Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2026
(1 day, 22 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2026 - large print - (3 Nov 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Today we will continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. As a reminder, the Committee must conclude its consideration of the Bill today. In accordance with the programme order for this Bill, if the Committee is still sitting at 5 pm, the Chair will put the questions necessary to bring proceedings to a conclusion. There can be no debate after 5 pm.
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during 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 together for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
New Clause 25
Review of non-statutory first responder organisations
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, review the list of first responder organisations which are not public authorities (‘non-statutory first responder organisations’) for the purposes of assessing whether further organisations should become non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) Any review under subsection (1) must—
(a) have regard to the need to maintain a system for identifying victims of modern slavery which is effective, ensures appropriate and timely safeguarding of potential victims, and provides appropriate and timely access to support;
(b) be based on regular review and analysis of—
(i) the number of referrals received through the National Referral Mechanism from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations, and any changes or trends in the number of referrals received or the proportions received from statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations;
(ii) the geographic areas from which referrals are received and the types of exploitation to which they relate, any changes or trends in such data, and whether there are any identifiable gaps in reporting related to geography or exploitation type.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to annually review whether further organisations should be registered as non-statutory first responder organisations, based on the capacity and needs of the system.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 26—Review of training for first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the quantity, quality and content of training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(b) the training needs of first responder organisations, and the extent to which these needs are met by current training provision;
(c) any gaps or weaknesses in the training currently provided to first responder organisations;
(d) any further resources which are required to meet the training needs of first responder organisations.
(3) A report on the findings of a review under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the training and guidance provided to first responder organisations which assesses the quality of current provision, the needs of first responders, any gaps in current provision, and any further resources required.
New clause 27—Resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
(2) A review under this section must have regard to the need to increase the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of non-statutory first responder organisations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations.
Siân Berry
It is great to have you back in the Chair today, Mrs Barker.
I am speaking today in support of new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which I tabled and which address the issues faced by non-statutory first responder organisations. As we know, people suffering from modern slavery cannot self-refer themselves into the national referral mechanism. These new clauses are a vital part of making sure that we fulfil our duties towards victims of modern slavery.
We have designated statutory and non-statutory organisations that are known as first responders. Those organisations have a duty to refer potential survivors of trafficking and modern slavery into the NRM when they identify indicators of trafficking that suggest somebody may be a potential victim of trafficking or modern slavery. However, the number of non-statutory first responders in the UK has not kept up with the increasing demand for referrals into the NRM. We know that the percentage of referrals from non-statutory first responder organisations is dropping. That does not mean a lack of demand, but rather a lack of capacity; it means that the number of non-statutory first responders has not kept up with the increasing demand for references into the national referral mechanism. I believe that the Government need to take action on this, hence these new clauses.
Non-statutory first responders play an absolutely crucial role in the identification and support of survivors. Many organisations that support potential victims report that many survivors are afraid of public authorities, the statutory first responders. They worry that the statutory first responders will, for example, prioritise criminal investigations over the survivor’s safety and that these FROs might have information-sharing policies with other Government agencies, as we have discussed when debating earlier amendments.
These organisations find that their service users are better served with referrals made by non-statutory first responders. We can see in the evidence that the data suggests that referrals made by non-statutory first responders are more likely to get positive decisions in the NRM. That suggests higher quality service and referrals, along with support to gather the evidence provided about potential victims and getting those people properly referred in to the support that they need.
Between the second quarter of 2025 and the second quarter of 2026, referrals made by non-statutory first responder organisations received a positive reasonable grounds decision in 81% of cases. The rate of positive decisions for referrals by local authorities was 73%, while it was 62% for police referrals and just 47% for the other Government agencies. That suggests a lack of capacity in those organisations, but also systemic issues around collecting evidence and making the appropriate support available so that the right disclosures can be made.
Higher-quality referrals of the kind made by non-statutory first responders also make the job of NRM decision makers easier and faster. Their work leads to a more efficient use of the public purse as they cut down on the need for reconsiderations. However, many of these organisations report a lack of capacity, which in some cases leads to potential victims being turned away. In many cases, potential victims have also given up looking for a non-statutory first responder at that point. As an MP, I am not a first responder of any kind, but in my casework I have had people come to me with indicators of modern slavery, and I found it hard to find the right first responder organisation and to reassure that person that they would be able to get hold of them. For my casework, I would love to have more non-statutory first responders available in my area.
The evidence underscores the urgent need to increase the number of non-statutory first responders through an open tender and transparent application process to deal with increased demand for referrals, reduce the postcode lottery in access to support for survivors of modern slavery, and reduce the stigma around referrals. That is the ultimate call of new clause 25: to hold a review to look for new non-statutory first responder organisations.
I have also tabled new clause 26, which asks for a review of training for first responder organisations. We need high-quality and specialised training for first responders. That is integral to successful victim identification and would ensure better quality and more efficient decision making. Statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and non-first responder organisations have said that there are serious gaps in first responder training provision. In fact, many officers in statutory first responder organisations are unaware that they are first responders, which means that Home Office toolkits and information hubs alone are ineffective. My new clause would ask for a review of the quantity, quality and content of training, ensure that such training reaches the organisations who need it, and make a report on the review available to the Houses of Parliament.
New clause 27 would, again, tackle the issues that I have outlined. It asks for a review of the resourcing of non-statutory first responder organisations. The capacity issues faced by first responders highlight their lack of resources to make enough referrals to keep up with the increased number of survivors who need them. First responders do not receive dedicated funding to discharge their responsibilities, which can significantly affect their capacity to fulfil their role effectively. In practice, it can limit their ability to allocate specialist staff, undertake first responder duties and ensure sufficient staffing levels to meet demand and to respond to the people referred to them and other organisations that raise cases with them.
Accordingly, there have been many calls for the further allocation of resources to non-statutory first responders and the need to enable survivors to access identification and support through the NRM. We are asking for a review of current resourcing for first responders, to get some evidence of the scale and impact of this issue, identify gaps in capacity of service provision and assess how that affects the identification of and support for potential victims. Such a review would also help to determine what actions, resources or structural changes are needed to address those gaps and ensure that first responders are able to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It would also ensure that we, as a country, are discharging our duties towards the victims and survivors of modern slavery.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
As always, Mrs Barker, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish a good morning to honourable colleagues. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for new clauses 25, 26 and 27, which seek to introduce statutory reviews relating to first responder organisations. Modern slavery is a brutal crime that strips people of their dignity, and the Government remain unwavering in their commitment to tackling this abuse and ensuring that survivors can access the right protections and support they need to recover and rebuild their lives. The Government recognise the vital role that first responders play in identifying potential victims of modern slavery and referring them into the national referral mechanism. Work is ongoing to consider the support and training needed for first responders as part of the implementation of the Bill to ensure a robust end-to-end system.
However, the Government do not consider these new clauses necessary. Mandating specific reviews in primary legislation would duplicate existing activity, reduce operational flexibility and create additional statutory reporting requirements without improving outcomes for potential victims. The existing framework enables referrals through a broad range of statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations. The overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders, demonstrating that existing arrangements are well established and operating effectively.
We have recently introduced a range of improvements to support first responders, including enhancements to the NRM referral form and the publication of the first responder toolkit, which provides practical guidance to support high quality referrals. We keep the operational effectiveness of the first responder system, including the training and support available to first responders, under regular review. We continue to consider evidence from operational engagement, published data, stakeholder feedback, and the lived experience advisory panels that were attended as part of the recent call for evidence on victim identification. I am particularly grateful to the survivors who shared their feedback, which continues to inform our work.
I reiterate that, since taking office in 2024, this Government have demonstrated their commitment not only to improving identification and support for modern slavery victims, but to tackling modern slavery in all its forms. That includes, but is not limited to, clearing the unacceptable NRM backlog in just two years. As a result, victims are now spending less time waiting for recognition of their victim status, which helps them with their recovery. We have improved support for adult victims through the procurement of a new support for victims of modern slavery contract, replacing the current modern slavery victim care contract. We have also invested £25 million to deliver a new contract, which will provide national coverage of the independent child trafficking guardianship service across England and Wales from 2027 to support child victims.
We have introduced a change to support skilled workers leaving exploitative employers and moving to new, safe employment. We have provided a more cohesive response to labour exploitation, by introducing stand-alone offences for child criminal exploitation and cuckooing through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, and by creating the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Act 2025. Those changes seek to collectively tackle modern slavery and make the operating environment tougher for those who commit these horrendous crimes and more supportive of those affected by them.
I will refer to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. She is right that the overwhelming majority of referrals are made by statutory first responders. In the year ending June 2026, a total of 25,373 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office, a 5% increase compared with the year ending March 2026. Of those, 93% of were made by statutory first responders and 4% were made by non-statutory first responders. Our established position is that an effective first responder cohort is essential to victim identification and that the operation of the first responder system should be kept under review through existing policy and operational processes.
The Home Office engages regularly with statutory and non-statutory first responder organisations and other stakeholders to identify operational challenges and opportunities for improvement. As I mentioned, we recently introduced the updated referral form, first responder e-learning and the first responder toolkit. The recent call for evidence on victim identification gathered evidence relevant to the operation of the NRM and continues to inform policy development. The Home Office continues to consider opportunities to strengthen support and training for first responders, informed by stakeholder engagement and calls for evidence.
I think I have responded to the hon. Member’s points. We continuously review and develop processes relating to first responders. I am afraid that, for the reasons I have set out, we do not support these new clauses, and they should not be added to the Bill.
Siân Berry
I appreciate the detail in the Minister’s response, and I am content to withdraw the new clause. However, I would very much like the points around resourcing to be tackled, and I do not think that that was covered in the Minister’s response. She might agree to write to us with more about the resourcing of non-statutory first responders and the future plans for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 28
IIAA: publication of data
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the publication of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
(2) The data required by this section must be updated and published at least every three months.
(3) The data to be published under this section must include—
(a) the number of appeals submitted to the IIAA;
(b) the number of decisions made by the IIAA;
(c) the outcomes of decisions made by the IIAA;
(d) the proportion of people submitting appeals to the IIAA who had legal representation;
(e) the number of appeals waiting to be processed by the IIAA;
(f) the length of time taken for a decision to be made on an appeal by the IIAA;
(g) the number of appeals that were withdrawn before being heard by the IIAA;
(h) the number of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6; and
(i) the outcomes of reviews of decisions made by the IIAA under section 6.
(4) The data published must, where possible, be broken down by—
(a) the type of appeal;
(b) the nationality of the person submitting the appeal;
(c) the gender of the person submitting the appeal; and
(d) the age of the person submitting the appeal.”—(Siân Berry.)
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to arrange for the publication, at least every quarter (as is the case for the existing Immigration and Asylum Tribunal), of data relating to the work of the IIAA.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 31—Large-scale asylum accommodation: publication of costs—
“(1) Where the Secretary of State proposes to provide, or arrange for the provision of, asylum accommodation at a large-scale asylum accommodation site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish an assessment of the expected costs associated with the site before accommodation is first provided at the site.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the estimated cost of acquiring, leasing or otherwise securing the use of the site;
(b) estimated capital expenditure required for the construction, conversion, refurbishment or adaptation of the site;
(c) estimated annual operating and running costs;
(d) estimated total expenditure over the period for which the site is expected to be used;
(e) the estimated cost per person accommodated at the site;
(f) a comparison with the estimated costs of reasonably available alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation; and
(g) the principal assumptions on which the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (f) are based.
(3) If, before accommodation is first provided at the site, there is a material change to the estimated costs published under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must publish a revised assessment.
(4) In this section—
‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided—
(a) under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(b) as support under section 95 or 95A of that Act in a way mentioned in section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act, or
(c) under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
‘large-scale asylum accommodation site’ means a single site at which asylum accommodation is intended to be provided for 300 or more persons at any one time.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the estimated capital, running and overall costs of a proposed large-scale asylum accommodation site, together with a comparison with alternative sites or forms of asylum accommodation.
New clause 64—Local impact and safeguarding assessments for high-capacity asylum accommodation sites—
“(1) Before designating a site for use as high-capacity asylum accommodation, or materially increasing the capacity of such a site, the Secretary of State must prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment in respect of the proposed designation or increase in capacity.
(2) A Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment must assess the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed designation or increase in capacity on—
(a) public safety and community safeguarding;
(b) local policing and other emergency services;
(c) the provision of health and social care services;
(d) local authority services, including housing, education and children’s services;
(e) community cohesion and the wellbeing of persons living or working in the surrounding area; and
(f) the capacity of local public services to respond to additional demand arising from the proposed accommodation.
(3) In preparing an assessment under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the relevant local authority or authorities;
(b) the chief officer of police for the area in which the site is situated;
(c) the relevant integrated care board;
(d) the relevant fire and rescue authority; and
(e) such other public authorities or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) The assessment must—
(a) identify reasonably foreseeable risks and pressures arising from the proposed accommodation;
(b) consider the likely scale and duration of those risks and pressures;
(c) identify measures proposed to prevent, mitigate or manage those risks and pressures; and
(d) identify any additional resources or coordination between public authorities considered necessary to manage the anticipated impact.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘high-capacity asylum accommodation site’ means any site used for asylum accommodation purposes with a potential capacity of 300 or over people.
‘a material increase in site capacity’ is defined as any plan to increase the capacity of an asylum accommodation site by 100 or over people.”
This new clause would require an impact and safeguarding assessment to be carried out on a potential high-capacity asylum site before the site can be granted approval or have its capacity increased.
New clause 65—Reporting of serious incidents in asylum accommodation—
“(1) Any provider of accommodation under arrangements made by the Secretary of State for the provision of asylum support must report serious incidents occurring at, or in connection with, that accommodation to the relevant police force.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a serious incident is an incident which gives reasonable grounds to suspect—
(a) that a serious criminal offence has been committed or attempted;
(b) that a person has suffered serious physical injury or sexual violence;
(c) that a child or vulnerable adult is at immediate risk of serious harm;
(d) that there has been a credible threat of serious violence; or
(e) that any other circumstance involving a serious risk to the safety of a person requires police notification.
(3) Where a provider becomes aware of a serious incident, the provider must—
(a) notify the relevant police force without undue delay and, where there is an immediate threat to life or safety, immediately;
(b) take reasonable steps to preserve relevant records and evidence;
(c) record the incident, the time at which it became known to the provider, the time and method of notification, and any action taken in response; and
(d) notify the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision within three months of passing the Act about notifications under subsection (3) including—
(a) the information to be included in a notification;
(b) the form and manner of notification; and
(c) the handling and onward sharing of reports, including with other Government departments and bodies exercising national security or research security functions.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) A provider who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with subsection (1) commits an offence.
(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale;
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(8) For the purposes of this section ‘serious criminal offence’ has the meaning given in section 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (Involvement in serious crime: England and Wales orders).”
This new clause will require any serious incidents that occur at asylum accommodation sites to be reported to the relevant authorities.
Tom Gordon
I am tm;1speaking in support of new clauses 30 and 31, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Let me be clear—these new clauses do not challenge the Government’s responsibility to accommodate people seeking asylum. They ask two simple things: that before a large site is chosen, the Government show us that it is suitable, and that before public money is committed, they show us what it will cost.
New clause 30 would require the Government to publish an assessment of every large site, covering transport, healthcare, policing capacity, safe pedestrian access, safeguarding, infrastructure, the alternatives considered and the impact on the local community. It would also require consultation with local authorities. New clause 31 would require the Government to publish the full costs, including acquisition, capital expenditure, running costs and cost per person, alongside a fair comparison with alternative options. If those estimates changed materially before a site opened, the assessment would have to be revised.
Why propose these new clauses? Because the urgent Crown development route allows the Home Office to bypass much of the usual planning scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock has seen the consequences of that at MOD Bicester in his patch, where up to 1,256 people could be housed for 10 years. The sewage arrangements rely on tankering, which would not work at full occupancy. The electricity plan assumes generators, because the existing supply cannot be relied on. The environmental screening assumed buildings no higher than 6 metres, while the plans allow buildings up to 12 metres. Local people had just 10 days to make representations, and there were no pre-application discussions with the highways authority.
My hon. Friend’s analysis also suggests that the scheme could cost more than £250 million to establish, and over £1 billion across 10 years. There are serious questions about suitability, infrastructure and value for money. They deserve proper answers before the public are committed to such a substantial bill. The concerns are not confined to Oxfordshire; in North Yorkshire, my part of the country, the proposed reopening of the former Royal Air Force site at Linton-on-Ouse also raises many of the same questions. In 2022, the Home Office proposed accommodating asylum seekers there. The scheme was subsequently abandoned, but only after significant public money had already been spent. Now the proposal is back.
On 15 July, North Yorkshire council passed a cross-party resolution opposing the proposal, and I join colleagues from across North Yorkshire and York in supporting the council leader’s letter to the Minister. It is worth noting that the Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, has also opposed those plans, which is interesting when we consider the Government’s devolution agenda; they want to empower mayors to make planning decisions, yet seem keen to ignore them when those decisions are coming from the centre.
The concerns set out in the letter read almost like a checklist of the issues that new clause 30 would require the Government to assess. The proposal is to accommodate over 1,000 single adult men beside a village of approximately 600 people. The primary school is very nearby and the site covers 680 acres, raising many important questions about security and safeguarding. Public transport, local services and support networks are limited; the surrounding roads are rural and prone to flooding; there are serious questions about the capacity of water, sewage, drainage and electricity infrastructure; and there is no mains gas.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and me, and to new clauses 30 and 31.
Everyone in this Committee wants to see the end of asylum hotels. The Government’s plan is to move people on to large sites—former military bases housing hundreds at a time. As we have heard, new clauses 30 and 31 would require consultation and published costs first. The Opposition are sympathetic to the arguments that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough has just made, but consultation and costs alone are not enough. Communities need to know that the risks have been properly assessed and that when something goes wrong, it will be acted upon. It is not fair to leave communities feeling unsafe and ignored.
That is what new clause 64 would do. Before any site for 300 or more people is designated or significantly expanded, the Home Secretary would have to publish a local impact and safeguarding assessment after consulting the council, the police, the NHS and fire services. That assessment would ensure the identification of foreseeable risks to public safety before a site is approved, not afterwards. It would set out the pressure a site would place on policing, healthcare, social care, housing and education, and the additional funding, staffing and resources needed to manage it, so that local services are not left to absorb an unsustainable burden with no warning and no plan.
It would also close a significant gap in the law. Currently, there is no requirement to assess the impact of such sites on community wellbeing or local safety. Decisions with enormous consequences for towns or villages can be taken without the public having any say at all. That is totally unacceptable. Under new clause 64, large sites and significant increases in capacity would face proper scrutiny before approval and because the assessment would be published, local people could see for themselves what the effects are likely to be and what plans are in place to ensure those impacts will be mitigated. I hope the Committee recognises how new clause 64 would deliver transparency and accountability for communities and taxpayers.
New clause 65 deals with what happens once a site is open. It would require providers to report serious incidents to the police, including instances of serious violence, sexual offences, physical injuries, credible threats of violence and cases where children or vulnerable adults are at risk. Failing to do so would be an offence itself. There is currently no statutory duty at all, and recent reporting has shown that serious incidents have too often gone unreported. The new clause would set clear reporting requirements and ensure consistency so that practice no longer varies from one provider to the next. It would create a record of when an incident became known, when it was reported and what action was taken. It would require the Government to set clear rules for how incident information is reported, handled and shared.
The situation in Epping last year showed us what happens when communities lose confidence and feel that risks are not being assessed and incidents are not being acted upon. It is obvious that large sites in communities concentrate significant risk. They need clear, consistent, enforced rules.
How many large sites do the Government plan to open and where? Is there any duty on providers currently to report serious incidents to the police? I will push new clauses 64 and 65 to a vote, and I hope that the Committee recognises their importance for our communities and constituents across the country.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire completely, but I want to make a separate point. I have some sympathy for the Minister. Last week, we rightly criticised the Government’s approach on hotels; now, we are rightly criticising their approach on large sites. The argument might be, “Well, what are the Government expected to do?” I urge them to take a wholly different approach.
A few weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee went to Denmark. Denmark is often seen as hardcore on immigration issues, but it is far subtler than that. Their approach to asylum accommodation is so very different. Rather than the neoliberal obsession with outsourcing and making the asylum billionaire Graham King millions, if not billions, Denmark uses non-governmental organisations. The Red Cross runs the asylum centres rather than private enterprise making a profit. They run on a not-for-profit basis. If they make a profit, the money goes back into the asylum centre or is given back to the Government.
That wholly changes the tone. In Denmark, we saw local people not protesting against asylum centres, but volunteering to work in them. One asylum centre was being closed and local people petitioned for it to be kept open. We could change the whole nature of the debate if we went to NGOs rather than private providers to deliver the accommodation—accommodation that I accept is needed, although the Government must improve and speed up their processing of claims.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the contributions this morning. As Members across the House will know, when the Government entered office in 2024, the use of hotels to house asylum seekers was widespread. That was clearly impacting the confidence that the public had in the Government to run an efficient and cost-effective asylum system.
Hotels are a visceral and visual representation of the previous Government’s failure to establish any form of coherent strategy for dealing with the issue of asylum accommodation. Hotels taken away from communities act as lightning rods for social unrest. They represent the removal of a lever that the local population can use to promote tourism, incentivise wider interest in the area and promote the broader economic and business growth of the community.
That is why we are working relentlessly to house asylum seekers fairly across the country, and we have a manifesto commitment to close every asylum hotel, just as the public expects. We have already saved £1 billion for the taxpayer by reducing the number of hotels down to, I think, fewer than 160. I look forward to closing the remaining few over the next couple of years.
Hotel exit is not simply about closing hotels; it is about moving to a more sustainable accommodation model, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites, to reduce impact on local communities. As part of that commitment, we are looking at a range of more appropriate sites that provide basic and safe accommodation, including ex-military sites.
To answer the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, two sites are already operational: Wethersfield, which was opened under his Government, and more recently, Crowborough. Three more are in the pipeline, undergoing various reviews and planning permissions. Those sites provide basic and safe accommodation for asylum seekers and are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible, reducing the impact upon communities. I must reiterate that large sites offer a sustainable solution for housing asylum seekers. They allow for dedicated on-site services such as health and safeguarding services, which lessen reliance on overstretched local facilities.
In terms of security, the safety of local communities, the staff who work there and those accommodated on large sites are of the utmost importance. Unlike hotels, ex-military sites allow for dedicated safeguarding and oversight services, reducing disruption to local communities and ensuring public safety. Specialist security will also be on site 24/7, with CCTV and strict sign-in procedures for residents.
To be extremely clear, although I understand that there is concern surrounding whether asylum accommodation goes hand in hand with an increase in crime in the local area, I categorically reject that. In September, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
As I hope I have outlined, large sites build public confidence in a fair and humane system, reducing pressure on communities while giving us greater oversight and control at critical points in the asylum decision-making process. Alongside the expansion of large sites, we continue to make use of medium sites and dispersal accommodation. That approach is being implemented in close consultation with local authorities across the UK.
Tom Gordon
Let me press the Minister a little further. In my speech in support of the new clauses, I spoke about the lack of capacity when it comes to sewage and electricity and the lack of consultation with local government. Will the Minister not acknowledge that and try to empathise with those individuals and authorities on the inappropriate nature of these sites? Will she look again?
Anna Turley
When we apply for planning permission or urgent Crown development, all these issues are taken into account as part of that planning process and decision making by the Secretary of State.
Anna Turley
I have some responses to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. That also includes consultation with local authorities. All the application processes have a due window for local authorities to make their applications, and all of that will be considered in the round. I will give way.
Tom Gordon
Can the Minister explain and outline why she thinks that both the Conservative-run North Yorkshire council and her Labour Mayor for York and North Yorkshire have got it wrong in their opposition to these sites?
Anna Turley
As a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Gentleman will know clearly that “nimbyism” gets used quite a lot. It is important that local authorities quite rightly make representations, whatever their political party, on behalf of their local areas, and we would expect that as part of the planning processes. All those representations will be taken into account when the decisions are made.
I will respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, going back to the engagement with local authorities. As I said, we recognise their importance, but a single statutory model would not reflect the different circumstances, planning routes and stages of development that apply to individual sites. It could duplicate existing processes, require premature disclosure and delay urgent decisions. Engagement should remain proportionate, properly sequenced and responsive to each proposal.
A point was also raised about publishing costs and assessments. We will be as transparent as we possibly can, whenever we can. We have to balance publication against commercial confidentiality, personal data and site security and the need to protect sensitive operational information. As hon. Members can imagine, that is all extremely important when undertaking sites of this significance.
The reforms that we are looking at are crucial to overhauling the immigration system to restore control at the border. This is about fairness, restoring confidence and public trust in the system and, in particular, handing our hotels back to the communities.
To give some statistics behind the Government’s reforms, as of June this year, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was 46% lower than when the Government entered office. There are 71% fewer people staying in hotels compared with the peak in September 2023. As I mentioned, that has led to fewer than 160 hotels currently in operation.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am listening to the Minister talking about taking people out of hotels, which of course we all support and want the Government to be successful at. Can she provide any justification, because I cannot see one, for housing a large number—more than 1,000 asylum seekers or refugees—in a community that is smaller? How can that ever be right? It does not even matter that those people are refugees and are not from this country—1,000 extra people on the side of a smaller settlement seems to me crazy. It seems to be something that should not be able to happen.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. We are not housing them in the community. They are being housed on a specific site that is self-contained and away from the community. All their needs are met on that site. Where they are not met, they are transported usually to larger places—cities or towns. That is certainly the situation at the two sites we have at the moment at Wethersfield and Crowborough. They are taken specifically for their needs and requirements, but it is very rare, as a whole, that those individuals leave the camp of their own volition. They have to sign in and out. The sites are self-contained. They are not in the village; they are separate, on a self-contained site.
This Government made a manifesto pledge to end hotel use because the right level of hotel spend is zero. We stick by that. That is how we will restore public confidence in the system.
As Members will know, this is only a small portion of the drastic work we are undertaking to fix the broken immigration system. Alongside our accommodation reform, we are restoring control of the wider asylum system through faster case progression, reduced backlogs, increased returns and stronger border security, with the intention of reducing the overall demand for accommodation.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I know he has a long-standing interest in delivery and delivery partners. We have protocols and agreements with those organisations. They have high standards to fulfil and, if they do not do so, we will review their contracts. We keep that under review all the time.
I turn to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and specifically to new clause 30, which
“would require the Secretary of State to consult relevant local authorities and other public bodies considered appropriate, and to prepare and publish a site suitability assessment before a site is used to accommodate 300 or more people as part of the asylum support system.”
Similarly, new clause 64 would require the Home Secretary to
“prepare and publish a Local Impact and Safeguarding Assessment”
before designating a high-capacity asylum accommodation site or materially increasing its capacity.
I thank hon. Members for highlighting the importance of effective engagement on new asylum accommodation sites, safeguarding residents and understanding the impact on local services and communities. The Government agree with that objective. Site selection and mobilisation already involve assessment of safety, safeguarding, service capacity and local impacts, supported by widespread engagement with local authorities, the police, health partners and other relevant bodies. However, the new clauses would impose a rigid statutory process and publication requirement before a site could be approved or expanded. That would create significant overlap with existing planning processes, which would delay delivery and reduce the Government’s ability—
Blake Stephenson
If the Government are not willing to concede that there should be a rigid statutory process, would they accept that those safeguarding risk assessments should be made available, so that there is transparency for the local community? I know the Minister said, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East, that those asylum seekers are effectively not living in the community because they are in a camp outside, but they are free to come and go into their local communities. It is important that the Government commit to providing safeguarding impact assessments to the local community.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We take safeguarding very seriously. That is all undertaken as part of the process when we make those decisions and contracts, and we keep them under review all the time. I refer to the point I made earlier: the police, particularly at Wethersfield, have said that there has been no discernible impact on crime. I just wanted to reiterate that, but I take his point.
New clause 64 also applies fixed thresholds, which may not reflect the circumstances of an individual site or the scale of local impact. A smaller site may require intensive engagement, whereas an increase of 100 places at a larger, established site may not create the same pressures. The Government consider that existing operational assessment and engagement arrangements provide the necessary flexibility to manage risks proportionately. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough to withdraw the new clause.
Tom Gordon
I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, which outlines the Government’s views. I do not think it adequately addresses the issues that Crown development routes pose in bypassing much of local planning scrutiny. The Minister also made the point that the Government want to be as transparent as possible. I do not think that this place should let them off the hook on these issues. The questions about the suitability of sites were not adequately answered, so I will not withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 38—Use of immigration data to develop artificial intelligence—
“(1) Personal data obtained or generated in the exercise of functions relating to immigration, asylum, nationality or modern slavery may not be used to train, fine-tune, test, evaluate or otherwise develop an artificial intelligence system.
(2) Any contract for the provision of an artificial intelligence system used in connection with those functions must prohibit the supplier from retaining or using such data for any purpose other than providing the service and must require the deletion of such data upon the completion of the task for which it has been provided.
(3) For the purposes of this section, an interview record, witness statement or account given by a person remains personal data even where names or other direct identifiers have been removed.”
Siân Berry
The purpose of my new clauses is to ensure that the Government stop using artificial intelligence systems to shape life-changing—and, in some cases, life-or-death—decisions about people’s protection, liberty and removal until they can show that they are lawful, accurate and open to challenge.
This debate is not solely about the future, because that goes on in the present: the Home Office already deploys two AI tools in asylum casework. The asylum policy search tool has operated since July 2025, and the asylum case summarisation tool was rolled out to all decision makers in April 2026. Both tools use OpenAI’s GPT-4.
According to the Department’s own impact assessment, those tools summarise around 17,500 asylum cases every month, including interviews in which people share traumatic experiences relating to torture, persecution, their sexuality, faith and politics. A machine condenses those detailed accounts into the summary, which a decision maker reads before deciding whether that person will be sent back. That is the human cost at stake.
The Home Office and the Minister need to deal with those issues—particularly the legality of that practice. The Home Office ignored its own AI playbook when introducing those tools. Neither is listed on the algorithmic transparency register, there is no independent audit and testing of the policy search tool has now stopped altogether. As far as I can see, the Government’s only justification for using those tools is speed, rather than quality or someone’s human right to have their evidence in a life-or-death case considered in full by another human. When the cost of an error is a person being returned to danger, speed is not a safeguard and does not equal justice. Parliament must not accept a system that cannot show its working or justify its decisions. The Minister must deal with those points if she wishes to dismiss the new clauses.
New clause 37 is simple, but it is also comprehensive and precise. It says that no decision with a legal or a similarly significant effect on a person and relating to protection, leave detention, removal, support or trafficking may be made by, or with the help of, an AI system that processes their personal data. Subsection (3) makes it clear that any “summary, transcript, translation,” or “search result” generated by AI and given to a decision maker counts as assistance.
A human who reads a machine’s summary of an interview is already seeing the case through the filter of that machine. If the summary omits a detail that shows an account’s credibility, the decision maker may never know to look for it. That is unacceptable when a person’s life or freedom is at stake. Subsection (6) matters, as the immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act 2018 currently lets the Home Office set aside people’s data rights. That subsection ensures that the exemption cannot be used to involve AI in those decisions.
New clause 38 protects the data itself. Asylum interviews hold the most sensitive information that the state collects, about health, sexuality, religion, political opinion, criminal allegations and details of children. The Department’s own impact assessment for the ACS and APS tools ticks every one of those categories. People give that information to claim protection; they do not give it to train commercial AI. New clause 38 would set out that the data may not be used to build, train or test AI systems, and that suppliers must not keep or reuse it.
Subsection (3) closes an obvious loophole. An asylum account does not stop being personal just because the name is removed. In so many cases, the story itself identifies the person because of the detail that must be included. The impact assessment for the asylum case summarisation tool records that no other party is involved in processing and names no processer, even though the model is supplied by OpenAI and is hosted on Microsoft’s Azure platform. Parliament is entitled to know what those contracts say. New clause 38 would put the answer to that beyond doubt.
Relatedly, I am also concerned about the appeals systems set up by schedule 3 and clause 13, which we have debated. Under the new appeals authority, if an adjudicator cannot see whether AI shaped the decision under appeal, the appeal cannot correct it. Changes need to be made to schedule 3 to require the Home Office to say, in every appeal, whether AI was used in the original decision, and to produce any output that was relied on. The legislation, through amendments that I hope the Government will introduce, needs to state that an adjudicator may not use AI to decide an appeal, judge credibility or write reasons. Credibility is a human judgment about a human being, and such decisions are about people’s human rights. To ensure that the conditions stay that way, restrictions on AI must be added to the Bill.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling new clauses 37 and 38, which address an important issue. It is right that, as technology develops, we continue to monitor it and do everything we can to use it effectively and responsibly.
New clause 37 would effectively bar the use of AI systems in immigration and modern slavery decisions in all but a small number of highly limited circumstances. It would apply to any decision made by or with the assistance of AI systems. That would include the prohibition of summaries, transcripts or search results being relied on or made available to a decision maker. The Government are fully committed to implementing AI systems in a responsible way, in line with our legal and ethical obligations, which we take seriously. We have in place robust policies and frameworks that guide our approach to adoption of AI systems. All new AI tools must undergo mandatory evaluation and insurance, and we have in place measures to ensure that staff who use such tools are provided with clear guidance and ongoing training on how to use them responsibly. We also have in place measures to ensure that where AI systems are used, they are adopted in a transparent way, with clear mechanisms for accountability.
The UK general data protection regulation, or GDPR, already sets out robust safeguards to protect the rights of an individual who is subject to a solely automated decision that has no meaningful human involvement. For example, under article 22C of the regulation, safeguards are required where a significant decision is based solely on automated processing and based entirely or partly on personal data. Those safeguards include measures that
“provide the data subject with information about decisions...enable the data subject to make representations…enable the data subject to obtain human intervention”
and
“enable the data subject to contest such decisions.”
Together, those existing legal, ethical and governance safeguards already require careful consideration of the rights and interests of individuals when deploying artificial intelligence. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion that the Government remain committed to ensuring that AI systems are adopted in a fair, responsible and ethical way.
However, we must also recognise that AI is creating new opportunities. AI has the potential to greatly transform the way in which the Government carry out functions and provide services. In his recent speech to the UN General Assembly, the Prime Minister said that the UK will put AI at the heart of our G20 presidency next year, and that we will bring the right people together to deliver on the potential for AI to be used for good, while guarding against the risks. This new and powerful technology can increase speed and consistency across our services, providing a better experience for those who interact with them.
Siân Berry
The Minister mentions speed and consistency, but I am worried about quality and bias. Given that AI is trained on what is currently on the internet, and given the biases that exist in society, is she confident that credibility decisions and recommendations will not be subject to racial or gender bias, for example?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point—we have all seen issues of ingrained bias in the media—but we are ensuring that we have safeguards in place. AI systems should not undermine people’s rights or discriminate unfairly. The Government are committed to responsible and evidence-based AI adoption guided by robust policies, ethical frameworks and transparent governance. That includes mandatory evaluation and assurance for all new AI tools, including ongoing staff training in responsible AI practices and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that every deployment of AI upholds public trust and meets our legal and ethical obligations.
Operational efficiency time savings, as measured during the pilot, are set out in the pilot evaluation. A high volume of detailed information is gathered during the asylum decision-making process and interviews. Decision makers who have had access to the case summary are able to effectively identify areas of review to aid the decision-making process. We will continue to review and improve the tool’s outputs for the benefit of decision makers. The output of the tool is deliberately designed not to provide enough information for the decision maker to make their decision. It is there to aid them in the decision-making process and direct them to the information that they need to do that more efficiently.
I want to re-emphasise the mitigations we are putting in place to protect public safety and national security from AI harms. They include new offences targeting AI-generated child sexual abuse materials and the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, and the extension of the paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated material. We are also working with industry and the AI Security Institute to understand and address AI-enabled harms. We have introduced measures that will enable authorised organisations to safely and easily test AI systems for harmful and illegal outputs, which will help to identify vulnerabilities in safety mechanisms, improve safeguards and prevent criminal misuse.
To reiterate, data protection law applies to any processing of personal data, including personal data processed by or for the development of AI systems related to immigration functions. Where solely automated decision making—any decision taken by automated means and without meaningful human involvement—has taken place for a decision that has legal or similarly significant effects, there are specific provisions in place. The Home Office does not undertake solely automated decision making, but uses AI in various roles across the system, such as translation, summarisation and other assistive roles. The use of those AI systems is governed by data protection law where personal data is processed, and by the Home Office’s internal AI use policy. The Information Commissioner has also published guidance on how to apply data protection law to AI, which is reflected in the Home Office’s processes and policies.
As I have said, AI can support our decision-making process, particularly by reducing the time that decision makers spend on basic, time-consuming tasks, allowing them to focus their attention and human expertise, to which the hon. Lady referred, where they are most beneficial. AI tools are already assisting asylum decision makers. The asylum case summarisation and asylum policy search tools are already in operation. Our evaluation of those tools shows that their use can reduce the time taken to carry out some decision-making tasks, creating new efficiencies. The Home Office published those evaluations, demonstrating our commitment to transparency.
It is right that we work to harness those opportunities for the benefit of those we serve. The Government’s position is that AI will have a significant part to play in transforming our public services and ensuring that the immigration system remains fair and sustainable in the future, while not placing unnecessary burdens on UK taxpayers. The new clause does not add to the safeguards already in place, but it does significantly restrict our ability to realise the benefits of AI in delivering better public services now and in the future. I do not believe that that it is proportionate or desirable.
New clause 38 seeks to prevent personal data relating to immigration, asylum and modern slavery from being used to train and develop AI models, to prevent suppliers of AI systems from retaining or using such data except to fulfil their obligations in providing the service, and to include redacted information within the definition of personal data for immigration purposes. AI systems must be tested and evaluated using real-world data to ensure that they are accurate, safe and effective. By prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for those purposes, the new clause would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data. Taken alone, it risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated.
Siân Berry
As I said in my speech, the impact assessment for the summarisation tool states that no other party is involved in the processing of people’s personal data. I think the Minister has confirmed that data is passed back into OpenAI and Microsoft systems for training by the tools. Would she be prepared to put that in writing for us so that we can look at it again?
Anna Turley
Yes, I am happy to respond and clarify. I reiterate that by prohibiting the use of immigration and other related data for these purposes, new clause 38 would severely constrain the development and deployment of AI, including for tools that have not been trained on Home Office data.
Taken alone, new clause 38 risks encouraging the deployment of AI that has not been rigorously tested and evaluated. The Government are committed to responsible AI adoption, so that is not tenable. In conjunction with new clause 37, however, the cumulative effect would be that AI could not be developed using, or deployed within, immigration and other related functions. That would prevent the use of AI to improve the efficiency and security of the immigration system and to protect the vulnerable, even where it is effective, efficient and ethical to do so.
The use of any personal data in the development of AI systems related to immigration and related functions is also governed by the UK GDPR, as I have said. Existing GDPR obligations impose rigorous processes to ensure that the processing of personal data is lawful, proportionate, secure and transparent. They also require those processing personal data to consider whether anonymous or pseudonymised data could be used to achieve the same result.
The Home Office manages AI suppliers through procurement, contractual and assurance controls designed to protect personal and Government data. Our AI policies have introduced appropriate contractual provisions. Contractual controls, including non-disclosure agreements and confidentiality clauses, expressly restrict how any Home Office data is processed and used—for example, Home Office contract material requires authority data to remain within the supplier’s secure environment.
Lastly, the intent of new clause 38(3) is already covered by data protection legislation, which provides the legal definition of personal data. The test for determining whether data is categorised as personal data requires a holistic assessment as to whether that data can be used to identify an individual, and does not rely solely on whether direct identifiers are included within it. Altering that definition through new clause 38 would have wide-ranging impacts, including on the definition of personal data offered in new clause 37.
For those reasons, the Government cannot accept the new clauses and I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion to withdraw the motion.
Siân Berry
I am afraid that I am not convinced that the Home Office has the right protections in place under current law or through the Bill. I detect that the Minister is not completely sure of the grounds that she has given for dismissing the new clauses, or that safeguards are in place for privacy and the most sensitive personal data in current and future use of AI.
I suspect that I have made the Minister think more about this today, so I hope that she will seek further information and consider introducing further measures to the Bill in its next stages. For now, pending further debate, I am happy not to press these two new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Further provisions relating to the prevention of slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Duty to prevent slavery and human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) A relevant organisation must take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking arising or occurring in—
(a) its own operations;
(b) the operations of any franchisee or subsidiary undertaking; and
(c) the operations, products or services of any person in its supply or value chain or other business relationship.
(2) In determining what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section, regard must be given to guidance issued by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on what are to be considered reasonable and proportionate steps for the purposes of this section within 12 months of passing of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations designate an enforcement authority with responsibility for ensuring that relevant organisations comply with the requirements of this section.
(5) The enforcement authority may, where it is satisfied that a relevant organisation has failed to comply with any of the requirements of this section—
(a) issue a public censure notice;
(b) require the organisation to take specified compliance, prevention, restoration or remediation steps within a specified period;
(c) require the organisation to compensate any persons adversely affected by the noncompliance;
(d) impose a monetary penalty of up to 5% of the organisation’s global turnover;
(e) exclude the organisation from participation in public procurement procedures for a period determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate or partnership, wherever incorporated or formed, which carries on a business or part of a business in the United Kingdom, supplies goods or services, and has, inclusive of any subsidiary undertaking, total turnover of £36 million or more;
(b) a public undertaking within the meaning of section 2(2) of the Procurement Act 2023;
“value chain” includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the commercial organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.
54B Responsibility for slavery or human trafficking in organisations and value chains
(1) Where slavery or human trafficking occurs or is identified in the supply or value chains of a relevant organisation (“O”), O is responsible for such slavery or human trafficking if—
(a) any activity of O causes or contributes to the occurrence of the slavery or human trafficking, or
(b) the occurrence of slavery or human trafficking is directly linked to O’s operations, products or services by O’s business relationships.
(2) O is not responsible for the slavery or human trafficking if it is proved that O had taken reasonable and proportionate steps under section 54A.
(3) Where O is responsible for slavery or human trafficking, O commits an offence.
(4) Where an offence under subsection (3) is committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, partner or other senior officer of O, that person also commits the offence.
(5) A party guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) in the case of a relevant organisation, and any director, manager, partner or other senior officer of that organisation who commits an offence under subsection (4), to an unlimited fine;
(b) in the case of an individual—
(i) on summary conviction, to an unlimited fine, with such a fine being proportionate to the degree to which they were responsible for slavery or human trafficking;
(ii) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, or to an unlimited fine, or to both.
(6) A person adversely affected by any slavery or human trafficking for which a relevant organisation is alleged to be responsible may bring civil proceedings against that organisation, whether or not criminal proceedings have been commenced or concluded in respect of the same conduct.
(7) Civil proceedings under this section may be brought by the person who claims to have been adversely affected by slavery or human trafficking (a “victim”), the Secretary of State, or any person acting on behalf of a victim.
(8) For the purposes of this section, “relevant organisation” has the meaning given in section 54A.’”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This new clause would require organisations to take steps to prevent slavery and human trafficking in their operations, and make organisations or individuals responsible for slavery or human trafficking liable to fines or imprisonment unless they have taken reasonable steps to prevent it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 40—Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour—
“After section 54 (transparency in supply chains etc) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, insert—
‘54A Designation of goods presumed to involve forced labour
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations designate—
(a) goods of a specified description,
(b) goods from a specified country, region, facility, undertaking, sector or industry, or
(c) goods involving a specified person,
as goods presumed to be made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour.
(2) An organisation which trades in the United Kingdom must publish on its website, as part of any slavery and human trafficking statement prepared under section 54 or otherwise, details of whether the organisation—
(a) makes available on the United Kingdom market,
(b) imports into the United Kingdom, or
(c) exports from the United Kingdom,
any goods designated by the Secretary of State under this section.
(3) Regulations under this section must provide for a right of appeal against any designation.
(4) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on compliance with this section and on the action organisations are to be required to take to reduce or eliminate their involvement with designated goods.
(5) In this section—
‘forced labour’ means forced or compulsory labour within the meaning of Article 2 of the Forced Labour Convention 1930 (No. 29) of the International Labour Organization, and includes forced child labour and labour or services exacted under slavery, servitude, human trafficking, debt bondage or any other form of coercion; goods are made with the involvement of, or as the result of, forced labour if forced labour has been used at any stage of their extraction, mining, harvesting, production, manufacture, processing, packaging, transportation or storage, at any stage of an organisation’s value chain;
‘value chain’ includes all activities undertaken by any entity during the lifecycle of a good or service upstream and downstream of the organisation, including but not limited to material sourcing, processing, production, manufacturing, development, sale, warehousing, logistics, marketing, finance, use and end of life disposal.’”
This new clause would permit the Secretary of State to designate goods as being presumed to involve forced labour and require organisations to publish whether they sell, import or export goods so designated.
Blake Stephenson
New clauses 39 and 40 raise an issue about which there is strong feeling across the House: goods made with forced labour, including in Xinjiang, entering British supply chains. Experienced and well-respected right hon. and hon. Members have drafted these new clauses carefully to be within the scope of the Bill, and they would, I think, like to hear the Government’s view on the moral and economic questions that arise—actually, having just said that, I believe that all those who have put their names to the new clause are right hon. Members.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that:
“The UK imports more than £20 billion-worth of goods every year that are at risk of being produced using forced labour.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 12, Q13.]
That figure matters more with every month that passes. From 14 December 2027, products made with forced labour cannot be sold in the European Union, whether they are imported or made there. The United States already bans them. Once those two markets are closed, those goods will look for the next open market, and there is a risk that, without action, that market will be the United Kingdom.
Goods made with forced labour are artificially cheap. British businesses are already expressing concern that they are being undercut by cheaper Chinese imports. Surely the risk is that the problem intensifies after other markets close their doors to such goods. Modern slavery already costs the UK up to £60 billion a year, and at present it is the taxpayer who pays to deal with exploitation after it has happened. UK firms that trade with the EU will have to meet its forced labour ban by 2027 anyway. There is widespread concern and a case to consider.
New clause 39 would create a new regulatory regime for large businesses, making them responsible for keeping forced labour out of their supply chains, with penalties of up to 5% of global turnover. New clause 40 is narrower. It would let the Government designate high-risk goods and require businesses to disclose whether they trade in them—the foundation that any import ban would need—and addresses a widely shared concern. Can the Minister explain what the Government’s policy is on preventing the import of goods made with forced labour, and when they will report their review of responsible business conduct?
Anna Turley
New clause 39 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to impose a duty on businesses with a turnover of £36 million or more and all public authorities to take reasonable steps to prevent modern slavery in their operations and supply chains or face criminal and civil penalties. New clause 40 would also amend the Modern Slavery Act, to allow the Secretary of State to designate goods presumed to involve forced labour, and to require organisations trading in the UK to publish a statement, either in their reporting under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act or otherwise, if they make, import or export any such goods.
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses. Their cross-party nature gives us reason to explore them in more detail. I want to reassure the Members who tabled the new clauses and members of the Committee that the Government are absolutely committed to tackling modern slavery and human trafficking. We recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses take effective action to identify and address risks within their operations and supply chains.
Clauses 44 to 49 of the Bill strengthen the current reporting requirements under section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act, raising expectations on businesses and public sector organisations to better report and act on exploitation in their supply chains, with stronger consequences for non-compliance. They sit alongside a range of other measures that we have taken to address forms of modern slavery, including forced labour.
For individuals and employers involved in modern slavery, there are criminal sanctions. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to reject bids and terminate contracts with suppliers known to use forced labour. The National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025 require public bodies to assess modern slavery risks and take responsible and proportionate measures to address them. Our trade policy also plays an important role. We pursue anti-forced labour provisions in our free trade agreements, and the developing countries trading scheme allows preferential trading arrangements to be suspended in cases of serious labour rights violations.
New clause 39 would go considerably further than the existing transparency regime and other measures we have in place to prevent modern slavery. I recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), in whose name it was tabled, to strengthen corporate action. However, a new duty of this nature, particularly one carrying potential criminal liability, could place a significant new burden on businesses. I was listening intently to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire but did not hear any sense of the financial implications of the new clause for businesses. We need to understand that this would be quite a considerable expansion of the duties that we put on businesses, which may have quite a considerable cost for them. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will be keen to ensure that we do not place further and disproportionate burdens on businesses in this country.
To impose such a duty, we would need to ensure that it is properly considered alongside the wider UK framework for tackling forced labour and other harms in supply chains. The Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade has undertaken a review of the UK’s approach to responsible business conduct. That was an evidence-based appraisal of the UK’s policy approach, its impact and, crucially, options to strengthen it further. The Government are considering the findings and will set out our position in due course.
On new clause 40, the Government again recognise the ambitions of the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge. However, the proposed designation mechanism raises important questions about the evidence and the threshold required to designate goods, how decisions will be made fairly and consistently, and what would be expected of businesses dealing with designated goods. Section 54 of the 2015 Act and the accompanying statutory guidance are clear that no industry is immune to the risks of modern slavery. We encourage organisations to actively identify, monitor and mitigate any risks pertinent to their operations and supply chains, rather than rely on a list of at-risk goods published by the Government.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. I am sure the right hon. and hon. Members who put their names to the new clauses will be grateful and will find that useful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 41
Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to UK immigration and asylum legislation
“(1) In respect of any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998 is of no effect and must be disregarded in the interpretation and application of such legislation;
(b) any such provision must be read and given effect to as if there were no mention of or reference to the Human Rights Act 1998.
(2) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under any provision of any UK legislation relating to immigration, asylum or deportation—
(a) a Minister of the Crown will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure;
(b) no immigration officer, court or tribunal may give any regard to the interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.”—(Matt Vickers.)
This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to UK legislation about immigration, asylum or deportation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 60—Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—
“In Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Article 8 of the ECHR), after section 117A insert—
‘117AA Relationship with the Human Rights Act 1998
(1) Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to this Part.
(2) A decision of the Secretary of State, or of a court or tribunal, that is made in accordance with this Part is not to be regarded as unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Acts of public authorities) by reason only of incompatibility with Article 8.’”
This new clause would make Part 5A an exclusive code for Article 8 in immigration cases by disapplying the interpretative obligation in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and providing that decisions taken in accordance with Part 5A are not unlawful under section 6 of that Act.
Matt Vickers
The British people are fair, but what they cannot stand is people who break the rules getting the same as or better than people who do not. To be fair to the Home Secretary, there are measures in the Bill that we welcome, but time and again it identifies the right problem but stops short of a solution. Nowhere is that clearer than on human rights law.
New clause 41 says that for immigration, asylum and deportation law, the Human Rights Act 1998 would have no effect. Our laws would mean what Parliament wrote. No officer, court or tribunal could act on a Strasbourg interim measure unless a Minister of the Crown decides that the UK should comply. New clause 60 would make part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—the article 8 code—final. Courts would not be able to reinterpret its words, and a decision made in line with it would not be unlawful just because it clashes with article 8.
Let me say why we tabled the new clauses. This is not about being against human rights. The Conservatives believe in the rule of law and protecting people from persecution, but the rule of law means laws made by this Parliament, applied as this Parliament intended. Over the past 25 years, the Human Rights Act has given the courts the job of reading words into immigration law that Parliament did not put there, and the effect has been to move the most important decision that any country makes—about who gets to stay—away from the people the public can vote out. That matters for democratic consent.
When people see a foreign criminal who abused children remain here because a judge felt that removing him could impact his family, they do not blame the judge; they blame all of us—Members of every party. They conclude that their votes do not change anything and that politicians are powerless or do not care. That corrodes trust in the whole system and hands a gift to those who want to tear it down rather than fix it. Our motivation is to restore the simple principle that Ministers decide, Parliament holds them to account, and the public holds Parliament to account at the ballot box.
There is a fairness point, too. The protections in our law should exist for the people who need them most: the genuine refugee and the victim of trafficking. Every time those protections are stretched to cover a convicted criminal, they lose their legitimacy, and it becomes harder to defend them. Why do we need them? Because of some of the cases we have seen.
In February last year, a Pakistani man convicted of child sex offences was allowed to stay in this country because a tribunal judge decided that deporting him would be unduly harsh on his family, even though the law already restricted his access to them. When the Home Office appealed, the upper tribunal called that ruling contrary to the evidence, plainly wrong and rationally insupportable, and sent it back to be heard again. A convicted child sex offender used his own children’s family life as a shield, and it took an appeal just to get the case reheard.
That was not a one-off. A Zimbabwean paedophile was due to be deported in 2021, but a judge blocked it. Why? Because, among other things, his criminal record for child sex offences meant he was likely to face hostility from the authorities if he went home. Let that sink in: the very crimes that should have guaranteed his removal became part of the reason he could stay. Most people in this country would find that not just wrong but upside down. A law that turns a conviction for abusing children into a shield against deportation is a law this Parliament has a duty to change.
In 2014, this House put part 5A into law to stop exactly that sort of outcome; 12 years later, the Government are back amending the same sections through clauses 18 to 20 of this Bill. Why? Because the courts keep reading our laws through the Human Rights Act and finding exceptions that Parliament never meant. The Law Society told this Committee that the Government’s new definition of family life is a big narrowing of article 8. Fine, but if the Minister wants those words to survive their first trip to court, she needs new clause 60.
Look at Rochdale. Adil Khan and Qari Abdul Rauf were members of the grooming gang convicted in 2012 of sexual offences against young girls. Rauf trafficked a 15-year-old girl for sex. They were stripped of their British citizenship. Then they spent seven years fighting deportation on article 8 grounds, while living in Rochdale near their victims. They finally lost in 2022. This summer, the Government were still in talks with Pakistan about removing them, and the Home Office has not said whether either has gone. Seven years of article 8 litigation for men who did that to children just is not acceptable.
Look at Reading. Khairi Saadallah’s asylum claim was refused. He had a string of convictions. The inquest heard that he had killed people in Libya before he came here, yet for years he was in limbo, refused but not removed, because of the risk on return to Libya. In June 2020, he murdered three men. The coroner found their deaths were “probably avoidable”.
Remember, too, June 2022, when a rule 39 indication issued late in the evening by a judge whose name was not then disclosed grounded a removal flight already on the runway. Under new clause 41, that decision would rest with a Minister, answerable to this House.
None of this is new to the House. The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 said that it was for a Minister of the Crown, not the courts, to decide whether to comply with a Strasbourg interim measure. Parliament passed it. This Government repealed it in full through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which received Royal Assent last December.
The question for the Minister is not whether this can be done; it is why her Government chose to undo it. Meanwhile, at the end of June, 21,294 foreign offenders due for deportation were living in our communities, up more than 2,000 in a year. If the Minister agrees that Parliament should decide who stays in this country, she should support the new clauses, and I commend them to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) and the hon. Members for Stockton West and for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling the new clauses, which would require the Government to limit the application of the Human Rights Act 1998 in immigration decisions.
Both new clauses seek to give greater weight to the wording of our domestic immigration legislation and would provide less scope for human rights challenges in UK immigration cases. However, they are likely to result in our domestic immigration legislation, and action taken under it, being found to be incompatible with the ECHR. The changes could reduce the ability of UK decision makers, including the courts, to resolve human rights issues, and they would increase the number of cases going to Strasbourg. They would undoubtedly create greater uncertainty in the relationship between domestic law and the UK’s convention obligations.
I do not want to relitigate all the discussions we have had over many days in Committee, but hon. Members will not be surprised that our position remains unchanged. We are clear that we are fully committed to the European convention on human rights. That commitment includes respect for our obligations under international law. We do not have to withdraw from the convention or disapply the Human Rights Act to deliver meaningful reform and ensure that we have an immigration system that has the consent of the British people.
Removing the duties and protections provided by the Human Rights Act would create greater confusion and inconsistency in decision making while reducing the UK’s ability to resolve human rights issues domestically. The Human Rights Act remains an important part of our constitutional arrangement and reflects the UK’s long tradition of protecting fundamental rights, enshrining those set out in the ECHR—which we helped to establish—while preserving parliamentary sovereignty. Courts cannot strike down primary legislation, and Parliament retains the final authority to determine how any incompatibility is addressed. Within that system, our separation of powers also recognises the importance of an independent and impartial judiciary in determining the application of rights or laws, including remedies available through judicial review.
As set out in the Government’s “Restoring Order and Control” statement, the balance between the individual’s article 8 rights and the public interest needs to be fundamentally reset, and that is part of the key principles of the Bill. The proposals set out in the Bill will help deliver that reset. We will make the fundamental changes that the immigration system requires to restore control at the borders and restore public confidence. We will clarify and tighten the application of article 8 to put more emphasis on compliance with the rules and contribution to the economy and society. That can be done while ensuring that article 8 protections remain available to those who genuinely need them.
The Government played a leading role in securing the Chişinău political declaration, which was agreed by consensus by all 46 Council of Europe member states on 15 May 2026. The declaration recognised the need to ensure that the convention remains effective in the face of modern migration challenges, and reaffirmed the importance of maintaining public confidence in the system. Together, all 46 member states supported a clearer, shared approach to applying the convention in line with established European Court of Human Rights case law. At its heart, the declaration recognised that national Governments and courts are usually best placed to assess the facts before them, including the application of article 3 protections and the balancing of article 8 rights against the public interest. That is how this Government are delivering reform: strengthening the system domestically while helping shape its operation internationally. We are addressing modern migration challenges by improving how the system operates in practice, not by stepping away from it. We need a seat at the table.
The UK is committed to complying with international law, including by implementing judgments of the ECHR and complying when it indicates binding interim measures in pending cases. Members should not forget that the European Court does not find against the UK routinely; indeed, in the last 10 years there has only been one immigration-related judgment concerning article 8. Other cases have been to secure protections for important issues on justice, such as police data and surveillance, as well as family court procedure. The Court has also reformed and improved its approach to interim measures, including by making it clear that they should be used only where there is evidence of an imminent risk of irreparable harm, which I welcome.
For those reasons, we cannot accept the new clauses. I respectfully invite the shadow Minister to withdraw them.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 43—Disregard of certain claims, applications etc—
“(1) The duty in section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) applies in relation to a person who meets the three conditions of that section regardless of whether the person—
(a) makes a protection claim,
(b) makes a human rights claim,
(c) claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or
(d) makes an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act.
(2) If a person who meets the three conditions of section (Duty to remove persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) makes a protection claim or a human rights claim within subsection (4), the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible.
(3) A declaration under subsection (2) that a protection claim or a human rights claim is inadmissible is not a decision to refuse the claim and no right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (right of appeal to the Tribunal) therefore arises.
(4) A human rights claim is within this subsection if it is a claim that removal of a person from the United Kingdom to—
(a) a country of which the person is a national, or
(b) a country or territory in which the person has obtained a passport or other document of identity,
would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).
(5) In this section—
‘application for judicial review’ means—
(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, an application to the High Court for judicial review,
(b) in Scotland, an application to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and
(c) any other application to a court or tribunal which is required by an enactment to be determined by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application within paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) References to a claim include a claim—
(a) that was made on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and
(b) that has not been decided by the Secretary of State on the date on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to remove people who have entered the UK without leave under NC42 even where a person makes a protection or human rights claim, claims to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking, or seeks judicial review.
New clause 55—Entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(1) (exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases), after paragraph (c) insert
‘or—
(d) the person has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027;’
(3) After section 8A, insert—
‘8AA Persons ineligible for leave to enter and remain, entry clearance or ETA
No person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2027 may—
(a) be given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) be granted an entry clearance; or
(c) be granted an electronic travel authorisation.’”
This new clause would prevent any person who has ever met the three conditions specified in NC42 from being able to enter the UK.
New clause 56—Limits on grants of British citizenship—
“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘ineligible person’ is a person who has ever met the three conditions specified in subsections (2) to (4) of section (Duty to remove those persons who have entered the United Kingdom without leave).
(2) An ineligible person is not entitled to be registered as a British citizen, British subject or British overseas territories citizen under any of the following sections of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(a) section 3(2) or (5) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(b) section 4(2) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc);
(c) section 5 (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: British overseas territories citizens having connection with Gibraltar);
(d) section 10(1) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(e) section 13(1) (resumption of British citizenship);
(f) section 17(2) or (5) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(g) section 22(1) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(h) section 13(1), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(i) section 27(1) (registration of minors as British overseas citizens);
(j) section 32 (registration of minors as British subjects).
(3) In relation to an application made by or in relation to an ineligible person, the Secretary of State may not—
(a) cause the person to be registered as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen under any of the following provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981—
(i) section 3(1) (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: minors);
(ii) section 4A (acquisition of British citizenship by registration: further provision for British overseas territories citizens);
(iii) section 10(2) (registration as British citizen following renunciation of citizenship of UK etc);
(iv) section 13(3) (resumption of British citizenship);
(v) section 17(1) (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by registration: minors);
(vi) section 22(2) (right to registration as British overseas territories citizen replacing right to resume citizenship of UK etc);
(vii) section 13(3), as applied by section 24 of that Act (resumption of British overseas territories citizenship);
(b) grant to the person a certificate of naturalisation as a—
(i) British citizen under section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British citizenship by naturalisation);
(ii) British overseas territories citizen under section 18 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by naturalisation).”
Matt Vickers
Together, these four clauses would mean that people who come here illegally are removed, cannot block that removal with last-minute claims, can never come back lawfully, and can never become British citizens. Take a man who lands on a beach in Kent on 1 December 2026, having paid a smuggling gang with no visa and no permission, and having come from France, a safe country. Under new clause 42, he meets all three conditions. He needed leave and did not have it; he entered without permission; and he arrived after 30 June 2026, the day this Bill was introduced. The Home Secretary had to remove him to his own country or a safe third country. He claimed asylum; under new clause 43, that claim would be inadmissible, there would be no appeal and a modern slavery claim or judicial review would not stop the duty either. If he later applied for a visa, new clause 55 would say never, and new clause 56 would say that he could never become a British citizen. The message to the next person on the beach in northern France would change from, “Get across, and you will probably stay,” to, “Get across, and you will be sent back for good.”
Anna Turley
I thank the Conservatives for their new clauses in this group. The main thrust of the new clauses is to restore the duty to remove, which as the hon. Gentleman set out bears a striking similarity to their failed Illegal Migration Act 2023. In fact, new clause 42 seems to copy and paste direct excerpts from that Act.
I will take a moment to remind the Committee exactly what happened when the 2023 Act received Royal Assent: asylum decision making stopped. Not a single decision was made, but arrivals continued. That led to an enormous backlog of cases, which we have to overcome in order to prevent the system from being completely overwhelmed. Everything that came afterwards was a direct result of that decision. More and more hotels housing migrants opened every week, and the cost of housing migrants skyrocketed.
This Government ended that chaos, restarted decision making, removed more than 80,000 people—up by more than 50%—reduced hotel use, with fewer than 160 now in operation, and brought down the cost of the asylum system by almost £1 billion. Incredibly, however, the Opposition want to take us back.
This Government have made significant progress in reducing the number of small boats, down from the highs we saw under the previous Government. As of 13 October, arrivals are down around 40% on 2025, and the annual record for crossings remains 45,774 arrivals in 2022; the number of organised immigration crime arrests and other disruptions are at record levels; our work with France has prevented more than 50,000 attempted crossings since the general election; and more than 60% of small boat events have been prevented this year.
The new clause sets out three conditions that this rehashed duty to remove would apply to. In essence, the Opposition argue that any individual without the legal right to be here should be deported, but I highlight what I said, that more than 80,000 individuals with no right to remain in the UK have been returned or removed from the UK since the 2024 election.
Matt Vickers
Does the Minister think that fewer than one in 10 of those people who arrive illegally being removed is the right thing? Does she believe that people who arrive illegally should be able to go on to become British citizens?
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman knows that we have made substantial improvements on the removals, which are up more than 50%. Our intention is clear. I hope he has heard our announcements, here and yesterday, that mean that people who arrive on that route will face an extra penalty. They will not be able to settle within five years, as they would have been able to under his Government; they will now have to wait approximately 30 years to be able to settle in this country.
In the year ending July 2026, there were 12,412 voluntary and enforced asylum-related returns, 10% more than in the previous year. In support of those outcomes, between July 2024 and July 2026, the Home Office operated 167 charter flights, alongside the tens of thousands of returns made on scheduled commercial flights. Removing those with no right to be here is a key pillar of the work of the Home Office to tackle illegal migration. The crux of the argument set out in the new clauses comes through with the drafting set out in new clause 43. It states that all forms of protection, human rights and modern slavery claims should be declared inadmissible without any suggestion of where the claimants could be safely and lawfully returned.
As hon. Members opposite will know, many individuals come to this country seeking refuge from torture, degrading treatment, exploitation, political persecution and death. This country has never turned its back on those who genuinely need our help, and under this Government, it is not about to start doing so. It is also interesting that the new clauses are essentially copied and pasted from the Illegal Migration Act. If this scheme was such a deterrent, how come despite that threat, small boat arrivals were higher in the first half of 2024 in the run up to their scheme than in the first half of 2026? The reality is that any third country scheme needs to be feasible and in collaboration with other international bodies and partners, because a scheme that will not work is no deterrent at all.
New clause 55 is another copy and paste from the Illegal Migration Act. It seeks to amend the Immigration Act 1971 to disallow anyone from entering the UK who has met three conditions. This would prevent anyone who had ever met the conditions in new clause 42 from ever entering the UK—whatever the circumstances. This completely removes the discretion of the Secretary of State from granting leave to enter. Additionally, new clause 56 would place limits on the ability to grant forms of British nationality to those entering the UK without leave.
I recognise that we are in familiar territory here. These new clauses mirror in part similar provisions that were placed into the Illegal Migration Act 2023 and apply them to a wider cohort. The House will recall that on taking office in 2024, steps were taken first to suspend the operation of the Illegal Migration Act and then to repeal it completely last year in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025.
It will be no surprise to say that, having already taken such steps, we cannot accept this clause which would reverse the position again while extending its principles to even more people. That does not mean that we do not recognise the concerns that these measures might be said to address and the need to confront attempts to circumvent immigration control. However, rather than rely solely on statute, we have already made substantial changes to the good character guidance in this area and have also successfully defended those changes when challenged in court. We have made it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally or arrives without the required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation having made a dangerous journey, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused. That approach sends out a strong message that arriving unlawfully will not result in citizenship for the vast majority of individuals, while still retaining an essential element of flexibility for the rare deserving case.
The Committee will forgive me for saying that it is disappointing that in the two and a half years that they have been out of government, the Members opposite seem to have no new solutions to the problems of illegal migration in this country, and instead wish to reheat an idea that so spectacularly failed the first time around. The Government reject these new clauses, and will instead get on with the job of bringing down the number of small boat arrivals, removing those with no right to be here, and delivering value for money for taxpayers in our asylum system.
Our collective efforts on both sides of the channel are having an impact but we are not complacent. We know that there is more to do. There is no single intervention that would stop all small boats, and that is why we will be relentless in bringing the criminal gangs to justice, reducing the incentives to make these crossings, strengthening international co-operation against people smugglers and ensuring the swift return of those with no right to be here.
It is pertinent at this point to remember the goals of this Bill in the light of the inheritance that this Government received. The goals of this Bill are simple: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees and to offer protections under human rights law for those who are in genuine need and close loopholes that have too often been abused so as to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so.
This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities and make sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come. For the reasons outlined, I invite Members to withdraw the new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We can pass all the laws we like, but if nobody carries out the removals, nothing changes. New clause 44 would require the Home Secretary to set up a dedicated UK removals force within six months. Its job would be clear: remove foreign offenders, illegal entrants, visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and illegal workers and return them to their home country or a safe third country, and work with the police and use facial recognition and shared biometric data to find people with no right to be here.
I will give the Government credit: returns have gone up, but let us be clear where much of that capacity came from. Most returns of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been to Albania under the returns arrangement the last Government agreed. The Government inherited that and built on it, which is fair enough, but let us look under the bonnet. In the year to June 2026, there were 9,669 enforced returns. Voluntary returns passed 30,000, many paid up to £3,000 to go, and nearly half of those who took up the scheme last year were Brazilians. Would the Committee believe it? How many of those people would have gone anyway? Paying people to leave is not enforcement. Now look at the size of the job. The Home Office made 116,000 initial asylum decisions last year, with a grant rate of 38%—tens of thousands of refusals. More than 21,000 foreign offenders are living in the community awaiting deportation, and fewer than 6,000 foreign offenders were returned in the year.
Failure to remove has a human cost. Emad al-Swealmeen had his asylum appeal dismissed in 2015, and he was not removed. Six years later, he detonated a home-made bomb in a taxi outside Liverpool women’s hospital. Khairi Saadallah was refused, convicted, and left in limbo for years before he murdered three men in Reading. Ahmed Alid’s claim was refused, and three years later, he was still in Home Office housing in Hartlepool when he killed Terence Carney.
Why have we tabled the new clause? Because a law that is not enforced is worse than no law at all. It tells people that the rules are for show. Every time a refused asylum seeker, a visa overstayer or a foreign offender stays on with no consequences, it sends a signal around the world that the UK is a soft touch and it tells the public at home that the system has given up. We want enforcement to be a priority, with its own leadership, budget and accountability to this House, so that Ministers can be asked a straight question, “How many have they removed?”, and they have to give a straight answer. Right now, removals are spread across immigration enforcement, escort contractors and the police, who all have other priorities. The new clause would create one body with one mission and the resources and powers to do the job. That is how we would stop a refused claim turning into permanent residence by default. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Member for tabling new clause 44, but I do not agree that it is necessary. The functions and powers of the removal force proposed in new clause 44 already exist within Immigration Enforcement and Border Force, which are directly accountable to the Home Secretary.
Most of the functions set out for this proposed new removals force are functions that law enforcement agencies already carry out. Without wishing to repeat myself, I reminded the Committee earlier that we have carried out over 80,000 returns, which is a 52% increase, as the hon. Member was generous enough to acknowledge. We have done so at a time when similar duties were already in place under the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023.
I will highlight again that we are taking pragmatic steps to develop returns agreements with countries, which has delivered clear results. In October 2025, we signed an agreement with Vietnam to crack down on illegal migration and to increase returns. In August, we signed a migration partnership with Egypt, which will continue to bear down on illegal migration and cut the time required to return Egyptian nationals with no right to be in the UK by 90%. They are just a couple of examples.
As Members will be aware, we have also leveraged our visa system to positive effect. Earlier this year, after threatening Namibia, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo with visa penalties, the Home Secretary secured returns co-operation from all three countries. Restructuring the work of law enforcement agencies, which are already seeing a large increase in the number of returns, into one organisation would also be a costly distraction—a shifting of the deckchairs—from the effective work that is already being carried out.
I have said previously that there is plenty more work to do and that the Government are not complacent. The measures in clause 20, which has already been debated, demonstrate a real and material way in which the Government can increase the volume of returns of foreign national offenders. Simply moving around powers and creating new organisations at great public expense is not a credible way to achieve that. For those reasons, I reject the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 54—Finality of decisions—
“(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made a decision in respect of a protection claim or immigration claim.
(2) Any decisions or conclusions of the Secretary of State are final and are not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court or tribunal.
(3) In particular—
(a) the decision maker is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision;
(b) the supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to, and no application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to, the decision.
(4) The court of supervisory jurisdiction is not to entertain any application or petition for judicial review in respect of a decision relating to a protection claim or an immigration claim that it would not entertain (whether as a matter of law or discretion) in the absence of this section.
(5) In this section—
‘decision’ includes any purported decision;
‘first-instance decision’ means the decision in relation to which permission (or leave) to appeal is being sought;
‘the supervisory jurisdiction’ means the supervisory jurisdiction of—
(a) the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or
(b) the Court of Session, in Scotland,
and “the court of supervisory jurisdiction” is to be read accordingly.”
This new clause would prohibit judicial review for all immigration decisions except on vires grounds (where the Secretary of State has exceeded their statutory powers).
Matt Vickers
This group of new clauses is about ending the endless cycle of claims, appeals and challenges. New clause 46 would set four simple rules: someone should make all their claims at once; they should back them with real, checkable evidence; they should not contradict what they have said; and there is only one appeal. Later claims are inadmissible unless something has genuinely changed in someone’s home country, and claims based on how someone has behaved since arriving are disregarded.
New clause 54 makes the Home Secretary’s decision final, with no possibility for judicial review, except where she has acted outside her legal powers. That builds on what Parliament has already done. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 introduced evidence notices and told decision makers to give minimal weight to evidence produced late without good reason. This Government kept that Act. New clause 46 takes the same principle to its logical conclusion: if something was not raised at the start, and nothing has changed at home, it does not get raised at all.
Three cases show why that should be so. Abdul Ezedi raised his conversion to Christianity only on his third attempt. The Home Office warned he was using religion for his own ends; he could not answer basic questions about the faith. A judge granted him asylum anyway. In January ’24, he attacked a mother and two little girls with a corrosive substance in Clapham.
Emad al-Swealmeen came here on a visit visa claiming he wanted a holiday, and then claimed asylum as a Syrian. The judge rejected his account in its entirety in 2015. He converted after his appeal rights were exhausted, made a fresh claim under a different name and had yet another appeal outstanding on the day he set off a bomb outside Liverpool Women’s hospital—more than six years after he first lost his case.
Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai arrived in 2019 claiming to be a 14-year-old orphan. He was in fact an adult who had murdered two people in Serbia with a Kalashnikov on his way here. He was placed with a foster carer and given a place at a school. In March ’22, he stabbed a 21-year-old to death.
Under new clause 46, a claim built on a false identity, a false age, a new name or a conversion after arrival would not get off the ground. Under new clause 54, a decision made would stick. That is not harsh; it is how most people assume the system already works.
Jamil Ahmed is a Pakistani national living in Scotland. He was convicted in 2008 of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl aged between 13 and 16. In 2013, he was convicted again for the same offence against another girl and for sexually assaulting a teenager, and jailed for three and a half years. He was made subject to a deportation order and lost his appeals twice. After a legal fight lasting the best part of a decade, he finally won at the upper tribunal—on the basis that the reporting of his crimes would put him at risk if he went home. That took nearly 10 years of litigation, but under new clause 54 a decision would have been made. It would have been final, and he would have gone.
These new clauses are motivated by a simple belief that a fair system is a final system. Endless litigation does not serve genuine refugees. It leaves them waiting in the same queue as those gaming the process, sometimes for years, unable to get on with their lives. It also does not serve the taxpayer, who picks up the bill for the hotel, the support, the lawyers and the tribunal, and it does not serve justice, because a decision that can be reopened again and again is not really a decision at all.
We should get it right first time, give people one fair appeal, and then let the answer stand. That is how every other part of public life works, and asylum should be no different. The system is drowning. More than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, each taking around 61 weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that there were nearly 330,000 open cases across our tribunals earlier this year.
Furthermore, the Government already accept the principle of finality. Clause 1 has an ouster clause for the new appeals body. If finality is right for that body, will the Minister tell the Committee why it is wrong for the Home Secretary? I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Anna Turley
I thank the right hon. Member for Croydon South and the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling these new clauses. The Government are committed to an asylum system where claims are considered promptly and fairly, and where any abuse is investigated and swiftly dealt with. The core issue that new clause 46 seeks to address—that all claims related to an asylum case should be made at the same time—is already well covered in existing policy and legislation.
Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 sets out that an asylum claimant’s credibility will be damaged if they make a claim late. Similarly, verifiable and objective evidence clearly describes the kind of supporting evidence that we would expect to see where reasonably available.
I understand the frustration of the hon. Member for Stockton West with stories of asylum abuse—many of which he has detailed—such as claims being made on the steps of charter flights, but we cannot support the new clause. It would substantially restrict our ability to consider the full circumstances of an individual case. As he will be able to imagine, there are good reasons why relevant information or evidence might become available only after an initial application has been made, and it is important that it be considered.
Matt Vickers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 47 is one line long, and would abolish legal aid for applications or claims about a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK. Immigration and asylum legal aid cost £59 million in 2024-25, which paid for more than 64,000 pieces of work. The Government have since added a £20 million-a-year uplift to the fees. Under this Government, more taxpayer money goes to immigration litigation, not less.
Let me put it simply: a family in Stockton who cannot get legal aid for a dispute with their employer or for most family court cases are entitled to ask why it is there for someone who came here illegally to fight their removal. Since 2012, legal aid has been taken away from large parts of civil law for British citizens, and immigration should not be the exception. It shapes behaviour: more than 90,000 asylum appeals are waiting, and more than a third of asylum appeals are withdrawn before they are even heard. When someone else is paying, there is very little cost to having a go. We have already heard about what endless rounds of claims and appeals can lead to.
Our motivation is about priorities. Every pound of public money has to be justified. Right now, families across the country are being asked to tighten their belts. When budgets are stretched, the public expect legal aid to go first to British citizens who are facing eviction, domestic abuse or the loss of their children before it goes to funding challenge after challenge against removal.
This is not about denying anyone their day in court, but about deciding who the taxpayer should pay for and being honest about it. This new clause would save money, cut last-minute challenges and put the British taxpayer first. I think most people would say that that is not an unreasonable expectation. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Anna Turley
New clause 47 seeks to remove the availability of legal aid for immigration cases. As hon. Members know, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters involving vulnerable individuals, including victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, and separated migrant children. Legal aid is not granted automatically, and applications remain subject to both a means test and a merits test. Legal aid is available for asylum cases and for immigration advice for victims of domestic abuse or modern slavery, separated migrant children, and those challenging immigration detention decisions.
Removing legal aid from all immigration and asylum matters would risk reducing access to justice for individuals facing complex immigration and asylum proceedings. Legal aid helps to ensure that those seeking protection can access justice and supports the effective operation of the asylum system, which is fundamentally central to an open, independent and fair justice system. The UK also has obligations under the UN refugee convention to provide access to justice for those seeking asylum.
The hon. Member for Stockton West asked why we continue to fund legal aid for immigration matters specifically. As I said, legal aid is available for asylum cases and certain immigration matters, particularly for those involving vulnerable individuals, victims of domestic abuse—