the 50th percentile, or the median, of earnings for jobs at the skill level of RQF3—level 3 of the regulated qualifications framework—which is perhaps more easily recognisable as the equivalent of A-levels and BTECs.

We believe that the new clause will go some way to addressing the problems that we have set out of very high volumes of people coming to this country in recent years who are not set to be net fiscal contributors to the public purse over the course of their lifetimes. We hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.

We also welcome the comments from the Minister on the fact that she is looking at this issue. Could she tell us specifically whether she is looking at any of these conditions, and, if so, which? How are her discussions coming along, and when does she hope to report back to the House on her plans?

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

I am pleased to speak about new clause 32, which would mean that people who are settled in the UK had that status automatically revoked in a wide range of circumstances. Irrespective of any other relevant factors, such as how long a person has lived here, settlement could be automatically revoked when a person earns less than £38,700, has received benefits or would not meet requirements for settlement that have subsequently changed.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

Will the Minister give way?

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

I will—I expect the hon. Lady to make the point she made earlier.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The Minister might be anticipating what I am about to say: we would very much appreciate, in that case, if she could instead provide an evidential basis from the Government on which we could make some of these decisions.

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

I just mention that we have the upcoming immigration White Paper, in which we will set out our approach to the immigration system and how to support it to be better controlled and managed for the future. We are clear that net migration must come down. She will know that under the previous Government—to which she was a special adviser—between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled. That was heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment. A properly controlled and managed immigration system, alongside strong border security, is one of the foundations of the Government’s plan for change. It is extremely important to have a debate based on tackling those root causes and issues, rather than tinkering around the edges and having a scenario in which the partner of a British citizen, who subsequently falls ill and dies, has her ILR revoked. It is important to understand what the Opposition tabling such amendments means for people’s lives and fairness in our society.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Briefly, prompted by the Opposition, we are inching towards a more interesting debate, on how to assess the financial benefits and costs of migration, while grounding that in available and high-quality data. In 2021, in Australia, the Treasury undertook a fiscal assessment and has repeated that annually. I know, too, that the Migration Advisory Committee is looking to improve the quality of data, because over 14 years we have had such poor-quality data on which to make assessments. It is starting to look at different categories of workers in order to assess whether they are net contributors or net drags. That is a really positive step.

One of the reasons why we are relying on “best” or “only” reports is because we had a Government who could have improved the quality of the data to make managed assessments of what controlled immigration that benefits our economy would look like, but instead, unfortunately, we had the borders thrown open with no sense of what our economy ought to be or what the skills ought to be, which is regrettable. Will the Minister comment on the importance of the White Paper to drive forward the immigration system that we actually need, grounded in the data that we need?

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

My hon. Friend highlights a crucial point about the importance of evidence-based policy and of good data, which was sorely lacking across the whole immigration system when we came into office. The utter chaos, with backlogs in every part of the system, put huge pressure on it and made it much harder to get information about where the backlogs were and who was in them in order to try to exert some control over the system and get that important data to inform future policy.

My hon. Friend is right to point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which continues to do important work to engage with stakeholders and to work across Government. That is an important part of the work that we are doing to use evidence in a much better way to inform how we link skills policy and visa policy. The work to restore order to our immigration system has been under way since we came into office. We will set out our approach, as he has intimated, in our upcoming immigration White Paper. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explain why we will not support the amendment, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton West may wish to withdraw it.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I welcome the Minister’s response, particularly her words about the importance of settlement and citizenship being earned. The Opposition are excited to see the immigration White Paper, and particularly any data and fiscal impact analyses that it may contain. I apologise if this information is already publicly available and I am not aware of it, but can the Minister tell us when the White Paper is due to be published? Can she also set out a scenario in which it would be preferable for a foreign criminal to remain in this country after having been convicted of a crime, and why she considers the new clause to be unworkable?

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

We have said that we hope to publish the immigration White Paper later in the spring. I have made some remarks in relation to foreign criminals; the Government are clear that they should be deported from the UK whenever it is legal to do so. Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The Minister says that foreign criminals should be deported whenever it is legal to do so, but the purpose of our amendment is to make it always legal to do so. Why does she not feel that that would be helpful?

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

I thank the hon. Member for that point. I have laid out the argument about needing an immigration system that is subject to rules and that can recognise different circumstances. I have also laid out the point about foreign criminals and where it is legal to deport them. Anyone who is convicted of a crime is considered for that.

The hon. Member will also understand that there can be complexity in people’s arrangements. Anything that becomes automatic in the way that she describes needs to be subject to much more debate than a new clause in this Bill Committee. We are not debating immigration; we are debating a system to stop the gangs and improve our border security. It is important that we see the purpose for which this legislation has been designed.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We feel strongly about the measures in the new clause, and we wish to press it to a Division.

New Clause 33 - Borders legislation: Human Rights Act

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

New clause 33 aims to help the Government by providing a way to put securing our borders above spurious human rights claims to frustrate removal. It would disapply the entire Human Rights Act 1998, as well as any interim measures of the Strasbourg court that prevent the effective operation of legislation relating to immigration and deportation. The result would be that those seeking to appeal deportation or other immigration decisions would not be able to make human rights claims under the Human Rights Act in British courts.

The new clause would apply that new power to all aspects of immigration control, including enforcement, deportation, the granting or removal of immigration and asylum status, and any other immigration entitlements. We would expect Parliament to legislate and the Home Office to decide immigration cases based on their reasonable interpretation of the European convention on human rights, but UK judges would be able to use only UK law passed by Parliament to decide appeals, and no longer make expansive and common-sense-defying interpretations of what they claim the ECHR means.

The Human Rights Act would still apply to non-immigration matters, so UK judges could continue to apply the ECHR directly to them. We would still be under the ECHR, so applicants would still be able to go to the Strasbourg court, but the new clause would stop UK judges expanding the definitions. In that scenario, it would be possible to deport people pending a Strasbourg appeal, and it would repeat the measure in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 to give Ministers the power to ignore an ECHR rule 39 interim order. We are not saying that the new clause provides the full answer to controlling our borders. Wider questions such as ECHR membership and wider immigration system reforms are to be addressed in longer-term pieces of work, but the new clause would be a step in the right direction.

The reason the new clause is necessary can be seen in recent decisions about immigration appeals. For example, an Iraqi drug dealer was saved from deportation from the UK after a judge ruled that he was too westernised to be returned to his home country. That man, who was jailed for more than five years after a conviction for dealing cocaine, had lived in Britain for 24 years and has a British-born daughter. Home Office officials attempted to have him deported, but a specialist judge in the asylum tribunal ruled that returning the man to Iraq would violate his human rights as he would be viewed with suspicion. The judge said that the man, who cannot be named, would face persecution in Iraq because he would be seen as westernised.

As we have already mentioned, an Albanian criminal was allowed to stay in Britain partly because his son would not eat foreign chicken nuggets. An immigration tribunal ruled that it would be unduly harsh for the 10-year-old boy to be forced to move to Albania with his father, owing to his sensitivity around food. The sole example provided to the court was his distaste for the type of chicken nuggets available abroad.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could just assume that we are familiar with those two cases by now and either not bother citing them or think of some new examples to support his arguments.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I think they are relevant; they are things that both the public and I are bothered about. They show the failings of the system and why people are so concerned about the way that it is going.

As a result, the judge allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights, citing the impact that his removal might have on his son. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile, who was convicted of assaulting three teenage boys, was delayed over claims that deportation would breach his human rights.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned more about the Human Rights Act or its application by judges?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am concerned about the consequences of the Human Rights Act for cases such as this and its role therein.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I did not understand what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he concerned more about the judges’ application of the Human Rights Act or the Act itself?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am concerned, in the context of this new clause, about what the Human Rights Act means for these immigration cases. That is why the new clause proposes to remove its impact and disapply it.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I am still not very clear—I apologise, maybe I ate too much at lunch. Does the hon. Gentleman have issues with the Human Rights Act such that he believes that we ought not to be applying it generally? Is this the first step towards its disapplication, or is he more concerned that, while the legislation is fine, we have in what seems a minority of cases judges who are not applying it correctly? Could he also tell me whether what he has here is a snapshot of cases that he is concerned about or the totality of cases that he is concerned about?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have talked about the relevance of disapplying the Human Rights Act with regards to immigration and the impact that it is having on these cases. I think I have been clear, and the hon. Gentleman can read Hansard.

As I was saying, the man was jailed for five offences of sexual activity with a child but has been able to stay in Britain since 2011, owing to a protracted dispute over his asylum case. In 2012, the man, who cannot be named, was branded in court a “danger to the community” over his offences against boys aged between 13 and 15. He then applied for asylum by claiming that his life would be at risk were he to return to Sri Lanka, because he is gay. Since his initial application, his case has been through several court hearings, as judges have assessed whether deporting the 50-year-old would breach his human rights. Those are just three examples of how ever-expanding interpretations of the Human Rights Act have been increasingly frustrating the removal of those who objectively ought to be deported.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

That was a helpful clarification to my earlier question about whether what the hon. Gentleman is citing represents a snapshot or the totality—he says that they are three of the total number. How many, in total, has he looked at that have caused him such alarm?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I think if we allowed first-tier tribunals to go public, we would see a lot more. These things undermine public confidence in the legal framework and the institutions that uphold them, and I think they are terribly wrong. One of these cases is one too many. They are happening in ever-increasing numbers; that is why we have tabled this new clause, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for it or otherwise.

Our new clause represents a first step to restore some common sense to immigration appeals. New clause 33 steps up to wrest back control from a judiciary that has wandered far from the reservation, turning the Human Rights Act into a sprawling, open-ended blank cheque for immigration status, a carte blanche that has left us all scratching our heads at the sheer audacity of it.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

That is also a helpful clarification, because the hon. Gentleman’s concern is with the judiciary and its behaviours. Can I clarify what he has just said, exactly as I heard it: his concern is purely about the judge’s application of the Human Rights Act, and he himself is absolutely fine with the Act?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We allow our domestic courts to use it. We have created the framework and put it in place, and they do what they can with what is in front of them. I am concerned about the way in which it is applied, and we need to change that if we want to impact the outcomes of those cases and appeals.

Last year alone, we saw far too many appeals built on article 8, the right to a family life, flooding courts with ridiculously broad pleas. This Parliament is elected to decide the laws of the land. Judges are there to uphold that law, yet they have morphed into border gatekeepers, perched on high and second-guessing Home Office decisions with interpretations so elastic they would snap any thread of reason, and family life ballooning to mean whatever they fancy on any given day. The new clause yanks that power back to where it belongs: with MPs, who are answerable to the people who elect them.

New clause 33 is not just a legal tweak; it is a turbocharge for a deportation system bogged down by endless appeals, with removals stalled by Human Rights Act challenges. Each case drags on, costing tens of thousands of pounds per detainee in legal fees and housing, and clogging up detention centres that are already at capacity. Disapplying the Human Rights Act for immigration would fix the logjam, letting Ministers and officials act fast, deporting those our domestic legislation was created to deport and freeing up resources for border patrols and visa processing, which actually keep us secure.

New clause 33 would restore public safety—a lifeline for a priority that has been fraying at the edges and unravelling thread by thread, as dangerous individuals exploit Human Rights Act loopholes to cling to our soil like barnacles on a ship. In 2024 alone, thousands of foreign national offenders—thieves, drug peddlers and worse—languished in UK prisons, costing taxpayers millions to house. Nowhere near enough were bundled on to planes and removed, leaving thousands to stroll out post their sentence, free to roam our streets, because of Human Rights Act claims tying our hands and deviating from Parliament’s intended outcomes.

New clause 33 would cut through that mess. It would mean swift, no-nonsense removal of those who have shattered our laws—not endless hand-wringing debates over some nebulous right to stay that keeps them loitering in our towns. Public opinion, or the view of British law-abiding taxpayers, is clear—nearly three quarters call for foreign criminals to be removed—yet here we are. The current set-up lets threats fester when they should be gone. As the months go by, more of these bizarre judgments emerge, undermining public confidence in the entire system and our legal institutions.

Let us take a tour beyond our shores, because other nations are not fumbling in the dark; they are lighting the way, showing us that this is not some wild, radical leap but a steady, proven path that we would be daft not to tread. For starters, France increased its deportations by 27%, and is also seen to be deftly side-stepping ECHR interim measures, with domestic law overrides. Twenty-seven per cent. sent home—no faffing about with Strasbourg rule 39 edicts; just a clear-eyed focus on keeping France’s borders taut and its streets secure.

Then there is Australia, where the Migration Act does not blink. Rights claims bow to border control, and many are whisked out yearly with minimal fuss. The law, created by those elected to do so, determines who stays and who goes. These are not rogue states; they are democracies—proud and pragmatic, balancing security with sovereignty. New clause 33 strides right into that company. Parliament would lay down the law, not Strasbourg’s fleeting winds, echoing what has clicked abroad, from Paris to Perth.

I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this proposal—in particular, whether she thinks that some of the recent examples of failed deportations are acceptable. We are apparently very familiar with chicken nugget-gate. If she agrees that some of these outcomes are unacceptable but does not feel that this approach is the way forwards, how will the Government end these cases, which are making a mockery of our justice system and undermining public confidence in our legal institutions?

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

I am compelled again to rise in opposition to what is probably the most egregious of all the new clauses that we are having to consider in today’s marshalled groups. The hon. Gentleman has laid some competition before us, but this new clause is by far the most disgraceful and appalling. The Human Rights Act is an important guarantee. It is what makes us good world citizens and provides rights that are universal. It protects fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and the right to a fair trial—and the Tories do not like it one bit. The right-wing nonsense that we heard from the hon. Gentleman is a fundamental departure from the principle that human rights apply universally, not just to those the Government deem worthy. It is a dangerous precedent that undermines the UK’s long-standing commitment to justice, fairness and the rule of law.

The Human Rights Act incorporates the ECHR into British law. The new clause would disapply the Act in immigration cases, effectively removing domestic judicial oversight and shifting the burden to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I listened to the hon. Gentleman very carefully, and I still do not know whether he thinks that is a good thing or not. It is not taking back control; it is arguably outsourcing decision making to an international body, creating delays and legal uncertainty. Perhaps we will get some more from him when he sums up on the new clause, but this proposal would take decisions about immigration cases out of the hands of the judiciary and hand them to politicians. I cannot think of anything scarier than the hon. Gentleman being in charge of determining asylum cases, and I think that prospect would appal most ordinary people in this country.

The Leader of the Opposition argues that some foreign criminals and illegal migrants are using the Human Rights Act to avoid deportation. What we have just heard is that the Conservatives want to dismantle human rights because of chicken nuggets. The idea that the entire human rights framework should be dismantled to address a few egregious cases is quite simply absurd. The Conservatives left the asylum system in chaos, spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the failed Rwanda scheme and presided over record high small boat crossings, and now they want to strip basic rights from an already vulnerable group.

The ECHR was established right after the end of world war two to promote human rights, freedom and democracy. One of its driving forces was Winston Churchill, the wartime statesman revered by Conservatives and Brexit supporters as a symbol of British independence and self-reliance. The UK was the first nation to ratify the convention, drafted in 1950 and enacted in 1953, and it formed a broader set of commitments agreed by signatories to the 46-member Council of Europe, of which the UK remains a member despite its departure from the EU.

I do not often agree with former Tory chairmen, but I agree with Lord Patten when he gave a clear condemnation of the move to leave the ECHR, calling it “absolute drivel”. In the Conservative party’s obsession with the ECHR, and their “will they, won’t they?” about leaving it, we have never yet heard clarity on this. It is little more than a political distraction, designed to scapegoat supranational institutions instead of taking responsibility. It is dangerous territory, and I urge colleagues to make sure that this is thoroughly rejected right out of hand.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

In November 2024, a Congolese paedophile who sexually assaulted his own stepdaughter was allowed to remain in the UK despite the Government’s attempts to deport him, out of concern that forcing him to leave the country would interfere with his right to a family life. In December 2024, a Turkish heroin peddler was allowed to stay in the UK because it was ruled that deporting him would interfere unduly with his family life, despite the fact that he had returned to Turkey eight times since coming to Britain.

In February of this year, a Nigerian woman who was refused asylum eight times was allowed to remain in the UK because it was decided that her membership of a terrorist organisation might make her subject to persecution in her home country. Earlier this month, a Nigerian drug dealer escaped deportation because he believed that he was suffering from “demonic forces”. Meanwhile, Samuel Frimpong, a Ghanaian fraudster, has been allowed to return to the UK, having being deported 12 years ago, after claiming that he is depressed in his home country.

The list goes on and on. Absurd asylum rulings from our tribunal system seem to emerge on an almost daily basis. What do these cases have in common? In each one, a potentially dangerous person was spared deportation because of our membership of the European convention on human rights, and, crucially, the domestic legislation that enshrines the convention in British law—the Human Rights Act. This legislation is clearly not fit for purpose when it comes to managing and securing the border. It is enabling dangerous foreign criminals to remain in the UK, and putting the British public at risk.

It is time we recognised that decisions about asylum and immigration should be made by politically accountable Ministers, rather than by unaccountable judges and tribunals. That is the purpose of our new clause, which seeks to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to the Bill and other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration.

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

Just to clarify, I think the hon. Lady is saying clearly that what she intends to do is to take decisions about immigration out of the hands of judges, and leave them in the hands of politicians. Is that her intention?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—yes, I think it is fundamentally important that decisions about who can be and remain in our country are made by people who are accountable to the public.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I will make a little progress.

The concept of universal rights is clearly a good one. It is one of the great gifts to humanity of the Judeo-Christian tradition to recognise that every human life has inherent worth, and every human being should be treated with the dignity that that inherent worth confers. But any set of rules that people might write over time can be distorted or abused, or exploited to take advantage of our society, our kindness and the British impulse and instinct towards trust, tolerance and generosity. Our rules and laws on human rights, and the organisations to which we belong that were created in the name of human rights, should be subject to scrutiny and debate no less than any other rules and laws. Lord Jonathan Sumption, the former Supreme Court judge, said that the United Kingdom’s adherence to the European convention on human rights

“raises a major constitutional issue which ought to concern people all across the political spectrum.”

It is right for us to interrogate our rules. Indeed, that is arguably our main job and the fundamental reason we have been sent here by our constituents. None of our laws should be above repeal, replacement or disapplication, and that must include the Human Rights Act. We are among the luckiest people in the world in that we live in a democracy, and one that I believe has the world’s greatest people as its voters. When the British people see repeated activity that contravenes our national common sense, politicians in Westminster must acknowledge that and do something about it.

If the Government do not wish to disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of asylum and immigration in order to control the border and put a stop to the perverse cases and decisions we are seeing relentlessly arise in the courts, what is their solution? How will they restore common sense, fairness and the primacy of public safety to the security of the border?

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)

Before I call the Minister, I will just point out that Erskine May urges us not to be critical of judges in UK superior courts. I am sure hon. and right hon. Members will wish to be circumspect in their remarks.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I am not sure how much of the debate we could have heard, Dr Murrison, had you made that observation at the beginning of it.

I do not think this Government wish to join Belarus and Russia among those who are not signed up to the European Court of Human Rights. The Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights. When we talk about human rights, that means all people who are human: everybody, applied universally.

As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to human rights protections in the UK. To start taking those away on a bit-by-bit basis, particularly beginning with people who are very unpopular and have done difficult or bad things, could be the start of a very slippery slope if we are not careful. That is why I am proud that our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has printed on its front cover that it is compatible with convention rights. This Government will always do things that are compatible with convention rights.

The paradox of some of what has been said in the debate we have just had is that it politicises decisions. That is a very different approach to judicial issues from the one we have seen for very many years, where, in effect, a lot of the powers on particular issues that used to sit with the Home Secretary have been taken by judges who are publicly accountable for their decisions. I do not think that this Government would want to see that reversed. The paradox of new clause 33 is that all those who potentially had a human rights claim, whatever their circumstances, could go straight to the Strasbourg court, which would clog up that court. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire pointed out, that is not taking back control, it is abrogating it, and would flood the Strasbourg court with decisions that could have sensibly been taken here.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I am sure that the Minister must disagree with some of the examples that we have seen, and agree that they undermine public trust in the judiciary, legal institutions and the frameworks we have. What is the solution? Must we grin and bear the appalling outcomes of those cases or is there a solution? How does she propose to stop such things happening?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I would respectfully say that the hon. Gentleman’s party had many, many years to think of a solution, and most of the cases that Opposition Members have raised today had their genesis in the years that they were in power. Close to the very end, as they became more and more frustrated, they started coming up with more and more outlandish approaches.

Obviously, one wants the entire judicial process to be used, as speedily as possible, and if the Home Office wishes to appeal a particular case, it will do so. We keep a constant eye on the issues and we think about reforms that we could make. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will be the first to hear if we decide to make changes, but we do not wish to abrogate from the Human Rights Act, the ECHR and the human rights framework. That is where we and other Opposition parties differ from him and his party. That is why I do not accept new clause 33 and I hope that the Committee will vote against it if it is pressed to a vote.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I hope it was clear in my remarks, but for the avoidance of doubt or ambiguity I want to say that the Opposition do not criticise our judges. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, they are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents under which they operate. That is why the new clause seeks to change those rules—

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

With the greatest respect, a reading of the Hansard report of what the hon. Member for Stockton West said would be contrary to what the hon. Lady has just asserted. What the hon. Gentleman said could in no way, shape or form be described as complimentary to or supportive of judges. In fact, it was very undermining of judges.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

My hon. Friend clearly said that judges are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents that they have been set. I have described our judges as unaccountable to the public. That is not a criticism: it is a fact.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

The public are appalled by these cases. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire does not want us to change legal frameworks over chicken nuggets: if the Human Rights Act creates a situation in which criminals, rapists and paedophiles are able to stay against domestic law and the intentions of the people charged with making that law, it is unacceptable. We feel strongly about this and wish to divide on the matter.

New Clause 34 - Offences and deportation

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 42—Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries—

“(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70, omit subsections (4) and (5).

(3) In

(4) In section 72—

(a) subsection (1), after ‘A country’, for ‘may’ substitute ‘must’.

(b) In subsection (1)(a) omit ‘and’ and insert—

‘or,

(ab) is not cooperating in relation to the verification of identity or status of individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country, and’

(c) in subsection (1)(b), after ‘citizens of the country’ insert ‘or individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country’,

(d) omit subsections (2) and (3), and

(e) in subsection (4), omit from ‘70’ to after ‘subsection (1)(a)’ .

(5) Omit section 74.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not cooperating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

Currently a prison sentence of one year is required before a foreign national who is a convicted criminal can be deported. Even then, removal can be frustrated by asylum and human rights claims. New clause 34 would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with or convicted of an immigration offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, and would disapply the Human Rights Act from those cases. We believe that the protection of British citizens is paramount and should be the overriding priority for Government. If a foreign national has been convicted of any offence, they should lose their right to remain in the UK.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

On that point we agree, so why was his Government so tardy at actually deporting foreign national offenders when they were in office?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have just had a lengthy discussion about the Human Rights Act and the impact it has on deportations. However, if she agrees so wholeheartedly on the principle, I am sure she might consider backing our amendment.

There are a number of countries where the UK has a significant number of foreign national offenders currently serving in British prisons. However, we deport only a small number of those foreign national offenders each quarter. Our new clause 42 would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not co-operating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status. We have done this by amending the Nationality and Borders Act, so that the ability to impose visa sanctions is not discretionary but mandatory. We know that there are countries that are hard to secure returns to. We believe strongly that that should not be without consequences for those countries.

New clause 34 shifts the lens to where it belongs—on the victims left in the wake of foreign offenders, not the perpetrators gaming the system. In 2024, theft offences alone averaged just 8.1 months—a shopkeeper’s livelihood dented, a pensioner’s purse snatched, or a family’s peace of mind and sense of security destroyed. Public order crimes averaged just 9.6 months, with more huge consequences for the wellbeing of victims who are left with a fear of entering public spaces or unable to go about their ordinary lives. Yet the one year deportation bar enables those culprits to linger, post-sentence, free to reoffend while victims wait for justice that never comes.

This clause says, “Enough.” Any conviction, for shoplifting or worse, triggers removal—no Human Rights Act excuses—because every day a foreign offender is allowed to stay is another day a British victim’s trust in the system erodes. Why are the Government okay with that shadow hanging over our streets? New clause 42 would force nations to play ball uphill. We see too many countries dither and delay in refusing to take back offenders. Mandatory visa sanctions flip that script. No co-operation, no UK visas for their elite. Watch fast how passports materialise when there are real consequences. Why is Labour soft-pedalling when we could wield this stick, clear the backlog and reduce pressure on prison places?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

New clause 34 prevents any foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK. It should be a fundamental principle of our system that immigration never makes the British public any less safe. Unfortunately, however, many of those who have come to the UK in recent years have broken our laws. According to Ministry of Justice figures, a staggering 23% of sexual crimes in the UK—almost one in four—are committed by foreign nationals.

The overall imprisonment rate for foreign nationals is 20% higher than that for British citizens. Of course, the trend is not uniform: some nationalities are more heavily represented than others. Albanian migrants are nearly 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than average; those from Algeria are nearly nine times more likely and those from Jamaica nearly eight times more likely to be imprisoned than average.

Those who seek to harm this country, to break its laws and to undermine what we hold to be fair and right should not be allowed to remain here. As the Government are well aware, our prisons are already overcrowded. We must not allow foreign criminals to continue exacerbating this problem and we must not endanger the British public by allowing foreign criminals to stay in this country.

Under our current system, too many of those who break our laws are being allowed to remain in the UK. Often, Home Office attempts to deport foreign criminals are blocked because of absurd and ever expanding human rights rules. In the interests of public safety, we must not allow foreign criminals to remain in Britain; that includes by making sure that the Human Rights Act cannot be used to prevent us from deporting those who break our laws.

How, specifically, does new clause 34 do that? It amends section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, which we have already mentioned today. Section 32 would be amended from its current form, which defines a foreign criminal as a person who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen, who is convicted of an offence that takes place in the United Kingdom and who is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of least 12 months, or is a serious criminal as defined in section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. What would replace section 32 would be much simpler; it would instead say that a foreign criminal was anyone who is neither a British nor an Irish citizen who is convicted of any offence in the United Kingdom, and explicitly include within that anybody who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, which sets out the situations in which a person can be considered to have entered this country illegally. That includes if they do so in breach of a deportation order; if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly came here without that leave; or if they required leave to enter the United Kingdom and knowingly stayed here beyond the time conferred by that leave, among other specific conditions.

New clause 34 also seeks to ensure that the rules will be upheld in all circumstances and asserts therefore that the principle of removing criminals from this country is of utmost importance and must be prioritised above other legislation. That includes human rights legislation, for the reasons we have already set out.

I turn to new clause 42, which requires the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country proves to be unco-operative in the process of removing any of its nationals or citizens from the UK. Such a lack of co-operation may arise in verifying their identity or status or it may pertain to the process of removing people whose identity and status has not been established. New clause 42 seeks to do that by amending section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That Act set out the idea of a visa penalty provision, effectively allowing the Home Secretary to suspend visa applications from countries that do not co-operate with the activity that the Government are trying to take to secure and protect the border. The new clause would strengthen that Act by changing that from an option for the Home Secretary to a duty and by adding explicitly the point about countries that are not co-operating with the process of verifying the identity or status of individuals whom we consider likely to be nationals or citizens of the countries in question.

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

I am struggling to understand this new clause. There are a number of reasons why other countries may not be able co-operate with the UK on immigration and visa cases—it could be political instability, or there could be a right-wing despot in charge—but that impacts on ordinary asylum seekers. Does the hon. Lady not accept that there are a number of political or even administrative reasons why they are not always able to co-operate?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The new clause maintains the Home Secretary’s ability to judge whether or not a country is being unco-operative. If it is unable to help, that is different from being unco-operative in the way that we would define it here.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

A volume of information seems to be coming at us now, and it feels as though every 20 words, something absolutely absurd is said. It is a marked contrast with what has gone before. I see the hon. Member for Weald of Kent and the hon. Member for Stockton West standing there, but I hear the voices of other people in their party. It feels very peculiar.

I have a specific question. Quite apart from the fact that the Conservatives effectively decriminalised shoplifting, if an Albanian national is convicted of shoplifting but cannot be deported to Albania, is the hon. Lady saying that she would impose a visa penalty on Albania if it did not accept that shoplifting Albanian national, regardless of what that might do for the wider relationship between Albania and the UK in terms of deportations?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I will happily come to the second question in a second, but I am a little confused. Is the hon Gentleman suggesting that I did not write my speech myself?

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Yes, actually.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

In that case, I am happy to reassure him that I wrote every word.

The short answer to the question about Albania is yes. We think that would be completely appropriate. Why would Albania refuse to accept one of its own citizens that should, by our rules and our laws, be returned to that country? If it refuses to do so, we would absolutely consider that to an appropriate trigger for that response.

To continue what I was saying, new clause 40 amends section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act, and it expands the Act to cover both nationals as well as citizens. We consider that it should be a basic and fundamental principle that we should be able to remove from this country those who break our rules. That is harder than it might sound, particularly when individuals are determined to lose their documents and obfuscate their identity and origin in every way they can. What we propose here will align other countries’ incentives with our own. It will create substantial pressure on other nations to co-operate with us to secure our border, and we strongly hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

New clauses 34 and 42 reprise some of our debate on the last group of new clauses, but they also introduce the idea of the visa penalty that, as the hon. Member for Weald of Kent has just explained, is encompassed in new clause 42. New clause 34 seeks to extend automatic deportation to any foreign national convicted of an offence in the UK, or charged with an immigration offence, without consideration of their human rights. We dealt with some of that in the last debate. It would remove protections for under-18s and victims of human trafficking, and it seeks to extend the automatic deportation provisions to certain Commonwealth and Irish citizens who are currently afforded exemption from deportation.

I do not believe these new clauses would be workable. They are unrealistic and would undermine our international obligations. We already have the power to deport any foreign national on the grounds that doing so would be conducive to the public good, regardless of whether they have had to serve the 12-month prison sentence that the UK Borders Act 2007 requires. If they are subject to a 12-month prison sentence, it is a duty to deport them.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent was a special adviser in the Home Office, so she knows about these things, and the hon. Member for Stockton West is a spokesperson in the shadow Home Office team. The Conservatives talk a lot about deportation, but they did not do a lot about it when they had the power to do so.

In the aftermath of the general election on 4 July 2024, by the end of December the new Government had increased enforced deportations of foreign national offenders, most of them directly from prison, by 21%. The legacy that we were left included 18,000 time served foreign national offenders who had done their time in jail, had been released and were running around in our communities. Clearly, we have a big backlog that we have to try to deport. Despite Opposition Members’ protestations, they did not try hard enough to deal with deportation in those cases. A lot of those foreign national offenders did not ever get to the stage of making human rights claims against being deported; they were simply not picked up and deported by Immigration Enforcement because the Conservatives took their eye off the ball.

À propos of new clause 34, we do not think it would be proportionate to deport a person for a single minor offence. That could mean not having a TV licence, for example. Do we really want to deport people for not having a TV licence, given that the Conservatives could not deport 18,000 time served foreign national offenders, who are in our communities even now—some have committed serious offences—when there is a legal duty to deport them? Conservative Members want to introduce a new clause that increases the number of people we are required to deport, but they singularly failed to deport foreign national offenders who were jailed during their time in office. They seem to be protesting too much about their legacy and not dealing with the realities.

The new clauses would not prevent persons who are being deported from raising human rights claims with the European Court of Human Rights. A bit like the last group of new clauses, they would deliver nothing except the outsourcing of our deportation considerations to Strasbourg, and that would slow down the removal of those who are being deported. The new clauses would undermine our obligations to identify and support victims of trafficking, as set out in the Council of Europe convention for action against trafficking in human beings, of which we are a signatory.

New clause 34 seeks to amend key immigration offences set out in section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 so that there is no requirement to prove knowledge. It is likely that such amendments would be subject to ECHR challenge, resulting in delay, fewer successful prosecutions and therefore fewer deportations. New clause 34 also seeks to amend the Illegal Migration Act 2023 by disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 from key immigration legislation. When we debated the last group of new clauses, we decided that we do not want to do that. This is a technical point, but the new clauses relating to the Illegal Migration Act would have no effect and are redundant because this Bill will repeal those provisions of that Act.

The focus of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent is clear: she wants to ensure foreign national offenders are deported from the UK at the earliest opportunity. I agree that we should be doing that. In fact, we had a 21% increase in the number of enforced deportations of foreign national offenders in our first seven months in office, but the new clause will not further the cause because it risks slowing down removals.

The Government are focusing on the enforcement of the immigration system and increasing returns. Through this Bill, we are creating new powers to enable more effective controls around individuals who pose a threat to the public while deportation is pursued. We will continue that work.

On new clause 42, we have been clear that the swift return of those with no right to be in the UK forms a key part of a functioning migration relationship. That is why more than 20,000 people have been returned since we came into office. My officials and I have been working hard to strengthen relationships with our international partners to that end. For example, on a recent visit to Iraq, the Home Secretary signed a joint statement on migration. That included further work on the return of people who have no right to be in the UK, where returns are currently very slow, and the continued provision of reintegration programmes to support returnees.

Where co-operation with countries on returns falls below the levels expected and where appropriate, we use all levers available to us, including visa penalties and having meetings with the appropriate ambassadors to tell them that if things do not improve, visa penalties will be coming along. It does no good to require the Home Secretary to introduce visa penalties, when penalties are something we can use if we get no co-operation whatsoever. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent should be under no doubt that those sorts of penalties will be used if we think that doing so would have a positive effect on co-operation.

Those who are listening to our debate may not realise that deporting somebody is not easy. It requires getting an emergency travel document issued. In order for a country to issue an emergency travel document, they have to accept that the person concerned is one of their citizens to begin with. That kind of identification takes time. It is important that we try to co-operate with our international partners so that we can make this process as quick and efficient as possible, rather than going to war with our international partners and alienating them. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent should be in no doubt that should visa penalties need to be threatened or introduced, we would certainly do that.

The existing provision in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 gives the Home Secretary sufficient scope to be able to use visa penalties if it is assessed to be appropriate. The last Government introduced these powers but exercised their discretion not to use them, despite obviously having returns challenges. This Government intend to retain the discretion to use the powers in the right way at the right time, so that they will be effective to the maximum. We do not need a clause in primary legislation to require the Home Secretary to use visa penalties in all circumstances, regardless of the context and without an assessment as to whether it would make things worse or better.

The fact that new clause 42 aims to remove the discretion to decide whether to use the powers is inherently flawed. It is not something that the Opposition sought to do when they were in Government. It is not something that the hon. Member for Weald of Kent seems to have pushed when she was a special adviser in the Home Office. There is no immediate way to discern whether a Government are co-operating or not. That is a discretionary judgment that would have to be taken by Ministers in each context. Visa penalties have not been used before. In each case where their use has been considered, we have been able to successfully unblock co-operation through other means, such as ministerial and senior-level engagement, of which I myself have done some.

The provisions already provided for in the Nationality and Borders Act are sufficient for our primary aim of these powers, and I urge the Opposition not to push the new clauses to a vote.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We wish to divide on new clause 34.

New Clause 35 - Restrictions on visas for spouses and civil partners

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

Andrew Murrison (Conservative, South West Wiltshire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK and on the number who may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. We know that there is abuse of the current provisions that allow spouses or civil partners to come to the UK. Our amendment is designed to tighten up the rules so as to make abuse less likely.

We believe that it is important for the Secretary of State to set a cap for the number of people who can enter the UK as a spouse or civil partner, and that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor should not exceed 7% of the maximum number specified. We seek to tighten up that route to entering the UK by ensuring that the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; that each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouse or civil partner, and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; that the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the UK, or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and that people cannot sponsor their first cousins under this route.

We believe those changes are necessary to ensure that the relationship is genuine and subsisting, and that the sponsor is able to support their partner once they arrive in the UK. That is part of ensuring that we treat living in this country as a privilege, not a right, and that those coming to the UK to live will contribute to our country.

New clause 39 would place restrictions on the granting of visas and indefinite leave to remain. That is another change to achieve our objective that those who come to the UK are able to contribute. The new clause would ensure that visas were granted only where an applicant or their dependants will not apply for any form of social protection, including housing from the UK Government or a local authority, and where the applicant’s annual income will not fall below £38,700 during the relevant qualification period. If either of those conditions fails to be met, the visa will be revoked.

The new clause also specifies that a person cannot qualify for indefinite leave to remain if they are a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007; if they or any of their dependants have been in receipt of any form of social protection from the UK Government or local authority; or if their annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. The new clause would not apply to those who have come to the UK through the Ukraine, Afghan or British national overseas schemes.

New clause 40 would introduce some accountability for this place in the overall numbers of migrants coming to the UK per year. It would establish a mechanism whereby Parliament would approve a binding cap on all non-visitor visa routes set out by the Secretary of State. We believe it is important that the House seriously considers the benefits and trade-offs to this country. The new clause is designed to give the House greater accountability for that decision.

New clauses 35 and 39 would build a wall against the quiet epidemic of immigration fraud that has been seeping through our spousal and visa routes—think of sham marriages brokered for £10,000 a pop, or visa overstayers masked by flimsy claims of support. The two-year marriage rule, the £38,700 threshold and the “no first cousin” clause are not just hurdles; they are detectors rooting out paper partnerships before they drain us dry.

The new clauses would anchor immigration to a bedrock of self-reliance, because a Britain that thrives does not prop up newcomers who cannot stand alone. In new clause 35, the £38,700 sponsor salary, which matches that for the skilled worker route, would ensure that thousands of spousal entrants yearly would not tip the welfare scales further. New clause 39 would double down, barring visas and indefinite leave to remain for anyone who dips below that level or taps social housing, for which 1.2 million people are already waiting. This is not exclusion; it is economics, tilting the balance towards those who lift us, not those who lean on us.

New clause 40 is not just a cap; it hands the House the reins of our migration system. The new clause would make Parliament the arbiter, through a binding cap debated here, voted on here, owned here and on which we are fully held to account by the electorate.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

There are few things in life and in human nature more powerful than the desire to be with those we love. To be separated from a husband or wife by a national border is no small thing. Indeed, for those it is happening to, it can feel like everything. But the role of Government is to determine what is right for the country, not for any one person, couple or family. We must place this discussion in its national context. For too long immigration has been too high, and the spousal visa route is increasingly being used by those who would otherwise not be able to come to Britain.

Over the past few years we have seen the number of dependent visas balloon. As of December 2024, 51,000 migrants, bringing 130,000 dependants with them, had come to Britain via the health and social care route over the previous year. That is over 2.5 dependants per health and social care worker—dependants who will access public services in their own right, including our already overstretched NHS. The dependant route for health and social care visa holders has since been restricted, but I mention it because it indicates the huge level of demand and desire there is for family members to come to Britain.

There is much more to be done across the immigration system to ensure that the dependant route is not abused by those who are unlikely to make a contribution in their own right. Our lax rules around spousal visas are also exacerbating problems around assimilation. Currently, our system has no safeguards against forced or sham marriages. There is a culture in some communities of bringing vulnerable young women to the UK through the spousal route. These women often have a poor grasp of English and no external support network in this country, which creates the perfect conditions for abuse and exploitation. It effectively enables the introduction and furtherance of a family culture that is totally alien to Britain.

In 2016, Dame Louise Casey published the Casey review, which looked into opportunity and integration, particularly in isolated and deprived communities. In her report, she discussed immigration and the impact it has on integration. This is a highly sensitive issue. Dame Louise Casey's language is nuanced and carefully chosen, and I cannot do better than to repeat it here. She says:

“Rates of integration in some communities may have been undermined by high levels of transnational marriage—with subsequent generations being joined by a foreign-born partner, creating a ‘first generation in every generation’ phenomenon in which each new generation grows up with a foreign-born parent. This seems particularly prevalent in South Asian communities. We were told on one visit to a northern town that all except one of the Asian Councillors had married a wife from Pakistan. And in a cohort study at the Bradford Royal Infirmary, 80% of babies of Pakistani ethnicity in the area had at least one parent born outside the UK.”

As Casey says in the report,

“I know that for some, the content of this review will be hard to read, and I have wrestled with what to put in and what to leave out, particularly because I know that putting some communities under the spotlight—particularly communities in which there are high concentrations of Muslims of Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage—will add to the pressure that they already feel. However, I am convinced that it is only by fully acknowledging what is happening that we can set about resolving these problems and eventually relieve this pressure.”

Dame Louise Casey was brave to acknowledge and discuss these problems so honestly in the hope of solving them, and we must find that same courage. The Opposition believe that the cap on spousal visas that we suggest with this provision, both overall and from individual countries, would help with that challenge, and we sincerely hope that the Government will consider it.

Turning to new clause 39, we have already covered various elements of the rules whereby we hope to ensure that anyone who comes to this country is and remains a net fiscal contributor, with a view to ensuring that across their lifetime people who come to Britain contribute more to the public purse than they cost. We have already spoken about rules and conditions relating to foreign criminals, the cost of social protection, and the groups to which we believe that should be limited. As we have said, there is a need for these sorts of visas to come with quite serious floors on salaries.

Finally, I turn to new clause 40, which is the numerical visa cap. As I have mentioned to the Committee before, every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce immigration. Time and again, Governments of both parties have failed to deliver on that promise. Perhaps even more scandalously, those same Governments have often attempted to shift the blame for that failure, refusing to take responsibility for overseeing an immigration system that does not align with the expressed wishes of the British people.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

Given that the hon. Lady worked previously in a special adviser role and is lecturing us about caps, how were her Government successful with the caps that they set?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

I think and hope that it has been clear from everything I have said that I make no defence of the previous Government’s activity. It is incredibly important that Conservative Members are able—as is our duty and our responsibility to the public—to talk about the many things that went wrong and, I hope, to help this Government to avoid making the same mistakes.

Mike Tapp (Labour, Dover and Deal)

I appreciate the collegiate working environment that we are now in. In which case, will the hon. Lady expand on the caps set by the previous Government and the results that came after?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept.

Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability.

Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

In a previous sitting, the hon. Lady talked to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about humanitarian, and safe and legal routes. She highlighted the difficulty that humanitarian events often happen without warning or anticipation. Our country and others will respond as quickly as possible, and one response might be to open a safe and legal route. Do the Opposition new clauses take account of any possible scenarios, recognising that it is hard to anticipate them? Is there any flexibility in the numbers that she provides for the visa category that would support people coming in who are refugees and people in genuine need?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

As the hon. Gentleman can read in the new clause, the wording does not state that the caps have to be set and cannot be revised; it is more than possible to come back to Parliament to change them. If such a situation arises—he is totally right to say that many of them are emergencies and may have been unforeseeable—there is no reason why that case should not be made to the British public and the cap changed. We are talking here about the need for that case to be made to the British public and for there to be transparency.

Some Labour Members have mentioned my time at the Home Office, where I was a special adviser. I worked primarily on national security, not on legal migration, but it was very clear to me from what I could see of the problems that all my colleagues were facing that most of Government—most Departments, and the Minister may be experiencing this now—are geared for higher levels of migration. For example, it is helpful for the Department of Health and Social Care to have high volumes of health and social care visas issued, or for the Treasury, which issues gilts based on our overall GDP, to have as many people here as possible.

The purpose of the cap would be to bring those conversations out into the open. If those Departments and Ministers wished to justify to the public, to the British people, why those numbers needed to be higher, that conversation should be had where the British people can hear it.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

New clause 40 mentions the Secretary of State making

“regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually”

within six months of the passing of this Bill. I assume that the hon. Lady is saying that a statement may be made providing for the annual cap per visa category, over, say, four or five years, and not that the Secretary of State would have to come back each year. Am I right or wrong in thinking that? Could she clarify that?

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

The hon. Member asks a good question. I am not sure whether that would be explicitly decided on the face of the Bill; that could be something that the Home Office decided subsequently—whether it wished to set out future years or just the following one. In my initial response to the hon. Member, the point that I was trying to clarify was that that cap can, of course, be changed. Once it is set, it does not need to be set in stone for ever, but it is important that it exists and that the conversation about what it should be is had in front of the British public.

Chris Murray (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Weald of Kent setting out her argument articulately, and it was good to hear her say that she recognises that the last Government made a lot of mistakes on immigration, and that the evidence shows that. Sadly, although it is good to have that recognition, it does not seem as though very much has been learned from the Conservatives’ experience in office, based on each of the new clauses that they have set out.

First, on the spousal visas, quite a lot of what is in new clause 35 actually exists already. There are already salary thresholds and things like that. It is unlike me to praise the previous Conservative Government on immigration, but, actually, across previous Administrations, both Labour and Conservative, very good work has been done on issues such as sham and forced marriages. What is new in new clause 35, which is a very strange and horrible power to give Ministers, is the ability to either restrict the nationalities that British people can marry or set thresholds on them. I have huge respect for my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, but I do not think that they should be able to choose what nationalities I am allowed to marry. We got rid of anti-miscegenation laws in the 20th century; we do not want returning through the back door, through measures such as this. Most of all, this arbitrary figure of 7% is very strange; if I were to marry, say, an Australian or an American, I would have to hope that I was not in the 8th percentile of people to do that. That would be a very strange way for us to ask British citizens to live their lives and fall in love with people.

Opposition Members also made the point about how the legislation needs to look backwards and make sure that migrants are net fiscal contributors over their lifetimes. I would say, again, that that is not a realistic thing to ask Governments to do. We will only know whether we have been net fiscal contributors when we die, so we cannot really ask people to make those projections.

Finally, there is the numerical visa cap in new clause 40. Again, that is a gimmick that is not addressing the actual structural problems in the immigration system. First, it treats all migrants the same, as one big monolithic whole, yet we know that the impact of migrants on communities is different, whether they are spouses, students, doctors, lorry drivers or refugees.

If we are going to have this kind of cap, how do we prioritise? Will it apply throughout the whole of the year? How will businesses plan if they want to recruit from overseas? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said, what if emergencies mean that there are more people coming in? The last Conservative Government set a cap for tier 2 visas, then, of course, ended up hitting it and just exempting doctors and nurses from it anyway. Is it not inevitable that we will just be condemned to repeat history if we do that here? We have talked a lot about public trust in the immigration system and how that has been so deeply sapped by failures on immigration policy. The Conservatives had a net migration target of 100,000 a year, which they consistently failed to meet and had to revise. This proposal is just advocating that we repeat that exact mistake, but hoping for a different outcome, which seems bonkers to me.

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

A number of the issues raised regarding these new clauses have already been debated in relation to other measures, so I will keep my remarks fairly brief on some of the additional issues.

New clause 35 proposes a cap on the number of entrants as a partner, and it amends the immigration requirements for the partner of a person who is present and settled in the United Kingdom. The provisions for family members to come to, or stay in, the United Kingdom are set out in the immigration rules. I gently make the point again that this is not the correct legislation for a debate about the requirements for partners.

The Government are clear that we support the right of people to fall in love, and we value the contribution that migrants make to our society. However, that must be balanced with a properly controlled and managed immigration system, and net migration has been too high for too long. We have also seen significant abuse on the routes, which should have been designed with some tighter safeguards under the previous Administration, the consequences of which we are only catching up with now as we seek to bring back order to our immigration system, as well as public confidence.

The Government have been clear that net migration must come down. Our immigration system welcomes people from across the globe to the UK. They may join a family here, and we think it is right to continue to enable family migration, for the reasons that a number of my hon. Friends have set out. British citizens and those settled in the UK are free to enter into a genuine relationship with whomever they choose. If they wish to establish their family life in the UK, it is appropriate they do so on the basis that they can support themselves financially, without recourse to public funds, and can participate sufficiently in everyday life that supports their integration into British society. To ensure financial independence, applicants on the family route must also meet either the minimum income requirement or adequate maintenance; the minimum income requirement is currently set at £29,000. We have discussed evidence bases already, and to ensure that we have a solid evidence base for any future change, on 10 September the Home Secretary commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules.

New clause 39 would place specific conditions on those applying for permission to enter, stay or settle in the UK, and remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to grant leave outside the immigration rules. As I have said, the Government recognise and value the contributions that legal migration makes to our country, and the immigration system already controls access to benefits—the principle of no recourse to public funds is long standing. Most migrants become eligible to access public funds only when they gain settlement, or ILR. This approach reflects the need to maintain the confidence of the general public that immigration brings benefits to our country, rather than costs to the public purse.

In addition to those controls, subject to the visa route being accessed, individual migrants are required to meet conditions attached to that route—for example, the skilled worker route includes a minimum income requirement. The immigration system also needs to account for people in a range of circumstances. It cannot adopt a blanket approach that would capture, for example, those visiting the UK as tourists.

We have also extensively discussed foreign nationals who commit offences, so I want to turn briefly to new clause 40, which would impose an annual maximum number of persons who may enter the UK across all visa groups. The Government are clear that net migration must come down. The issue of arbitrary numbers has been rehearsed—not to great effect—over the past 14 years. Important work is under way to restore order to our immigration system, and we will set out that approach in the forthcoming White Paper, as I have mentioned. However, the Government have retained the duty to introduce a non-binding cap on arrivals on safe and legal routes, although I recognise that the new clause is much broader than that. The cap on safe and legal routes helps to manage the pressure on, for example, local authorities and ensure that the number of people coming here is in line with our capacity to receive them.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We think it is right that there should be limits on the number of people who can arrive here as a spouse or partner, a requirement on those bringing people to be able to support themselves, and a cap on the number of people entering the country. We wish to press the new clause to a Division.

New Clause 36 - Access to accommodation centres: Immigration Enforcement

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

The new clause is vital to giving immigration enforcement the powers it needs to smash the gangs and tackle any criminality surrounding those who arrive here illegally. It would give immigration enforcement access to asylum accommodation centres. Currently, there are limitations around the detention of those arriving illegally on small boats. These limitations arise from a lack of statutory power, as well as a lack of state capacity to detain those arriving illegally.

In government, the Conservative Administration set up accommodation centres, which provided a plausible alternative to hotels. Because the centres were not used to make immigration decisions, in practice immigration enforcement officers did not find it possible to enter them for the purposes of examining, arresting and detaining persons residing therein for the purposes of refusal and removal.

Tony Smith, the former director general of UK Border Force, has powerfully argued that immigration enforcement teams must have clear authority to enter all places where asylum seekers are residing to examine, interview, arrest or detain them as appropriate. The Opposition agree wholeheartedly, for these would be proportionate powers for the state to use to enforce the law. Currently, centres housing thousands of small boat arrivals are not detention hubs. Instead, they are in effect halfway houses between the point of processing and where decisions can be made. Consequently, there is a substantial asylum backlog, which has created bottlenecks in the system. This is simply inadequate for everyone involved. It cannot continue, and it must stop.

The new clause therefore tries to end this predicament and failure in the system. Enforcement cannot be allowed to be bereft of action, unable to chase absconders who vanish into the ether without a trace. We need to empower officers to go into these sites to interview, arrest and detain where appropriate. That would allow faster decisions, faster refusals and quicker removals. The clause would not only mean a more efficient system that saves hardworking taxpayers’ money, but help decimate the business model of the people-smuggling trade. In just the last two years, traffickers have accumulated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds in profit. We all know the tragic consequences of people who have made this life-threatening journey.

We must, at all costs, undermine the business model of the people smugglers. That is the truly compassionate thing to do, so I am proud to support clause 36 because it eliminates gaps in our asylum enforcement system, ends centres being off limits and hence makes it much more difficult for people to get lost in the system. So we have to act, and act now. As such, clause 36 appears to be common sense, allowing our enforcement agencies the access that the average person would probably assume they already have. Does the Minister think an amendment or power such as this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement, and if not, why not?

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

I do not want to detain the Committee for long with this amendment, but this is just another abhorrent amendment from the warped imagination of the Conservative party. I do not know where they come up with things like this. They would have to be very creative and very cruel to propose something quite like this. The amendment would allow immigration enforcement officers to visit accommodation centres at any time without prior notice. Asylum seekers and other residents at these centres are often fleeing persecution, war and violence and will have suffered severe trauma. The constant threat of unannounced visits from immigration enforcement will create an atmosphere of fear, making it even more difficult for individuals to feel safe.

Allowing immigration enforcement to visit any resident at any time is a clear violation of privacy. It undermines their dignity and wellbeing and could lead to harassment or increased surveillance, further marginalising already vulnerable populations. Vulnerable individuals should not be made to feel constantly watched or threatened by authorities, especially when they are seeking safety and stability. The presence of immigration enforcement officers may discourage asylum seekers and migrants from seeking support or reporting issues of abuse, exploitation or trafficking. All this could do is undermine the very support structures designed to help individuals rebuild their lives in the UK.

The amendment lacks any clear safeguards or accountability mechanisms for how immigration enforcement would operate, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I hope it rejects the rest of the Conservative party’s amendments, too.

Katie Lam (Conservative, Weald of Kent)

New clause 36 would give access to asylum accommodation centres to our immigration enforcement officers. Members of the public may be surprised to learn that this power does not already exist. It seems to me common sense that when a person has come here illegally and is being housed by the state, immigration enforcement—an arm of that state—should be able to enter that accommodation to carry out their work.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West rightly set out, these accommodation centres exist because the volume of those coming here illegally is such that it is not possible to hold everyone in immigration detention. There are therefore substantial numbers of people on immigration bail, and a reasonable number of those are held in accommodation centres. Immigration decisions are made elsewhere, but this is the criterion set out in current legislation. In our view, this is a quirk of the current system, and not how one would design it if starting from a blank page. These sorts of accommodation centres did not exist when our rules were written, and we think that this corrects that quirk.

I echo the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West: does the Minister think that this would be of operational benefit to immigration enforcement officers? If so, will she include it, and if not, why not?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

New clause 36 seeks to provide a right of access upon request for Home Office teams working within immigration enforcement to asylum accommodation centres in order to visit those centres and residents at any time.

Immigration officers have powers to be granted a warrant to enter residential premises to search for and arrest someone for the purpose of detention and removal from the UK, and to search for relevant documents while there. In practice, immigration officers will often seek and obtain access to premises with the consent of the owner or occupier of those premises.

I note that the new clause makes reference to accommodation centres. I would welcome clarity from the Opposition on whether the intention is to attach this power specifically to accommodation centres. My reason for asking is that the Home Office has not stood up any such centres in the form defined under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. In other words, they do not exist. More widely, care needs to be taken to ensure that the use of the proposed power is managed appropriately. The access that the power provides in this new clause is very broad, and it applies to anyone working within the immigration enforcement directorate at the Home Office. That would include all civil servants working there, not just immigration officers who have the relevant training.

If the rationale behind the new clause is to remove a perceived barrier to the removal of migrants with no status in the UK, access to the premises in which an individual is residing is not such a barrier. Although there may be some constraints on immigration officers’ entering asylum accommodation sites, including hotels, these are of a practical nature linked to risk assessments, public order, disruption, safety of staff and other residents, rather than lacking a statutory power of access. They already have a statutory power of access. Overall, the new clause is unnecessary, because immigration officers already have powers of entry to residential premises to administratively arrest someone liable to removal, and to search premises with a warrant if we cannot obtain consent, which allows for the safeguard of judicial scrutiny.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I think the public will be stunned to hear that immigration enforcement officers have challenges in accessing asylum accommodation centres, as outlined by Tony Smith, the former director general of UK Border Force. We will therefore seek to press the new clause to a vote.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

The new clause talks about accommodation centres, which do not exist. What does the hon. Gentleman mean by accommodation centres?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have had provision for accommodation centres. We have had accommodation centres.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

But they do not exist.

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

I know there are 8,500 more in hotels now, but this was a measure that was put in place to reduce that hotel dependency, to stop us increasing the number of people in those hotels by 29%.

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I want to put something on the record before we vote. There is a specific meaning in law for the phrase “accommodation centres” under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Since that law was passed, no Government have actually stood up accommodation centres under that specific meaning. Therefore, the shadow Minister in his new clause 36 is asking for powers to enter something that does not exist.

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

While the Minister is on her feet, could she perhaps ask the Opposition spokesperson whether he actually means hotels?

Angela Eagle (Labour, Wallasey)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I was trying to help the shadow Minister, because I thought he might be trying to talk about accommodation generally. If that is the case, we already have the powers we need to enter when and where we wish. This power is much broader, and we would not like to see it put into effect, which is why I hope the Committee will vote against the new clause.

New Clause 37 - Asylum support repayment scheme

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

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

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 enable asylum seekers to obtain housing and funds to support themselves while they wait to find out whether they will get asylum. Their children can attend state schools and they are entitled to NHS care. We know that asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats are often given bail and provided with asylum support. Those with no UK address will be allocated asylum housing, or placed in asylum hotels or accommodation centres. The National Audit Office has estimated that the cost of this to the taxpayer was around £4.7 billion in 2023-24.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Is it the Conservative party’s intention to build these detention centres, or accommodation centres, as part of its new immigration policy?

Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)

We have had many alternative means of accommodation, including hotels. Accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is through the roof—it is up 29%, with 8,500 more people staying in them—but the situation I am describing applies more widely than any accommodation centre or hotel.

The £4.7 billion tab for 2023-24 covered beds, meals and NHS visits while the backlog ballooned.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.