Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

16:53

Moved by

[Lord Hanson of Flint]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 March be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, these instruments—the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026—were laid before the House on 5 March 2026. They relate to the Government’s stance that asylum support should be provided in a manner which is fair and only where it is genuinely justified.

These instruments are a key element of our sweeping reforms to create a fairer, more accountable system, one that protects support for those who genuinely need it while encouraging compliance and deterring misuse. Noble Lords might be interested in the fact that, as of December, there were 107,003 individuals in receipt of asylum support, with 30,657 in around 200 asylum hotels. In the financial year 2024-25, a total of £4 billion was spent on asylum support in the United Kingdom.

The Government inherited that situation and have to try to look at how we can reduce overall asylum costs. The Government have already reduced overall asylum support costs by 15% over that period, and we must continue to look at how we can make further reductions in the cost to the taxpayer.

One of the instruments before the House today removes the duty to provide asylum support, reverting to the discretionary power set out in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This reinforces our ability to make case-by-case decisions and gives the Government greater flexibility in how we assess and distribute asylum support. It also allows us to take firmer action against those who do not comply with the rules.

For example, removing Regulation 5 allows us to withhold support from individuals who have permission to work and therefore should be supporting themselves. This includes those who entered the UK on work or student visas after explicitly confirming, as part of their visa application, that they had sufficient funds to meet their living costs for the duration of their stay. It is not acceptable for individuals to make such declarations in order to secure entry and then subsequently claim asylum and move on to taxpayer-funded support.

The same principle applies to those granted permission to work where their asylum claim has been pending for more than 12 months through no fault of their own. Where a person has the legal ability to earn and maintain themselves, it is only right that they do so. Reinstating this discretionary power also enables us to deny support to those who have intentionally made themselves destitute in an attempt to access the system. This is essential to protecting the integrity of our approach and ensuring that support is reserved for those who genuinely need it.

The other instrument we are debating today focuses on illegal working and makes doing so an explicit reason to discontinue an individual’s asylum support. Previously, where an individual was suspected of working illegally, this had to be investigated as fraud or concealment of funds to establish that they were no longer destitute. By setting out clearly in legislation that illegal working is itself a breach of asylum support conditions, we create a direct and transparent mechanism to discontinue support, without the need for protracted fraud investigations.

Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.

Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.

Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.

Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.

This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, I see some of the same noble Lords in their places for this debate that were here for the debate last Tuesday. I trust that the Minister is feeling much better.

As with last week, these SIs on asylum support leave much unclear and have been tabled before the accompanying impact assessments or the framework the Minister just referred to, which would help the House understand the implications. I cannot approach a debate about destitution in the asylum system as an entirely abstract topic. I cannot not see the faces of the asylum seekers and refugees I had the privilege of working with at the Jesuit Refugee Service over a nine-year period. They were men and women from many different countries who, for one reason or another, found themselves destitute along their asylum journey.

17:00

I recall Florence, whose back story was filled with the most unimaginable trauma. She endured years of destitution and homelessness before being finally recognised as a refugee. Like many of the asylum seekers JRS UK worked with, her lifeline was a London night bus, which offered a safer alternative, as a woman, than street homelessness.

Then there was Cecile, an older woman of deep grace, gentleness and poise, known affectionately by all as Mama Cecile. After being relocated to nine different cities under Section 95 support while waiting for her decision, each move breaking the delicate social links she had made, she then found herself destitute and unwell. She was saved from street homelessness, through a JRS hosting scheme, by religious sisters who took her in and gave her space and stability to resolve her immigration status. Davina had been housed by an acquaintance, but the quid pro quo for the roof over her head was that she would take on a level of caring responsibilities that ultimately became deeply exploitative.

Research conducted by JRS UK found that around half the destitute asylum seekers it supported had slept rough in the preceding year, with one in five sleeping rough in the preceding month. Most were moving every couple of nights between numerous addresses, sleeping on floors or sofas, or in armchairs. Fear was commonplace; a third said they did not feel comfortable with those they lived with. Sometimes people arrived at the friend’s house where they were expecting to spend the night, only to find the door locked. It was a life of daily precarity.

I recall many a conversation with women at the regular social drop-in whose descriptions of their living arrangements left me profoundly uncomfortable. There were men who talked about the misery of clothes that they could never get dry as they moved between park bench, friends and the all-night McDonald’s.

In between the headlines about failed asylum seekers are real people who struggle to get their stories heard and understood in the asylum system. Dr Jo Wilding from the University of Sussex has been tracking the decline in available immigration legal advice over a number of years, describing a mix of legal advice droughts and severe lack of capacity. Trauma and destitution also make it near impossible for some to engage with the complexity of the asylum process in an orderly way. Sometimes it is the most vulnerable asylum seekers whose stories gets lost, and once they fall through the net, it gets a good deal harder to solve and will get a good deal harder yet with the changes the Government are announcing.

It is also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that asylum support is not straightforward to access already, with many organisations that work with asylum seekers saying that those who should receive it are often denied it. The money involved is hardly a huge amount, barely paying for the basics. As a Children and Families Minister, I remember being shocked to find out that the support provided to families specifically excludes anything, for example, to purchase toys, which were considered a luxury. It is unclear what framework and processes will be in place to remove asylum support from people seeking asylum, but this Government clearly want more power to render people destitute. This worries me deeply, because the results will be more street homelessness, more exploitation and less access to justice.

I ask the Minister please urgently to provide more information about the Government’s intentions for these powers, and to publish the framework. The House cannot scrutinise this without that information, and the organisations that will end up filling in that gap and supporting people who are left destitute and homeless will also have no chance to plan their services without this information coming forward now.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a RAMP associate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Teather—who I think of as a noble friend—said in her deeply moving speech, for the second week running we are here debating secondary legislation that represents another step in what the Home Secretary has described as

“the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/11/25; col. 509.].

In another critical report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the regulations to the attention of the House. The committee has been working overtime on asylum legislation, and we should be grateful to its members for their work. Once again, they complain about lack of clarity on aspects of the new policy, which

“makes it impossible to scrutinise this measure adequately”.

They draw attention to tensions and risks associated with the policy, which are not adequately addressed by the Home Office. Once again, my noble friend the Minister, who is always most gracious in dealing with our criticisms, has my sympathy for having to defend the regulations. I am glad that his throat is no longer protesting against the task, and that he feels better this week.

I will focus on the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support. Starting with process issues, the committee yet again draws attention to the lack of consultation, which was justified in the Explanatory Memorandum on grounds of the wider policy development of which this change is a part. The Home Office has given assurances that views will be sought from stakeholders once the proposals reach a “sufficiently developed stage”. The committee suggests that we ask my noble friend what criteria will be used to determine when a “sufficiently developed stage” has been reached to trigger consultation. I do ask that, but I also want to put on the record my view that the important principle of revoking a right to support for a particularly vulnerable group of people, as we have heard, should itself have been the subject of consultation regardless of wider policy development, the timeline for which remains unclear.

If, as the Home Office argues, policy is insufficiently developed for the provision of a proper impact assessment, then, as the Refugee Council argues, it should have waited and introduced a measure as part of the primary legislation expected in the next Session. Indeed, as some of us argued last week, and as my noble friend Lord Dubs, who is unable to be in his place, pointed out, this and the changes as a whole

“are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees ”.—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 299.]

and should be included in primary legislation in the name of democratic accountability.

I welcome the fact that, despite the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support, families containing a child aged under 18 will continue to receive support for the whole household where otherwise adequate accommodation or the child’s essential living needs are not being met in line with Section 122 of the 1999 Act. I would be grateful if my noble friend confirmed that my reading of this is correct so that it is on the record.

Nevertheless, I am worried about the likely impact of the removal of the duty to provide support. The SLSC tried to get clarification of what the EM meant when it said that support will remain available to those “in genuine need”. One example given was an asylum seeker who has the right to work. When the committee asked whether support might be withdrawn where an asylum seeker is not able to exercise the right to work because they cannot find employment—particularly bearing in mind that changes to the list of jobs they are allowed to take after 12 months could mean it becomes harder for those who do not have the necessary skills—the answer was:

“We are developing our policy on this”.


That really is not good enough.

Another example given was

“where an asylum seeker could be supported by friends and family”.

How on earth will this work? Will an asylum seeker have to give a list of friends and family, and will they then be means tested to see if they can afford to support them? Even if they can afford to do so, there is no legal obligation to support family and friends in this way, in either the short or longer term. Personally, I find this suggestion extraordinary.

I am not surprised that the committee considered the inability to answer questions about the meaning of “genuine need” unsatisfactory, despite Home Office assurances that cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as my noble friend said earlier, taking account of obligations under the ECHR—which, as the committee notes, raises questions about staff resources.

Moreover, there is an underlying issue here that the report did not explore: the difference between a right and a discretionary power. The EM states that

“human rights legislation and equality law … ensure that any changes to policy will operate within a framework that respects fundamental rights”,

a point made by my noble friend. Sir Jonathan Jones KCB KC points out for the Institute for Government that this means that decisions not to grant support could be subject to judicial review. But that is a last resort, and I am concerned about the implications for everyday decision-making.

I have been around long enough to remember when some basic elements of the social security safety net were subject to discretion rather than set out as clear rights. Discretion opens the door to inconsistency and even discrimination, not necessarily conscious. Back in 1975 the official Supplementary Benefits Commission warned that discretion provides scope for decision makers’ own “moral judgments” to shape decisions on eligibility, so the promise that the decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis is not necessarily reassuring.

Discretion robs asylum seekers of dependability and certainty and reinforces their sense of precarity, which the noble Baroness referred to, along with the changes debated last week. While it might meet the letter of our international obligations, I am not sure it meets the spirit expressed in a statement from the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that asylum seekers should be able

“to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination”.

One reason why rights are so important in this context, as we have heard, is that they provide a firmer protection against destitution, although it should be remembered that asylum support provides a pretty minimal standard of living. Asylum seekers are already disproportionately likely to be in deep poverty and to suffer food insecurity. It is disgraceful that the press release accompanying the draft regulations had the headline:

“Asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain’s generosity”,


once again conflating asylum seeking and illegal migration and using pejorative terms such as “handouts”. As Minister Norris himself said in a debate last year,

“we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 285WH.]

Nevertheless, the SLSC was concerned about the likely risk of destitution due to the revocation of the duty to provide support and how this could lead to crime, illegal working and homelessness, in conflict with the national plan to end homelessness and, according to the Times, the subject of an internal warning from the MHCLG. It notes:

“The Home Office has not set out how it will manage these risks, and the House may wish to enquire further”.


I hope my noble friend can be more forthcoming now, including on the particular dangers for women, who Women for Refugee Women fear will be at increased risk of abuse, violence and exploitation, including being forced into sex work.

Given my noble friend’s welcome repeated assurances last week that

“equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work”,—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 321.]

I hope he will give this point serious consideration. Here I find it difficult to believe the Explanatory Memorandum’s statement that

“no significant … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”

is foreseen. Again, to pick up on what the noble Baroness said, surely the risk of destitution could have a significant impact on local authorities and on refugee and homelessness charities, which will have to pick up the pieces.

Before making my final point on these regs, I take this opportunity to raise the question of the move-on period. The Refugee Council points out that the third set of regulations published alongside those that we are debating provided the perfect opportunity to update the previous 28 days to the 42 days now in operation. I ask my noble friend why that opportunity was not taken. Will it be taken soon? Is he able to tell us what arrangements will be made for monitoring the 42-day move-on period, which is a real improvement that I welcome but is less than the 56 days in the initial pilot which was what local authorities and charities had been calling for? Is he able to commit to publication of the evaluation of that pilot before Parliament is prorogued? I raised these matters in a letter that I sent my noble friend yesterday so I apologise for repeating them today, but anything that he is able to put on the record now would be helpful.

17:15

Finally, the SLSC highlights the Alice Through the Looking-Glass circularity of the Home Office’s response to the question of what happens if an asylum seeker who is refused support tries to get by through working illegally which, as we have heard from my noble friend under the other regulation we are considering, is also grounds for loss of support. The Home Office’s answer is that they

“can reapply for support if they are destitute”.

I am glad that is the case, but it suggests that the policies have not been thought through properly, as illuminated by the SLSC.

That takes us back to the point made last week that this is both too important and too complicated to be left to secondary legislation that we cannot amend. Both we and our colleagues in the Commons are rendered powerless, yet at stake is the risk of destitution for people in the most vulnerable of circumstances—all in the name of fairness.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself in the happy position again of agreeing with the Government. I commend them for these regulations, which go some way to addressing the risk of abuse of our asylum support system. These changes are a good start, but they could go further. I have one or two questions for the Minister, though, in respect of each of the regulations before the House today.

First, in respect of the asylum support provision relating to illegal working, perhaps the Minister could tell us how it is envisaged that the Government would defend a claim brought by an asylum seeker—or a failed asylum seeker under the other regulations—who has been found to be working illegally and has had their support removed. If they make an application, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has indicated, to have support restored, and then say that unless it is restored the Government will be in breach of their obligations under Article 3, how does the Home Office propose to defend the withdrawal of support in those circumstances?

The second question is in relation to the removal of the duty to provide accommodation, which came out of the EU reception conditions directive and has restored the arrangements in the 1999 Act to being a power to provide accommodation. How does the Home Office propose to examine the accommodation and support provided in our neighbouring countries? My recollection of reviewing that support is that ours is far more generous than that available in France, Ireland, Denmark or the US. Could the Minister ask his officials to look into the provision of asylum support in those countries and tell us how our present offering compares, and write back to me and put a copy of that letter in the Library, assuming he does not have those answers to hand?

I return to my main point that I am supportive of these instruments. They are a good start, and I thank the Home Office for bringing them forward.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Home Office on its direction of travel, but I have a few points I think it needs to consider to get this right. It would be helpful if the Home Office were to publish more regularly the gender breakdown of asylum seekers so that we can be clear that it is a representative proportion of those to whom we may have an obligation.

It would also be rather helpful for the Home Office to do more in the international context. I recall going with the former Bishop of Durham to Burundi, where a third of the entire population had sought asylum in a neighbouring Commonwealth country, Tanzania. It is part of the Commonwealth and was previously part of the Empire. It seems to me that part of our obligation to those seeking asylum is to ensure that those large numbers who temporarily felt obliged to move to a safe haven in Tanzania were able to return—as they did, but with some difficulty—to one of the most impoverished countries in the world, Burundi.

Similarly, I visited the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, where more than 1 million have fled from Myanmar—again, a country with which we have a very long-standing relationship. These are all asylum seekers, but it would be rather absurd for us to have a policy that suggests that the way to address those problems would be to facilitate those people coming here via organised crime gangs.

It is interesting to observe how low, or non-existent, the number of rough sleepers is in certain parts of the country. That is not correlated to wealth and income in those areas; it is correlated to the amount of casual work available—work on farms, for example, or in vape shops. There is a new mania in this country for everyone not to wash their own car but to pay someone else to do it. The evidence I have seen would suggest that many of these businesses are impossible to trace, and yet the Home Office is meant to have a system to ensure that illegal working is clamped down on. What further will be done about the registration of businesses to ensure that a business on a set and identifiable premises, which someone could go in and ask for work from, is in fact a legitimate business operating within the law, rather than a cash business facilitating the work of organised crime gangs in trafficking people to this country? In the same way that we have an electoral roll that we are required to be on, would it not be worth considering requiring a local authority to hold a business roll of who is operating a business, so that we can start to cut through? We have done this with some of the manipulation of Companies House from abroad in illegal working in this country. It would give both the country and those seeking refuge a better deal, and the criminal gangs a worse deal and less profit motivation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I was going to rise after the noble Baronesses, Lady Teather and Lady Lister, to say that they gave two absolutely magnificent speeches. I agree with them both and I will not aim to repeat them. It is quite telling that I am now speaking after we have heard strong support from the Conservative Benches for the Government’s policy, and I suspect we may hear the same from the Conservative Front Bench. As I said, I do not aim to repeat what has already been said— I agree with everything that both noble Baronesses said—but I want to make a couple of points. One is to pick up on some words from the Minister, who rightly said that most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the Government are under pressure on these statutory instruments. On being challenged by our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the Home Office said:

“We are developing our policy”


in this space. I have a question for the Minister on something that could save a great deal of the need to house asylum seekers. Is that “developing our policy” considering allowing asylum seekers the right to work, as they have in many countries?

I note that I am going to applaud the Government here, because we have seen a very small advance in the past few weeks. We saw three weeks ago that doctors and other medical professionals who have been seeking asylum for 12 months will now be able to work in the NHS. Well, that is great, although I have to ask why they have to wait 12 months, given our great need for their services and skills, and the fact that they would inevitably benefit from being able to use their skills as soon as possible.

It is worth looking at the history of that, because it had been the case historically under the shortage occupation list, which the former Conservative Government replaced with the immigration salary list in April 2024. We have seen the BMA, REACHE—the Refugee and Asylum Seekers Centre for Healthcare Professionals Education—and others taking legal cases; it may have been that the legal pressure was enough to make the Government change their mind. But if the Government are doing that for doctors, even after 12 months, why not for engineers or scientific researchers? Why not for anyone who can contribute their skills, energy, time and talents to our country, which is, of course, everybody? Why not allow asylum seekers to work? The direct question that I put to the Minister is: in “developing our policy”, are the Government at least considering that?

I want to pick up on one other point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, because it really deserves to be highlighted. It is the issue of support from friends and family, which picks up on the case study that the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, presented to us. Something that I have heard from visiting refugee support groups over many years is how often a situation where someone is offered free accommodation—possibly by quite distant family or friends, very loosely defined—can quickly turn into a situation that can only be equated with modern slavery. I am thinking of one case study that I heard of: a very small and frail older woman ended up sleeping on a mat in the kitchen and working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. It appears that the Government are trying to force people to create that kind of situation, from what is being suggested with the friends and family situation.

I have a final point to put to the Minister. Having looked at the impact assessments, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said how inadequate they are. I also want to repeat the point that the idea that there is no significant impact on the voluntary and private sector is just a nonsense. I am afraid that is a nonsense statement in the impact assessment. If we are to understand the impact of these rules, my simple question to the Minister is: how many people are going to end up homeless as a result of these statutory instruments? I think that is a question we should have the answer to.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that there will be some repetition of what certain noble friends, in the best sense of the word, have said. These SIs have not surprised me but I am rather depressed, in that there is an echo in them of last week’s debate. These are changes brought in ahead of our knowing what will replace current provisions, which in fact are going to continue for the time being—not that I anticipate what is coming with any great enthusiasm.

I understand that the duties reflected in the regulations are part of what it is hard not to still think of as retained EU law, now assimilated law, and that the power to amend expires in June—the Minister is nodding at that. I understand that the Government may want to avoid primary legislation, with the opportunity for greater scrutiny and amendment—I hoped that the Minister might nod at that, but he did not. Understanding this is not the same as supporting it. The Home Secretary keeps telling us that the proposals must be taken as a package, but the elements are being disaggregated.

I wrote that I hoped that one change this week would be that the Minister would not be suffering the same sore throat. Last week, some of us were not quite within distance to chuck throat pastilles across the Chamber at him.

17:30

It is not a good position for any of us to be in when we cannot explain what the rules will be to people who expect to be affected by them, and I am unconvinced that these rules will have the deterrent effect that is being claimed. The SLSC, which I thank enormously—it has done terrific work on all this—notes the tension between avoiding undesirable outcomes and maintaining disincentive effects and suggests that we question the Minister, which I am so doing, on how, given the risks, disincentives will operate in practice. The committee suggests that we should inquire about the management of the risks of withdrawing support—homelessness, crime and illegal working, which have already been mentioned—from someone who is destitute for whatever reason. It suggests that we raise the expected effectiveness of the change of speeding up processes relating to investigations into fraud, so as to allow removal of support. Currently, support is discontinued, reduced or withdrawn from all of 0.05% of those receiving it.

Yet again, it is hard to avoid the thought that, as has been said already, the Home Office is trying to put out a message about its tough attitude for political reasons, which we are all aware of but may have different views on. There is a lack of substantive proposals in development. The Refugee Council’s press release is entirely right. It is not often that I would condemn the BBC for this sort of thing, but it has worked to uncover the crime—and it is crime—in the immigration industry of persuading people to come forward and make false asylum claims. In fact, I saw that one person caught up in this was paid a substantial amount of money to make that claim. It does not seem a very reliable source.

Yet again, I say that most asylum seekers do not want to be a burden; they want to work and to contribute to society. It is really important that the development of the proposals includes lifting the ban on working for a year. Could we make it six months, as that was the direction we were going in? Could we make it possible for asylum seekers to work in occupations and at levels that will make use of their skills and experience? The immigration salary list has been mentioned.

In all of this, there is no sign—though it is implicit in what noble Lords have said—that the Home Office has kept any eye on the goal of social cohesion. Support will apparently remain available to those in genuine need, but we have no definition of what this is. We have some examples, including where an asylum seeker has deliberately made himself destitute, or could be supported by friends and family. That will certainly need some fleshing out, both the definition of “could be” and how close the family and friends need to be. My noble friend used the term precarity in respect of the situation of clients and asylum seekers, and that is entirely right.

I do not quibble with assessment on a case-by-case basis to understand individual circumstances, but what is the assessment of the additional work that I assume will be required on the part of caseworkers? Will there be guidance on this, and will it be published?

How will changing the provision of support from a duty to a discretionary power impact the methodology of setting rates for asylum support—which are nothing like as large as some people would have it? Support can be removed if there are reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than believe, that a person is working illegally, but “suspect” is not that high a threshold.

The SLSC commented that the data available does not suggest that the measures will lead to consequences in any large number of cases. It questions, as I am now, how effective the change will prove in practice and the reasons for prioritising this work within the Home Office, commenting that there appears to be no intention significantly to increase the low number of cases currently being investigated.

The Home Office, we know, is moving asylum seekers from hotels. I will not start on the argument of whether or not there is a pull factor in this. The Government’s fact sheets describe military sites as “better suited” and, at the same time, “more basic”. I cannot quite reconcile those two descriptions.

The Government do not disclose the detail of contracts with asylum accommodation providers, but I hope that the Minister can answer a couple of questions about hotels. Do the contracts with hotel owners and operators provide for the restoration of the condition of hotels which asylum seekers have moved out of and, if so, are estimates of the costs available? I am not suggesting that asylum seekers set out to wreck accommodation, but, necessarily, surely, some hotels have been adapted and they have been occupied intensively. That must take its toll. Is there a penalty for the Government cutting short the contracts for the use of hotels, which they are doing? Other things being equal, which they are not, that would be a good thing. Will the Home Office be seeking a wider group of providers to service the new sites? I am thinking here of the poor reputation of some of those who have been working in this area. If the Minister would like me to put in a series of Questions for Written Answer, I will do that.

The fact sheet on Crowborough says it will be scaled up to more than 500 people. How many are there now and when is it estimated that it will reach 500? In other words, after how many more hotel closures?

I end with the observation that the Home Office cannot expect either third-sector organisations or, as they generally refer to, local authorities to bear the burden of accommodation changes.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is in a very perceptive mood today. Yes, indeed, in a rare turn of events, I find myself in agreement with most of what the Minister said in this debate, and I join him in supporting these two statutory instruments.

The first instrument, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, amends the 2005 regulations of the same name. It makes a very simple but vital amendment to the 2005 regulations. The change that the Government are making, as the Minister outlined, is to permit the Secretary of State to create a new condition that failed asylum seekers can be subjected to. Under the 2005 regulations, a number of conditions can be placed on a failed asylum seeker who receives asylum support. Although illegal working is a criminal offence, it does not currently constitute a breach of their conditions. This, of course, is plainly wrong, and I am glad that the Government are making this change.

The second statutory instrument relates to the support provided to asylum seekers. At present, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) Regulations 2005 require the Home Secretary to provide support to an asylum seeker where the Home Secretary believes that the asylum seeker in question meets the conditions in Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The 2005 regulations therefore go further than the original wording in the 1999 Act. Section 95 states only that the Secretary of State may provide such support, and these regulations remove that legal duty on the Home Secretary. This is something that I entirely support.

The problem here is that, although Section 95 of the 1999 Act states that support may be provided if an asylum seeker is destitute, we know that this is not the reality. There are some who may be tempted to take the language in the Act at face value and criticise the Government’s plan for taking away support from those who cannot support themselves. This would be a wholly incorrect misinterpretation; in reality, the Government have a duty to provide support for virtually every single asylum seeker, regardless of whether they can support themselves. There is also a tranche of people who deliberately make themselves destitute so as to game the system and receive the generous, taxpayer-funded support.

It is also important to note that this is a Brexit benefit. The regulations that introduced the mandatory duty were passed in 2005 to implement EU law. The Government’s asylum White Paper acknowledges this. Can I say how welcome it is to see the Government making full use of the advantages of Brexit, even while they are trying to undermine it in some other areas? I have one observation, however: this change would make sense if the Government were adopting the Conservatives’ plans to deport all illegal migrants within a week, regardless of whether they have claimed asylum. If they were implementing that policy then those asylum seekers would not require any support from the Home Office, as they would have been detained and then deported. Unless the Minister has suddenly had a change of heart, which I doubt, there are some questions that need answering. If the Government are not going to start deporting all these illegal migrants but will be withdrawing support from them, what do they believe will happen? I would welcome some greater clarity on this from the Minister.

It would also not be right if I gave the impression that I am praising the Government for somehow solving the illegal migration crisis. The Government still refuse to establish a third-country removal centre to act as a deterrent; they still refuse to ban illegal migrants from claiming asylum; and they still refuse to take action to end the scam illegal industry around the asylum system. Where the Government have taken action, we will commend them. As such, I welcome these two statutory instruments, but the Government really still have a long way to go to truly get to grips with this problem. They need to introduce a strong deterrent and to dramatically ramp up deportations. It is my firm opinion that until that happens and until we leave the ECHR, the boats will not stop and this crisis will not end.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, who I remind the House had stewardship of this challenge and problem with his Government—including the noble Lord, Lord Murray, whose support I welcome —until 5 July 2024. Since that date, we have tried to make some progress on the 400-plus hotels that were operational at the cost of billions of pounds; with a backlog of asylum claims; with, in my view—I know this is debateable and is not the noble Lord’s view—very little action on the question of small boat crossings; and with obvious abuses on overstaying visas and asylum claims.

Since July 2024, we have tried to put in place a number of steps to speed up claims for asylum, to support people who have a right to be here and remove those who do not, to reduce the level of hotel use, which we have now done, from 400 down to around 200, and to try to end some of the abuses that we believe exist. It is an ongoing challenge and an ongoing process, but we are trying to do that in a context of published documents, published papers, an approach of fairness and meeting our international obligations.

17:45

That brings me to the instruments before the House. As I said in my introductory comments, revoking the duty will allow the Government to revert to the power to provide asylum support contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which allows a more flexible approach to providing asylum support to ensure that the system is targeted to those who genuinely need it. The revocation is an enabler for developing a new, more flexible asylum support framework in line with the document we produced at the end of last year, or early this year, restoring order and control of policy direction in this field.

I say to all the contributors to the debate that no immediate operational changes to asylum support eligibility will result from the revocation alone, as a new policy is being developed. The intention is not to withdraw or deny support from those who need it, but to reduce misuse and to align with the wider asylum reforms that we are bringing forward. I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Lister that support will continue to be provided when an eligible person has a child dependent under 18 years of age, in line with Section 122 of the 1999 Act, but a discretionary approach will allow the Home Office to withhold support from individuals who do not require it, including those who have permission to work and can therefore support themselves, individuals who have intentionally made themselves destitute and those who fail to comply with conditions set by the Home Office or with UK law.

A number of noble Lords raised the impact assessment, including the noble Baroness, Lady Teather. There will be an impact assessment on any revised proposals. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and again hinted at by my noble friend Lady Lister, guidance will be provided before implementation, so that it will be open to scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spotted an important point that I wish to re-emphasise, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Regulation 5 is a secondary assimilated law, formerly known as secondary retained EU law, and the powers to amend or remove it expire in June 2026. We have to take some action on that. Things may develop about potential primary legislation, but we have to look at what we do about the expiration of that regulation in June 2026. Using the powers that we have now is the most efficient way to avoid retaining an outdated duty that does not necessarily align with future policy direction. We are committed to ensuring that asylum policy is fair and targeted.

My noble friend Lady Lister asked why we do not use primary legislation. Regulation 5 is itself secondary EU-derived law. We are trying to provide a specific statutory route to revocation via the EU law Act, pending a review, and moving to a discretion, where there will be a published policy and safeguards. That will, I hope, give confidence to the House and be in line with our Article 3 ECHR obligations. I take issue with the noble Lord, in a friendly and co-operative way: we are not going to leave the ECHR, but we will look at how we apply Articles 3 and 8 on these matters.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Teather, will take this at face value: the goal of the Home Office is not to make people destitute but to try to maintain fairness in the system. Removal of support does not automatically cause destitution. Decisions on whether individuals are eligible for support, or are on support, or whether they should remain eligible for support will be made in the interim on a case-by-case basis, pending any discussion on further policy statements downstream. Regarding those policy statements, we are committed to our international obligations. Revocation of the duty, and its replacement with the power, will provide us with more discretion. But the Government will not operate a policy that breaches Article 3 of the ECHR.

Now, the question of allowing illegal working is still an important one. I do not want to see individuals working illegally in any circumstance, undermining legitimate businesses and legitimate people at work. It has consequences. It leads to exploitation and undermines public confidence in how the asylum system is managed. If we allow illegal working with no consequences, that will open up individuals—potentially asylum seekers, yes, but also others—to risks of exploitation. This is a very important issue. My noble friend Lord Mann mentioned it and made some interesting suggestions, which are always worthy of consideration.

There is now a crackdown on illegal working. I can say to my noble friend that in the past year approximately 9,000 people have been arrested on the basis of illegal working; this includes some asylum seekers. It is an important issue that we take seriously. It is one that undermines legitimate businesses. We have this order in front of us today, and it is important that noble Lords recognise that illegal working damages the economy, damages businesses and leads to people being exploited. I therefore welcome the support for those measures from the Opposition Front Bench and former Ministers on the Opposition Benches.

The development of the framework is ongoing. In collaboration with other government departments, we will look at the impact of these operational changes and roll them out gradually, with continued impact assessments being undertaken. This will ensure that the changes are implemented in a controlled and sustainable way. There will be consultation, there will be engagement with relevant stakeholders, and there will be opportunities during the development of the policy for noble Lords, and indeed for other stakeholders and other government departments, to have a say on this matter.

My noble friend Lady Lister mentioned the 56-day pilot. We will be publishing the result and the final evaluation of that pilot in spring. Spring is almost upon us—spring has sprung, but spring develops into April and May. We will be producing that document in spring this year, and it will be open to scrutiny. We will look at the impact of the 42-day move-on period that we have settled on and keep it under review. We will continue to engage with, and listen to the feedback from, stakeholders, including local authorities. We will work with my noble friend from the local government department, who is on the Front Bench now, and its homelessness strategy. As part of this, we are committed to ensuring that councils receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of an asylum discontinuation of support notification. These matters will be kept under review, and I hope that will assist my noble friend. As I have said—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for addressing those issues. Is the intention eventually to put the 42 days into a statutory instrument? As I understand it, that is the case with the current 28 days. So if this is the new normal, it would make sense. Perhaps he will write to me if he does not want to answer that now.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The intention is to have a 42-day period. We are publishing the evaluation very shortly. If my noble friend will allow me, I would rather reflect on this with my colleague, Minister Norris, who deals directly with these matters, on the mechanism to achieve that—but I will certainly write to her on that point when I have consulted with my honourable friend.

On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, it is important to put on record that the Government reduced the number of migrants in asylum hotels by 19% in the year ending December 2025. Overall, asylum support costs fell by 15% in the year ending March 2025. The rules that we put in place today are designed to help us reduce those costs further by making sweeping reforms to the immigration and asylum system while meeting our international obligations. This sits alongside existing work which has seen illegal immigration and illegal working enforcement activity, going back to the point from my noble friend Lord Mann, reach in 2025 the highest level in British history. Those are important issues.

Under these proposals, we will tackle illegal working but we will not support those who have permission but choose not to, nor those who enter the country on a work or student visa with permission to work before claiming asylum, nor those who have been granted permission to work whose claims have been outstanding for more than 12 months, through no fault of their own. We will not support those who are non-compliant. This includes anyone who has not complied with the conditions we impose. That is fair to the British taxpayer. The revocation of the duty will not result in immediate changes, as I have said, to those who will receive asylum support. It is the start of the process, and development of this framework is ongoing. In collaboration with other government departments, I will bring regular updates to the House on behalf of my noble friend on what the changes are.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised allowing asylum seekers to work. That would undermine the principle of the work visa, whereby people come to the country to work. She shakes her head; this is an honest disagreement. It would undermine those points. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked about our assessment of neighbouring countries’ asylum policy issues. I do not have the information to hand, so, if I may, I will look at that and write to him to cover any points when I have reflected on what he said and read Hansard tomorrow. With that, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.