Immigration and Asylum Bill

Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2026.

(Morning)

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed in sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.

New Clause 35 - Core protection: protection claims and protection status

New Clause 36 - Core protection: amendments

New Clause 6 - Negotiations on UK participation in the EU Migration and Asylum Pact

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union on UK participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

Dangerous small boat crossings were sporadic and rare before Brexit. In diverging from European immigration policy, we have weakened our ability to deal with this crisis. We removed the deterrent of collective enforcement and lost access to the Eurodac biometric database. Being outside the EU is the single biggest pull factor driving this crisis. Failed asylum seekers in the EU know that the UK is a second bite at the cherry, because without access to the EU’s biometric database, we have no idea who they are or whether they have already been refused asylum by our neighbours.

Without a watertight returns agreement, we have no way to send asylum seekers back to the safe countries they passed through before arriving in the UK. A report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that, in interviews, migrants in northern France often cite the departure from the Dublin accord as a reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, particularly if they have already been refused protection in the EU.

Chris Philp admitted in a leaked audio recording that just before the Conservative Government exited the EU transitional arrangements, his Conservative colleagues realised that Brexit meant losing the Dublin agreement—

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here for some time. As he will be aware, we refer to colleagues by their constituency seat, not by name.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I apologise. The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said that they realised they could no longer

“rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.

New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control.

The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels.

The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I thank hon. Members for tabling the new clause and for their thoughtful contributions to the debate.

I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon that deeper international co-operation is important. That is why the Home Secretary is in regular contact with her counterparts across Europe, including in France, Germany and Belgium, and we are continuing to establish a more comprehensive relationship with Europe as a whole. However, I remind him that irregular migration is not an issue limited to EU nation states. That is why we as a Government are looking even wider and being even more ambitious: not only tackling the issue when it emerges within European territories, but working upstream to prevent the vile trade of organised immigration crime in the first place.

For example, in August 2025 we signed an agreement with Iraq to bolster efforts to deter small boat arrivals. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and increase returns. In August this year, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time needed to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. Those are just some examples of the importance of that broader co-operation and partnership. My hon. Friend the Minister for Migration and Citizenship also attended this year’s Berlin process meeting of Interior Ministers in Montenegro in September. It was a fantastic opportunity to strengthen international police co-operation and develop a joint response to cross-border security challenges not only with our EU counterparts but with representatives from the western Balkans.

I agree that international co-operation is an essential strand of our overarching strategy to tackle illegal migration, and one that I am keen to highlight is bearing fruit. As hon. Members will know—I will say it again, just for the record—small boat arrivals have decreased by more than 40% compared with this point last year. I am not claiming that the job is done—far from it—but we are taking a holistic approach to this issue, of which the Bill is one part. However, the Government will not support the new clause.

I want to pick up on a couple of the points the hon. Member for Wimbledon raised about the impact on returns and about Eurodac. We continue to work with our European partners on the shared challenge, including on returns, but joining the pact would not guarantee increased returns, and our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers real returns outcomes.

Eurodac is a matter for the EU, not a unilateral UK decision. Eurodac is one example of a pact measure where our participation is not legally possible without EU agreement, and the Eurodac legislation makes that clear. Access to asylum data could, of course, help identify individuals who have previously claimed protection in an EU member state before travelling to the UK, but it is for the EU to decide whether it wishes to extend access to third countries. In the meantime, we are strengthening practical co-operation with European partners, including through intelligence sharing and our observer status in the European Migration Network, which delivered on a key PM commitment from the UK-EU summit, and I will come on to say a bit more about the work we are doing on that.

Going back to the new clause, participation is not a straightforward proposition. The pact is not a single agreement that third countries can simply choose to join. It is complex collection of EU legislative measures, many of which are designed specifically for EU member states and Schengen countries. There is no established model for third-country participation, so any form of UK participation would require agreement from the EU and significant EU and operational change before extensive negotiations could commence. The pact is still being implemented across the EU and has been in application only since June this year. Member states are working to implement it, with the EU rightly focused on making it work for its own member states. That is a significant challenge, particularly for frontline countries that are facing the greatest migration pressures.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. Does she know whether the migration pact will be discussed in the forthcoming summit with the EU?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I would not want to get ahead of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and others will be having at that summit. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are clear that greater co-operation and international partnership are crucial for us to manage the big global challenges that we face of immigration, migration and illegal migration. We believe that co-operation is the solution, not the problem, but it is about making sure that we do that in the right way that works for this country within our sovereign powers.

We should also recognise that irregular migration still existed while the UK was part of the EU. Closer co-operation with our European partners is important, but experience shows that no single agreement or institutional framework can solve this challenge on its own. Under previous Dublin arrangements when in the EU, the UK become a net recipient of transfers between EU member states, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire mentioned, largely as a result of family reunification provisions, so we cannot pretend that UK participation in EU frameworks solves all migration challenges.

However, we will of course continue to work closely with our European partners. As I have said, illegal migration is a shared challenge, and co-operation is essential, but it would be a mistake to suggest that simply signing up to the pact would provide a quick or automatic solution. There is no silver bullet, and I am afraid that the new clause is unworkable in practice. It would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union, but Parliament cannot legislate for the EU to agree to such negotiations with us. Whether discussions take place, and on what basis, ultimately depends on both parties and is not for the UK to unilaterally dictate. It is therefore right that the UK retains the flexibility to pursue the forms of co-operation that best serve our national interest and respond to rapidly evolving migration challenges.

The Government’s approach is clear: we will pursue practical co-operation with European partners wherever it advances the UK’s interests and delivers operational results. As the Prime Minister set out, we are already working with the EU to strengthen co-operation on migration, border security, data sharing and tackling the criminal gangs that profit from human misery. Our objective is not to focus on a single mechanism but to build a stronger and more effective long-term partnership with the EU on shared challenges, including illegal migration. That builds on the progress we have already made since the UK-EU summit in 2025, and I am looking forward to further partnership and co-operation with this year’s summit. For those reasons, we do not believe that the new clause is necessary, and I ask the Committee to reject it.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I am saddened by the responses from both the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who do not see that this is a collective problem that we must work on collectively to address. Beginning negotiations would help us to start that process and to not sit in isolation, as we do now. I will press the new clause to a vote, because it is important to make it clear that we think the Government should be negotiating with the EU. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate on many issues. This is a particularly important issue and, let us remember, one that was caused by Brexit, as the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also one that can be solved by closer collaboration with Europe.

New Clause 7 - Cost-benefit analysis: immigration and asylum agreements

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

I was grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the previous new clause, even though she did not agree with me. I hope new clause 7 will help her to address the evidential issues she referred to and examine whether entering the pact would be more sensible for the UK.

The new clause would require the Government to conduct an annual cost-benefit analysis of the UK’s bilateral immigration and asylum agreements and arrangements. The assessment would consider the costs and outcomes of each arrangement against the cost of the UK’s participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

How much does the hon. Member think that undertaking an annual cost-benefit analysis would cost, given that we are outside the EU, and who would bear that cost?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I think we all believe in evidence-based policy making, and we need to do things such as cost-benefit analysis. To argue that one cannot do a cost-benefit analysis before making any policy change is not a solution; it ends up meaning that we just guess. We have to actually plan policy.

Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)

The hon. Member said that he believes in making evidence-based decisions, but he is unable to say what it would cost to make this change. If that is his belief, can he explain what the cost of the new clause would be?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

We are talking about civil servants doing a cost-benefit analysis as part of their role. To suddenly say that that is a huge expense, and therefore that we cannot examine policy changes, is a strange argument.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Does my hon. Friend not find it a bit rich that Members of the governing party are talking about the cost of a cost-benefit analysis, when earlier clauses and amendments—such as on the implementation of a new training scheme and getting people up to speed—have already been included in the Bill, with no assurances from the Minister about exactly how much they will cost?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Of course, that is true. We have to move forward; making debating points when these are important issues is not the way forward.

Joe Robertson (Conservative, Isle of Wight East)

I agree that the Government quite like cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps they could do a cost-benefit analysis of the hon. Member’s proposal for a cost-benefit analysis before deciding whether to support it. That is just a suggestion.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

That is an excellent idea. I am, of course, willing to go along with the Government on such a compromise—I thank the hon. Member.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Yes—we are going to be here a long time.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

There is a serious point here, but I also recall the hon. Member schooling all of us in this Committee on the importance of interrogating line by line, rather than giving grand, broad political speeches. I am simply asking how much he thinks his proposal would cost. He has brought it to the Committee for us to consider, and that is a reasonable question.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

The hon. Member is simply repeating herself and taking party political positions. The Bill has many policy positions and clauses without cost-benefit analyses. The Liberal Democrats believe in evidence-based politics. I realise that Labour Members simply like to take positions that look good to the red wall, but we are actually trying to move things forward.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I take the hon. Member’s point about other clauses in the Bill. Has he at any point queried or questioned the Government about the costs, given that he is part of the Opposition?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

We are trying to push forward a cost-benefit analysis. As I said in my first intervention in this Committee, we do not use Committee stage well when we sit like this—pretending we are in the Chamber—and get into party political arguments with each other. The House should address how we use Committee. We should sit as a Committee, discuss things and really enter into line-by-line scrutiny. I have covered that before, so I will not bore the hon. Lady with it any more.

I have now utterly forgotten where I had got to, so I will start again. In fact, I had not yet said this bit, and it will goad the official Opposition even more, I suspect: the Liberal Democrats enjoy talking about the European Union. We make no secret of the fact that closer relations with the bloc would go a long way to resolving the small boats crisis and illegal immigration. However, it should not be a question of ideology or party political posturing; it must be a question of what works and how much it costs. The Government talk about reducing pull factors for migrants, but they seem unwilling to face the realities. Ensuring a coherent international approach to irregular migration is the single most powerful weapon that the Government could utilise to reduce the pull factor. I suspect that Government Members secretly agree with that.

I understand the Minister’s reticence about new clause 6, but understanding the costs of joining the migration and asylum pact would enable us to do a value-for-money comparison with the current bilateral deals that the Government have made and are negotiating.

Paul Foster (Labour, South Ribble)

The hon. Member’s new clause proposes a cost-benefit analysis of each bilateral immigration and asylum agreement or arrangement in force. How many individual agreements are we are talking about?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I will start with one: since Brexit, the Government have spent more than £1 billion on the agreement with France. We do not yet know the costs of intelligence sharing with Belgium, so I cannot give an answer on that. However, those deals fail to recognise that people who seek asylum are desperate. Sadly, making the French coast a more difficult place from which to embark pushes asylum seekers towards longer, more dangerous routes. Small boat departures from Belgium used to be rare, but that has changed since the start of 2026. There were 32 attempts to launch small boats from Belgium between January and April of this year, of which five were prevented. In comparison, there were just two launch attempts in the whole of 2025. We believe that agreeing a deal with the entire bloc would be more effective in preventing dangerous small boat crossings, by implementing a deterrent that encompasses all of Europe.

I take the Minister’s point, however. We do need some evidence, which is why the Liberal Democrats suggest a cost-benefit analysis. New clause 7 calls on the Home Secretary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral arrangements, to compare their costs with the estimated costs of joining the pact. Does the Minister acknowledge the benefits that that information could yield? Hon. Members have shown that they are interested in the answer, so let us give them the answer. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Wimbledon be so supportive of rejoining the EU—I think we have all learned something this morning. We have also learned that the Liberal Democrats feel that that would be a silver bullet to fix all these issues. Yet still the hon. Member comes forward to ask for a cost-benefit analysis to prove it. His statutory duty to benchmark every bilateral agreement against the EU pact is designed to build a case for joining the pact, not to improve returns, and for that reason, the Conservatives oppose it.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his new clause. I understand the case that he is trying to make. He is trying to build his evidence base to persuade us to join the EU pact, but, despite his earlier efforts, I am afraid we will not support his new clause.

We agree that migration co-operation should deliver clear operational benefits, represent value for money and be subject to appropriate scrutiny. Indeed, that is already the case. Relevant spending and significant proposals are assessed under the established appraisal, assurance and accounting officer requirements. Ministers rightly expect officials to demonstrate that policies are deliverable, affordable and capable of achieving their intended objectives. I remind colleagues that we have already published an impact assessment for the Bill. I appreciate that there are details still to be refined, but colleagues will find in the impact assessment information that I hope will support their understanding of the Bill.

I want to be clear that the value of migration co-operation is complex. Some agreements help to deter irregular migration, and some help to change behaviour and prevent dangerous journeys from happening in the first place. Those benefits can sometimes be difficult to measure directly, but they are no less important when considering the overall value of an agreement. Equally, the Government are not lacking in transparency. We regularly publish information on major migration partnerships—for example, we have published details of UK-France co-operation under the broader framework of the Sandhurst treaty and subsequent agreements, including funding commitments, operational activity and strategic objectives. UK-France co-operation is also subject to regular strategic review by the French Government and the UK Government.

The hon. Gentleman’s new clause goes considerably further, however. It would require the Government to publish an annual assessment comparing our existing bilateral migration agreements against a wholly hypothetical model of UK participation in the EU migration and asylum pact. We do not believe that that is a sensible or proportionate requirement. The pact is an internal EU framework comprising 10 separate legislative measures. The UK is not seeking to participate in it, and there is no established mechanism through which non-EU, non-Schengen countries such as the UK can do so.

That means that there is no settled understanding of what the legal route to participation might be, what obligations it might entail, what operational arrangements would be required, or indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes said, what costs might arise, yet the new clause would require the Government to produce an annual assessment based on assumptions and theories about all those issues, about which we would have no information. Any such exercise would be inherently speculative. It would require officials to assess a theoretical arrangement that does not exist, using assumptions that cannot be verified and for which there is no established evidence base.

The new clause also appears to rest on the assumption that participation in the pact would somehow replace the UK’s existing network of bilateral migration arrangements and partnerships. There is no reason to believe that that would be the case. EU member states, operating within the EU’s common asylum and migration framework, continue to maintain bilateral arrangements with third countries to support returns, migration management and broader co-operation. The need to engage directly with countries of origin and transit does not disappear because a country participates in the EU system.

At the same time, many of our migration partnerships are about far more than asylum processing or returns. They sit within broader bilateral relationships, helping us to tackle migration pressures at source, disrupt organised immigration crime, strengthen returns co-operation and support wider foreign policy objectives. Participation in the pact would not remove the need for many of the agreements that the new clause seeks to assess. In practice, the UK could find itself maintaining a significant proportion of its existing partnerships, while also incurring additional costs associated with participation in the pact itself.

The new clause also takes no account of the cost of pursuing that proposed participation. As I have already highlighted, negotiating any bespoke arrangement with the EU would require significant official resource, extensive discussions with EU institutions and member states, and potentially substantial legislative and operational change. At the same time, the pact is still being implemented across Europe. Its impacts, costs and benefits are still emerging, and it will take time before there is a clear and reliable evidence base from which lessons can be drawn.

Against that backdrop, requiring officials to construct and maintain an annual assessment of theoretical policy that the Government are not pursuing would not represent good value for money. As I said—and I hope the hon. Member for Wimbledon understands my values and intentions here—the Government are committed to deeper co-operation with European partners on tackling illegal migration. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the Prime Minister has set out that Europe is our neighbour and that stronger co-operation with our European partners is essential to tackling these shared challenges. That is why we will be using our engagement with the EU, including the forthcoming summit on 20 November, to pursue practical co-operation on border security, organised immigration crime and improved information and data-sharing, where that supports our national interest. However, none of that requires participation in the pact. We reject the suggestion that joining the pact is the only route, or the necessary route, to achieving these objectives. Our focus is on practical co-operation that delivers results, not a hypothetical arrangement whose terms, costs and obligations cannot be known. For those reasons—

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

Will the Minister give way?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

My hon. Friend is just in time.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I am sorry for interrupting the Minister’s flow. Does she recognise that we have managed various agreements with the EU without signing up to various pacts?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we are proud of those arrangements. The hon. Member for Wimbledon referenced agreements with Belgium; we are co-operating with all our partners on the frontline of illegal migration.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Does the Minister know how many migrants were sent back under the one in, one out deal?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I think the number is around 1,200, but I would have to check the exact figures. That deal was a really important opportunity to pilot the idea of safe and legal routes. We learned a lot from that pilot, and it was disappointing that it could not continue, but we are taking what we learned from it further in our discussions and conversations with other countries.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Does that not show that these bilateral arrangements are not sufficient and we need a collective approach? That deal cost a lot of money, but not many people went back via that route. We need to take a collective approach to this issue, because the problem is shared across Europe.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said today, but he is right on that point. There is opportunity for broader co-operation on many of these fronts, which is why we will continue to explore co-operation. However, signing up to these restrictive pacts would limit that opportunity. I think we have the best of all worlds here: not only can we have direct negotiations with other countries, but we can scale up things such as the one in, one out deal when we think there is potential to do so with other countries. On that note—

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

I caught the Minister just in time. She described the one in, one out scheme as a “pilot”. I do not recall it ever being described as a pilot when it was launched. Can she unpack what the expectations were, what was delivered and why the scheme has been cancelled?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I think we ought to stick to the new clause.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I will abide by the Chair’s ruling, but I am happy to pick that up with the hon. Member later and send him plenty of information backing up the statement that it was a temporary arrangement.

On that note, I will not detain the Committee any further. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was surprised that I want to rejoin the EU. Has he not been listening?

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I think there was a little bit of irony there!

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Was it ironic?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I think, strictly speaking, it was sarcastic.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

The Dublin accord—our previous arrangement, when we were in the EU—was a success. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South made clear, the previous Conservative Government did not realise until the last moment the problems that would be caused by no longer being in the Dublin accord after Brexit. The Minister is right to say the accord’s successor is only just starting—I understand that—but at some point we must make a decision on whether to join it. A cost-benefit analysis would surely be useful. We will again press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 8 - Establishment of Department for Immigration and Border Security

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

The new clause would establish a new Department for immigration and border security, transferring the immigration, asylum and border security functions of the Home Secretary to that office. The Home Office is a large organisation, and its functions are various: immigration and borders, passports and security, counter-terrorism and homeland security, policing and crime, drugs and alcohol policy, and public protection. Serious questions must be asked about the capacity of any single Department to handle all those responsibilities.

Those concerns manifest when Department inefficiencies become clear. The average wait time for an asylum decision has come down substantially since Labour took office, but over a quarter of cases still take more than a year to process.

Catherine Fookes (Labour, Monmouthshire)

Of course, we all want an efficient, fair, secure and sustainable asylum system. I thank the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging our really good success recently, but how would setting up a new Department help us to speed up those processes and get the asylum system back under control?

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

As I have said, we believe that the Home Office is too large and cannot focus on all things for which it is responsible. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the disaster of asylum hotels. Why was that a disaster? Because the Home Office was not concentrating on that particular issue. It signed contracts that made millions for businessmen but did not help asylum seekers at all.

Catherine Fookes (Labour, Monmouthshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for so generously giving way again. We have cut asylum hotel use by 50% since we have been in charge, so we are already having success with the Home Office as it is.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

But that mistake was made because the attention of the Home Office was diverted to other issues at the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member looks at me quizzically, but a mistake was made. Yes, the Government have started to solve that mistake, but asylum hotel numbers went up by 8% last year, so the idea that they have just gone down and down is not accurate.

The new clause would create a new Government Department that could put its entire focus on effective immigration policy. It would produce an annual immigration plan—subject to scrutiny and a vote in Parliament—setting out how the Government will deliver a fair, controlled and effective system. It would also work across Government to develop long-term workforce plans for public services and critical national infrastructure, ensuring that migration policy is designed in tandem with investment, domestic skills and training, to strengthen our services. This plan would ensure that British people and services finally get a system built to work for them—a system based on evidence that works across Government and different sectors to deliver better public services and a growing economy.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart.

I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea.

I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities.

The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that

“A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration”

should be

“taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.”

On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have

“joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services”

to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says:

“The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”.

Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms.

The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were

“designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”,

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

New clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, sets out the desire for a new Government Department for immigration and border security to be established, and for the transfer of all the Home Secretary’s immigration, asylum and border security functions to that new office. I have to say that I really admire the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Wimbledon for attempting to reshape Whitehall through an amendment to a Bill—it is impressive, and I will do my best to respond to it. I appreciate that it is a thought-provoking new clause that of course warrants broader discussion.

I started my career as a civil servant in the Home Office in 2001—barely believable, I know. Back then, the Home Office also had responsibility for criminal law, sentencing, prisons and probation. Removing that and creating the Ministry of Justice, I am afraid, did not fix the problems that we were experiencing in terms of volume. As hon. Members have set out today, we have seen all kinds of issues and challenges that reshaping Whitehall’s structure and limiting the Home Office did not achieve. I am naturally much more of the view that proper, decent political leadership and grip are the solutions to this rather than machinery of government changes.

The Committee will be well aware that the machinery of Government is not specifically a matter for the Home Office; it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to organise the Executive as he sees fit, but to clarify, the Home Office is the lead Government Department for immigration and passports, drugs policy, crime, counter-terrorism and police. As part of that, the Home Office is responsible for securing the UK border and controlling immigration.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon has set out a number of reasons why all functions relating to immigration, asylum and border security should be transferred to a new Department for immigration and border security. The principal question for us to consider is whether achieving the objectives of a successful immigration and asylum system requires the establishment of a separate Government Department. Let me be clear: the Government recognise the importance of immigration, border security and asylum and the need for clear accountability and strong co-ordination across the system. However, the Government do not consider that establishing a separate Department for these functions is necessary or would, in itself, improve delivery. Organisational separation should not be mistaken for operational improvement.

Fundamentally, immigration, border security and asylum are not isolated policy areas, as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion rightly points out; they are connected to our wider mission and responsibilities for national security, policing, public protection and the management of the UK’s borders. They have important connections to national security, law enforcement, tackling organised crime, safeguarding vulnerable people and protecting the public. Keeping these functions in the Home Office across dedicated policy and operational roles provides a well-established framework for bringing those responsibilities together and ensuring that immigration and border security considerations are taken into account alongside wider security and enforcement priorities. Creating a new Department would fragment those responsibilities, add organisational complexity and make it harder to deliver a coherent approach to managing the UK’s immigration and asylum system.

It is also important to recognise that managing the immigration and asylum system requires co-operation across the whole of Government; it is not simply improved by setting up a new departmental boundary. For example, we work closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on international co-operation on returns and migration, as we have discussed this morning, and with the Ministry of Justice on issues such as immigration appeals, foreign national offenders and the work of the tribunals, to name just a few.

Hon. Members will recall the establishment of the Border Security Command in July 2024. It is this Government’s strategy to adopt a long-term, transformative approach to deliver stronger border security through strong leadership, effective partnerships and a long-term vision. Although the initial focus has been on dismantling the smuggling networks, the Command’s broader aims are to enable smarter, faster and more effective interventions across the entire system to strengthen the UK border.

Alongside the establishment of the Border Security Command, hon. Members will recall the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which was debated for many hours in this House. That Act provides the tools, powers and offences to transform the cross-system response to threats against UK border security, including organised immigration crime. It delivered on Labour’s manifesto commitment to create new, transformative powers to strengthen law enforcement’s ability to identify, disrupt and prevent serious and organised crime through new criminal offences and expanded data-sharing capabilities.

The “Restoring Order and Control” statement, which was presented to Parliament on 17 November 2025, proposed reshaping the UK’s protection and settlement offer to make the system faster, firmer and significantly less open to abuse. Its goals are twofold: to reduce illegal arrivals and to increase removals of those with no right to be here. There is clearly more to do, but that could never have happened without the knowledge and expertise of countless civil servants across the Home Office. As I set out earlier, organisational separation should not be mistaken for operational improvement. Having worked for Home Secretaries such as the right hon. Lord Blunkett of Brightside and the current Home Secretary, it is clear to me that the clear leadership, determination and grip of a Department are far more important than the structures of the organisation.

I want to refer to some of the points the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion made about co-operation on community cohesion. When we discuss some of her new clauses later on, I will set out the levels of interaction and engagement that we are having with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because that is crucial. The hon. Lady is right to acknowledge the interactions that these issues have. We play an important role in those partnerships, and I look forward to discussing that later on. At this point, I respectfully request that the new clause is withdrawn.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire that, because the Home Office is now beginning to solve one of the problems it caused for itself, that somehow proves that it does not make mistakes. It makes mistakes because it does not have the bandwidth. The Home Office signed asylum contracts it did not even read, which incentivised providers to spend money, and surprise, surprise, the providers did spend money. Why did the Home Office make that mistake? Because it was not focusing on that issue at the time—it does not have the bandwidth.

As the Minister anticipated, the new clause is a probing amendment. We will not be pushing it to a vote. However, I am sure that I am not telling too much of a secret by saying that I suspect the Home Affairs Committee will be addressing issues such as this in the not-too-distant future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 9 - Refugees: Anti-Homelessness Taskforce

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce whose stated aim is to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees. The Prime Minister has, to his great and huge credit, made ending homelessness a priority, but why, then, is the Minister pursuing the measures in this Bill that contradict such a noble aim? We have already seen that the refugee tax and core protection introduction risk exacerbating the precarity experienced by refugees with settled status.

In December 2024, the Government doubled the grace period refugees were given to move out of Home Office accommodation to 56 days. They did that, as they stated at the time, to provide refugees with more time to find alternative accommodation, reducing the risk of homelessness and putting pressure on overstretched council housing services. The Home Office has now reduced the grace period to 42 days, which would increase such pressures. The longer move-on period was shown to be effective. According to the Refugee Council, an estimated 1,000 refugee households in England avoided homelessness in 2025 thanks to the increased time they had to begin rebuilding their lives in the UK. I am concerned that a reduction in move-on time would lead to increased refugee homelessness, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has seen any data on refugee homelessness levels since that reduction in the grace period.

The issue of a shorter move-on period is compounded by systemic issues identified by the Refugee Council. Those include refugees receiving documentation in stages instead of all at once, delayed access to e-visas, local authority uncertainty on refugee entitlements and challenges of low digital literacy. Those challenges require a tailored approach, which is why our new clause would establish a taskforce to combat refugee homelessness. It would be responsible for co-ordinating the different services, moving people out of asylum support, ensuring that people who are granted refugee status get their essential documents promptly, identifying those at the greatest risk of homelessness and monitoring the impact of changes to the move-on period.

Asylum has become a politically charged issue, but we cannot lose sight of our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. We must ensure that move-on initiatives deliver. The National Centre for Social Research found that constraints of systemic housing shortages and the concurrent roll-out of e-visas were holding us back. It made recommendations that included restoring the move-on period to 56 days, better data sharing and strengthening the support on offer. It would be within our taskforce’s remit to ensure that those recommendations are properly implemented. Having a body dedicated to protecting homeless asylum seekers is a way to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities and action those recommendations.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The hon. Member for Wimbledon has described the real pressures on councils across the country. When people are granted protection and leave asylum accommodation, many present as homeless, and local authorities across the country pick up the cost. However, in our view, a statutory taskforce will not solve that. The root of the pressure is the number of people arriving and the time that they spend in the system. Fewer arrivals and faster outcomes would do far more for councils than any taskforce.

We will not support the new clause, but let me ask the Minister a question, building on the one that the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked. What is the current move-on period after a grant of protection, and what assessment have the Government made of the cost of refugee homelessness to local authorities throughout England?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon for raising this issue through his new clause, because it is a big priority for this Government, as he alluded to. I want to put it on record that I and the Government support the notion that no one should be sleeping rough. As the Prime Minister has set out, ending homelessness is his No. 1 priority.

As Members will be aware, in the immediacy, the Government have committed £442 million to ensure that everyone who is sleeping rough is off the streets by Christmas. That feeds into the wider £4.4 billion being invested in homelessness and rough sleeping services over the next three years. This combines immediate accommodation support with longer-term settled housing and intensive support for people who have experienced prolonged rough sleeping. The Christmas ambition is the first phase of that wider effort. It is a programme of practical delivery and, as I have laid out, it is not one that depends on establishing a separate statutory taskforce.

Looking beyond the Christmas delivery plan, the Government are already taking a cross-Government approach through the national plan to end homelessness in England and the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping. That group brings together work on housing, health, employment and transitions out of public service with regular monitoring of delivery. A separate taskforce would duplicate existing co-ordination arrangements rather than address the practical barriers that people face.

We recognise that newly granted refugees can face particular challenges. Asylum move-on liaison officers, where present, explain next steps, signpost housing and benefit support, liaise with local services and escalate barriers. They provide practical help with navigating the transition. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked what the move-on period is: it is currently 42 days.

We regularly review the role of the liaison officer model to ensure that it meets the needs of users and to reduce homelessness among newly recognised refugees. This includes exploring earlier, targeted housing advice before an asylum decision, and working with accommodation providers to improve the quality and timeliness of information given to local authorities when asylum support ends.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

On my specific question, though, has the Home Office studied whether the move from 56 days to 42 days made the situation of homelessness worse for those granted refugee status?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I know that there is sometimes a lag in us being able to publish statistics on that, but I am hopeful to be able to share statistics with hon. Members shortly. In June this year—these are the latest published figures—there were 99 people sleeping rough in this country who had left asylum support in the last 85 days. Our internal data suggests that the numbers of people leaving asylum support are extremely low, but, as I said, information on that will be published.

We are working closely with other partners and charity organisations, including Migrant Help, which offers positive move-on advice to all supported newly granted refugees through the advice, issue reporting and eligibility contract. That includes guidance on accommodation, finances and employment, and support for individuals to integrate into the UK when Home Office support ends.

As we have discussed a lot during the Bill’s passage, it builds on the “Restoring Order and Control” statement that the Home Secretary made, and it is essential if we are to restore control to our immigration system. As the Committee will know, core protection is a key part of that, and will simplify the current system of protections. That will of course be shared in due course.

This is not the place to make party political points but, having witnessed the impact of austerity on local government, I find myself biting my tongue when Opposition Members express concern about local government support. Our focus should be on improving support and delivering better outcomes through these existing arrangements, rather than creating an additional statutory structure and reporting process. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause to a vote.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I thank the Minister for her answer. On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 10 - Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where—

(a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and

(b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application.

(2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must—

(a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person;

(b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary;

(c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom;

(d) persist until—

(i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or

(ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and

(e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check.

(3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts.

In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban. According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP.

Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality. We must remember that if this country works for refugees, refugees will work for this country.

The argument that giving asylum seekers employment rights will encourage further illegal immigration is well worn but ultimately unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little to no role in people’s destination of choice, whereas factors such as language and familial relations are far more influential. The Government’s position is disputed by their own Migration Advisory Committee.

Indeed, asylum seekers come here in spite of the fact that our working regulations are a complete outlier in comparison with other states. EU law requires access to work after six months at most, while Canada allows it immediately and the US after six months. Even Denmark, which is always held out as being quite hard-line on immigration issues and undocumented migrants, allows it after six months. A three-month limit would be in line with our allies and may incentivise the Home Office to improve the efficiency of its decision making.

Allowing refugees to work after three months would be worth £437 million per cohort, which is five times the cost that would be recovered with a £10,000 payment scheme. Importantly, the public support this measure. Lift the Ban research found that 71% of the public agreed that people seeking asylum should have the right to work. Ultimately, people who work while they wait for an asylum decision are more ready to support themselves when they get status. This is good for the taxpayer, good for the asylum seeker and good for the country.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would give asylum seekers the right to work after three months, and the Green party’s new clause 24 would give them an automatic, unrestricted right after six months that lasts through every appeal. We oppose both new clauses.

People who enter the UK illegally should not be able to claim asylum here at all. The new clauses go in the opposite direction. They would make the UK a more attractive destination for people deciding whether to pay a smuggler to cross the channel. Everybody wants to reduce pull factors so that we can reduce dangerous crossings, and I am afraid that the new clauses would introduce additional pull factors.

I will keep my remarks brief and just ask the Minister a question. How many asylum seekers currently have permission to work, and what assessment have the Government made of the effect that earlier work rights would have on the number of claims?

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work.

As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim.

It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other.

More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape.

The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees.

Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high.

Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work.

Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening.

In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work.

Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP.

Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety.

In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I thank the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Brighton Pavilion for tabling the new clauses, and I am grateful for the discussion. As we have heard, new clauses 10 and 24 would significantly change the Government’s policy on the period before asylum seekers can seek permission to work from the Home Office, reducing that period to three months and six months, respectively. New clause 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would go much further and grant asylum applicants and their adult dependants an automatic and unrestricted right to employment and self-employment after six months of waiting for a decision on their asylum claim—a right that would continue until the claim and any appeal had been finally determined.

Hon. Members will know that those who claim asylum are not normally allowed to work while their claim is considered. They may instead receive accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. Under our current policy, asylum seekers may be eligible to apply for permission to work in the UK where their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. Where permission is granted, employment is restricted to jobs on the skilled worker occupations at regulated qualifications framework level 6 or above.

To respond to the question of the hon. Member for Wimbledon about legal entrants, it is important to flag that all legal entrants are prohibited from working. Some individuals who claim asylum after being here legally retain the right to work throughout their claim. An asylum seeker is allowed to apply for permission to work after 12 months, as I said, if they have not received a decision and will be employed in a high-skilled job. On the statistics he asked about, the Home Office publishes a vast amount of statistics regularly. The numbers for those who have permission to work will fluctuate constantly, as people move in and out of the system quite rapidly. Our focus has been on ensuring that people receive an initial decision on their claim as quickly as possible.

The policy is designed to enable asylum seekers who have been waiting for 12 months or more for an initial decision to take jobs that match their qualifications, helping to reduce dependence on asylum support while also helping to fill workforce gaps in areas such as healthcare and education, ensuring that those who genuinely require assistance and housing receive proper care. The purpose of the policy is to provide a limited, controlled concession for those whose applications have been delayed through no fault of their own, while maintaining clear separation between the protection and the work routes.

The proposed new clauses would broaden that policy significantly. Earlier or unrestricted access to employment could enable people, in effect, to bypass established work visa routes and may act as an incentive for people to travel here illegally via dangerous routes. While pull factors are complex, we cannot ignore that the perception of access to labour market is among the reasons why people take dangerous journeys to the UK. The UK cannot have a policy that increases the risks of dangerous journeys, and we must do everything within our power to put a stop to them. Relaxing our permission-to-work policy for asylum seekers is not the right approach in this respect.

New clause 24 would also go significantly further than the current policy. It would extend the right to work to adult dependants, allow unrestricted employment and self-employment, remove the requirement that delay must not be attributable to the applicant, and remove the individual application process. That process enables the Home Office to verify identity and eligibility, to assess responsibility for delay, to record the conditions attached to permission and to issue reliable evidence to employers conducting right-to-work checks. I am deeply concerned that removing such controls could affect behavioural incentives, add pressure to the asylum system, and reduce its capacity to determine claims promptly and to support those who need protection.

I assure hon. Members that the Government recognise the concerns underlying new clauses 10 and 24. We are focused on transforming the asylum system and making decisions more quickly. The Bill will reduce the time people spend awaiting a decision and enable those granted protection to integrate and contribute to society sooner, through our new core protection model. The published statistics highlight that over the latest year, the number of people awaiting an initial decision fell by 56%, while the proportion waiting six months or more decreased from 58% to 48%. We are absolutely determined to minimise the time that people spend waiting for their decisions and appeals, hence our reforms in the Bill—I encourage hon. Members to support them—while ensuring proper consideration of their claim. That is the best way to give people the security, opportunity and dignity that hon. Members have referred to today.

I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about the ability to work of those who are refugees, of those who have been proved to need and deserve our sanctuary and who have our protection. They should have the opportunity and dignity that work provides, which is why those granted protection under our new system will have the opportunity to move on to the protection work route by securing employment and beginning their journey to integrate into society. I assure colleagues that more details on those routes will be available to hon. Members soon. For those reasons, I ask that the new clauses be withdrawn.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I am saddened that the Minister will not move on that point. The Labour party, when out of power, supported this proposal. As my party knows, supporting something when out of power, but not when in power, is not a good message to send to the electorate. The dignity of labour is important, and work is important to the ability to integrate into the community. The new clause would also make money for the Treasury. Why is work a pull factor for the UK but not for every other country? Why are we such an outlier? No answer has been given. The existing policy simply excludes migrants from society. It makes them vulnerable to the black economy and the criminals who frequent it, and simply does nothing to improve the lives of people, many of whom will be granted asylum. I am saddened—as I suspect are many Labour Members in their hearts—that the Government will not concede the point.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

New clauses are taken in numerical order and the opportunity will come later.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

Of course!

New Clause 11 - Refugee family reunion

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 11 would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the immigration rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. The family reunion route was paused on 4 September 2025, with a stricter system promised from spring 2026 still not in place, as we discussed earlier in Committee. So I ask the Minister: if the Government announce a new settlement route, will there be a new family reunion route, too? We want to see the details of the resettlement scheme announced with this legislation. Obviously, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure we end up with the tens of thousands of people, predominantly women and children who used to use the family reunion visas, able to access it.

I meet many people in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, from victims of genocide such as the Yazidi people to people who came through the Afghan route. Quite often the distress and additional trauma that is caused by having been separated from their families compounds the issues that they are already trying to grapple with.

With the new rules set to come in under this Bill, there will be issues around refugees being able to hit the income thresholds so that their family members can come with them. That is the purpose of this new clause and I would welcome any news or updates from the Minister further to the questions already put during the course of this Bill Committee.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

New clause 11 would require the Government to restore refugee family reunion within six months, but I understand that it also widens definitions to include children up to the age of 25, which was not in the hon. Member’s opening remarks, so I hope I am not mistaken.

We oppose this measure. Family reunion, as proposed in new clause 11, would add a further reward to a successful illegal crossing. Every grant would bring the prospect of encouraging a wider family member, and it would create a well-known incentive for families to send one member ahead, sometimes a child, on the most dangerous journey of all. We all want to stop and limit dangerous journeys. Safe and legal routes should be for people from regions of conflict who we choose to help, as we have done for Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. There should not be a reward for illegal and very dangerous crossings. We will not support the new clause, but can I ask the Minister to tell us when the Government intend to publish their replacement for the suspended family reunion route, as I think she intimated they would in the previous debate, and whether the intention is for it to be capped?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

New clause 11, tabled by the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, seeks to reopen the refugee family reunion route and greatly expand eligibility to wider family members. The Government took the difficult decision to suspend the refugee family reunion route in September 2025. That was done in response to immediate pressures placed on local authorities and public services by the rapid rise in arrivals in recent years.

The family reunion route had grown exponentially, placing significant and unsustainable pressures on local authorities and public services. Grants rose from approximately 5,500 per annum between 2015 and 2022 to more than 20,000 in the year ending September 2025. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we cannot have a situation where families are sending men on dangerous journeys, through other safe countries, to reach these shores with the intention to bring their families. We are extremely keen to prevent that. We want to ensure that there is a sustainable route for families that are genuinely fleeing war and persecution to come to this country, and that was not it.

Suspension remains in place while we are developing the wider reforms to the family migration system. I know that colleagues are on tenterhooks, and I wish I could expand on that further, but I can assure them that they do not have very long to wait at all—as I am sure they can see from the increased media frenzy around these issues. I will not pre-empt the Home Secretary’s announcements, but I reassure colleagues that those announcements are well on their way and they do not have long to wait.

The system we want to see will be fair, controlled and sustainable. The Government recognise the importance of family unity and the distress that separation can cause. We also recognise the contribution that families can make to helping refugees integrate. However, we must ensure that our approach takes account of the capacity of communities to support those arriving.

I want to be clear that suspension does not mean that family members have no way of applying to come to the UK. Other family routes remain available where people meet the relevant requirements, with provisions such as fee waivers available, and a consideration of any exceptional circumstances where an individual may not meet the criteria set out in those routes. In addition, applications under the suspended route that were submitted before the suspension came into force continue to be processed.

New clause 11 would go considerably further than simply restoring the previous arrangements. It would require the Government to establish a new and expansive refugee family reunion scheme within six months, and prescribe a significantly wider group of qualifying family members, including parents, siblings, unmarried adult children and siblings up to the age of 25 and other unspecified family members. This is highly likely to lead to considerably more people arriving than ever before, without any necessity for their sponsor to support them.

The new clause would also cut across established routes that already make specific provision for these relationships, including Appendix Child Relative for vulnerable children joining a close relative with protection status, and the Adult Dependant Relative route for adults requiring long-term, personal care. Those routes contain carefully designed eligibility, dependency, care, maintenance and accommodation requirements. The new clause risks creating an overlapping route for the same cohorts without specifying any safeguards that would apply, potentially undermining the workings of our wider family migration system.

The new clause would further enable children to sponsor their parents and siblings, which is something that was not possible under the previous route. We must consider the incentives that such a change would create. If a child reaching the UK alone could subsequently provide a route for other family members to join them, there is a real risk that smuggling gangs could exploit that expectation, leading to more children being sent on dangerous journeys, including on small boats. That would put children at greater risk of abuse and death.

The proposals tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should also be considered together. Amendment 54 would have provided that requirements being imposed must demonstrate that arriving family members could be suitably supported and accommodated by their sponsor. Together, these proposals, if accepted, would pre-empt the Government’s ongoing work that I have mentioned on our future family migration framework by constraining our ability to consider refugee family reunion alongside the wider reforms that we are making. It would be premature to prescribe the outcome of that work in the Bill. They are also likely to lead to a large increase in arrivals, which would further exacerbate existing pressures on local authorities and public services.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough should consider how the consequences of such a surge in arrivals, if these proposals were enacted, would be managed. Where would families live if suitable accommodation had not been secured? Who would meet their immediate needs if their sponsor could not support them? Do we expect already stretched local authorities and public services to support those arrivals? If children are allowed to sponsor, as he proposes, a child cannot be expected to obtain a sufficient income or secure suitable accommodation for an arriving family, so who would meet those needs? What assessment has he made of the additional resources that would be needed, and how does he propose these costs should be met?

Those responsibilities simply cannot be left for local authorities to resolve after families arrive. They have practical consequences for homelessness services, temporary accommodation, children’s services and school places, as well as the local people who rely on those services. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I welcome the Minister’s words about us hopefully seeing something coming forward soon. I gently suggest that if we had something a little more concrete, we might not have needed to table new clauses such as this. Nevertheless, I welcome what the Minister has said. As I said before, I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we will hopefully invite someone from the Minister’s Department to speak to us. I am sure I can press the point further there, so with that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

(Afternoon)

New Clause 14 - Publication of asylum appeals statistics

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

Graham Stuart (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a breakdown of the appeals made against Home Office decisions on asylum claims since March 2023, and would provide for their ongoing quarterly publication. It is a source of concern that no detailed Home Office data on appeals has been published since 2023. Such data includes much more information that that contained in published tribunal statistics, and it is essential for scrutiny, especially of the quality of first-time decision making.

The Bill makes large-scale changes to the way in which claims are handled, and it is vital that we have a clear picture of its impact. As I made clear in a previous sitting, I have serious concerns about the use of the independent immigration appeals authority to handle first-tier tribunal cases, in particular because Australia trialled something similar and found that non-judicial tribunal panels often took more time to reach decisions because their members struggled with the complexities of immigration law.

We also heard in oral evidence from Professor Richard Ekins and Dr Conor Casey about the concern that there would just be more appeals. Dr Casey said:

“You might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 22, Q42.]

Data and information on appeals will therefore be crucial in judging how the new system works.

I appreciate that, in answer to a written question, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), stated:

“Appeals data from April 2023 onwards is currently unavailable for publication due to ongoing work as immigration data transitions to a new caseworking system. Work is ongoing to make this information available, and it will be included in a future edition of the Immigration System Statistics Quarterly release.”

However, it has now been three years since the last set of data was released, and I am left with a sense of incredulity that this great office of state needs such a lengthy timespan to make itself accountable. Perhaps this goes back to the point I made in new clause 8: the Home Office is just too large, and often does not have the bandwidth, to do everything that it needs to do.

New clause 14 would legislate for the continued publication of all data relating to appeals made against Home Office decisions on asylum claims, whether in the first-tier tribunal or the IIAA. Only with that data can we effectively scrutinise the impacts of the changes introduced by the Bill. I therefore ask the Minister to guarantee the regular publication of that data to ensure proper scrutiny by Parliament.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making. If Committee members care—or dare—to cast their minds back a few weeks, we Conservatives pressed for appeals statistics under clause 3, so we have some sympathy for both new clauses. Amendment 62, however, would stop the new appeals body starting until the report is laid, which I fear is a delaying tactic. We cannot support it.

New clause 57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asks for the figure that matters most: how many people have been removed every month after failed asylum claims, as well as when they arrived and why they were removed. Monthly figures linked to date of arrival would allow the House to see whether refusal leads to removal. If removals are rising, the Government can of course take credit for it. If not, Parliament can use that data to hold the Government to account. Will the Government publish monthly figures on removals of failed asylum seekers, with their date of arrival? How many people whose claims and appeals have been finally refused are living in the UK today? I commend new clause 57, which I intend to push to a vote, to the Committee.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

My new clause 22 asks for a report on decision making in relation to asylum applications. My amendment 62 is intended to prevent the Bill from being brought into force until the report set out in new clause 22 is published.

The new clause would require the Home Office to publish a report on decision making in the asylum system. Making asylum decisions as efficiently as possible, so that they are right the first time, should be the main function of the asylum system. It is noteworthy that there is no mention in any of the Government’s asylum reforms of improving the quality of decisions.

As we heard from a range of experts during oral and written evidence, poor-quality initial decisions have had a corrosive impact on the asylum system, adding to the number of people appealing on decisions—people who should and eventually will be granted status—and contributing to the overall costs of asylum support. In the 2025-26 financial year, 64% of appeals processed were either granted by the tribunal on appeal or withdrawn before they were heard by the court.

The majority of withdrawals are done by the Home Office after reassessment of the initial decision. As the chief inspector’s report indicated earlier this year, the Home Office makes those withdrawals because it feels that it cannot defend its decisions on appeal. That issue deserves further consideration before the Bill comes into force.

We have heard officials say that the tribunal grant rate has gone down. That may be true, but their point is undermined if that is a result solely of the withdrawal rate going up because the Home Office is withdrawing its most poorly made decisions before the tribunal can consider them. New clause 22 would provide the data to support or refute that case. The chief inspector’s report did a quality check on about 47 cases and found that decisions had been made using insufficient evidence in over 75% of them. If that number were repeated throughout the system, it would mean that a significant number of initial decisions need improvement.

What does that mean in practice for the system as a whole? According to the Government’s statistics, at the end of March, 87,450 asylum appeals—relating to roughly 113,000 people—were outstanding. Based on those numbers, the Refugee Council has estimated that between 27,900 and 33,480 of those people will be housed in dispersal accommodation while waiting for an appeal that will end with them getting status.

The Government are looking to close hotels and are opening military sites in response, but it would be well worth focusing on making better-quality decisions. That would significantly reduce the number of people who, because their initial decision was rejected when it should have resulted in a grant of protection, need to be housed in those divisive and often horrible types of asylum accommodation for longer than necessary.

Crucially, that is not about giving status to more people but about ensuring that those who are going to get status get it earlier in the process. That is better for the refugee, the asylum system and the public. The new clause lays out what needs to be included in the Government’s report to better understand how the process is working and how the Government can better address this urgent issue. That should be the top priority, before we have any more asylum system reform. The Minister may be able to address some of those points now, including how the Government intend to deal with these issues.

Given that the provision would have such a significant effect on the appeals backlog, I have also tabled amendment 62, which would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being implemented until the report has been published, so that any learning from the report could guide the development of the independent immigration appeals authority.

Finally, given that other parts of the Bill, including part 4, respond to some of the consequences of poor-quality decision making—the backlog and the need for asylum support in the longer term before people are allowed to work—it is important that the Government prioritise fixing that problem. That must happen before they take the scythe that this Bill represents to the spirit—and, I believe, to the letter—of so many of our international obligations on human rights.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I appreciate colleagues’ contributions on the new clauses and the amendment. New clause 22 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on asylum decision making within three months, and amendment 62 would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being commenced until that report is laid. These provisions seek to establish new statutory duties to publish data on the asylum system.

From the outset, I want to make it clear that the Government fully recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in relation to the asylum system. The Home Office already publishes a significant amount of data, in line with the statement of compliance with the code of practice for statistics. As part of the Department’s commitment to transparency, that includes quarterly transparency data on asylum case length and the number of decision makers. The Ministry of Justice already publishes quarterly tribunal statistics for the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber, and those publications include information on receipts, disposals and outcomes. Those statistics are publicly available and routinely updated on gov.uk.

The full set of official statistics published by those organisations is kept under review, in line with the code of practice for statistics. Consequently, any shortcomings between the currently published data and the additions suggested by the hon. Member for Wimbledon can be considered outside the legislative process. It is important that Members have the chance to register where they feel there are potential gaps in the process.

In response to the National Audit Office’s recommendations, we have begun a programme of work to strengthen the coherence of asylum data across the system, including progress towards a more unified, single system of truth. We have been taking our time to ensure that we get that right in relation to some of the information that Members have mentioned. It includes a data discovery exercise and a wider end-to-end design system review, alongside strengthened cross-system governance, which will together improve data quality, consistency and transparency over time.

The Home Office works closely with the UK office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to help improve the UK’s asylum system. Each year, the UNHCR and the Home Office agree and publish an annual work plan that sets out the areas of focus, objectives and activities of the quality protection partnership. The new clauses and the amendment simply seek to gather information similar to what already exists, and they are therefore unnecessary. In parallel with the legislative process, the Government are working on the operational delivery and changes required to establish the IIAA, and amendment 62 could delay that new body from starting its important work.

I want to respond to a couple of the points that Members have made. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that a trade-off was happening between accuracy and speed in making asylum decisions. I refute that. The Department is committed to progressing asylum cases in an efficient and cost-effective way that will not compromise the integrity of the UK immigration system. According to the latest published data, 93% of decisions are considered correct against the agreed quality-marking criteria. The volume of decisions checked has more than doubled, and refusals exceeded grants in the year up to June 2026, with 73,478 people refused protection or other leave.

That illustrates the checks and balances in place across our system to ensure that it operates effectively and fairly, with published data available to underpin our approach. The Home Office has committed to a 2% baseline minimum sampling rate for decision quality, and a 2% baseline minimum sampling rate for interview quality in asylum casework. We aim to identify trends and issues impacting quality assurance and customer service, thereby reducing costs, safeguarding our businesses and asylum claimants, and ensuring that we get decisions right the first time.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion referred to the quality of asylum decisions and asked whether that is impacting on appeals being overturned. Appeals are heard before an independent immigration judge, who may make a different assessment of the facts and has the advantage of listening to testimony, including that of witnesses, as part of the tribunal proceedings. The Home Office will robustly defend decisions where it is right to do so, and appeals are allowed for various reasons—for example, new evidence may be provided that was not available to the initial decision maker. The judiciary are independent and may come to a different conclusion based on their interpretation of the facts.

As I have said, we are working at pace on operational delivery and changes to our collection and publication of statistics. For those reasons, I cannot accept the new clause.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

This was a probing new clause. I am pleased that the Minister is addressing the issues that underly it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 15 - Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

Duty to notify reports were introduced in 2025 for people who would not consent to entering the national referral mechanism. The regulator says that their number is undercounted. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner found that the main reason people would not consent was fear of immigration consequences. Some 25% of victims believed that they were better off in exploitation. The new clause would tackle some of those issues. GRETA—the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings—published its fourth report in May 2026. It said:

“Due to fear of detention and deportation, many victims of trafficking do not want to be referred to the NRM.”

That is the reason for the new clause. If the Government are not willing to support it, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister what further measures she might bring forward to address those issues.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it.

The Conservatives’ borders plan to remove every year 150,000 people who have no right to be here, and to deport all foreign criminals, relies on the Home Office knowing who they are. A legal firewall, as has been proposed, around one of the main routes by which people come to the attention of the authorities would obstruct that. It would also invite abuse. The Committee has heard how modern slavery referrals have been made late in the process, after detention and removal directions, in order to delay removal.

New clause 15 would make a referral not just a source of delay but a shield from enforcement altogether. Genuine victims deserve protection, and the referral process exists to provide it. However, being referred should not make someone invisible to the immigration system. We fear that the new clause would facilitate that. What proportion of referrals in the past year were made after the person had been detained or served with removal directions?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I referred earlier in the debate to the statistic that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire requests, but, off the top of my head, I believe it was a third of modern slavery referrals. Actually, I do not want to mislead the Committee, so I will come back to him on that. I flagged that statistic earlier, so should be on the record, but I want to ensure that I get it right. I will perhaps come back to it during the course of this debate, as we have more to discuss on modern slavery.

Since taking office in 2024, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to tackling modern slavery in all forms and to supporting victims. We have delivered on our commitment to clear the unacceptable national referral mechanism backlog in just two years. There are now tens of thousands fewer cases waiting for conclusive grounds decisions—the final decision on whether someone is recognised as a victim of modern slavery based on all available evidence—compared with the peak in 2023. Faster decisions mean fewer victims and less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, helping them with their recovery. We have improved identification of potential victims of modern slavery by strengthening the national referral mechanism referral form based on stakeholder feedback, the development of a first responder toolkit to support high-quality referrals and a distribution of approximately 150,000 awareness-raising materials across eight immigration removal centres, including posters, leaflets and a self-identification tool.

Before I go into the specifics of the new clause, it is important to express how important it is that both the modern slavery system and the immigration system are interconnected. That is the reality: we have to ensure that they operate effectively together. It is not possible to separate them—nor would it be right to do so.

Although the measures are included in this Bill, their primary purpose is to strengthen the modern slavery system and ensure better support for those who need it the most—that also has an impact across asylum and immigration. We want to ensure that victims of modern slavery are identified and supported based on their experiences of exploitation, and not just seen through the lens of immigration. That is why the Bill strengthens rather than weakens protections for victims by ensuring that the system works effectively to identify and support individuals and ensure that those who should not benefit are not able to do so.

The Bill will rightly improve alignment with wider immigration support systems while maintaining protections for victims, including children. Changes made to support provisions ensure a coherent approach across Government—for example by preventing the modern slavery system from duplicating or undermining sanctions already applied through wider state services.

New clause 15 seeks to create a firewall between authorities involved in the identification of potential victims of slavery or human trafficking, and immigration authorities or other relevant public authorities. That would prevent information shared following a notification about a suspected victim from being used to determine whether that individual has committed an immigration offence or may be liable to deportation. A firewall for potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking would not be operable, as it would prevent immigration enforcement, in its role as a first responder organisation, from effectively identifying and safeguarding potential victims.

Furthermore, appropriate information sharing is necessary to ensure that agencies have access to relevant health, welfare and safeguarding information, enabling them to understand an individual's vulnerabilities and fulfil their duty of care. Mechanisms already exist to support those with insecure immigration status who may be victims of modern slavery. Through the 30-day recovery period, the national referral mechanism protects individuals from removal and while a conclusive grounds decision is being made.

Although I understand the intention of the amendment, it is unnecessary and risks undermining the joined-up approach that we are working hard to achieve. A firewall for potential victims of modern slavery would not be operable, as it would conflict with immigration enforcement’s responsibilities as a first responder agency that is required to identify such victims. Where no permission to remain is held, it would need to be aware of that risk to inform its duty of care. The impact on the immigration enforcement competent authority would be even more significant. That authority rightly has responsibility for processing referrals for migrants identified as potential victims, and would need to be aware of their immigration status to do so.

For those reasons, I must respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I hear and understand the Minister’s points. I am happy to withdraw the new clause, but I would like to press her a little further. I thought the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner gave some of the most compelling evidence we heard about these issues and people’s concerns about protections for victims of trafficking. Regrettably, when we debated these matters earlier in proceedings, particularly in relation to clause 36, we heard the same concerns about people coming forward and having reporting and disclosures used against them. How that information might be passed along is still a legitimate and valid concern. I gently ask the Minister to consider strengthening those protections in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 16 - Duty to publish deadline for final implementation of White Paper reforms

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

I would very much like to hear from the Minister further certainty on what the rules will be. The intention of the new clause is to require the Secretary of State to set out a final deadline and a road map for the implementation of the “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper. We also want to see a report within 14 days of any missed deadlines.

To be clear, that White Paper on the legal migration system is really important. It matters because we expect refugees to move from core protection on to other routes such as work visas. There is a wider point here about the uncertainty—beyond asylum, too—with those proposed changes to settlement, which would require businesses to adapt their workforce planning. Business also deserve certainty about what those rules might mean. I look forward to hearing further clarification from the Minister.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

New clause 16 would require the Government to set a deadline and a road map for implementing their own immigration White Paper of May 2025, including the rules on settlement—that has come up in previous sittings of this Committee. Unusually—I do not say this very often—I find myself with some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats in relation to this particular clause. I emphasise that I will not say that too often.

The White Paper promised earned settlement and a 10-year route, but by my calculation we are 17 months on and only one element—a higher English requirement—has been pursued. It is worth noting that the Government’s weakening of that testing requirement will render it practically pointless.

In March, the Home Secretary said that she would change the law in the autumn. On Thursday, the Minister told the Committee that the Government’s approach to settlement is

“currently undergoing a lot of discussion”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 22 October 2026; c. 338.]

We heard earlier a reference to the “media frenzy”. That is not delivery. Our new clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period into law today. Our borders plan goes further still, but whatever our differences on the content, the public are entitled to know when the Government’s promises will be kept. I ask the Minister again: when will the earned settlement rules be laid before Parliament?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I am afraid I will have to reject the urging of hon. Members to disclose that information, but I assure them, as I said, that they do not have long to wait.

New clause 16 seeks to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament that sets out

“a final deadline and operational roadmap for the full implementation”

of the commitments made in last year’s “Restoring control over the immigration system” White Paper. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling this new clause. The Government are committed to delivering the reforms set out in the White Paper, which focused on restoring control to this country’s migration system. The Conservative Government allowed net migration of 2.5 million in just four years; under this Government, net migration has been cut to 171,000. We are making substantial progress.

As we have discussed many times in this Committee, we are seeing a substantial decline—over 40%—in the numbers arriving by small boats. We are making progress towards our objectives in the White Paper. I have a spreadsheet in front of me of all of the substantial changes, many of which we have introduced and delivered through regulations, and I am happy to write to Committee members to set out our progress against the statement. We have achieved a huge amount that has perhaps passed their notice because it has been done through regulations and other things that they may not have been aware of. I am happy to set out our progress against the White Paper to them, because I can see from the information in front of me that we have delivered a huge amount of our promises and commitments.

We have made substantial progress across work, study and sponsorship routes. We have introduced skilled worker thresholds, the temporary shortage list and higher English language requirements for certain routes. We are reforming study routes and have strengthened the requirements that all sponsoring institutions must meet to recruit international students. I recognise that hon. Members may be particularly interested in our reforms to settlement. These are significant reforms. We received more than 200,000 responses to the consultation, including responses submitted on behalf of organisations. which was apparently the highest level of consultation responses since the consultation on gay marriage.

This will be a substantial and radical reform, so it is right that we take the time to get it right. Alongside the consultation, Ministers undertook targeted engagement with key stakeholders including We Belong and Barnardo’s, as well as trade unions, employers and other organisations representing those with lived experience and who may be affected by the changes. We have consulted widely and are carefully considering the responses. As I said, hon. Members do not have long to wait—I can reassure them on that front.

On the scrutiny that hon. Members have mentioned, sufficient mechanisms already exist to scrutinise our delivery in Parliament without requiring an additional statutory duty on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Requiring a final implementation timetable for every White Paper commitment would risk imposing artificial statutory deadlines on significant and complex reforms while detailed policy development, consultation and, where appropriate, independent advice are still being considered. I think it might set quite a suffocating and inflexible precedent for Whitehall and Government policy development and enactment if we were to put something like this in a Bill that could then apply to every single White Paper—that could have a lot of intended consequences.

We are determined to make progress and we are doing so, but speed should not come at the expense of getting these major reforms right. We will continue to keep both Houses updated as we deliver the remaining White Paper commitments. Ministers and officials will also continue to be accountable to parliamentary Select Committees. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that we support the spirit of his new clause and recognise the importance of transparency and scrutiny. However, an additional statutory duty is unnecessary. Again, I assure Members that they do not have long to wait; I urge them to contain their anticipation a little longer. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

It is welcome to hear that the spirit of the new clause is honoured and that the Conservative spokesperson has sympathy with it—I did not expect such praise for our fantastic work on this Committee. I appreciate the Minister’s outlining some of the steps. I am sure we will continue to have the conversation about when we shall hear that further timeline and when it might be announced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 17 - Cross-Governmental Integration Strategy

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy, as announced in the “Protecting What Matters” social cohesion plan, and to address in the strategy the impacts of the core protection model on integration. In June, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee noted

“with disappointment that no strategy for integration in England was written following the publication of Indicators for Integration.”

The Committee said:

“We welcome the commitment to develop an effective cross-government integration strategy but are concerned that the lack of date of publication means that the issue is being kicked into the long grass.”

It is necessary for the Government to offer greater clarity on their work to develop a cross-governmental strategy that assesses the impact on integration of the core protection model introduced by the Bill.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned that having to renew asylum status every two and a half years could jeopardise employment opportunities and be detrimental to the education and integration of asylum seekers. We need to ensure that the state allows those with a legitimate claim to be here the best possible chance to thrive. In particular, refugees are often especially vulnerable upon arrival. It is crucial that they are properly supported to recover, build a new life and become productive members of society as quickly as possible. The Home Office must work with local authorities and the charitable sector to provide refugees with robust support networks. New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy outlining the support that will be put in place for those who are most vulnerable. Can the Minister tell the Committee when the proposed and promised report will be published?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

The impact of the significant increase in asylum seekers coming to the UK has been profound. To be granted refugee status is essentially to receive the ability to live in this country forever; until very recently, a refugee’s family could expect the same. Many refugees remain unemployed several years after being granted protection, and depend on taxpayer-funded benefits to live in the UK.

We know that migration needs to be managed to support communities and cohesion. Where the pace of migration is too fast, it can make it harder to maintain community bonds and relationships. I know from the Committee’s discussions over the last couple of weeks that despite our different perspectives, all Committee members share the concern that public consent for the asylum and refugee system has fractured. It is urgent that we rebuild that, which is part of what the Bill does.

The November 2025 asylum policy statement set out a fair and firm approach to restoring order to the system, which is essential to rebuild community cohesion and consent. By increasing public confidence in the integrity of the asylum system, the reforms will help to build trust and reduce tensions within communities. At the same time, the reforms support successful integration for those granted protection, enabling them to contribute positively to society. Integration is a two-way street: we all have a role in providing opportunities for people to participate, and our newcomers have a responsibility to engage with and embrace what it means to be British. As part of the MHCLG integration strategy, the Government will listen to people’s concerns and reset how we talk about in integration and cohesion, ensuring that it is grounded in shared values and meaningful action. At the same time, we have to restore order and control in a system for which public consent is so fractured.

I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for tabling new clause 17, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy, as announced in the social cohesion action plan, “Protecting What Matters”, and to address the impacts of the core protection model on integration in that strategy. In “Protecting What Matters”, this Government publicly committed to a new approach to integration that is based on values and that considers existing communities and new arrivals. That includes commitments to set clear national integration expectations, and to develop an effective cross-Government integration strategy. The Government have already committed to developing that integration strategy, so requiring its publication under primary legislation is unnecessary.

The strategy, its scope and its content are still being developed, and its development is being led by MHCLG. The Home Office is working extremely closely with the MHCLG on the development of the strategy—including, crucially, on how it interacts with the new core protection model for refugees. The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked why we have not yet published anything, and that is partly why: it is important that we do not put the cart before the horse. Once we have published our new core protection model, that will help inform and support our cohesion strategy.

“Protecting What Matters” is a strategy underpinned by strong collaboration with local government and the voluntary and community sector to deliver a community-led approach to integration. As such, the content of the strategy should not be legislated for at this stage before meaningful engagement with communities has been conducted. Our approach to integration covers existing communities and new arrivals. Requiring the strategy to address a specific policy in primary legislation would prescribe part of its content before wider development and engagement are complete. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

This was a probing new clause. Although the Minister’s response has given me some comfort, I wish that we could have a backstop date for when the report will be published. Otherwise, there is a danger that it is promised but never comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 18 - Break Clause: Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

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

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise the break clause available under each asylum accommodation and support services contract as soon as possible.

The use of hotels is one of the most objectionable issues for many people in this country, as was mentioned earlier in today’s proceedings. Contingency hotel suppliers receive an average of £145 per person per night at the expense of the taxpayer—it is quite outrageous. Many hotel rooms have three or four asylum seekers in them, so providers make £500 or £600 per night for each room. The ballooning costs come because of Home Office inefficiencies in processing asylum cases and inadequacy in negotiating the initial contract. The Liberal Democrats want to temporarily open Nightingale processing centres and double the number of asylum case workers to clear the asylum application backlog. That would cost a fraction of the £2.1 billion spent on hotel accommodation in the year to March 2025.

The Home Office tells us and we have heard in today’s Committee that it is reducing dependence on hotels. However, its progress has been stalling of late. Recent data shows an 8% increase in hotel usage, undermining official claims that reliance on this accommodation is successfully being phased out. All that is against the backdrop that costs to the Home Office for asylum accommodation contracts are estimated to triple in the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, from less than £5 billion to more than £15 billion.

We have tabled new clause 18 to try to require the Secretary of State to exercise the break clause available under each asylum accommodation and support services contract. The power to terminate contracts without penalty is now exercisable and includes a nine-month notice period, so it will not come in overnight. Why does the Home Secretary not trigger this clause and begin moving asylum seekers immediately? Will the Minister clarify when the break clause will be exercised and how long British taxpayers will have to foot this unacceptably high Bill?

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

New clause 18 would require the Government to exercise the break clause in the asylum accommodation contract as soon as reasonably practicable. As we just heard, the public’s anger about hotels and their costs is entirely justified; £2.1 billion was spent on hotels in 2024-25 alone. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made the case for triggering the break clause, but breaking the contract does not by itself reduce the number of people who need accommodating. Demand must be reduced at source. Basically, fewer people in the system would mean fewer beds needed.

I know that the Government are planning to reduce dependency on hotels, but I ask the Minister: how many hotels are in use today? How many people are in them, and what is the daily cost? When will the last one close? Have the Government assessed the cost of exercising the break clause under new clause 18?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I appreciate the contributions from hon. Members on this important issue. New clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to exercise every available break clause in each asylum accommodation and support services contract as soon as reasonably practicable. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling the new clause.

The Government recognise the concerns about the current asylum accommodation system and are committed to securing better performance, better value for money and an accommodation model that works for communities and those who rely on it. However, a blanket statutory duty to exercise every break clause would not provide a responsible or sustainable route to reform. The Government have the contractual right to terminate the asylum accommodation and support services contracts. The seven regional contracts can be terminated on at least 270 days’ notice and that right may be exercised independently for individual contracts, allowing termination to be staged where appropriate. However, having the contractual right to terminate is not the same as having replacement accommodation immediately available at the scale required. The Government must retain the ability to consider service continuity, accommodation capacity, market readiness, value for money and the needs of residents and local communities before deciding whether and when to end any contract.

The contracts provide more than accommodation alone; they support housing, transport, food and facilities management for people in the asylum system. Terminating all seven contracts would not remove the underlying requirement to provide those services. The Department would still need a safe, lawful and deliverable replacement capable of operating at national scale. Serving termination notices prematurely would compress the time available to confirm the future, obtain commercial and legal approvals, procure and mobilise replacement services, transfer operational data and responsibilities, and manage the impact on local authorities and existing suppliers. It could also cut across our immediate priority of reducing reliance on more expensive hotel accommodation. Existing providers remain central to growing dispersed accommodation and supporting the transition away from hotels. Hon. Members have already referred to that transition; it was a key manifesto commitment of this Government. It has already saved the taxpayer over £1 billion.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

One problem is that under the contracts the providers are incentivised to spend money. They have no great incentive to move out of hotels because they make so much more money from hotels. That is why we really need to focus their minds, and the Home Office’s mind, on getting out of those hotels. I fear that just leaving it to the providers to find other forms of dispersal accommodation will not really encourage them enough to get out of contingency accommodation from which they make so much more money.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said, it is our manifesto commitment and I do not think that there is anyone in this Committee Room—or probably in this square mile—who spends as much time as I do each day desperately pushing and pressing to close hotels around the country. Every day hon. Members tell me about the challenges that their hotel poses to community cohesion, and about the quality and the expense of the accommodation. To us that is a key manifesto pledge.

I will respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. We have said that we will be out of all hotels by the end of this Parliament. We remain absolutely on course for that. We are now at a level of 160 hotels, which is almost half the amount that we inherited. I cannot give the Committee the exact number of individuals in hotels—I do not have that to hand—but I am again happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. Rest assured, we will be out of all hotels by the end of this Parliament. We are on track to deliver that. Every day, we strain every sinew to make that happen. That does of course mean working with other providers of dispersal accommodation, but we are very clear in our engagements with those providers that value for money, community cohesion and other aspects are important.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned standards and current contracts. We are not complacent about that at all. We can and regularly do challenge performance. We can enforce contractual standards and consider different future delivery models without accepting a blanket legal duty to terminate every contract. We are able to do all that within the existing framework. The issue for us is how to secure sustainable reform to the broader asylum accommodation process while protecting continuity and value for money.

Ending the contracts without replacement provision ready to mobilise would disrupt essential accommodation and support, create avoidable cost and place additional pressures on local authorities and other partners. The new clause does not set out how those risks would be managed. Decisions on break clauses should be taken on the evidence and in the public interest, alongside work to improve the current service and develop future arrangements. The Government can pursue reform, stronger performance and different future delivery models through commercial and policy decisions without a statutory requirement to terminate every contract through its break clause.

The Department is reviewing and improving the existing arrangements while developing the future model for asylum accommodation and support. Future contracts will focus on value for money, transparency and pricing. I reiterate to all colleagues that the Government are absolutely committed to restoring order and control in the entirety of the asylum system. Ending small boats arrivals, introducing safe and legal routes and all this reform will allow us to have a far more managed, controlled and sustainable approach to the asylum accommodation system, which in recent years has exploded and been completely out of control. That will enable us to restore the confidence and consent of the British people. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.

Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat, Wimbledon)

I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment or how hard the task is. The new clause was a probing amendment. I would only say in passing that when the new contracts are negotiated, please do not offer the private sector cost-plus contracts, which just encourage them to spend money. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 19 - Humanitarian travel permit

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

New clause 19 would create a new humanitarian travel permit that would see free entry clearance for people with a protection claim with a realistic prospect of success treated as a protection claim on arrival. The Liberal Democrats want to see the creation of a new humanitarian travel permit that would allow asylum seekers to travel to the UK safely to proceed with their claims.

The reason for tabling this new clause is to establish from the Minister that the purpose of the new safe routes that have been announced and the UK resettlement scheme, which reopened in September 2026, is to prioritise vulnerable refugees. One in four referrals designated through that are Afghan women and girls fleeing the Taliban and Palestinian refugees from Gaza. If there is no need for this new clause, what are those existing routes going to do? What capacity will they have? How are they going to proceed? When should we expect to hear more on them? What proportion of refugees are expected to be of each nationality? Are the figures I just mentioned roughly correct estimates? What work has been done with in-country partners? Should she satisfy all those questions, I might be minded not to press the point.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

New clause 19 would create what is sometimes called, as the hon. Member just called it, a humanitarian travel permit: a free visa with at least six months’ leave for anyone, anywhere in the world, who intends to claim asylum in the UK and has a realistic prospect of success. That would potentially open up access a huge number of claimants and we oppose it.

The new clause would create an uncapped route to come here to claim asylum with no limit on the numbers and no fee. The judgment of a “realistic prospect of success” would itself generate applications, reviews and litigation. Safe and legal routes should be decided by Parliament, capped, and targeted at those we choose to help. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will not introduce such a scheme.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I thank hon. Members for their important points and questions. I may be able to come back to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough with some more information in future. His new clause would create a new humanitarian travel permit. To reiterate, as we have many times in this Committee, the UK has a proud history of offering protection to those who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution. In recent years, this has included the operation of the Ukraine schemes and other UK resettlement schemes. The immigration rules do not provide for someone to travel to the UK to seek asylum.

We appreciate that there are people in many difficult situations around the world for whom travel to the UK would be difficult or impossible and we sympathise with them. However, we cannot consider asylum claims from the vast numbers overseas who might like to come here. According to the UNHCR, there are 35.6 million refugees and other people in need of international protection, so I ask the hon. Gentleman how many he thinks would like to come to this country—I think would be a pretty substantial number. The fastest route to safety is claiming asylum in the first safe country that can be reached, and that is a principle that we support.

The Bill is part of the Government’s policy to restore order and control to our immigration and asylum systems. We will do this by reforming the system to ensure that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly. That means strengthening the border and protecting migrants from the systematic abuse that has caused so much damage. We will ensure that the rules are properly enforced.

In order to restore control in the system, it is also imperative that we make the system fairer by providing alternative routes to dangerous journeys. That is why we are restarting referrals to the UK resettlement scheme and launching new safe and legal routes to enable communities, universities and employers to sponsor refugees to resettle in the UK. As I have said, more detail on that will come shortly, and I refer Members to a written statement that I have placed in the House this afternoon, so that they can avail themselves of it. I am happy to discuss the matter further.

About one in four referrals to the UK resettlement scheme will be for Afghan women and girls and Palestinian refugees fleeing war and persecution. This will be carried out in partnership with the United Nations refugee agency—the UNHCR, which is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—and the International Refugee Assistance Project, IRAP, which identifies and refers refugees through established processes. The scheme builds on the UK’s long history of protecting people fleeing war and persecution. That includes refugees from the Syrian civil war, the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and historical commitments to the people of Hong Kong.

The Government expect total arrivals across the UK resettlement scheme and the three new community sponsorship routes to number in the hundreds at first, but that will grow into the low thousands as levels of illegal migration fall. A cap will be set each year. Those who come to Britain on these routes will be placed on a five-year path to permanent settlement. This is, by design, more generous than provision for those who arrive by small boat or other illegal means, as the Government seek to disincentivise illegal routes and encourage capped, safe and legal routes instead. It forms part of the Government’s efforts to restore order and control to the immigration system.

I now turn to the provision that would enable biometrics to be waived. Collection of biometric data in the form of fingerprints and facial images is essential to the UK immigration system in order to support identity assurance and suitability checks on those subject to immigration control. They enable effective checks to be made against immigration and criminality records in order to identify those who may pose a threat to our national security, public safety and immigration controls, and who are likely to breach our laws should they enter the UK.

For the reasons set out, I cannot support a new clause that is so vast in scope and would undermine our efforts to restore order and control to the immigration and asylum systems. An uncapped route would add significant pressures for our decision makers and increase the cost of running our accommodation and support systems, as well as the justice system. The ability of local authorities and other services to support refugees is already under strain, and this uncontrollable scheme would only increase that pressure. The proposed scheme would quickly overwhelm the asylum system and its associated support services, requiring us to redistribute limited resources in order to support it. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw his new clause.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I thank the Minister for providing some more clarity. Again we look forward, with bated breath, to further announcements as and when they come, and again I press her to expedite that as much as she can.

I will push back a little. One thing that I have been really proud to see, when there are humanitarian disasters such as war and famine, is that the UK is open and tolerant and wants to have a fair and safe system. Under the last Government, we saw some of the safe and legal routes in third party countries closed down, which has facilitated the need for people to come by small boat or enabled people to be exploited by such routes.

I again press the Minister to convey to her colleagues in the other place the need to look at what more we can do for the legitimate people who are fleeing war, famine and other horrendous situations, such as crimes of genocide or war crimes. We need to look at how we ensure that we do not, because of an arbitrary cap, stop those people who might not have any other connections, countries or routes available to them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 20 - Resourcing for law enforcement agencies

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

New clause 20 would ensure that the NCA, police forces and the British Transport police had resources for modern slavery duties, including Europol anti-trafficking operations. It would ensure that there was funding for the existing enforcement architecture to work. The Bill gives police new orders in clauses 25 to 34, but the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told the Committee that there is no “dedicated funding” for police modern slavery teams and that the current strategy

“is over 10 years out of date.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 7, Q6.]

I invite the Minister to reflect on that and talk about how to ensure, with the obligations in the Bill, that we can better tackle the gangs that have facilitated some of these horrendous crimes and make sure that people who have been brought here have the resources from the Government to help them in those instances.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for tabling his new clause and raising this important issue. New clause 20

“would require the Secretary of State to ensure that law enforcement agencies have sufficient resources to undertake their duties in relation to the prevention of modern slavery and human trafficking”.

We share hon. Members’ commitment to ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice. The modern slavery programme was established in 2017 as a transformation programme. At that time, it was an interim measure; we were keen to see, and are now seeing, the longer-term intention of embedding modern slavery expertise and best practice in our policing as part of its core duties and business as usual. That has been an instrument in improving law enforcement response to modern slavery, and there are more investigations and prosecutions now than when the programme began. The Department will continue to work with police forces across England and Wales to support a strong, co-ordinated approach to identifying, disrupting and tackling modern slavery.

As this Committee has discussed many times, the clauses relating to modern slavery are inherently complex to investigate and prosecute. Victims often may not recognise themselves as victims, or may be too traumatised, fearful of their exploiters or distrustful of authorities to engage with the criminal justice process. That is why support is available to victims, including through the independent child trafficking guardianship service, which helps child victims to navigate the criminal justice system and supports efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. We are also strengthening the tools available to law enforcement.

Through this Bill, we are enhancing and strengthening the slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. We have also created new offences of child criminal exploitation, cuckooing and internal concealment. These measures ensure that police and the courts have a full suite of powers to disrupt offending and hold perpetrators to account. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has developed a new framework for investigating modern slavery, which includes a suite of products to guide forces to identify and tackle these crimes.

The framework provides a nationally consistent investigative framework to sustain progress and support forces in delivering a strong, evidence-based response to modern slavery. The framework and related guidance material are available to all officers in England and Wales through an online knowledge hub and have been incorporated into the College of Policing’s applied professional practice on modern slavery. That will ensure that policing retains a nationally consistent standard for modern slavery investigations. That also includes a Power app for policing, which has been developed for use on police-issued devices to provide officers with practical, accessible guidance on identifying potential signs of exploitation at the earliest opportunity, as well as information on making appropriate referrals to the NRM, which is helping to support a consistent and victim-centred response.

Between February 2021 and June 2024, some 620 police officers attended the modern slavery and human trafficking officer training course, and many are continuing their own training. That is College of Policing-accredited, so it can be delivered where needed. Law enforcement agencies receive funding through established mechanisms including the annual police funding settlement for police forces in England and Wales, the police precept and dedicated funding arrangements for the National Crime Agency.

The Government already keep policing and operational capacity under review and make funding decisions through the spending review and annual funding process. In the light of what I have set out, we do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure “sufficient resources”, as that is par for the course and expected of every Secretary of State.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

We had the Budget yesterday. Having quickly skimmed through those documents, there was little in the way of additional resources for the agencies listed. One of my concerns is that, while the Chancellor announced the devolution of further funding to mayoral areas, obviously not every area of the country will be impacted equally by gangs coming here in small boats. If that funding and those powers are passed locally, what further support will the Minister give from central Government to make sure that we do not end up with a patchwork across the south coast?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The Government are very proud of our efforts on devolution, but I am not aware of funding relating to the Home Office being devolved in this area. I will have to pick the matter up with him separately, because I am not sure that what he is referring to would apply here. The funding settlement will continue to be decided nationally. Perhaps we can pick the matter up outside the Committee, but I do not think that is the case.

In the light of what I have set out, we do not consider it necessary to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure “sufficient resources”, as this would be unnecessary and duplicate existing responsibilities. The UK is represented at Europol and in the European multidisciplinary platform against criminal threats, and participates in relevant operational taskforce initiatives, joint action days and operational actions to tackle modern slavery.

We will continue to work closely with the new National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for modern slavery, the National Crime Agency, and police forces across England and Wales to support a strong, co-ordinated approach to ensuring that modern slavery is effectively identified, disrupted and tackled. For those reasons, the Government cannot support the new clause, and I invite the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 21 - Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

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

The new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation that would ensure that the UK is compliant with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and subsequently report on the UK’s compliance with the convention. I hope that is not overly contentious, given that we should seek to maintain our compliance with organisations such as the Council of Europe.

The UK ratified ECAT in December 2008 and it came into force in 2009. It was the first treaty to put survivor protection at its centre, with binding standards on identification, support, recovery and prosecution. It has never been fully incorporated into primary legislation, so protections can be narrowed administratively without proper scrutiny, which concerns us. Compliance is monitored by the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings, whose fourth report to the UK found that referrals under the national referral mechanism rose from 12,687 in 2021 to 17,000 in the first nine months of 2025. The group commended faster identification and stronger enforcement, but found ongoing gaps in victim protection and legal support.

This is about not just foreign nationals but British people, the most common nationality referred. Labour exploitation was found to be the main reason for referral, while for children it was criminal exploitation, notably county lines, so the new clause would have a wider purpose. I have previously made the point to the Minister that if we are not compliant with the convention, it will open us up to legal challenges down the line, which we would not want the Bill to do, for the sake of the country. I invite the Minister to comment on that and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

The new clause would require legislation within six months to secure full compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and we oppose it.

The shadow Attorney General conducted a review for our party and concluded that withdrawing from the trafficking convention and amending the Modern Slavery Act would be prudent, because modern slavery claims—sometimes genuine, but too often not—have become one of the main ways of delaying removal and deportation, including of foreign criminals.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Part 5 of the Bill, which we support, tries to correct some of the ways the system has been stretched. New clause 21 would undo that by entrenching the convention more deeply into our domestic laws. It would make it harder, not easier, to remove people with no right to be here.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

New clause 21 sets out a requirement to introduce legislation within six months of Royal Assent to ensure the United Kingdom’s compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, known as ECAT, and, within 18 months, the laying of a report before Parliament setting out the steps taken and whether full compliance has been achieved. I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for tabling it.

This country has a long, proud history of meeting its international obligations. ECAT has played an important role in shaping the UK’s approach to identifying and supporting victims of trafficking and modern slavery. I put on the record that the Government are confident that the Bill and the UK’s system for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and human trafficking—the national referral mechanism—is fully compliant with ECAT.

There are established processes in place that ensure consideration of compliance with our international obligations any time that new legislation is contemplated. The Bill reaffirms our commitment to the treaty and strengthens the modern slavery system, providing greater clarity to the obligations. The UK’s compliance is also assessed by the Council of Europe’s group of experts against trafficking in human beings. We also hold tier 1 status in the US “Trafficking in Persons” report, reflecting the fact that we continue to meet the highest international standards. Given those points, the requirements that would be imposed by the new clause are unnecessary; they would divert work into unnecessary reporting and would not add anything to the current system.

As I have mentioned, we continue to work with international bodies to enhance the Government’s approach to tackling modern slavery. That includes working with the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings—GRETA—with the US’s “Trafficking in Persons” report, and with the UN alliance.

As mentioned in previous debates, we refer more people to modern slavery protection than the rest of Europe put together, so we are already in a strong position and do not need to restrict ourselves through a full replication of ECAT. Many ECAT signatories do not have a stand-alone, bespoke and comprehensive NRM similar to the UK. Other ECAT signatories identify and support far fewer victims than the UK. According to the 2025 US “Trafficking in Persons” report, France identified 362 human trafficking victims compared with the 16,938 referrals made by the UK in 2022. I therefore cannot accept the new clause and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough.

Tom Gordon (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough)

I thank the Minister for her comments. The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said that far too often people come here when they do not have a claim, but he did not back that up with statistics. I attempted to intervene on him to ask whether he had the statistics to hand to provide evidence for that claim, which would have been helpful. However, I am satisfied with the Minister’s response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 23 - Safe reporting for victims of and witnesses to crime and exploitation

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

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

I have worked on new clause 23 with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and a wide coalition of groups that support victims, survivors and refugees, who have long wanted to see the introduction of protections for safe reporting. That is what the new clause would do.

My new clause is a wider safe reporting amendment than new clause 15, which Lib Dems colleagues spoke to earlier. It would solve a number of important problems because migrant victims of many crimes, not just modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation, but also domestic abuse and many kinds of violence against women and girls, avoid reporting them due to the fear of the police sharing their data with immigration authorities. This problem limits and deters access to other statutory services for victims and survivors, including to GPs and social services. That needs looking at.

We know that perpetrators and exploiters weaponise immigration status and immigration policy as a tool for coercive control, deterring reporting. Victims with insecure immigration status already fear the police will not support them, so when data sharing occurs, the fear is reinforced, which further harms trust in the police and compromises the rights set out in the victims code. Statutory independent watchdogs say that police data sharing causes significant public harm. It also obstructs the police’s own wider efforts to tackle modern slavery and violence against women and girls, if people do not report it. It increases the risk to all women and girls if perpetrators are left in the community.

As we have discussed, the Bill already creates new fears that people may be targeted for immigration enforcement and increases the fear that people will not be treated fairly. We need to do something to mitigate the weakening of the protections for victims of abuse and exploitation in the Bill; now is the ideal time to introduce the safe reporting provision outlined in new clause 23.

The principle at stake here is that no one should have to choose between remaining in an abusive or exploitative situation and risking immigration enforcement by seeking safety and support. It is important to note that a safe reporting mechanism—a firewall between authorities—is not an amnesty. It is not an immigration route in itself; it is simply an extension of people’s privacy rights. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that reporting crime and seeking protection do not, in and of themselves, trigger immigration enforcement.

The police should not have to be involved in this work. Earlier, we discussed the separation of duties that needs to happen within the Home Office, and the sharing of data that occurs is a symptom of the mixing-up of security and immigration policy that currently happens in too many ways in the Home Office. The police should be able to focus on their job of investigating serious crime, protecting public safety and protecting victims of crime; immigration enforcement should be completely separate. As such, my new clause would introduce a firewall within the Department—a separation between the police and other statutory services and immigration enforcement, so that migrant victims can safely report crimes against them.

There are successful international examples of safe reporting mechanisms, such as in Spain and Belgium. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has also recently implemented a safe reporting mechanism. Victims in England and Wales should receive the same level of protection. If victims do not report crimes, the police may lose access to evidence, intelligence and opportunities to protect victims and investigate perpetrators. Furthermore, it creates an environment in which the perpetrators of serious crimes feel they can act with impunity and continue their abuse.

With a firewall such as the one in my new clause in place, the police would still be able to investigate crimes, protect the public and ensure that victims can come forward safely. It would enable them to build trust with communities and focus on their main job. That is one reason why safe reporting mechanisms have been supported for a long time by specialist violence against women and girls, anti-trafficking and migrant organisations. It is also one reason why the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy admits:

“We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future”,

and promises that

“this Government will introduce a requirement for police to seek a domestic abuse victim’s consent before sharing their information with Immigration Enforcement.”

That is some progress, but the proposed consent-based model set out in that strategy will not work in practice to prevent migrant victims. It is limited to domestic abuse alone and does not cover the wider crimes associated with uncertain migration status, and it fails to recognise the power imbalance, lack of clarity and lack of safeguards that would come with what has been promised.

We need wider safe reporting protection for these kinds of victims, and I hope the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they will listen to the groups that asked me to table the new clause, and could help to tell Ministers the real impact of the policy on the victims and survivors they represent. I hope the Government will also talk among themselves—that they will talk to everybody involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, who can hopefully persuade the Home Office to relent on this matter.

Blake Stephenson (Conservative, Mid Bedfordshire)

Again, I will attempt to be brief. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, new clause 23 would build a legal firewall so that personal information about victims, witnesses and people who report crime cannot be used for immigration purposes. To achieve our ambitions of removing 150,000 people a year who have no right to be here, the Home Office needs to know who and where they are. The police are one of the most important sources of that information. A blanket firewall, as has been described, would cut it off and apply whoever the person is and whatever their history.

I understand concerns that victims may be afraid to come forward, as described eloquently by the hon. Member, but the police already have discretion and they should use it sensibly. A statutory bar on sharing information would make the immigration system wilfully blind, and I ask Ministers to resist the new clause.

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clause 23. The Government understand that migrant victims of crime can be especially vulnerable. It is vital that victims and witnesses feel safe to come forward to the police so that perpetrators can be identified, victims safeguarded and future offending prevented.

I want to say briefly that I really do refute the idea that the Bill weakens protections for victims of modern slavery. There are so many measures in the Bill to strengthen them in order to protect victims, but we must also protect the system from the abuse of those who exploit it to prevent removal. I wanted to clarify that up front.

We need to ensure we maintain a fair and robust immigration system that can effectively seek to remove those with no permission to be in the UK. I cannot, and I do not think the public would expect us to, separate immigration enforcement from security and crime enforcement. I am afraid the two things are, in reality, interlinked. Information sharing is essential is to ensure agencies have access to welfare and safeguarding information.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

The Minister says that solving crimes and immigration are linked, but the way they are linked in the logic of the new clause and in the logic of current data sharing means—I think the police would agree—that immigration threats hamper crime investigation. Does the Minister not see that?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

Conversely, I would say that we need law enforcement individuals to be able to understand vulnerabilities in modern slavery, so it works both ways. It is important that those agencies have the access to welfare and safeguarding information to enable them to fulfil their duty of care as much as anything, while also undertaking their key immigration enforcement and law enforcement roles. They need to prevent those who present harm to the public from being able to avoid removal—that is fundamental.

We are keen to encourage migrant victims who are subjected to significant harm to be able to come forward, irrespective of their status. That is why “Freedom from Violence and Abuse: A cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls” set out our ambition to introduce a requirement for police to seek a victim’s agreement before sharing their information with immigration enforcement in domestic abuse cases. We know that perpetrators of domestic abuse often exploit a victim’s immigration status as a tool of coercion and control, thereby discouraging them from reporting abuse or seeking help.

Our policy seeks to reduce barriers to reporting for migrant victims of domestic abuse by requiring the victim’s agreement before any information is shared. It aims to give victims greater confidence to come forward and engage with the police, recognising that concerns about potential immigration consequences can deter victims. However, unlike the new clause, it also recognises the important role played by information sharing, which can support safeguarding, inform risk assessments, help victims to understand their immigration status, and assist the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators—which I am sure victims would also want to see—including, where appropriate, their removal from the UK.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

Another key part of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is that it offers protection only to victims. Will the Government look again at considering the inclusion of witnesses as well?

Anna Turley (Labour/Co-operative, Redcar)

Witnesses are vital to our being able to enforce the law and ensure that perpetrators come to justice. I am not an expert on the violence against women and girls strategy, but I am happy to have a discussion with the hon. Lady outside the Committee.

The new clause also risks undermining our immigration system. It is unclear how far the protection for victims and witnesses would extend. For example, it could allow individuals to avoid information sharing by claiming to be a victim of crime, thereby creating unintended consequences and making it harder to take action against those who may pose a risk to the public. Our “requirement for agreement” model for victims of domestic abuse will not prevent data sharing where the individual is identified as an offender in another criminal investigation, allowing officers to use professional judgment to decide whether data should be shared.

The new clause would also apply to any offence, not just offences relating to abuse and modern slavery, which would make the block on data sharing extremely easy to abuse in order to avoid immigration enforcement. Far from protecting victims of crime, it would mean that immigration authorities may be unaware that an individual is a victim of or witness to crime, and therefore they would be unable to identify support needs, take account of their involvement in criminal proceedings or consider whether they should be referred or signposted to an appropriate immigration route.

The new clause would also limit the ability of immigration authorities to investigate immigration offences or take action, including deportation, against individuals who pose a significant risk of harm in the UK. It would also severely limit the identification and investigation of modern slavery. The extremely wide casting of the new clause to prevent any party from sharing information from anyone involved in any criminal proceedings means that it would be extremely easy to abuse to avoid enforcement action.

For the reasons I have set out, the new clause is unnecessary and risks undermining the balanced approach that we are working hard to achieve. I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Siân Berry (Green, Brighton Pavilion)

I thank the Minister for her answers. I do not think she has really dealt with the issues at hand, particularly in respect of witnesses and the idea that the provision would be a one-way firewall and therefore not open to any kind of abuse. However, I am happy to withdraw the new clause and continue the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 24 - Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months