Immigration and Asylum Bill
Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026.
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, and then a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope we can take these matters formally. I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was considered yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
Copies of the written evidence the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Examination of Witnesses
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Good morning to our witnesses. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? No. If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them at the appropriate time.
We will now hear oral evidence from Eleanor Lyons, the independent anti-slavery commissioner; Dr Will Prescott, head of research at Bright Blue, who will be joining via Zoom; and Vicky Tennant, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative to the UK. We must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.10 am. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
I have two questions, if I may. Dr Prescott, if the test of the Bill is whether it results in fewer arrivals or more removals, what do you think is missing from it? Secondly, Ms Lyons, the Government say that last-minute modern slavery claims have frustrated removals. Do you accept that that is an abuse of the system? If you do not support the Government’s solution to that issue, what do you think the solution is?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q To get the result that we want—tackling that abuse—what else should the Home Office be doing in that space? If this is not a solution, what would you put forward as an alternative, if that abuse does exist?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us. More than a third of our charter returns that fail to go ahead have involved a modern slavery referral raised after the return arrangements have been made. Can you give us some indication of why you think that is and, building on your previous answer, what would help to challenge that?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Would you reject the view that the referral system is exploitedQ ?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
If I understand this correctly, the central point that you are making, Eleanor Lyons and Will Prescott, is that the issues that the Bill seeks to address are with not, in your view, so much the law as it stands, but the administration of that law—training, interpretation and the exercise of functions by all sorts of officials. If there are any issues, that is where they lie, rather than the substance of the law as it stands. Is that a fair summary of what you are sayingQ ?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Does the Bill address the gaps you have just identified?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Good morning, everyone. I have a direct question for Vicky, following on from the previous question. In your submission, you welcomed the Government’s objective of creating a fairer and more efficient asylum system, but you raised concerns about several specific provisions in the Bill. Can you explain to us which aspects of the Bill present the greatest risk to refugee protection?Q
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
I have some further questions to Vicky. In your observations, you do say that efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of “procedural fairness” but also ofQ
“access to protection and successful integration.”
You also warn that the Bill could
“undermine conditions that support successful integration for those ultimately recognised as refugees.”
Could you outline how you think the Bill, in practice, will harm integration?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Given the concerns that you have raised, how likely is it that the Bill will restore confidence in the asylum system? If that is not likely, what else would you like to see in it that would restore confidenceQ ?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q I do not wish to cut you off, but I asked the question to all three panellists. Eleanor, briefly, please.
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q The same question, briefly, Will. Do you also have any international experience that it might be worth us hearing about, maybe from Australia and so on?
Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
We have already mentioned the European convention on human rights, and other articles are involved too. Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons, can you comment on the fact that clause 36 would place an additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify? We know that the state has a duty under the ECHR and other obligations, such as the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern-day slavery, and the other articles that are engaged?Q
Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
Vicky, do you have anything to add?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Good morning, everyone. My question is to Eleanor. I think we can all agree that prevention is better than cure. In a passing comment just now, you mentioned transparency in supply chains being added into the Bill. As it stands right now, and if no action were taken, are we in a good enough position on transparency to tackle modern slavery in our supply chains?Q
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Ms Tennant, I represent Glasgow, which is one of the areas in the country with the highest need for asylum accommodation. We are a welcoming city and are proud of being so, but you can imagine that the welcome is being tested due to the infrastructure stresses that this is placing on us. You have a long and distinguished career in the United Nations and have seen when asylum housing and refugee housing works well and when it does not. Presumably, you feel that the confidence of the host community is in large part a determinant of that. In your assessment of what has been happening in Britain, particularly over the last decade, where do you think that that confidence level lies at the moment? Are you concerned that we are perhaps not in the place we should be in terms of people perceiving the rules-based order to be intact when it comes to asylum?Q
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
This is our final question of the session. I ask our witnesses to bear in mind that we have a hard stop at 10.10 am.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q I want to return to something you said earlier, Vicky, about the expertise needed for the adjudicators on the new panels. The Government’s memorandum on human rights relies heavily on those people being able to weigh up proportionality, particularly in relation to article 8, and that is quite a high-level legal determination in many cases. Is that one of your concerns about the expertise needed on the tribunals?
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
On behalf of the Committee, I thank Ms Tennant, Ms Lyons and Mr Prescott for their evidence today. We are very grateful.
Examination of witness
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
Q We will now hear from Helen Rance, director of threat leadership at the National Crime Agency. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. We have until 10.35 am. Ms Rance, please introduce yourself.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q From your operational experience, what is the single biggest thing missing from the Bill that would help the NCA to tackle the crime gangs behind the crossings? Has the NCA specifically asked the Government for anything that does not feature in the Bill?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What is the biggest thing missing from the Bill in helping you to tackle the crime gangs? Did you ask the Government for any specific things that have not come to be?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Is there a particular feature that you would have liked to see in the Bill to aid you in that objective?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q I pass on my thanks to everyone at the NCA for their excellent work. We know how important it is for disrupting the organised, industrial crime that is taking place across borders. It is critical that we intervene and prevent dangerous crossings as early as possible. I wanted to put my thanks on the record for everything that the agency does.
You mentioned the importance of deterrence. That is critical, and it is one of the key things that we want to achieve in the Bill. Could you say a little more about how you think the measures in the Bill will help to deter people and make interventions earlier in the process of illegal immigration?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Q I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and have spoken to your colleagues about smashing the gangs. The NCA has been trying to smash the drug gangs for half a century. Is there anything missing from the Bill that would help you to smash the gangs? What is your view on how far the NCA has progressed in smashing the gangs?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Q Do you think that is because the gangs have been smashed? Do you think that is why the reduction has happened?
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
You are right to say that boat crossings are down 43% this year. Do you feel that the NCA has the resources it needs to continue that trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill?Q
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q In answer to Matt Vickers’s question, you said that, as a result of the Bill, exploiting our borders will be less attractive for organised criminals. What specific measures in the Bill does your organisation think contributes to that assessment?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q You can do all the things you have described without the Bill, so what in the Bill will make it easier for your organisation to “smash the gangs”?
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
May I remind Members that “smashing the gangs” is not part of the Bill? The Bill is about people who are already in the country and the processing of asylum claims. I would be grateful if Members stuck to the measures in the Bill.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q On the way in which many refugees seek to reach this country to make asylum claims, what analysis has your agency done of the factors that led to a market for organised immigration crime? When did that increase in demand occur?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q You look at the origins of the crimes, though, and the market that the criminals are exploiting.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q The criminals are exploiting a market by acting in a criminal fashion. That market is potential asylum seekers—many of whom, as we heard from the previous panel, have a legitimate claim to be here. Do you know when and why demand occurred for that kind of journey, which the criminals exploit?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q You have come here to comment on legislation that is intended to reduce demand, so I thought that might be a legitimate question to ask.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
indicated assent.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q The Bill claims that it will have a deterrent effect on people coming to the UK illegally, but no matter how robust it might be, can it really have a deterrent effect when it seems so easy to set people off in boats from the north of France?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Do you see it having any effect on where migrants might enter the UK and be received and intercepted by law enforcement? I ask because we see boat crossings now stretching as far down as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. From your position, does anything in the Bill address the expanded geography of where organisations such as yours have to operate?
Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
Q I want to follow up on line of questioning of my colleague Siân Berry. When previous Governments removed safe routes from overseas, did the NCA see an impact on illegal activity by those exploiting vulnerable people? Do you feel confident that the Bill will reverse that?
Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
Q I am not asking for a set of statistics; I am asking whether the NCA saw an increase in trafficking and criminal activity as a result of changes to the routes that asylum seekers, refugees and others could undertake.
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q The Bill seeks to dramatically increase the reporting by companies and individuals. At the National Crime Agency, you work with a plethora of different organisations across the United Kingdom. Do you believe that that increase in reporting will help you to find the illegal routes that are being used in the United Kingdom?
Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)
Q Has the NCA ever received any evidence or intelligence? Has information been gathered from these gangs about their seeking to exploit the Government’s having previously changed the system and removed those overseas routes?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q I will be brief. We have discussed the gangs a lot and the NCA is obviously investigating. Is the NCA investigating a lot of the criminal activity around the gangs and immigration in the United Kingdom itself—not just gangs over in Europe and elsewhere? Also, are there indications that funding for that activity has come through cryptocurrency?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q Could the Bill do more to legislate around cryptocurrency or should that be dealt with elsewhere?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q To clarify, you say that the criminal investigation of the gangs is not in scope of the Bill. You have been asked to come today to testify about the potential of the Bill to reduce demand, so I think it is completely legitimate for us to ask you about your agency’s analysis of the roots of that demand. The question of the lack of safe routes to claim asylum is very pertinent; I would expect you to have a view on that, at least when it comes to the timeline of what you have noticed in response to previous Government changes.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Could you come back to us on that? I am sure that there is analysis within the agency on that score.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Thank you.
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
If there are no further questions, I thank Ms Rance for being here today. We are grateful for your time.
Examination of Witnesses
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
We now hear from Dr Conor Casey, senior lecturer in public law and legal theory at the University of Surrey and senior fellow at Policy Exchange, Judicial Power Project. We also hear from Professor Richard Ekins KC, professor of law and constitutional government at the University of Oxford and head of Policy Exchange at the Judicial Power Project. Both will be joining us via Zoom. We have until five past 11 for this session. Gentlemen, you are very welcome. Let us start with an introduction from Professor Ekins.
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Is there any risk that the article 8 provisions in the Bill could move litigation on to different questions, rather than increasing the Government’s ability to remove those with no right to be here? If Parliament wanted to go further in restricting the circumstances in which article 8 can prevent removals, what could it do beyond what is proposed in the Bill?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Thank you very much; I appreciate your responses. May I step back from just the article 8 measures and talk about the Bill in the round? What is your view on whether it strikes the right balance when it comes to honouring our obligations to refugees under the conventions? Are we balancing that with taking stronger action to deal with the challenges that we face internationally on illegal immigration? Is the Bill striking the right balance, or can we go further?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Q I would like to turn to the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority. I was in Denmark last week—hardly a slouch when it comes to asylum claims. People there were astounded that we were moving from a judicial to an administrative process for judging these matters. What is your view on the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority?
Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)
Q Are there examples of other jurisdictions that have tried this? I am thinking of Australia.
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
Q Given the explosion in the number of people claiming asylum since 2021, it is fair to say that it is a widely held public view that a huge number of those are not genuine. This Bill aims to make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for protection. Does it, in your view? Which provisions specifically do you think make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for asylum?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q Can we briefly return to clause 1(8), which I think you described, Professor Ekins, as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you be able to describe why you think that? If it was better drafted, what would the constitutional and practical benefits be from that clause?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q That is very helpful, thank you. Do you want to add anything, Dr Casey?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q I am keen to come back to some of your comments on article 8. What is your analysis of how it has, slowly over time, come to protect those it was never originally intended to cover, and how can we safeguard against that in the future? Picking up on your point about the potential knock-on effect to article 3, Dr Casey, what mechanisms can we use to prevent article 3 being abused, essentially, on the back of our changes to article 8?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Yes, I did.
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
We have an absolute hard stop at 11.05 am, so please be very succinct.
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
That brings us to the end of this session. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Professor Ekins and Dr Casey for their evidence and time today.
Examination of Witness
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
We will now hear from Jon Featonby, chief policy analyst for the Refugee Council. For this session, we have until 11.25 am. Mr Featonby, could I ask you to briefly introduce yourself?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Do you believe that someone who deliberately enters the UK illegally from a safe country should face a different immigration consequence from someone who enters using a legal route? If not, what alternative deterrents would the Refugee Council support to discourage people from making those dangerous crossings?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
If you think that the outcome of entering illegally should be the same as the outcome of entering legally, is there any other deterrent in that space? If the immigration consequence is not used as a deterrent, is there anything that the Refugee Council might accept?Q
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q We share your commitment to safe and legal routes; they are an important way to fulfil our obligations. However, as you see, we have large numbers of people who are coming here through irregular means. What proportion of those arriving by irregular means does the Refugee Council think are genuinely fleeing war and persecution? Do you have a view on that?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q What are your views on article 8 specifically? We know that the majority of our article 8 grantees have a history of immigration breaches. How can we best protect the immigration system while safeguarding family rights?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q Mr Featonby, thank you, and your counterparts at the Scottish Refugee Council, for the work you do to look after the vulnerable; we are very grateful. Of course, that work can go on only if there is public confidence in the system. As you know, applications have risen steadily since 2021. From your perspective, what is the urgency for a change in the legislation to return the trust and confidence in the system that have been eroded over the last few years?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q Clause 23 would empower the Secretary of State to require successful asylum seekers to pay costs for the support that they had during their passage through the system. To what extent might asylum seekers factor that into their decision making?
Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)
Thank you for your answers so far. We heard some interesting evidence before you came in, and I am particularly interested in your perception of the increase in the application of article 8 to some immigration claims. The European Court of Human Rights has told me that even the Court has been surprised at some of the cases in the UK to which it has been applied. Do you have a position on that? Similarly, it was said earlier in evidence that there could be a counter-effect: that the reduced number of article 8 claims could lead to an increase in article 3 claims. Do you have a position on that as well?Q
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Going back to the impact of the repayments, I think you said that people can make claims for asylum support only if they are destitute, but that someone could be in this country and claiming asylum without claiming asylum support—it is not for everybody, and you do not have to claim it. That means there will be more people in the country declining to claim asylum support because of the repayments, and preferring to potentially live in destitution or be exploited. Can you talk about the risk of that? In your written evidence, you also talk about the risks of the Government’s other changes on people’s ability to settle and get jobs. How would that interact with the ability to pay back these payments?
Paula Barker (Labour, Liverpool Wavertree)
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask questions. I thank you on behalf of the Committee for your time and evidence today.
Examination of Witnesses
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. As no Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill, we will now hear from our witnesses, starting with Dr Madeleine Sumption MBE, director of the Migration Observatory, and Alp Mehmet, chairman of Migration Watch UK. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Dr Sumption, looking at the evidence rather than at the Government’s intentions, which provisions in the Bill are likely to reduce arrivals or increase removals, and which have the weakest evidence base behind themQ56 ?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Mr Mehmet, if the objective is fewer illegal arrivals and more removals, what is the single biggest measure that should be in the Bill but is not?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Thank you both for coming to give evidence to us today. You both emphasise the importance of evidence and evaluation. Can you give us some idea of what metrics you think we should use to judge whether our reforms have been successful?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Did you want to add something to that, Mr Mehmet?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q I was asking for your view on potential metrics we could use in future, after the Bill has been implemented, to measure whether it has successfully achieved its aims.
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. A question to both of you: given that you have mentioned the urgency of addressing the challenge the country faces, and remembering the strict international legal frameworks that constrain some of the legislation we can enter into, which single policy would you like to see in the Bill that is not there now, but that you would think would have the biggest impact on reducing illegal migration? I know it is a difficult question, it is the golden question, but I would be interested to know from two experts, given the urgency and the legal frameworks we are working within, what you think would have the biggest impact on preventing the illegal migration we are being challenged withQ .
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
My question is for you, Alp, picking up on some of the earlier commentary. You made reference to Australia, Denmark, the USA and Greece, which have reduced numbers applying for asylum through measures that bear no resemblance to the Bill. What should we put in the Bill to replicate the success of those countries?Q
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Mr Mehmet, you made some initial commentary about welcoming the Bill but suggested that it is not sufficient to reduce the small boat crossings. Why, then, are small boat crossings already down 41% even before the Bill has been enacted? Where does this legislation intersect with the need for further law enforcement across borders? Does it intersect with the fact that small boat crossings rose after we left the European Union and we have had less of an armoury and less flexibility to deal with them? You highlighted the American experience of reducing Q immigration and returns, but presumably you are not advocating a model with the level of aggressive behaviour of ICE agents. American citizens are being shot dead in the streets.
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q You are suggesting that the Americans have been very successful, and I am politely retorting that the overall model being used there does not seem very British.
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q Something else has changed since 2018, which was part of my first question. How do you reconcile our reduced flexibility to deal with European nations outside the European Union in relation to this issue?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Order. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask this panel questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We will now hear from Tony Smith CBE, the managing director of Fortinus Global Limited. We have until 2.45 pm for this panel. Could the witness briefly introduce himself for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q From your experience of running Border Force, what actually deters an illegal channel crossing? Will anything in the Bill materially strengthen that deterrent?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What is the single biggest border control measure missing from the Bill?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q I would like to focus on the measures in the Bill—you made some reference to the ones on modern slavery. Could you expand on how those provisions might make it harder for individuals who have fictitious claims to stop themselves being removed?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
As we have just heard, you were director general of Border Force. You talk about the importance of stopping people coming in the first place. But Border Force has only five ocean-going cutters and six coastal patrol vessels. Is there a fundamental issue here of not having the assets for agencies of the state to do their job? Is that something that is not addressed in the Bill, but that would make a meaningful difference?Q
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
I remind Members to stay within the scope of the Bill. The resources of Border Force are not really within the scope of the Bill.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Thank you, Ms Jardine. I have taken the opportunity while the ex-director general of Border Force is in front of us. The wider point made by the Government is that the Bill has a deterrent effect, but there have been crossings without any Border Force personnel or boats being in the vicinity. A lifesaving charity, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, is being relied on to provide a quasi-policing collection service. How does the Bill help with any of that?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Order. That is outwith the scope of the Bill, I am afraid.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
I am just asking whether the Bill could help with any of that, given that the witness in front of us notes on his CV, in the formal papers, that he used to be in charge of Border Force.
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
I appreciate that, but could you please keep your questions within the scope of the Bill, rather than asking about the resources of Border Force?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
My wider critique is that the Bill does not do enough.
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
That is not a question. Could you phrase that as a question, please?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Does the witness agree with me that the Bill does not do enough to tackle the fundamental issues of illegal migration and processing and deportation?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Thank you.
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Order. If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We will now hear from Guy Dampier, who will be joining via Zoom. We have until 3 pm for this panel. Can the witness please briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
In your view, what is the single biggest reason why the UK fails to remove more people who have no right to remain? Does the Bill actually address the issue?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
If you could make one amendment to the Bill to increase the distinction between people coming to Britain legally and those entering illegally, what would that be?Q
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Could you say a little more about the article 8 provisions and how you think they might affect strung-out appeals and deterrence?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Q We now hear from Angela Afzal, policy manager at the International Rescue Committee. We have until 3.15 pm for this panel. Will the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What effective measure would the IRC support to deter people from paying smugglers to cross the channel? Should deliberately entering illegally from a safe country carry any immigration consequence?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Is there any evidence that expanding safe and legal routes would reduce the number of small boat crossings, rather than simply increase the overall number of people coming to the UK?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Thank you for joining us this afternoon. You mentioned in your earlier answer that there are not sufficient routes to claim asylum, but a lot of the people who come here, particularly on small boats, have come through another safe country. I think your organisation has said that individuals bypassing safe routes is a secondary issue. How do you think that that enables us to support a fair, rules-based international framework?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Do you think it is fair for people to be able to circumvent an international rules-based framework by going through a safe country already before coming to claim asylum in the UK, or do you think that should have no effect at all on their asylum claim here?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q In the view of the International Rescue Committee, what safe routes should be opened up today to deal with the issue that you have just described?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q May I just stop you? I appreciate what you are saying, but you are not answering my question. If you do not think that the Bill will be adequate to stop people from crossing the channel in an unsafe way, how many legal routes would your organisation want to open up?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q But from where and how many?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q To achieve that, do you need changes in the Bill?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q What changes would you like to see to clause 21? Just to make sure that I do not go off track, what changes does your organisation want to see to clause 21 and why? What would the implication be for the potential number of asylum seekers claiming in the UK compared with today?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
I have some questions about family reunion. In your submission, you said that the measure will have a negative impact on integration. You also expressed concern that what you consider to be a right to family reunion is being made conditional, in clause 19, on socioeconomic factors—the ability of someone to support themselves. Can you tell us more about why you think family reunion should remain a right?Q
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
If there are no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of witnesses
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We now hear from Jacqui McKenzie, partner and head of immigration and asylum law at Leigh Day, and Professor Sarah Singer, professor of refugee law at the University of London. We have until 3.45 pm for this panel. Would the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q As a practising immigration lawyer, where in the Bill do you anticipate the greatest volume of new litigation? Could any of those challenges actually increase delays to removal?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q In your experience, how often does article 8 make the decisive difference between somebody being allowed to remain or being removed? Do you think that the provisions in the Bill will materially and effectively change that situation?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Thank you both for joining us. I want to refer back to the example you gave of the online case that you joined by mistake, where something had got to a judge that was a result of poor decision making. Does that not make the case for the IIAA, in that it was a waste of a judge’s time to have gone through that process? Having a quicker appeals process would have enabled that to be seen quickly and dealt with much more effectively. Building on that point, we have seen a 21% increase in the amount of investment and judges dealing with tribunal appeals, yet the rate of appeals and the waiting time are still going up. Surely, you must admit that there is an issue with the backlog, the time it takes and the small pool of people we have to draw from.
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q My point was, would it not be better to go to an intermediate tier, rather than take up the time of the courts? That is where we are seeing the backlog—the delay—because of the lack of available judges we have—
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q I will address my question to Professor Singer. We heard in previous evidence about some of the novel or unusual drafting and wording in the Bill. For example clause 19(4) says:
“No weight should be given to a private or family life”,
rather than that those issues should be “disregarded”, which I think is the normal phrase you would find in law, rather than “no weight”—it is hard to understand what “no weight” means. Also, the ouster provision in clause 1(8) seeking to try to oust the jurisdiction of the court in certain circumstances is drafted in a very loose way, when we know from case law that courts want very specific ousters if they are going to accept them. Does that not run the risk that this entire Bill is actually going to increase litigation just so that the courts can try to define and understand what some of this novel and peculiar wording actually means?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q You have both been heavily and quite vocally critical of the Home Office—more than any of the other witnesses today. One issue we have is that there is a lot of political pressure, and the country is not happy with the current system and with what is happening, particularly with legal migration—some would say that the lawyers are perhaps partly responsible for that, but that is a separate debate. You have also acknowledged that there is a huge backlog in the appeals process and that, a lot of the time, that is the Home Office’s fault. The Government are trying to propose an alternative process for that, which you are also criticising. We cannot continue with the status quo, so what would you both advise doing to speed up the process for both the United Kingdom Government and the individuals seeking asylum?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q Can I just be clear: I did not say that I blame lawyers. I said there is a view in the country at times, as you are explaining.
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q Would you both concede, though, that there is an issue, because the claims are not being dealt with quickly enough and there are a number of appeals, and that it is only right and proper that the Government try to do something about it, and so they have introduced the Bill?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Jacqueline, you mentioned the poor quality of decision making. The evidence from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association offers multiple casework examples, and offers more such examples to the Committee if we wish to get them—and I think we should. Obviously, as an MP, I see many such decisions in person. What more can be done to improve that decision making? I know that the National Audit Office has looked at it. One thing I have noticed in my constituency is that some migrant groups have tried to get migrants themselves, successful asylum seekers, to give evidence on the process, but they are scared to do that, because they worry about their next visa decision. Is there more than we can do to bring people in to improving the process and the accessibility of it? As I understand it, the first decision is usually when people are without lawyer representation, so that is where these kinds of issues can arise. Can you say more about that? Sorry, that is a very long question.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Sarah, you talked about the initial review process that should happen when an appeal is lodged. What more do you think could be done to improve that process?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
The initial review. According to Sarah, it simply does not happen.Q
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Can I ask one final question, Ms Jardine? Are there more Members waiting?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
It is okay.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Jacqui, you also raised something that I like, because it is Green party policy—though I should not be bringing that up here—which is breaking up the Home Office. In the discussions and the evidence we have heard, other people have said that it is a huge amount of work to set up the new tribunal service. Would it be easier to just start again with the Home Office and create a new branch of it that does immigration versus and police and enforcement, or is that for the future?Q
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q Good afternoon. I just wanted to pick up on the point about those invocating article 8 of the European convention on human rights. You said that the number was small, but I understand that around 77,000 people end up caught in those crosshairs. From your experience and perspective, what guidance do judges need, if you do not believe that a change in the law on article 8 is necessary? More widely, where do you believe the country is? The prerequisite of a functional asylum system is that it needs to command the confidence of the vast majority of the public, but in relation to article 8, do you think that criterion is met currently?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
I think it was either yourself or Professor Singer—
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
One of the issues on which I think everyone will agree is the fact that we need to have a confidence-based immigration and asylum system. We need to have the public’s full support to ensure that it can continue. At the same time, we need a fair system—a system that supports those going through the actual application system or appellate system so that they feel like they are getting their fair day in court at the same time.Q
However, one of the issues that both of you have raised is backlogs, which we have seen increase under the Rwanda scheme and others. One of the concerns that many people have, especially my South Norfolk constituents, will be that the courts simply do not have the ability to keep up with the amount of casework coming to them. That is because we have a system that does not have enough clarity, especially on article 8. The Bill obviously has a goal and ambition to give clarity to the courts on that issue. Is that something to be welcomed?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q Do you not believe that any clarity needs to be introduced in article 8? We have seen a number of cases where it should not have been applied, but because Parliament has not set out with clarity a legal structure to the judiciary, there can be some perambulation or wandering on what the interpretation should be. Is it not in the interest of such cases as those you highlighted, which you took forward and which needed to be covered by article 8, that the article has the full confidence of the public because they know it is being used for the right reasons?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q On that point, this morning, the Committee heard evidence from a KC, whose name I cannot recall, who said that the Strasbourg court has indicated that it thinks that the UK is not applying article 8 correctly, and is applying it too liberally—that was not his language; that is just the language I am using. He said Strasbourg thinks that the UK courts have gone too far with their application of article 8. You can see how confusing the issue is. Do you agree that there is great confusion around the application of article 8, and recognise that Strasbourg has indicated that the UK courts might not be doing so correctly?
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
It was mentioned in the Committee’s evidence session this morning.
Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)
Q I am just asking for your view on some of the evidence the Committee heard this morning. This is not Paul Foster’s view; it is the view of our witnesses.
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
You have focused a great deal on Home Office decision making as the primary reason why the process takes a Q long time and there are a number of appeals, but is the reality not that appeal is the default? Virtually all refusals are appealed; it is nothing to do with the decision making, and as long as that is going to be the case, we have to find a way to speed up the system.
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
I think my point was that, if appealing is the default and virtually all refusals are appealed, your argument that if there was better decision making at the Home Office, that would speed things up—Q
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
This will have to be a very brief last question, because we are just about out of time for this panel.
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
The point you made there is that your solution to the process is for the Home Office to grant more applications in the first instance. Do you think that will have the impact of getting confidence back into the system with the public?Q
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Q We will now hear from Dr Martin Buttle, Better Work lead at CCLA Investment Management. We have until 4 pm for this panel. Will the witness please briefly introduce himself for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q As it stands, do you believe that the modern slavery supply chain provisions in the Bill will identify more victims and perpetrators, or is there a risk that they will create additional corporate reporting and compliance costs? Do you think the measures could be improved in any way?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Are there any particular specifics on how you would improve the measures that have been put forward?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q What impact do you expect the financial penalties for companies that fail to comply with the reporting requirements to have on company compliance?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q That was the question I wanted to ask: will this have the intended effect? Where businesses are not complying with transparency in supply chains, do you think the financial penalty will encourage greater compliance?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Q We will now hear from Neal Barcoe, director of civil, family, tribunals and administration of justice at the Ministry of Justice; Daniel Flury, operations director for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service; and Alison Hewett, director of migration, borders, and international projects and programmes at the Home Office. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q The Government argue that introducing the new appeal authority will reduce delays. What are the Ministry of Justice’s views on that, and what evidence have you relied on to conclude that the appeals system will improve performance?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q We have heard quite a bit of evidence today from people who have suggested that if the Home Office were to sort out how it goes about dealing with the backlog and its decision making in the first instance, we would not need this new authority. What are your views on whether setting up this IIAA is just a complete waste of public money, a distraction causing more complexity in the system? Do you have any views on that as a Ministry?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q A final question, if I may. Will the Bill make the life of immigration lawyers and practitioners more or less complicated? On the whole, will it improve our immigration system, or is it a retrograde step?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Can or does? Is it an objective or a political assessment?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q I must declare that I was once involved in a first-tier tribunal. Obviously, as parliamentarians, we are sometimes heavily involved in such matters on behalf of constituents. In the case I was involved in, it could be seen from space that there was going to be only one decision, yet it took a long time to get there. The persons present in that case seemed to be, let us say, overqualified. From your perspective, how will the IIAA affect the workload of the first-tier tribunal?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q By what order of magnitude do you think that could happen, and in what timeframe?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q On the spectrum of complexity in these cases, clearly, many of them are straightforward—like the one I was involved in—but there are others that have elements of complexity that are sometimes apparent, sometimes not. For the benefit of the Committee, could you lay out some of the safeguards that are in place to manage that complexity?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q Many people have heard the old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. That is very obviously a situation that we are currently in within the asylum process, with the backlog having grown to the size that it has. In your view, do you believe that the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help us with that backlog and move that concentration away from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West said, some very qualified people—overqualified for what is needed—and into the hands of those who can efficiently deal with cases as and when they come up?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q That is brilliant, and it leads to the next part of my question. As you say, it is all well and good having speed and accuracy, but we also need to ensure that the systems are independent and have the ability to manage themselves without too much political interference. Could you expand a little on that? Schedule 2 to the Bill goes into greater detail on how much independence is afforded to the chair and other appointees, so could you expand on what, within the Bill, would achieve that independence when needed?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Brilliant.
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q That is always the way. It goes out of your head when you need it most.
You just raised an interesting point about parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. Comparing and contrasting the system we live under now with the proposed system under the Bill, would you say that it will give Parliament more tools to scrutinise the effectiveness of the system, in terms of reporting?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q The Government say that the reforms will make the system go faster. What is the current average time from an unsuccessful claim, through appeal to final resolution, and what do the Government expect the average to be once these changes have been implemented?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Is there a quantifiable target for how many additional removals we forecast as a result of the changes?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
If Members have no further questions, I will thank the witnesses for their evidence and move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
We will now hear from Stephen Webb, director of programmes for Fix Britain. We have until 4.45 pm for this panel. Could the witness briefly introduce himself for the record?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
The sole test for the Bill is whether it will reduce illegal arrivals and increase removals. What is the single biggest amendment you would put forward to make that difference?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Do you think there will be any significant effect from the proposed article 8 changes, or do you think we will just see everything coming back on different legal grounds?
Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)
Q Could you say a little more about where you think the IIAA will have an impact on improving public confidence in the appeals process?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
If Members have no further questions, I thank the witness for his evidence and move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
Q We will now hear from Anna Turley, Minister of State at the Home Office; Dan Hobbs, director general for migration and borders at the Home Office; and Bas Javid, director general for immigration enforcement at the Home Office. We have until 5.10 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q Minister, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee has rated the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill as not fit for purpose. It says:
“Little of the appraisal is quantified and most impacts are…uncertain.”
What measurable difference do the Government expect the Bill to make? How many additional removals will it deliver? How much faster will cases finally be resolved?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q We do not know how many more removals we are expecting as a result, and we do not know how much faster it is going to go. What would you see as the benchmark for measuring whether the Bill has succeeded?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q With regards to the article 8 changes, can you give us one concrete example of a category of case where someone could successfully resist removal today on article 8 grounds, but where the Bill would prevent them from doing so in future?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q There has been much discussion about the challenge posed by the article 8 issue, but can you give me an example of a category of case that today might be frustrated by article 8 that would not be frustrated once the Bill is implemented?
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
And within that category of claims, how many cases would we estimate to be relevant?Q
Matt Vickers (Conservative, Stockton West)
Q How many people are currently in the UK who have exhausted their appeal rights and have no lawful right to remain, and what is the single biggest barrier preventing immigration enforcement from removing more of them?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q I have a couple of questions. The IIAA is a big change. It is causing a lot of anxiety, understandably, because of the spectre of the complexity of cases. From your perspective, what insurance policies are there to make sure that the complexity is matched by the level of adjudication?
Zubir Ahmed (Labour, Glasgow South West)
Q Minister, you heard me earlier mentioning my home city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has the highest number of asylum seekers. There is real pressure on local infrastructure and housing, compounded by some ill-advised housing policies from the Scottish Government. Can you provide some reflection on why the measures in the Bill are necessary, and what impact it will have, not only on restoring trust and public confidence in the immigration and asylum system, but on social cohesion more widely?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q Minister, I am sure you want to tackle the immigration issues and asylum problem that we have. However, are you concerned that the provisions in the Bill, to the extent that they are beneficial at all, could be quite limited, as balanced against the potential upheaval of institutional changes in the way that asylum applications are dealt with, or that they have the potential to create all sorts of unintended consequences and issues due to the way the Bill is drafted? Given the evidence you have heard in this session, does any of that cause you concern?
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q I get that the system we have is not good enough, but that does not mean that what you are proposing is. We have heard lots of evidence in this session that the problems lie not necessarily with the law, but with the way the Home Office deals with applications. Are you absolutely sure that this is the best Bill you can introduce? I think we can agree that the public are tired of Governments saying, “A system is not good enough; let’s have a trial and experiment with this idea.”
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q It is right, is it not, that the Home Office has a pretty poor record of success? When its initial decisions are tested on appeal, it loses at an incredibly high rate, suggesting there is something wrong with the original decision making at the Home Office. That has nothing to do with replacing the judicial system in the Bill.
Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)
Q From a pretty bad place. That is factually the case, isn’t it?
Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)
Thank you for your answers so far. It is good to hear that the overturn rate is reducing from the highs we have seen; certainly, the statistics you gave us right at the beginning, Minister, about the reduction we have seen since the general election are really welcome.Q
I want to speak to that point because that is what comes up most in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. It is not just one side of the political spectrum that has concerns about our immigration system; it is across the board. It is interesting when we hear consistently from both sides that there is a lack of faith and confidence in the system, because that does speak to a fundamental issue. I hope you can explain how setting up the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority will help to address that across the board.
Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)
Does anyone else on the panel want to come in on that question?
Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)
Q I was pleased to hear you talk about fairness, which is a fundamental British value. Concern is sometimes raised about article 8, which I encounter in my role as a Council of Europe delegate. What protections will there be to prevent the wrongful separation of families when children are involved? That is a major concern for a lot of people who hear about what we are proposing in the Bill.
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q That is a nice bridge for me to ask about article 8. We have heard that the tightening up of article 8 may drive article 3 claims. Does the Bill not take the Government to a place of playing whack-a-mole with the ECHR yet again?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q In which case you are not concerned that, by tightening up article 8, you will end up with article 3 claims.
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q Okay. I am sure we will pick that up in line-by-line scrutiny. We spoke earlier about the general drafting of the Bill, and there was quite a lot of criticism from witnesses of the legal drafting and—no offence if any of you were involved—of its general sloppiness. I have some questions relating to judicial review. Clause 1(8) is the ouster provision. For my clarity, could you please describe what you are trying to achieve with that clause so that we can give it some thought as we move to the next stage?
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Clause 1(8).
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q Okay. The third witness panel—I think it was the KC who joined us, Professor Ekins—described it as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Given what you have described as your intent, you presumably disagree with that and think the provision is well drafted.
Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)
Q Just stepping back for a moment, do you expect the result of the Bill will be that the numbers arriving on small boats will decrease and the numbers removed from the UK will increase?
Jonathan Brash (Labour, Hartlepool)
Q Minister, you are a neighbouring MP of mine, so you understand only too well the anger about illegal migrants in your constituency and my Hartlepool constituency, particularly given that the previous Government’s decision to outsource asylum accommodation led to our communities being unfairly targeted. The test for many of my constituents will come down to whether the Bill will result in a reduction in the number of illegal migrants in our communities. What modelling has been carried out to look at the effect of the Bill on reducing the number of illegal immigrants?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q I have a couple of questions that seek more information, so I will fire through those two to begin with. Madeleine Sumption and the Refugee Council told us that there is not full data on which human rights claims grounds are currently accepted, refused, appealed and then accepted, or refused on appeal. Is there any way the Department could get more of that information to us before our line-by-line consideration of the Bill?
The Refugee Council said there was no information on the proportion of people claiming asylum support as opposed to living off their own means while they are here, or not living off any means and being exploited. That is important information to know about in the context of the repayments clauses. Could you try to get that information for us before our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill? The Government need a baseline for the outcome that they are seeking.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q A few witnesses asked—as does some of the written evidence—for more information on the regulations that will follow the legislation to be published before we consider the relevant clauses of the Bill. I think that relates mainly to the definitions and criteria of protection status under clause 21, and to how destitution will be defined under clause 23 and where the threshold for making contributions will be set in order to avoid hardship. Will those regulations be published in draft form for the Committee before we consider those clauses?
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q I have a quick question on engagement. One thing that has come out of my own constituency work is that people making asylum applications are mainly successful in the end—sometimes when they get my help—but there are a lot of criticisms of the process, particularly in relation to access and the way that the forms are presented, and in understanding what they need to do, being able to provide the right information and being asked for it in a clear way. All those different things might cause discrimination in the process or cause claims not to be approved when they should be.
We have established that claims that should have been approved in the first place are a burden on the courts. There is also human error in the Home Office. Have you managed to engage with any asylum seekers on solving their problems, or about their views on the Bill? We have heard from witnesses representing asylum seekers, but engagement with the people who are affected would be useful, so I wonder what the Department has done.
Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)
Q Do you have routes through to the people affected so that you could ask about the Bill’s provisions?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q One piece of evidence that we were given earlier was that, as much as modern slavery legislation is a good thing for the United Kingdom, we have not necessarily been pulling our weight as we go forward. I am interested to hear from the panel, perhaps starting with the Minister, what progress you believe will be made by this Bill becoming law.
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q Any thoughts from the rest of the panel at all.
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q I think that just follows on into my next point. Obviously the Bill is not just focusing on the individual; it is also taking action on businesses. This is quite important for South Norfolk, because we are a part of the country that is currently seeing a lot of speculation over solar farms, for example, and we know that we do not have domestic production of solar panels within the United Kingdom. There is huge concern in my constituency about modern slavery in the supply chains. What action in the Bill do you believe will help us to tackle that by introducing more accountability, responsibility and financial penalties for corporations that might have modern slavery in their supply chains?
Ben Goldsborough (Labour, South Norfolk)
Q Just to follow up on that, do you believe that compliance with existing modern slavery legislation will also improve because of the additional measures in the Bill?
Christine Jardine (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)
I ask Members to be brief so that we can get everyone in, because we are running very short of time.