Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for securing this debate, which has been very interesting. Colleagues have spoken with real passion and purpose, which reflects how strongly they and their constituents feel about the UK being a nation that is able to provide people with sanctuary, treating them with dignity and ensuring a fair balance so that we can sustain our obligations in the long term. That has been a theme throughout the debate. She and colleagues raised many points, which I will seek to cover shortly. I just want to set out where we are starting from today and perhaps demonstrate the objectives of the reforms that we are pushing.

I think it is a point of consensus that the system we inherited in 2024 was a broken one. Reflecting on that any further in the time available is probably undesirable, but it is understood. It is an expensive system and, for the individuals in it, not a good one. It helped and pleased nobody, so fixing it is a top priority for us. That is why we have doubled the rate of decision making, which has resulted in a record high number of decisions. We have already reduced the number of people awaiting initial decision by 39% in the last year alone.

Hotels are a very visible sign of failure. We have reduced the cost of those by some £500 million, and £1 billion overall has been taken out of the system in the process of improving it. That is really crucial for public confidence. Parliament recently passed the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which will give us more tools to make sure our border is strengthened, improving our asylum and immigration system. In the last 12 months alone we have removed 37,000 people who have no right to be here, including 5,000 foreign offenders. That degree of pace shows our intent, but this is a big piece of work. We still live with the signs of failure, which is why last month we published “Restoring Order and Control”, our blueprint for the asylum system.

I will talk about that in due course, but in simple terms, the heart of the plan is to do what the public expect, which is to reduce the number of those coming here illegally and increase the removal of those who have no right to be here. That is vital for public confidence and the only way to have a fair, effective and functioning system that maintains our long and proud tradition of helping those fleeing peril.

A theme of the hon. Member’s contribution was a fear that in our plans the Government are insufficiently reflecting on protected characteristics. I know that she will need to see in concrete terms that our policies pass her test, but I think she will find that they do. There is no system of Government more concerned, at its root, with protected characteristics than this one; it is the whole point of assessing someone’s claim for asylum.

The hon. Member said that I might not be able to give her the assurances she sought on safe countries. I can, actually, in the sense that an individual’s case will always be assessed on its individual merits. Syria, which colleagues have mentioned, is a good example: the grant rate in relation to Syria has gone from about 90% to about 10% because of significant and profound changes there. Nevertheless, a country changing from unsafe to safe will not mean that a blanket decision is made about a collective group of people and their claims. Every claim, and any reassessment of a claim, will be based on the individual’s circumstances. I am aware, as a white and probably now middle-aged cisgender heterosexual man, that parts of the world might be safe for me but would not be safe for a colleague who might look, sound and be like me in every way except for, say, their sexuality. The system will always have that at its heart.

The hon. Member is right to remind us that the Home Office is very much within the scope of the public sector equality duty. We are very mindful of that, and it is considered throughout the policymaking process. We will always comply with that duty; similarly, we will always comply with our responsibilities with regard to equality impact assessments. As we bring forward the concrete policies that sit within the frame of “Restoring Order and Control”, colleagues will have access to that information so that they can be part of Parliament’s crucial role of scrutinising the plans of the Government of the day.

The point about appeals is really important. Many colleagues have talked about effective and swift decision making, of which appeals are a big part. At the moment, the average wait is about 54 weeks. As is to be expected, as we have rapidly increased the initial decision making, more stress is being created in the appeals system because there are more cases in which decisions are being appealed. Our intent, in the policy package that we set out, is to have the most streamlined system possible.

As a trade unionist who has sat countless times with members and helped them with their issues at work, I know that the fullest statement of case as early as possible is always in their interests, because that is the best way to get the treatment that they are afforded under the law. I accept the hon. Member’s point that that is sometimes hard for an individual; if the basis of a claim relates to sexuality, say, that is a very individual journey in respect of what someone is or is not comfortable saying.

The challenge, which I hope the hon. Member accepts, is that we can only make assessments based on the information in front of us. We cannot foresee future disclosures. As a result, we have a system in which a lot of extra information appears later in the process. I accept that there can be good reasons for that, but there is a danger that the system may be gamed with the constant addition of new material. It is about trying to find the balance whereby we get the fullest information as early as possible, but an individual has opportunities to disclose later in the process.

I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Member and other colleagues have made about work. We know—not least because we see it in the marketing materials of the traffickers—that the sense that people can work illegally in Britain is already a significant factor in people finding it an attractive country to come to illegally. Simply allowing that would only turbocharge it, so that is not something that we plan to do.

The hon. Member and others also made an important point about core protection status. I will return to that point once I have dealt with some other issues raised.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a characteristically thoughtful contribution. I always listen to what he says about the issue, because I know that he and his community are at the sharp end of it. He speaks with a lot of experience, informed by the experience both of the individuals who come to this country and of the communities who live with the impact, so I listened very carefully. He said that he wants a system with safer routes, faster processing and better integration. Actually, we can have that system. The ability to have that system, with safe and legal routes and community sponsorship, is there in the policy document—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made thoughtful remarks about that, to which I will return shortly—but I say gently to my right hon. Friend that we cannot have one without the other.

We have to be intolerant on dangerous journeys across continents and across channels for children. The right number for that is nil. The right number of children in hotels is nil. The one thing missing from this debate—

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Alex Norris]

I will take an intervention from my right hon. Friend before I go off on a tangent.

[John McDonnell]

It is nice to be buttered up, but that usually means that the Minister is ignoring me. On safer routes, the Government have put forward sponsored routes. Those are different from some of the proposals put forward by the PCS and others for specific visa routes, but we can debate the detail of that.

One issue that I did not raise, because I got an answer from the Secretary of State, was the detention of children. I gave the example of how I used to visit Harmondsworth to see children there, which was distressing, and the Secretary of State gave an assurance that there would be no detention of children. There needs to be more clarity on the removal of families in particular and on how that process will be dealt with. That was happening under the previous Government, and at one point it drifted into the detention of children for long periods.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the Minister that Kirsty Blackman needs time to conclude the debate.

[Alex Norris]

Thank you, Dr Huq. I have a lot of things to say today, but I am basically not going to say any of them. I will try to respond instead to what colleagues have said, because I think it makes for a more interesting debate.

There are no children in detention. We have no intention to detain children. I take pelters in the main Chamber when I say what I am about to say, which is that the best level for voluntary returns is 100%. I would happily have every return be voluntary, and that is particularly true in the case of families—that is why we are seeking to improve the support for that—but detention is not in our plans. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend a degree of assurance.

What I am most surprised not to have heard in this debate is that the people who have the most agency in our system at the moment are human traffickers. The worst people on the planet—the people who have the most callous indifference to harm, the people who will exploit any pain to monetise it—have the most agency over who comes to this country. We should be really angry about that, and we should be resolute in changing it. Of course our important work around organised crime and the provisions in the Act will help us in that regard, but we have to change the demand. That is at the root of the changes to the protection model, which I will come to momentarily.

The hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) made a point about the 20-year period. I will come back to that point, because my carriage is going to turn into a pumpkin shortly.

The hon. Member for Strangford made an interesting contribution about the experience of people in Newtownards. I know only a little about Newtownards, mostly from our conversations about it, but I know that it is not that dissimilar to my community, and that it can therefore be at the crunchy end of the immigration conversation. What he points out is exactly the same for my community. When the schemes were ordered and controlled—be that the Syria scheme, as in his example; Afghan resettlement, which other colleagues have mentioned; Homes for Ukraine, as the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) said; or the Hong Kong BNO scheme—my community leaned into them because they were confident that we knew which people were coming and that they needed our protection. They stepped up.

We want to capture that spirit outside individual country circumstances, because there are other people around the world who would benefit from such protection. I think my community will step up to that, but they will not do that while they feel that the people with the greatest agency are human traffickers and there is a lack of control over who comes and crosses our borders. I think that that is right, which is why I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and to colleagues that we cannot have one without the other.

We cannot have a new, orderly, humane, dignified system with safe and legal routes and maintain public confidence if we are not willing to say that we have zero acceptance of people coming through trafficking routes and across the channel on dangerous journeys, and that the right number for that is nil. That informs our point around protection in “Restoring Order and Control”.

The 20-year route is for a person who comes to this country illegally and then chooses not to learn the language and not to work or contribute. We want everybody to switch out of that core offer and on to a protected work and study route. If people learn the language, work or contribute, they will be able to earn a reduction in that period to 11 years. Moreover, if they enter the system through safe and legal means, their starting point is 10 years, and they can earn a reduction to five years. Those numbers are not coincidental. At all points, the goal is to dissuade people from making dangerous irregular journeys and instead ensure that doing the right thing—whether that is contributing in-country or coming via regular means—is always in their best interests.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the Minister give way?

[Alex Norris]

I am happy to give way, but I remind the hon. Lady that we are very short on time.

[Carla Denyer]

I just want to inquire exactly what the Minister meant when he spoke about those who “choose” not to contribute. How does that relate to disabled people, for example, who the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised in her opening speech?

[Alex Norris]

That is a really important point, which I was coming to. There will be cases in which, whether because of the nature of the trauma that people have suffered on their journey or because of other issues such as disability, they are not able to work in those ways. There are other ways to contribute, and that is reflected in our earned settlement consultation, which is ongoing. That will look at how to do that right, but of course there will be protection for people in those cases.

What I cannot agree with in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North is that because some people will struggle to make that contribution and will need a different type of support within the system, nobody should therefore have to contribute. Under the system we have at the moment, no matter what someone does, they can come to this country and get protection. No matter whether they break the law or sit at home instead of going to work or learning the language, they are treated exactly the same as someone who goes to work, learns the language and integrates into their community. I do not think that is right. I accept that that may well be a point of difference, but I do not believe that it is right.

I hope that what hon. Members have heard from me today, and from the Home Secretary when she introduced this package, is that individual policies will come forward, with all the equality impact data that colleagues would expect, but that there is time and space to shape it. If we had published our final policy position some four weeks ago when the Home Secretary stood up, colleagues would rightly have said, “Who did you talk to? Why did you not have people helping to craft it who are experts by experience, or organisations that work with them?” It is slightly challenging to have people say, “There’s not enough detail here.” That is the whole point of developing policy and seeking to work with people in doing so. It is right that we have set our framing for what we are seeking to achieve, but we will have those conversations in this place and I will be very happy to engage with any and all colleagues who are interested in telling us how they feel about the issue.

I hope that I have given a degree of comfort to colleagues on some points. There is a lot more to do, and I have no doubt that we will have many more opportunities to discuss it. I will always do so with the fullest candour.