Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debateThe Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Members of the Committee paying close attention will have noticed that we have two draft statutory instruments to consider. The Minister will move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and ask the Minister to move the second motion formally. If we are to be interrupted by votes in the main Chamber, I shall suspend the Committee for 15 minutes for the first vote and 10 minutes for any subsequent vote, so that everyone knows where we stand.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. Both draft statutory instruments were laid before the House on 5 March this year.
Our Government have set out their vision to restore order to and control of our borders, and to deliver a fair but firm system for those who seek asylum in our country. As part of the reforms, we seek to ensure that asylum support—both financial provision and accommodation—is provided to those who need it. The reforms set out in the draft statutory instruments before the Committee will enable the development of a system in which assistance is directed towards those who would otherwise be truly destitute, while strengthening our ability to act in cases where individuals disregard the rules.
The changes form part of a longer-term shift towards a fairer, modern asylum support framework—one that upholds our legal responsibilities while promoting compliance and deterring misuse. For context, it is important for the Committee to understand that in the financial year ’24-25, a total of £4 billion was spent by Government on asylum support in the UK. That figure has reduced by 15%, but it is a significant sum of money to support the 107,003 people in receipt of asylum support as of December. Given the burden on the taxpayer, it is right that we ensure that that money is spent properly, in the best possible way. The instruments serve that purpose.
The first of the draft instruments to consider, the Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, provides for a key element of our reforms: the shift from a mandatory duty to provide asylum support to a discretionary power, as originally provided for in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It reinforces the fact that state support should be provided to those who genuinely need it. Again, it will be important for the Committee to hear that we will always meet our human rights obligations regarding avoiding destitution, but the flexibility provided by reverting from a duty to a power is essential to ensure that we have an equitable and sustainable system.
The second draft instrument that we are debating, the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, will enable the discontinuation of an individual’s support solely on the basis of illegal working. Previously, if illegal working was suspected, the Department had to treat such behaviour as potential fraud before support could be withdrawn. By making illegal working an explicit breach of support conditions under the regulations, we are providing a direct and transparent basis for discontinuing assistance in appropriate cases without the need for extended investigative processes.
Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in this country, but some choose to do so illegally, while claiming asylum support and accommodation. That, of course, is not right. It undercuts legitimate business and takes genuine work opportunities away from others. We often see very public signs of that in many communities. Allowing illegal working in that way, without consequences, undermines public confidence in the system, where public confidence is already rather low. It also acts as a pull factor—we know from the traffickers’ materials that the ability to work illegally in this country acts as a pull factor. We are changing that reality. The draft immigration and asylum instrument is an important part of that. Under it, illegal working will be a clear and explicit ground for removing section 4 support under the 1999 Act from failed asylum seekers; it will therefore align with the section 98 and 95 provision that was laid alongside these measures and came into force on 27 March.
Taken together, our reforms will rebalance the system so that support aligns with responsibility. The genuinely destitute will continue to receive help, but those who do not meet that threshold, or who breach the rules, will not be able to rely on taxpayer-funded support. The reforms are necessary to ensure that asylum support functions effectively now and is resilient enough to meet future pressures. In delivering them, we will reinforce public trust and maintain a system that is compassionate, is credible and promotes compliance with the rules. The Government’s position is straightforward: fairness for those who need support and follow the rules, firm action where the rules are not followed, and a clear duty to the taxpayer who funds the system.
Alex Norris
Colleagues have made an interesting range of contributions, and I will try to cover all the points they have made.
I will start with the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent. The hon. Member for Fylde finished her thoughts regarding tinkering around the edges. We have committed to replacing this regime with a full framework. It is right that we take time to engage with the local government family—the hon. Member for Woking mentioned them—and with wider interested parties to make sure that is right. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent has heard clearly what the Government intend to do, which is to make sure that those housed at significant expense to the British taxpayer carry out their part of the bargain by not committing crimes. I will come on to the remarks of the hon. Member for Dundee Central, but I am quite surprised at his defence of that.
Chris Law
I am not supporting illegality; the question is the scale of the illegality. To go back to the 0.3%, 0.05% are found to be guilty, and the cost to the entire United Kingdom per year—bear in mind that we are talking about £4 billion in asylum costs at the moment—is roughly £277,000. Can the Minister not agree that although there are cases, the Government are not allowing people to work and at the same time they expect everybody to be abiding absolutely within their system? That is already leading to ill health and near destitution. The level of crime that I have—
The Chair
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is passionate on this subject, but interventions must be brief.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has occupied his second position in about three minutes, so perhaps he needs a little more time. But I cannot get with the argument that because the numbers may be small—of course that is a good thing—the situation is in some way tolerable. The numbers who commit crime across the population are, mercifully, small, but we still seek to prosecute; we still seek punishment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that unimportant. If something happened in his constituency—despite that very small number of people, a significant crime could take place or illegal working could have an impact on the local economy—the people of Dundee might feel strongly about that. I think that they would.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, talked about this measure not being enough to provide discouragement. She also talked about scale and suggested that what we know is only a small part of the issue. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, the extra powers, particularly on the gig economy, to ensure that those substituting their labour are doing so to people who have a genuine right to work, are a step change in the regulatory regime in this country. They will help us to close the gap and make it very hard indeed to work illegally here.
The hon. Member also said that meaningful change is impossible without leaving the ECHR. I always caution colleagues about being quick to discount things that provide a really important underpinning of rights, because they are our rights too. “Restoring Order and Control”, our document published in November, is the biggest reform of our asylum system certainly in my adult lifetime—probably in my whole lifetime, to be fair. That is all doable within our international obligations. The reality is that the alternative to doing those serious things is just ripping up our international obligations and then spending years trying to work out how to get back return agreements with other countries, never mind our own freedoms.
Katie Lam
Could the Minister give us a quantitative way in which we can judge whether that has been a success, so that we can decide whether further steps need to be taken? How many people coming here illegally would he be able to tolerate—would enable him to decide that actually that is okay?
Alex Norris
I gently say that I do not think it is my test. The public are very clear about what they think about the system: the system lacks order and control. The test by which we judge our efforts is whether we bring order and control to the system, and that is what we are doing.
That allows me to segue nicely to what the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, said about a credible plan; that is the plan, as he well knows, given that he was part of those deliberations and has been on many occasions. He talked about the appeals backlog—a very important point. I gently say that that is a sign of a system that we are getting to grips with. He will know—indeed, I think I have heard him talk about this before—that the original sin, particularly in relation to hotel capacity, comes from the backlog in initial decision making from when the previous Government just stopped making decisions. As a result, a huge backlog built up. I am very pleased that, as a Government, we have been able to get through that backlog.
The hon. Member has talked about this before, and I listened carefully to what he said about Nightingale-style decision making. I gently say that we do not need to do that, because of the decisions that have been made at a quicker rate, without affecting the grant rate but with better and improving quality. That of course creates pressures on the appeal system while that cohort of people move through it. That is not a forever thing, although I recognise it. He talks about a plan; he will have seen what we have said about appeals reform. I hope that he and his colleagues will feel able to support that in due course.
The hon. Member also talked about knock-on effects on others. I am particularly mindful of local government; he knows my passion for local government. The intention of this measure is not to shift the burden from the Home Office to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or to councils. Indeed, he will have seen our plans to reduce homelessness, in respect of which we are a significant stakeholder. Of course we are mindful of those effects. I argue that the article 3 backstop in relation to destitution should give him—I hope it does—a degree of confidence that that is not going to happen.
The point about a right to work is one of principled disagreement between us. My strong view is that, if we know that traffickers are saying, “Come to the UK—you will be housed in a hotel and allowed to work illegally”, simply changing the reality so that the people can work legally would be an intolerable pull factor. However, to help close that gap there is the right to work at 12 months, so the gap is not so big. The hon. Gentleman suggested around six months. I do not know if he would go any further, but he certainly mentioned six in his contribution.
With regards to important questions around slavery, the hon. Member mentioned that he does not quite understand the definition of “deliberate”. I do not think people will be accidentally working illegally, but I accept they could be compelled to. That is why we have modern slavery protections through the Modern Slavery Act 2015. We of course take that exceptionally seriously. That vulnerable group of people will not be affected by these provisions.
The hon. Member gave me a slightly impossible challenge by asking me what I will do to make sure that a future Government who do not currently exist do not do something that he and I would not want. I kind of get that, but, as many people have said in this room over the centuries, one Government cannot bind the hands of a future Government. There is a reality there. That is why we have elections and we seek to continue in Government. However, at least in most cases, we have a backstop—we have an article 3 backstop and a refugee convention backstop—that gives universal protections irrespective of the Government of the day. Those principles are of course contested, although not by us, but I hope the hon. Member is reassured that the backstop exists.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Dundee Central, spoke at great length about a world that I did not quite recognise, and which I have to say is not in anything we are preparing here. I say gently to him that there is nothing progressive about defending a status quo where human traffickers have the most agency and people routinely lose their lives in the channel, and that is before any sort of transit effects—never mind the impact on the women and children in that transit. If that was a challenge about where I sit on the political spectrum, there was language in what he said I would not recognise.
This is a hopelessly broken system; there is nothing progressive about defending it, which is why we are seeking to change it. The hon. Member set out quite a dystopian vision, but I gently say that for around six years of our nation’s history, between 1999 and 2005, we relied on the power rather than the duty. I was at school at the time and remember those days only tangentially, but it was not exactly a dystopian past, so I do not recognise what he said.
The hon. Member said that the support we have today should be a floor, not a ceiling. I have not heard from Scottish nationalist colleagues—even, I suspect, as a feature of the current election in Scotland—a suggestion of what services or public investments they would cut in order to top this up, and in what way. I hope that he will be out making the case for that on the doorstep as soon as possible, and at least quantify what we should stop doing, so that we can do more on this.
The hon. Member also mentioned destitution. Again, I would rely on the article 3 backstop on that. He talked about a “straw man”, but that is not in the nature of my politics. I reassure him that this is a genuine attempt to grip a system that does not work. We have had lots of debates in the Chamber on the other things we are doing; this is a serious attempt to grasp a serious problem. It is a good thing that the level of offending is mercifully low, but we want that level to be nil, as that is a fair balance with the taxpayer. That is why we are doing what we are doing.
The hon. Member for Fylde asked what side we are on—left or right? I am on the side of the British people. That is the reason why I am here. It is why I stood for my council. It is why I stood for Parliament and why I wanted to be a Government Minister.
Alex Norris
It is not a cop out, as the hon. Gentleman suggests from his seat. It is about saying that there is nothing progressive about defending a broken status quo or a reality that the British public know does not work—and we do know that. We are all knocking on doors at the moment, right? Instead, we seek to build something rooted in British values. That is the side I am on.
The hon. Member talked about hotel closures. He challenged me by saying that his community is not seeing change, but the closure of a hotel is a significant change, and that is coming to the 180 or so hotels that are still open, down from 400 at the peak.
Mr Snowden
I want to make sure that the Minister does not put words in my mouth. I did not say that this was not a good thing, but that we are waiting with bated breath to find out whether it is a good thing, based on where the people who were being housed in the hotel will be placed.
Alex Norris
People enter and exit the system at various points for various reasons. Our number one principle is that we want to reduce demand. In the last two years, there have been more than 80,000 applications. Between 2011 and 2020, there were a third of that number. The No. 1 way to close hotels is to reduce demand.
Dispersal accommodation is a factor in all our communities. We operate the policy of full dispersal, which we inherited from the previous Government, to make sure that that is done in an equitable way. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am afraid that I must suspend the sitting.
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the Committee. I have made my points, so I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.