Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Q I have some further questions to Vicky. In your observations, you do say that efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of “procedural fairness” but also of

“access to protection and successful integration.”

You also warn that the Bill could

“undermine conditions that support successful integration for those ultimately recognised as refugees.”

Could you outline how you think the Bill, in practice, will harm integration?

Vicky Tennant: I would say the key area is the recovery of asylum support. We understand that what is envisaged is potentially up to £10,000 per person to be recovered. Imagine that a refugee has gone through a long and difficult set of experiences before arrival in the UK, and has then gone through the uncertainty of the asylum process, potentially for an extended period of time, where they are unable to work or to start the process of getting back on their feet. Then, just as they are getting into employment and starting to rebuild their lives, the prospect of having to repay a potentially large sum of money could impede that. That was the main element that we felt was relevant to integration.

The article 8 point and the ability to reunite with family members is also relevant. Many times when talking to asylum seekers and refugees, I have seen the anguish, the disruption and the sense of something that is unfinished. Being reunited with family and able to restart family life is an element that is fairly fundamental to integration, from the perspective of not only the refugee, but the UK public and communities. We think that giving refugees the possibility to start afresh and moving them as quickly as possible into the integration journey is important, and we know that that is also one of the Government’s stated objectives.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q Given the concerns that you have raised, how likely is it that the Bill will restore confidence in the asylum system? If that is not likely, what else would you like to see in it that would restore confidence?

Vicky Tennant: I go back to what I said: legislation is only part of the answer. There are elements of the Bill—particularly those that focus on trying to ensure the quality, efficiency and sustainability of the appeals process—that, if made to work successfully, could contribute to building public confidence in the system. As I said, UNHCR recognises that public confidence is what underpins the refugee convention; we can all speak about the law and the refugee convention, but what is needed to deliver these things in practice is public support for welcoming refugees and for a well-functioning system.

On what would be needed in addition, there is a lot of work under way, particularly to make the first instance decision-making process quicker and to improve the quality of decision making. UNHCR has been working directly with the Home Office on that front for some time, and we have been encouraged by the progress. As I said, it is also about the ability to remove people who are found not be in need of international protection. One can do that only if there is a well-functioning system and there is confidence that it gets the decisions right.

Safe, regular routes are a big part of a well-functioning, fair system. From the public perspective, what we see consistently in the polling and the various surveys that have been done is that the British people want to welcome refugees. There is support for maintaining the UK as a place of refuge, and the more safe, regular, managed pathways there are to do that, the more it can be delivered and that confidence can be sustained.

That cannot be a replacement for access to territorial asylum, which is where it can sometimes be very challenging. As UNHCR, we recognise the challenges the Government face in addressing the crossings in the channel. Nobody wants to see a situation where people are forced into dangerous journeys and where the business is essentially controlled by smugglers and criminals. What is really essential is that you have a good, functioning system for considering asylum claims quickly and removing people who are not in need of asylum, and that also involves the management of arrivals in a sensible way.

Partnership with international partners is an absolutely critical aspect of that, including with France but also with other international partners. That is about co-operation upstream to make sure people have alternatives and do not feel they have no alternative but to move onwards, but it is also about co-operation around the management of arrivals at UK borders. The international standards, the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights provide that common baseline that enables the UK to work with international partners in trying to find solutions to these common challenges.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q I do not wish to cut you off, but I asked the question to all three panellists. Eleanor, briefly, please.

Eleanor Lyons: Very briefly, touching on part 5 of the Bill in particular, I do not think we will restore confidence in the asylum system by weakening protections for victims of modern slavery. I welcome some parts of the Bill, including better advocacy for child victims of exploitation, devolving decision-making pilots, and work around tackling forced labour in supply chains, but that should go further than it does at the moment.

Fundamentally, the Bill makes it harder for safeguarding professionals to identify victims of exploitation in communities across the country, including child victims and UK national victims, and I do not think that that restores public confidence in the system. Unfortunately, I think it erodes confidence that we are not safeguarding cohorts who need our help and support, who do not get the right to remain even if they are confirmed to be victims of modern slavery.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q The same question, briefly, Will. Do you also have any international experience that it might be worth us hearing about, maybe from Australia and so on?

Dr Prescott: Building on what the others have said, there are obviously bits in the Bill that are very positive. The expansion of the reporting requirements—again, you have learned a bit from the Australian experience and the Canadian experience—into public sector organisations is obviously very positive. But, to build on the earlier point, the ultimate way to improve confidence is to improve processes in the system. It is about making sure that organisations have a dedicated point of contact so that there is someone who is directly responsible for modern slavery in first responder organisations. It is about improving and standardising training so that people know what signs to look for when they are dealing with potential victims. That is the best way to stop the last-minute claims, which, though small in number—I think Eleanor said they are less than 2%—have a disproportionate psychological effect. That will also be much better for victims. A lot more attention needs to be on improving the processes, improving the training and making sure someone is actually responsible in first responder organisations.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Q We have already mentioned the European convention on human rights, and other articles are involved too. Ms Tennant and Ms Lyons, can you comment on the fact that clause 36 would place an additional burden of proof and onus on the victim to self-identify? We know that the state has a duty under the ECHR and other obligations, such as the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. What is the interplay between making it a harder barrier for people to self-identify and realise that they are a victim of modern-day slavery, and the other articles that are engaged?

Eleanor Lyons: Most of the survivors I have spoken to—I have a summit that draws together 15 lived experience advisory panels from across the UK—did not realise they were being exploited; it took them years of help and support to understand what was happening to them and to feel comfortable talking about it. That is why the premise is there that it should be the state’s responsibility to identify victims of modern slavery and offer them support in their recovery journey. That also has a very practical implication in terms of trying to stop re-trafficking and re-exploitation taking place, and to stop harm increasing.

Clause 36, on the credibility assessment, is problematic because it says to safeguarding professionals, and it puts into law, that it is okay to question victims’ credibility if time has passed before they have come forward, if there are inconsistencies in what they have said or if they are exploited in the same way as someone else. That is an issue across all victim cohorts who have gone through horrific experiences. It is completely unacceptable that we are putting that into primary legislation. That part of the Bill should absolutely be removed completely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Q You are right to say that boat crossings are down 43% this year. Do you feel that the NCA has the resources it needs to continue that trend and go further by implementing the proposals in the Bill?

Helen Rance: Yes. We have very much moved our operational capacity towards immigration crime. Of course, like all agencies, we have a finite budget, but we are focusing it on the disruption of the highest-harm organised immigration crime, individuals and networks. I do not think we would ever say that we have enough money, because more money could always be spent on increased intelligence capability and unique capabilities that we utilise, but we have certainly done a major pivot over the last 18 months towards organised immigration crime, and we have had some excellent results with that pivot.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q In answer to Matt Vickers’s question, you said that, as a result of the Bill, exploiting our borders will be less attractive for organised criminals. What specific measures in the Bill does your organisation think contributes to that assessment?

Helen Rance: The strongest deterrence effect will come from sustained law enforcement activity. If we can continue to disrupt facilitators, seize boats and engines, and target criminal finances, it will have an effect on the operation of organised immigration individuals and networks. The Bill makes it harder and less attractive for those networks to operate within the United Kingdom.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q You can do all the things you have described without the Bill, so what in the Bill will make it easier for your organisation to “smash the gangs”?

Helen Rance: Smashing the gangs, to coin a phrase, really comes with a lot of different measures and policies. Target hardening and making the UK less attractive is just one of those measures. I do not think there is anything specific in the Bill, other than making the UK a tougher environment for criminals to operate in and less appealing for them to exploit.

[The Chair]

May I remind Members that “smashing the gangs” is not part of the Bill? The Bill is about people who are already in the country and the processing of asylum claims. I would be grateful if Members stuck to the measures in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brash]

Q Given the explosion in the number of people claiming asylum since 2021, it is fair to say that it is a widely held public view that a huge number of those are not genuine. This Bill aims to make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for protection. Does it, in your view? Which provisions specifically do you think make it less attractive to people who do not qualify for asylum?

Professor Ekins: I am not sure whether the Bill really does make it less attractive for people who fail to qualify. As I have said already, it rightly makes it more difficult for some unlawful migrants, who claimed asylum but whose claim has failed, to stay in the UK by relying on their claimed family connection. There are other grounds on which they may resist removal. The Bill expressly preserves the capacity for foreign criminals to resist deportation on family grounds, for example. The Bill, if enacted and well received, will make it marginally—I do not mean that dismissively—easier to remove some of those people. Major obstacles will remain, though.

The provisions you have in mind are perhaps those that concern the recovery of contributions for asylum support. I apologise if I have misread this, but I thought that that would hold regardless of whether one was a genuine refugee. The point is that the Home Secretary would have a power to recover funds from people who have received asylum support. There are limitations there, clearly: they have to have funds to make a contribution, and they cannot be left destitute as a consequence.

That may have a modest deterrent effect, but that will hold for failed asylum seekers, including fraudulent asylum seekers—not every failed asylum seeker is fraudulent, of course—and genuine refugees too. But then it is the policy of the Government, rightly so, to deter genuine refugees from attempting to enter the country , certainly by contracting with people smugglers and entering unlawfully across the channel. That provision goes to your question, but I am not sure that it will have much difference in practice. Personally, I do not think that it is objectionable in principle that, if people have funds to make a contribution to the public funds that they have received, they should make it, but I doubt that many people will be in a position to deliver.

There is the other aspect though, which we have touched on: the changes that clause 22 will make in relation to the understanding of article 33 of the convention. Those provisions concern people who are genuine refugees; it just means that those genuine refugees can none the less be expelled, even to a country where their persecutors are waiting, if they are a danger to the community or a threat to national security. With respect, I find that provision quite oddly drafted; I am not sure why it is framed in the way that it is. It seems back to front, in a sense. At least the Government, and Parliament if it supports the Bill, will be addressing that provision. It is an important protection that we will not really be able to rely on, because any attempt to remove a person who is a threat to national security or a danger to the community will be predictably blocked by the ordinary operation of human rights law, which the Bill otherwise does not tame.

Dr Casey: I agree with Professor Ekins. I do not see the logical connection between the part 2 changes to the application of article 8 and deterring unlawful crossings. As I mentioned, I could see it having a modest to moderate impact, if interpreted according to the spirit of the Bill, on deterring things like overstaying on a visa or breaching a condition of your permission. One of the features of the Bill is that tribunals are directed that a family life formed when your immigration status is precarious or when you are unlawfully present should have little or no weight, respectively. If the courts took that very seriously and that became common knowledge, that might make you think, “Okay, it will be harder to leverage article 8 to stay.” That could have a deterrent effect, but not on unlawful crossings.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Can we briefly return to clause 1(8), which I think you described, Professor Ekins, as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Would you be able to describe why you think that? If it was better drafted, what would the constitutional and practical benefits be from that clause?

Professor Ekins: We have a long tradition in our country, and in the common law world more broadly, of interpreting ouster clauses—clauses in legislation that would limit the jurisdiction of the court on judicial review—narrowly. The courts take for granted that Parliament is probably not going be excluding their supervisory capacity; if a provision is going to genuinely exclude that capacity, the courts expect it to be spelled out categorically, in black and white. There is a long history of their looking at a clause that you might have thought, especially if you had not really been attending to these clauses and their tradition and reception, did say that, and interpreting it to have a much more limited effect or no effect at all in practice, whereas the point was perhaps to exclude review.

Looking at that clause and knowing what I do about the history of the reception of those clauses, I just do not think it will be understood to mean, “There can be no judicial review of a decision of the adjudicative body that, for example, is procedurally unfair, or that is so unreasonable that no adjudicative body would have reached it.” Now what it might do, and I think this is how it would be read, would be, “No judicial review challenges to that adjudicative decision on grounds of error of law, because, if you think there is an error of law, you appeal to the upper tribunal.” Fine: it would have some limited effect there. But if the point was to categorically exclude judicial review of adjudicative decisions of this body—and I do not know whether that was the policy of the Government or quite what the drafters had in mind—it certainly will not achieve that. I say “certainly”, I think it is probably the case, but I think it is very unlikely.

If you drafted a different ouster clause, then one might have more hope that it would be effective; in a sense, you could specify and categorically exclude the particular grounds of judicial review that you as Parliament do not want this decision of the body to be subject to. Then, in a sense, you are taking full responsibility for what judicial review should look like in relation to this body after the legislation comes into effect.

Parliament has in recent years enacted some more thoroughgoing and careful, if you like, precise, ouster clauses along those lines. These are sometimes called partial ouster clauses, because they do not categorically exclude judicial review, but they very severely limit it. There is one such ouster clause in the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022, which protects some decisions of the upper tribunal from judicial review. That model could be applied here.

I should add there are some drawbacks to so doing, because this new adjudicative body, as our previous discussion may suggest and I think the structure of the Bill shows, is not a court. It will be an adjudicative body with some independence, but it will not be like the upper tribunal, which, frankly, is just like the High Court in a different mode. The constitutional case against doing it is certainly stronger than was the case with the upper tribunal; but, if Parliament takes the view that there should be no judicial review here or it should be only on these specified grounds, then there are other models available for drafting an ouster clause. If I were in your shoes, I would not rest content with clause 1(8) as it stands.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q That is very helpful, thank you. Do you want to add anything, Dr Casey?

Dr Casey: Yes, I agree. I will just say that I think that, because the Independent Immigration Appeal Authority will not be a judicial body, the courts might be more anxious in scrutinising whether a clause ousts judicial review. At the moment, the way it is drafted, as a public lawyer you read a clause trying to oust and you think how a court would read it. I can imagine a court looking at that at the minute and inserting brackets and making it “A (rational and reasonable) decision of the IIAA”, and interpreting it in that respect.

[Anna Turley]

Q I am keen to come back to some of your comments on article 8. What is your analysis of how it has, slowly over time, come to protect those it was never originally intended to cover, and how can we safeguard against that in the future? Picking up on your point about the potential knock-on effect to article 3, Dr Casey, what mechanisms can we use to prevent article 3 being abused, essentially, on the back of our changes to article 8?

Professor Ekins: On the article 8 point, my own view, which is substantiated in quite some detail in the 2021 Policy Exchange paper with the support of Lord Hoffman that I referred to is that, for a long time in the history of the ECHR, article 8 had nothing to do with immigration and asylum. It was not a provision that was understood to impose limits on the enforcement of migration law or on the deportation and removal of non-citizens, especially foreign criminals and so on. There was no connection there.

A connection has been established in the case law by reading article 8 very expansively and then effectively requiring each particular decision to enforce the migration law of a member state to involve an individuated proportionality assessment about the impact on the particular person being removed—or, in relation to article 8, quite often on his or her family or maybe his or her extended family—and for that to pass judicial muster.

As I say, I think that is an innovation in the case law of the Strasbourg court. I do not want to overstate its novelty—it is an innovation that has been going on for several decades—but it is not part of what the UK and other member states agreed when they agreed the terms of the convention, and I think it should be viewed as a misinterpretation of the convention.

In a sense, the joint declaration of the member states earlier this year recognises that something has gone wrong in the case law of the Court; that it has read article 8—we will come to article 3—to establish a kind of Europe-wide migration and asylum law, beyond the terms agreed by the member states. That needs to be addressed and wound back.

The thought that, in a sense, you are wronging a foreign criminal when you remove him or her from the UK so that he or she cannot maintain a connection with family is just fundamentally misconceived. In the same way, we are not wronging the offender by incarcerating him, which makes it very much more difficult to maintain a flourishing family life; the consequence is a side effect of the wrongful choice made by the offender. Something similar holds, I think, with the wrongful choice made by a person who violates our migration law.

There are harsh consequences in many of these cases, of course, but they are not harsh consequences whereby the UK sets out to wrong someone’s family. That structure has to be more fully recognised. We should see that something has gone badly wrong in thinking that the right to respect for private and family life entails, at least in some cases, a de facto immunity to the application of migration law.

Dr Casey: I agree with Professor Ekins entirely. The extension of article 8 into the domain of immigration law was a very conspicuous act of judicial lawmaking through the living instrument approach.

As recently as 1985 in the Abdulaziz v. the United Kingdom case, you had the UK Government—Sir Peter Rawlinson, the Attorney General—arguing tooth and nail that article 8 did not apply to questions about entry into the UK or removal and that it was just outside the scope. They lost that case, and that has been the EHCR’s position for several decades since then, but it was not understood as part of the original compact when the convention was ratified.

Professor Ekins: You asked us about article 3 as well, I think.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ahmed]

Q Mr Featonby, thank you, and your counterparts at the Scottish Refugee Council, for the work you do to look after the vulnerable; we are very grateful. Of course, that work can go on only if there is public confidence in the system. As you know, applications have risen steadily since 2021. From your perspective, what is the urgency for a change in the legislation to return the trust and confidence in the system that have been eroded over the last few years?

Jon Featonby: There are definitely some positive signs that the Government should be quite proud of. Around the time of the election, we published a report that looked at the state of the asylum system. We described it as a “system in meltdown”, largely caused by the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which had seen productivity in the Home Office drop to its lowest level since the height of the covid pandemic. Since then, the Home Office has done a much better job of being able to make decisions quickly. The latest statistics we have show that about 75% of initial decisions are made within six months of somebody making an application. That is a good thing.

We think some Government priority should be given to how you make sure that people have confidence in the asylum system. That system needs to be doing its basics right: making decisions as quickly as it can that are right the first time; supporting refugees who are found to be in need of protection to get on with their lives, rebuild their lives and contribute fully to UK communities; and providing a way for people who are found to be not in need of protection to be removed safely and humanely. That is where we see some challenges in the Bill. We do not think it addresses some of that context.

The previous panels touched on how the backlog in the asylum system is now at the appeals stage, which is an almost inevitable consequence of dealing with the initial decision backlog. There will be more decisions and therefore more refusals, and therefore more people will go into that appeals process. There are probably three times as many people in the appeals backlog as in the asylum backlog itself. Some of that will work its way through the system as the Government get more on top of the asylum system—what officials refer to as having friction within the asylum system—where the number of decisions they are making is roughly the same as the number of people entering the system.

As a result of the speeding-up of decision making in recent years, we have also seen a reduction in the quality of some decisions, which we think has put unnecessary pressure on the tribunal and left people stuck in the asylum system, and in accommodation, for longer than they should be, at cost to the taxpayer and to those individuals. That is borne out by the appeals statistics that we now get from the first-tier tribunal, which show that in the last year, in two thirds of appeals that were disposed of, either the tribunal granted the appeal or—as is increasingly the case—the initial decision was withdrawn by the Home Office, because once the appeal got towards the tribunal hearing the Home Office found that it was not going to be able to defend the decision. That is why we think there should be a laser focus on initial decision making and on what else can be done to reduce the appeals backlog.

One of our concerns around the IIAA is that the appeals backlog is an urgent problem that needs to be dealt with now, but the best case scenario is probably that the IIAA starts to hear some cases at the back end of next year. It may well be the next election before the IIAA is really up and running. We think that more urgent things could be done without having to rip up the entire tribunal system as it currently is.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Clause 23 would empower the Secretary of State to require successful asylum seekers to pay costs for the support that they had during their passage through the system. To what extent might asylum seekers factor that into their decision making?

Jon Featonby: I will take that decision making in a few stages. In terms of whether that measure will deter people from coming to the UK, I do not think it will have any real impact at all. A previous panel touched on how complicated this body of law is. For those who have engaged with successive immigration Bills, it is quite complex. To expect somebody who is seeking protection to follow it, and to expect Parliament or even organisations such as the Refugee Council to be the main place that those people get their information, does not reflect reality.

We are concerned about the potential impact on decision making because it is important to remember that asylum support is available only to those asylum applicants who would otherwise be destitute. The Home Office puts in place quite a high bar for someone to even access support. Our concern is that if people are aware that they may be faced with debts of around £10,000, that will prevent them from accessing support. Their alternative then is to remain destitute. That is obviously very bad for those individuals and families, but it is also well established that putting people in destitution has negative consequences from a public health point of view and for wider communities.

We are also concerned by that provision because, although it applies to anybody who receives asylum support, with some minor exemptions, the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection. We are concerned that that will take money away from people who probably have very little in the first place and that, because not having paid back that money could be a bar on settlement in the future, it could lead to people looking to borrow the money from quite dangerous moneylenders, putting people at risk of exploitation at that point.

It is quite hard to work out exactly what this will look like because there is not much detail in the Bill, but there are potentially disincentives for refugees to work. In our work at the Refugee Council, we see that people want to be able to work—they want to contribute—and the people who we support into employment, including employment in the NHS, are contributing. We think a far better use of time and resources would be to help refugees to overcome some of the barriers that they face, particularly in employment. That would allow them to contribute far more to the UK, including from tax receipts.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

Q Thank you for your answers so far. We heard some interesting evidence before you came in, and I am particularly interested in your perception of the increase in the application of article 8 to some immigration claims. The European Court of Human Rights has told me that even the Court has been surprised at some of the cases in the UK to which it has been applied. Do you have a position on that? Similarly, it was said earlier in evidence that there could be a counter-effect: that the reduced number of article 8 claims could lead to an increase in article 3 claims. Do you have a position on that as well?

Jon Featonby: From the Refugee Council perspective, it is not something that we have focused on. It is not part and parcel of our day-to-day work, as it were. We certainly have not done the research into this that people on the previous panels have done. From our point of view, what is important is that those people arriving in the UK seeking protection are able to seek that protection and have their cases heard fairly and in a timely way, so that the people who need protection, as I said previously, are able to get it and people who do not qualify can be returned and removed from the UK safely and humanely. It is not part of our work to have the evidence on how particular articles of the European convention have been applied.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon and thank you for joining us. A question to both of you: given that you have mentioned the urgency of addressing the challenge the country faces, and remembering the strict international legal frameworks that constrain some of the legislation we can enter into, which single policy would you like to see in the Bill that is not there now, but that you would think would have the biggest impact on reducing illegal migration? I know it is a difficult question, it is the golden question, but I would be interested to know from two experts, given the urgency and the legal frameworks we are working within, what you think would have the biggest impact on preventing the illegal migration we are being challenged with.

Dr Sumption: If your goal is to reduce unauthorised arrivals, I think most of the measures for which there is evidence that they are effective do not actually require legislation. There is evidence from other countries that physical enforcement—measures like intercepting boats, where it can be done safely—can have a large impact. There is also evidence that a lower grant rate, which the UK already has, will have an impact in reducing the number of people who apply, and that returns agreements—a much larger version of the one in, one out deal with France, for example—would have an impact. Those things are difficult for their own reasons, but none of them would require legislation.

Alp Mehmet: Needless to say, I agree with all that. I start by saying that I believe that the biggest flaw in the Bill is the further opening up of the border, effectively, with the safe and legal routes, which will allow approved organisations, institutions and employers to act as sponsors. That, if it actually works, may attract some of those who would otherwise have crossed in boats or got into the backs of lorries or crossed by other means, but I do not think it will do that. I suspect that if the number of boats coming across slows down, it will not be because of the Bill; none the less, it might have the effect of making fewer people attempt the crossing. You could argue that in itself is a success because it means that fewer people are putting their lives at risk. Nevertheless, opening up in the way that is being proposed, so that universities, employers, non-governmental organisations, and communities can act as sponsors, potentially gives an opportunity to some 120 million people around the world.

Some figures I saw from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees suggested that at the end of 2025 something like 118 million people were displaced globally. Potentially, any one of them can take advantage of this new route the Bill opens up—in effect, anyone who has a friend who can persuade an employer to take them on. Employers go out looking for these people, or universities; presumably somebody will pay for those who are going to be studying there.

My fear is that this will put the Boriswave in the shade. The numbers the measure attracts may become a serious problem, in the same way that those who arrived over the preceding five years became a problem. It is probably too late to do anything about that, but I have a feeling that, three years down the road, we will be talking about legislation to end that process. That is unfortunate, to say the least.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Q My question is for you, Alp, picking up on some of the earlier commentary. You made reference to Australia, Denmark, the USA and Greece, which have reduced numbers applying for asylum through measures that bear no resemblance to the Bill. What should we put in the Bill to replicate the success of those countries?

Alp Mehmet: We could start by declaring our intention to come out of the ECHR. Human rights can be dealt with perfectly well by a country like ours without our having to be signed up to the ECHR. We could also pull out of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. We should announce that the Human Rights Act 1998 will be repealed. All of that would allow us to deal with the sort of people who are, understandably, looking for a better life. I have no problem with that, but are we really saying that anyone and everyone of 118 million will be able to come here?

This may sound relatively minor, but the other thing I would do is put the onus on arrivals—we used to call them passengers in the old days. We should put the onus on the migrants arriving to satisfy the immigration official dealing with them of their bona fides. That is what used to happen. Our courts have pushed us in the opposite direction: we now have to disprove. If we do not have any evidence to back that up, we are effectively saying, “Okay, we can’t prove it otherwise. We don’t know who you are. You haven’t got a passport, but we’re going to give you the benefit of the doubt, because the Home Office can’t provide the evidence to do otherwise.” That is absurd. It is also dangerous.

Those are the things that I would include in the Bill. Perhaps you would expect me to say a lot of that. Look at what the Americans have done. Whatever anyone feels about some politicians in the United States, they have nevertheless been successful in closing the southern border to illegal immigration. We should put in place effective measures to stop those coming across the channel not just in boats, but in other ways. If the French were sensible and serious enough to stop the whole thing, they should volunteer to take the migrants who make their way to us from there, as should the EU. That is not going to happen anytime soon, I suspect. All in all, I am a little disheartened by the Bill, the measures in it and what is likely to happen.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

Q Mr Mehmet, you made some initial commentary about welcoming the Bill but suggested that it is not sufficient to reduce the small boat crossings. Why, then, are small boat crossings already down 41% even before the Bill has been enacted? Where does this legislation intersect with the need for further law enforcement across borders? Does it intersect with the fact that small boat crossings rose after we left the European Union and we have had less of an armoury and less flexibility to deal with them? You highlighted the American experience of reducing immigration and returns, but presumably you are not advocating a model with the level of aggressive behaviour of ICE agents. American citizens are being shot dead in the streets.

Alp Mehmet: I am not quite sure how you link what is going on at the border and Americans being shot in the street.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

Do you think it is fair for people to be able to circumvent an international rules-based framework by going through a safe country already before coming to claim asylum in the UK, or do you think that should have no effect at all on their asylum claim here?

Angela Afzal: We have to acknowledge that the majority of refugees claim asylum and receive protection in countries neighbouring where they had to flee. Secondly, we need to acknowledge that the UK is about 14th in the ranking of EU-plus countries in how many asylum applications we have per capita—we are quite far down the list.

The nature of our geography means that people need to be able to cross the channel in some way to reach the UK for protection. At the moment, there are not significant safe routes for people to get to the UK; we are talking about hundreds of them at the moment. In the absence of safe routes for people to get here, people who arrive here and have their claims processed should be granted the full entitlement to refugee status, so that the UK plays its part according to the obligations of the UN refugee convention.

Ideally, we would want people to have the opportunity to travel here on a safe route from the region of displacement, so that they would not have to make the dangerous journeys to Europe in the first place. As things are at the moment, there is little alternative.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q In the view of the International Rescue Committee, what safe routes should be opened up today to deal with the issue that you have just described?

Angela Afzal: We welcome the safe routes that the Home Secretary has recently announced. We think that they are a positive development. There has been a wide consultation with communities and stakeholders, and the approach has allowed communities to offer consent for the refugees who come to them. There can be planning for people arriving so that services are ready. Our experience shows that that is when you get good refugee integration and good social cohesion.

We welcome the offer of complementary safe routes, so that people who want to come here to study and work, but are not able to access the usual immigration rules—

[Blake Stephenson]

Q May I just stop you? I appreciate what you are saying, but you are not answering my question. If you do not think that the Bill will be adequate to stop people from crossing the channel in an unsafe way, how many legal routes would your organisation want to open up?

Angela Afzal: I am starting by saying that we welcome the three new safe routes; that development has gone alongside this. Our main concern with the Bill is clause 21 and the impact on refugee integration. Ultimately, we would like to see safe routes so that people can arrive here from regions and do not have to travel to Europe—

[Blake Stephenson]

Q But from where and how many?

Angela Afzal: The opportunity of having safe routes means that the Government can control the numbers and where people come from. That would provide a controlled route. The Government would know where people are coming from and who they are, and could control the numbers. That is why we would advocate that.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q To achieve that, do you need changes in the Bill?

Angela Afzal: Our focus in the Bill is the impact of the core protection framework, which is in clause 21.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q What changes would you like to see to clause 21? Just to make sure that I do not go off track, what changes does your organisation want to see to clause 21 and why? What would the implication be for the potential number of asylum seekers claiming in the UK compared with today?

Angela Afzal: Clause 21 seeks to introduce the core protection framework. Our concern is that the clause gives the Home Office very broad powers to introduce changes of entitlements for refugees.

The core protection framework, set out in the “Restoring Order and Control” statement last year, indicates that there is an intention to reduce entitlements for refugees. Our concern is that the core protection framework would have a detrimental impact on refugee integration, rather than deterring people from arriving.

I can explain in more detail why we feel that the temporary protection, removing the right to family reunion and having the work and study pathway would impact refugee integration from our experience of delivering integration in the UK.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Q I have some questions about family reunion. In your submission, you said that the measure will have a negative impact on integration. You also expressed concern that what you consider to be a right to family reunion is being made conditional, in clause 19, on socioeconomic factors—the ability of someone to support themselves. Can you tell us more about why you think family reunion should remain a right?

Angela Afzal: The core protection framework sets out that refugees would not be granted family reunion as a protection right. Our experience is that the family framework is the best basis for a refugee to integrate. It is the best support network that there can be. Our experience is that refugees have a much better integration outcome when they have their families with them.

For example, family reunion has been suspended since September last year. For a whole year, many clients have not been able to reunite with their families or apply for that, and that has really impacted their ability to focus on accessing language and employment. They are deeply concerned about their families—often a spouse and young children in places of danger. We are concerned that that could cause those families to resort to smugglers to reunite, when they do not see another option.

The proposal is that people would get family reunion on transitioning to a work and study pathway. We have questions about the eligibility criteria for that and the support that there will be for refugees so that they can access the pathway, given that it gives them those entitlements. To what extent will people be able to access family reunion through that pathway? Those are our main concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear from Neal Barcoe, director of civil, family, tribunals and administration of justice at the Ministry of Justice; Daniel Flury, operations director for His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service; and Alison Hewett, director of migration, borders, and international projects and programmes at the Home Office. We have until 4.30 pm for this panel. Will the witnesses briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Daniel Flury: I am Daniel Flury, the operations director for HMCTS. I am responsible for the operations of the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber and the upper tribunal immigration and asylum chamber.

Neal Barcoe: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Neal Barcoe, the director for civil, family, tribunals and the administration of justice in the MOJ. That means I deal with most of the policy on the non-crime courts side of things, so the tribunal space is one of my areas.

Alison Hewett: Good afternoon. My name is Alison Hewett. I am migration and borders director in the Home Office, and I am the senior responsible officer for the operationalisation of the IIAA.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q The Government argue that introducing the new appeal authority will reduce delays. What are the Ministry of Justice’s views on that, and what evidence have you relied on to conclude that the appeals system will improve performance?

Neal Barcoe: Thank you for that question. It is important to start by recognising that judges and the court system have responded very strongly to the significant increase in demand coming through the system. They have increased capacity and improved productivity, but demand is growing considerably faster. On receipts, back in 2023 we had about 58,000 cases coming into the system. In 2025-26, that was up to 118,000. The outstanding caseload has risen in that same period from about 50,000 to 150,000 cases.

The courts have tried to look at every available option and opportunity to improve productivity in the system. They have increased the number of legal officers in the system by 70%, and have expanded things such as the virtual region to make sure that more cases are being heard on any given day. They have looked at case progression and how you can speed up cases, so that cases are ready for court more quickly. They are looking at all forms of technology to improve productivity and have improved their listing practices, too.

We have sought to grow the judicial workforce as quickly as possible. Since last year, we have seen a net increase of about 21% in the number of judges. We are up to just over 300 now, with 65 fee-paid and 25 salaried judges starting earlier this year, and more recruitment in train.

While we have had that recruitment success, it has demonstrated an upper ceiling and a real challenge to going further and faster. The pool of candidates is relatively constrained: if you want to come in as a fee-paid judge, you need five years post-qualification experience in a relevant field; and, traditionally, if you come in as a salaried judge, you need to have had previous judicial experience, too. Taking on a salaried role also means giving up your practice, so on immigration and asylum matters, we have struggled to go further and as fast as we would like.

The process is not quick—it takes 12 to 18 months to recruit judges—so I think that the proposition for the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority is that, if we are able to recruit trained adjudicators from a broader range of professional backgrounds, it should be possible to increase capacity and add more flexibility, while retaining their legal support, and ensuring that there are proper assurances on quality and that we have the upper-tier oversight. That is the thinking on where we are.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q We have heard quite a bit of evidence today from people who have suggested that if the Home Office were to sort out how it goes about dealing with the backlog and its decision making in the first instance, we would not need this new authority. What are your views on whether setting up this IIAA is just a complete waste of public money, a distraction causing more complexity in the system? Do you have any views on that as a Ministry?

Neal Barcoe: That might be better addressed to MOJ Ministers, but as a civil servant, I do not think that this is a waste of public money. It is vital that we address the cases that are in the system, and that we look at all ways to do that properly while retaining quality. That is what we are trying to do, to manage that process as well as possible, but with 150,000 cases in the system, it is taking much longer than anyone would like for those cases to be disposed. Something that increases capacity in this way—if we can protect the quality—has to be a good thing. It is about being flexible as well, and I think that that is what the new body brings—we can flex that capacity.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q A final question, if I may. Will the Bill make the life of immigration lawyers and practitioners more or less complicated? On the whole, will it improve our immigration system, or is it a retrograde step?

Neal Barcoe: Again, as an official, I think that it does and can improve the system—

[Blake Stephenson]

Can or does? Is it an objective or a political assessment?

Neal Barcoe: If done well, it can absolutely improve. If we can ensure that the quality is there, that it is staffed up properly and that we have the right levels of independence, as set out in the Bill, I think it would be an improvement on the current system. I recognise what underlies your question—we have had a lot of immigration and asylum bills, and that change of perspective is difficult for people in the system, which it undoubtedly is—but I think there are very sensible things in the Bill that seek to improve the current situation. One of the things—the Public Accounts Committee has spoken on this, and the NAO—is about how Departments come together and co-operate more effectively in this space, looking at the whole system. I think that that is what the Bill is about; it is about trying to look at the whole system as one. As I say, at an official level, we are doing that much more than we were before.

[Dr Ahmed]

Q I must declare that I was once involved in a first-tier tribunal. Obviously, as parliamentarians, we are sometimes heavily involved in such matters on behalf of constituents. In the case I was involved in, it could be seen from space that there was going to be only one decision, yet it took a long time to get there. The persons present in that case seemed to be, let us say, overqualified. From your perspective, how will the IIAA affect the workload of the first-tier tribunal?

Daniel Flury: Clearly, as the IIAA grows, the expectation is that the work of the first-tier tribunal will decline. I am the senior responsible officer for a programme that is essentially managing that decommissioning process—that decline. As Neal says, there is still a pretty significant backlog of just under 152,000 appeals sitting in the system. There is still quite a bit of work to be done. The current approach in HMCTS and the judiciary is simply business as usual until further notice. We are striving to sit more and be more productive. We are striving for output, and I feel that we are partially succeeding this year. Over time, in the years ahead, that work will decline and we will eventually wind up the operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leigh Ingham]

Q I was pleased to hear you talk about fairness, which is a fundamental British value. Concern is sometimes raised about article 8, which I encounter in my role as a Council of Europe delegate. What protections will there be to prevent the wrongful separation of families when children are involved? That is a major concern for a lot of people who hear about what we are proposing in the Bill.

Anna Turley: An important thing to clarify, and that we have not heard today, is that it will be up to the family to decide what they want to do. If somebody is removed, the family can go with them if that is what they want to do. We will always put the rights of the child at the forefront of everything. It is important for us to say that.

It is also important that we set out our aims in doing this with article 8. There have been a variety of interpretations of article 8—it has been applied very loosely and inconsistently—so defining and codifying the concept of family life in primary legislation is important for fairness and consistency. We are bringing it in line with existing immigration regulations codifying and clarifying family life, and trying to ensure that it is fair, consistent and written on the face of the Bill. On safeguards, it is important to reiterate that our priority is always the welfare of the children.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q That is a nice bridge for me to ask about article 8. We have heard that the tightening up of article 8 may drive article 3 claims. Does the Bill not take the Government to a place of playing whack-a-mole with the ECHR yet again?

Dan Hobbs: We are really clear about article 8, as we have set out in the impact assessment and elsewhere. Article 3 is used much less, and would normally be tested through the asylum claim. An article 3 breach would normally fall within the asylum and protection angle. Article 8 is already a qualified right, so I do not immediately follow the logic that people would then make article 3 claims, because that would already be considered under their asylum claim. If people had article 3 rights, they would be raised and are raised. We get article 3 challenges in various elements, so it is used now, but I am not clear how an article 8 right, which is a qualified right, can transpose into article 3, which is an absolute right.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q In which case you are not concerned that, by tightening up article 8, you will end up with article 3 claims.

Dan Hobbs: With the immigration system, we always have to think about displacement and human behaviour, which is not entirely predictable. We will go away and review that point with the Minister, but I cannot not immediately see how someone could use a subsisting relationship under article 8 as an article 3 barrier.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Okay. I am sure we will pick that up in line-by-line scrutiny. We spoke earlier about the general drafting of the Bill, and there was quite a lot of criticism from witnesses of the legal drafting and—no offence if any of you were involved—of its general sloppiness. I have some questions relating to judicial review. Clause 1(8) is the ouster provision. For my clarity, could you please describe what you are trying to achieve with that clause so that we can give it some thought as we move to the next stage?

Anna Turley: Sorry, which clause was that again?

[Blake Stephenson]

Clause 1(8).

Dan Hobbs: This provision is about decisions on errors in law going to the upper tribunal. That is the case now: first-tier tribunal challenges on errors in law go to the upper tribunal. What we are setting out there is the procedure. Appeals against decisions of the new authority on the basis of law go to the upper tribunal.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Okay. The third witness panel—I think it was the KC who joined us, Professor Ekins—described it as a poor attempt at an ouster provision. Given what you have described as your intent, you presumably disagree with that and think the provision is well drafted.

Dan Hobbs: On the basis of today, I think we will take that away and verify it. As I say, I do not think we intended that. I will go away and check.

[Blake Stephenson]

Q Just stepping back for a moment, do you expect the result of the Bill will be that the numbers arriving on small boats will decrease and the numbers removed from the UK will increase?

Anna Turley: As I said at the beginning, it is an important part of our armoury for reducing the numbers in small boats. We have evidence clearly showing that people who come to the country think we have, essentially, a more liberal system than many other countries in Europe. Of course, there are other reasons why people want to come to the UK, but people generally think that we have a looser interpretation of some of our responsibilities than other countries. It is important to us that we are clear, through the Bill, that we will fulfil our obligations, but also that we will ensure people cannot exploit the system or find loopholes, and that we will have a system that is fair, efficient and effective. This is one part of our armoury that, alongside all the other measures we are putting in place, will see our trajectory of reducing small boats continue.

I am convinced that the Bill will certainly speed up the time it takes to undertake removals and deal with some of the last-minute claims. You have heard from my colleague about people finding yet another opportunity to thwart the system when they are literally on their way to the planes.

Bas Javid: I would add that the very act of removal, when it is done properly and legitimately, acts as a deterrent in itself. For people who are looking to come to the UK or to remain illegally after a legal arrival, the very act of removal, done in the right way, is a deterrent.

[Mr Brash]

Q Minister, you are a neighbouring MP of mine, so you understand only too well the anger about illegal migrants in your constituency and my Hartlepool constituency, particularly given that the previous Government’s decision to outsource asylum accommodation led to our communities being unfairly targeted. The test for many of my constituents will come down to whether the Bill will result in a reduction in the number of illegal migrants in our communities. What modelling has been carried out to look at the effect of the Bill on reducing the number of illegal immigrants?

Anna Turley: As I said, it is part of our armoury. I recognise very deeply, as you do, the sense of fairness that people feel in communities such as ours, which are struggling on all kinds of levels, whether access to public services, employment opportunities, levels of poverty or the broader social fabric and community cohesion challenges that we face in this country—those are important issues. As a Labour Government, we always want fairness to be at the heart of everything we do.

Although it is part of a broader armoury, the priority for the Bill is to move to a system in which British people do not feel that their sanctuary is being exploited or that others have the opportunity to access what they might not be able to access. Where we do extend a hand and help people to find a life of safety and sanctuary in this country, and they are able to integrate and become part of our communities, they will be responsible for repaying that support. Fairness, responsibility and contribution are at the heart of everything we should do in this country, as we uphold our international obligations, of which we are rightly proud.

Public Confidence in the Police

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Sir Alec, for chairing the debate so very well. I welcome the Minister her to her place. I know that she is standing in for the Policing Minister today, but I congratulate on her elevation none the less.

I commend the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) for his service and for securing this important debate. I am aware that he is exceptionally active on this subject, both as a friend of the police who argues for the importance of supporting our officers—rightly—and as a constructive critic, which I am sure is less appreciated among certain forces.

The title of the debate is instructive. Debates centred around the police can all too often focus on their actions. That is undoubtedly something that we must consider, but we must also consider the actions of Government. The policies we debate and vote on in this place can directly impact how the public feel about the police. I am afraid that can cause support to be undermined in some cases, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) so eloquently outlined.

Achieving the combination of effective and just operations, in the interests of the country, is one of the critical foundations of policing. As the second of the nine principles of policing sets out, we must

“recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.”

When that principle is not properly thought about, public confidence is inevitably lost and the quality of our policing is diminished. There is a reciprocal relationship between the police and the public. That is necessary, but we need to appreciate that the best way to achieve success is by having effective forces preventing crime and delivering justice for the victims of crime.

In this Labour Government’s two years, many issues have challenged public confidence in policing. I will be cautious about delving into some of the details given the ongoing investigations into the conduct of forces, but incidents such as the Henry Nowak murder, the decisions pertaining to the banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, and the inappropriate use of non-crime hate incidents, have all raised concerns. Only recently, the families of the victims of Valdo Calocane’s attacks in Nottingham said that the police did not tell them that a man who had taken an interest in them had a history of violence when he attempted to visit, leading to an IOPC complaint.

Furthermore, the heinous death of Sarah Everard exposed the very worst of the Metropolitan police, and rightly made it clear that changes were required. In July, a report on the force by His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services pointed to progress but still noted the substantial work needed to improve vetting, professional standards and anti-corruption arrangements.

The list of incidents fails to fully scratch the surface of the extent of complaints and problems experienced among forces. However, we know only too well how local and national failures can undermine them. If we combine that with the feeling many have that the crimes they experience are not followed up on, it is little surprise that trust is being eroded across many parts of our society. We must work to improve that trust by improving our police forces.

Although the last few years have demonstrated stability in the IOPC public perceptions survey, and more people feel positively rather than negatively towards the police by a rate of two to one, a rate of 49% in 2024-25 should still be a cause for concern. The country needs much higher levels of confidence in the police. Worryingly, the positive percentage falls further when individuals are asked about their local force, and further still when they are asked about the Metropolitan police. That is unsurprising given the decline demonstrated in the public attitude survey produced by the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Those numbers are less surprising when we consider that just 8.5% of crimes were solved in the year to March 2026, leaving an extraordinary 92% of reported crimes unresolved and many people wondering what to do when they face criminal activity. That problem is compounded by crime increasing 10% and antisocial behaviour 15% in the past year alone.

To combat this, the police obviously need to get better at solving crime. They are using new technologies such as facial recognition, which I know a little about, having spent time with my own Bedfordshire police, who have been trialling and using that technology effectively. Its benefits were showcased recently at the Notting Hill carnival. However, that is not enough; we need more officers. Members have mentioned the hokey-cokey of police numbers. The Conservative party has set out a funded plan to deploy 10,000 extra police officers, to introduce hotspot patrolling of 2,000 crime hotspot areas to prevent an estimated 35,000 crimes and deter antisocial behaviour, public drug consumption, shoplifting and knife crime, and to triple stop and search to take knives and drugs off the streets.

Those are clear targets to hold any future Conservative Government to account, which is a different approach to this Government’s abstract promises on neighbourhood policing. From my conversations with police officers and the police and crime commissioner in my constituency, it is yet to be determined how we will effectively monitor the promises on neighbourhood policing. Will the Minister provide clarity on how can we hold the Government to account on their commitments to neighbourhood policing?

Furthermore, we must be tougher on dealing with crime. That requires more policing, but also stronger enforcement throughout the justice system. Nothing quite illustrates this Labour Government’s failure to achieve that than their rushed and ill-conceived early-release schemes. Those policies have inevitably placed enormous strain on police forces across the country, burdening officers with poor decisions made here in Whitehall. In August, His Majesty’s chief inspector of probation said that he was ultimately

“not fully confident that the probation system will be able to cope with this massive work and there’s a risk that things will go wrong”.

Although I appreciate that there have since been a number of iterations of the policy, his statement seems as true now as it did then. Quite simply, these policies are a Government failure that will put all our constituents at risk.

I appreciate that improving forces is not a simple task. Improvement will always be accompanied by challenges as well as successes, but with the right attitudes in leadership and the right resources directed effectively, we can enhance confidence in our police forces. Where the Government make sensible improvements to issues that improve accountability, such as vetting, they will always have the support of the Opposition. The tragic deaths of officers Matthew Blades and Tom Clough demonstrate the sacrifice of our officers and the danger that they place themselves in. I echo the comments of hon. Members from across the Chamber in commending them for their service.

Subsequent events have demonstrated why our police officers are so important, and why the shadow Home Secretary was right to say in the main Chamber last week that

“only zero tolerance of crime and disorder will ensure that criminals are the ones who are afraid, and not the law-abiding public.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 103.]

It is that culture of zero tolerance among politicians and police leaders that will improve public confidence in the police.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

Thank you for correcting me, Sir Alec. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) asked earlier about meeting the Policing Minister, and I am happy to pass that request on to her.

We will introduce stronger national standards through the national police service, ensuring that the service the public receives is more consistent. To respond to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer), the reform programme will enable a new funding formula that will include policing areas such as Cleveland.

In 2010, the number of officers in full-time employment was 143,734. During the period of austerity under the previous Government, officer numbers dropped by over 20,000 to a low of 122,405 in 2018. From 2019, the previous Government funded forces to hastily increase officer numbers, but that has led to officers being hired—and, in some cases, put in desk jobs—to meet arbitrary headcounts. The rush to recruit also led to a situation in which over 35% of officers had less than five years’ experience, placing a further strain on forces.

The Government are focused on what the police are doing, not just on officer numbers. That is why we have scrapped the officer maintenance grant and focused on rebuilding neighbourhood policing, with over 3,800 more police and PCSOs now where the public want to see them—out in neighbourhoods, proactively preventing crime and dealing with antisocial behaviour.

[Blake Stephenson]

I met with my force in Bedfordshire over the summer and spent a couple of days with the neighbourhood policing teams. One of the challenges they have is that their officers often get dragged off neighbourhood policing to deal with more complicated policing operations because there is a higher risk and they need to prioritise their work. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents, and all Members’ constituents, that under the neighbourhood policing guarantee, the new neighbourhood policing officers will not be hired and then re-tasked with other work in their police forces?

[Jo White]

The commitment is to deliver 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of this Parliament, which will give us the capacity to ensure that they can be focused on the role they are employed to do.

Since the election, the Government have increased funding to forces by close to £2 billion. This year funding to police forces has increased to its highest cash level of up to £18.5 billion—a 4.5% cash increase compared with the previous year. That means that all forces will receive a real-terms uplift in their funding. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), since March 2025 the Met has grown by 607 neighbourhood officers. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Met. In 2026-27 the Met will receive up to £4 billion in funding, which is an increase of £175 million.

In addition, we are supporting policing to deliver £354 million of efficiency savings by the end of this Parliament through the police efficiency and collaboration programme, but we cannot stop there. The police funding system we inherited was complex, outdated and the product of legacy decisions rather than strategic design. Many PCCs, MPs and policing partners have complained that the police funding formula is out of date and not fit for purpose. Changes to police governance, force mergers and the creation of the national police service require a new way of allocating funding between forces aligned with those new structures.

Hate Crime Law: Misogyny

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Thank you very much for chairing the debate, Sir Edward. I thank all hon. Members for their very good contributions and the petitioners for securing this important debate with so many signatures.

The practice of misogyny—a hatred of or prejudicial attitude towards women—is one of the most disgusting behaviours in our society. As a member of a party that wants to treat people on the basis of their actions and decisions, I consider crimes committed against someone because of their sex to be clearly reprehensible; the people involved deserve to face the full weight of the law.

Female hon. Members across the House will be acutely aware of the abuse and terrible attitudes directed towards women. Almost too many statistics could be used to illustrate how so many people experience abuse and crimes directed at them merely because they are women. Without pre-empting the Minister’s response, I am aware that the Government may point to the changes implemented through the amendment of the Crime and Policing Act that made changes to the Crime and Disorder Act. I noted that the Government’s response to the petition made it clear that they believe that that change responds to many of the concerns addressed, alongside other measures they are taking in their violence against women and girls strategy. In addition, I understand that the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation will feed into considerations of whether further steps are to be taken.

Although there are interesting and worthwhile conversations to be had about the legislative elements of this challenge, it is important to discuss an even more fundamental element: what is the best approach to stop these crimes from occurring in the first place? Such an approach must be rooted in achieving the most effective results for women and girls, in using the laws that we have more effectively, and in increasing enforcement.

The targets set out by Government on violence against women and girls are clearly essential. In the spirit of the Prime Minister’s call to work cross-party and to illustrate the importance of tackling crimes motivated by misogyny, I refer back to the first oral question asked by the former shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), after the 2024 election. He asked about the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, and what needed to be done to increase arrest rates. In response there was some political points-scoring by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper)—I am sure the Minister will refrain from that—but the overall question still stands: what can be done to increase enforcement?

One element, inextricably tied to enforcement, that I believe to be paramount is ensuring that there are sufficient numbers of officers. The Minister will know that there has been a fall in officer numbers of just under 2,000 over the period of this Government. Will the Minister provide assurances that that decrease has not adversely impacted the ability of the police to respond to the crimes discussed in this debate, which are clearly motivated by a hatred of women?

We must consider the decisions associated with Government policy, especially those made in relation to the early release scheme. Although I will not relitigate debates already held in this House, I hope that the Minister can acknowledge how damaging that decision will be for women who have been victims of crimes such as domestic violence and rape. That view has been reiterated by numerous organisations that work to stop such crimes. In a statement, Women’s Aid said, about funding to aid victims:

“it cannot eradicate the impacts, including the increased danger that they will face, and the responsibility for managing this rests with statutory services.”

To pre-empt any statement that we have had early release schemes before, I point to comments made by the CEO of Rape Crisis England and Wales, who stated:

“We are in unchartered territory with the new early release scheme, and so remain extremely concerned about its impact on survivors and specialist sexual violence services like Rape Crisis Centres.”

We know that that issue is tied to this debate because such crimes so often fall upon women. The release of those individuals only puts women further at risk. Will the Minister explain what conversations the Government have had with police forces about taking steps to mitigate the impact of the early release scheme, and to support the victims of crimes whose perpetrators will be back on the streets?

The contributions to this debate have rightly recognised the underlying importance of the internet as a tool for misogyny, and the necessity of ensuring that the next generation of young men do not grow up with distorted views. Our party’s efforts to push for social media bans for younger people are precisely about ensuring that when someone grows up, it is their family, their education and our society more broadly that can shape their future, not some of the repugnant content online, which seeks to monetise young people and to present them with ideas that, if embraced, make misogynistic traits more likely.

On that issue, early this year the shadow Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), asked the Government whether the police were using to the fullest extent their powers under sections 42 to 49 of part 2 of the Serious Crime Act 2007, which set out the existing offence of encouraging or assisting crime, including the criteria for an offence and how they can be utilised to stop those who encourage the raping of women and girls.

Although my hon. Friend’s question was focused on the Tate brothers, who the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) referred to in her very good speech today and who are clearly engulfed in a range of other legal matters, I think the question still applies, considering that there has been reporting about websites and forums that encourage sexual assault. Does the Minister see the police using these existing laws to stop crimes that are clearly prompted by a complete disregard for the autonomy of women, because if we are going to tackle these crimes, we must utilise the tools that we already have available to us?

Also, although I appreciate that it is not solely the purview of the Minister, I want to ask about the evidence gap and what we can do to reduce it. Some of the more troubling data about young people and misogyny in the last year was released by the Youth Justice Board. However, the specific section on misogynistic attitudes in its report stated that there were evidence gaps in the UK on matters that included: proving a causal pathway from misogynistic attitudes in childhood to sexual violence and abuse, as well as non-sexual violence; on misogynistic attitudes among children under 18 in England and Wales, as most evidence is from young adults and studies conducted in the USA; and evidence on how algorithmic exposure to misogynistic and sexual content translates into offline abuse.

Today, Members have rightly talked about the online sphere, which is specifically addressed by the petition. However, that suggests that there is a knowledge gap. How can we deal with the online sphere if we lack some pretty essential evidence about it? What can we do better to understand the links between misogynistic attitudes and criminal behaviour?

We must all work to support female survivors of crime, whether that means giving them the answers they deserve through inquiries such as that into grooming gangs or working harder to enforce the law, in order to stop people becoming victims to begin with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Satvir Kaur]

As I said earlier, it is useful for Members to understand the context—what is already happening and how we built to that—before I directly address the call from the petition.

To further support our collective efforts, our cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy was published in December 2025. Actions include making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful online content and misogynistic influences. We are doing that through our online safety regime and by banning under-16s from major social media platforms, backed by one of the toughest enforcement regimes in the world. We will always seek to go further where we can, with a focus on preventing rather than just reacting.

The Ministry of Justice will launch a call for evidence to better understand online misogynistic image-based abuse. In addition, the Department for Education has updated relationships, sex and health education curriculums, which now include teaching on online safety and awareness, healthy relationships and positive role models. Hon. Members talked about a whole societal shift. It is important that we focus on prevention, so I welcome that. Guidance and resources will be provided to support hard-working teachers to recognise the signs of ideologies so that we can intervene swiftly and effectively.

The higher education regulator has introduced strict new requirements that will ensure that every university works to prevent, address and investigate any incidents of sexual harassment and abuse affecting its students. To help address the issue that many people who engage in harmful behaviour do not always recognise their actions as abusive, we have developed a cross-Government behaviour change campaign called Enough. A few Members mentioned people not recognising what is not okay, and also the evidence gap and lack of reporting. It is really important that this campaign explicitly helps people in all walks of life—both victims and perpetrators—to recognise what is and is not acceptable.

I will directly address the petition’s call for misogyny to be recognised more broadly in the hate crime framework beyond the changes already made through the Crime and Policing Act. Although I cannot commit the Government to such changes today, we must always ensure that the hate crime framework is fit for purpose. It is right to mention alternative views, such as those from the Law Commission’s 2021 review, which concluded that adding sex or gender to the existing hate crime framework would not necessarily provide the most effective response in tackling violence against women and girls, and cautioned that reform in this area could have unintended consequences.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Home Secretary commissioned Lord Macdonald in October 2025 to undertake an independent review to consider whether public order and hate crime legislation remains effective. The review engaged extensively with stakeholders from across civil society, academia and community organisations to ensure that a wide range of perspectives informed its conclusions. Lord Macdonald has submitted his final report, which the Government is currently considering, and a response will follow in due course. It is right and fitting that the review’s conclusions help to underpin decision making on any further changes to the hate crime framework and how best to protect women and girls.

On the broader calls from petitioners about tackling violence against women and girls, we know that legislation is an important part, but only one part, of the solution, and cannot tackle violence against women and girls on its own. We must also prevent offending, challenge harmful attitudes, support victims and improve criminal justice responses. We want women and girls to have the confidence to come forward and report crimes while knowing that they will be taken seriously, treated with respect and supported to secure justice. This Government are meeting the petition’s request to fund support for victims and the training to support it. A few Members mentioned training and funding, and I reassure them that training is being expanded and that specialist VAWG teams are being rolled out to all local police forces. The deadline for that was brought forward by the Prime Minister only a couple of weeks ago.

This year, the Home Office is investing more than £13.9 million in the national centre for VAWG and public protection to help ensure that all victims receive the right response. That is part of the Government’s wider investment of over £1 billion to support victims of VAWG, including nearly £500 million for local authorities to provide support in safe accommodation to victims of domestic abuse in Middlesbrough and across the country—I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) for raising that issue. More than £550 million will be invested across justice to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. Up to £50 million will also be invested in therapeutic support for child victims of sexual abuse, alongside a further £5 million to support victims of VAWG.

[Blake Stephenson]

I want to be absolutely clear, because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) made an interesting point about the funding that organisations receive through their police and crime commissioner. Can the Minister confirm that, once police and crime commissioners disappear from our framework, the same funding—or more, perhaps —will be available to those organisations? If so, how will they receive that money?

[Satvir Kaur]

As the Home Secretary said during her statement to the House last week, it will form part of the ongoing policing reform. That will naturally have an impact on how regional and local areas are funded, and that is right and proper.

Improving the UK Visa System

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Immigration is one of the defining policy challenges of our time. It determines who our neighbours are and with whom we share our country, our culture, our values, our communities and our public services. Britain is operating an immigration system based on a high level of trust that the gangs who ruthlessly tear through our borders in the English channel will stop before thinking to exploit loopholes in our visa system. As a consequence, Britain is now an outlier in the world of self-interest, and our immigration system must reflect that. It must be robust enough to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, who can enrich our communities and boost our economy, but it must slam shut the back door to migrants who do not benefit our country and who burden our public services.

The simple truth is that immigration has been unsustainable for a long time. In a little under two years, more than 1.3 million people have come to live, work and study in the UK. That is more than the total population of Birmingham, leading to strain on our public services, competition for jobs and increasing pressure in our housing market. Although some migrants will have brought talent and experience, far too many have not. This has been facilitated by a visa system that is too generous and too vulnerable to exploitation. It cannot continue.

Last year I began researching the UK’s visa system, and what my team and I found was shocking. Glaring loopholes in compliance must be closed—for example, by requiring visa holders to provide an up-to-date home address during the visa period and not just at renewal or settlement, and by matching national insurance records with visa status so that illegal working can be identified and enforced in near to real time. This is legal compliance 101, and there is no excuse to keep the back doors to Britain open.

Around 140,000 organisations are eligible to sponsor work visas. The vast majority are small and medium-sized enterprises, and some of them are tiny. Nearly 17,000 have five or fewer employees. More than 3,000 have just one employee, with so-called skilled workers sponsored to work in vape shops, convenience stores and takeaways. To those looking to exploit the UK visa system, Britain is sending an open invitation to set up a bogus company and sell pretend jobs that give people the right to live in the UK.

None of this is hypothetical. During my research, I read an investigative report by The Times that uncovered visa agents selling fake jobs with companies that hold Home Office sponsorship licences. It is a lucrative business model for fraudsters who cheat our visa system, and for migrants who are desperate enough to do the same. Back in January, I asked the Minister on the Floor of the House how we could be sure that tiny companies sponsoring visas were not bogus. He promised to look at it and come back to me. He responded to me only yesterday, presumably as he was preparing for today’s debate. That is not good enough, because these are serious and urgent issues for all our constituents.

We must draw a line at the smallest of organisations being able to sponsor visas, and we must set clear limits on the proportion of an organisation’s workforce that can be made up of people on work visas. For that to be possible, the Home Office must publish the relevant data, rather than fobbing off MPs by saying that it can only be collected at a disproportionate cost. The real cost is in turning a blind eye to loopholes in our visa system. Inspections need to be regular and transparent, so that the British public can see the system working for them.

The Home Office has claimed that it regularly reviews the organisations eligible to sponsor visas, but just a cursory check finds organisations that are long defunct. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy remains on the list, despite being abolished in February 2023. If Government are not joined up enough to remove historical Departments, how can there be any faith in the adequacy of checks on tens of thousands of smaller organisations across the country?

Employees who break the rules get a slap on the wrist, and repeat offenders are allowed to get back their licence to sponsor visas in as little as two years. We must be tougher. Bans on sponsoring visas should be incurred after one failed action plan following a B rating. Those bans should be permanent, with penalties for directors to stop them moving on to sponsor visas at their next rogue outfit.

In addition, too many public bodies have come to rely on immigration to fill job roles. That is ludicrous at a time when 1.1 million young British people are not in employment, education or training. The public sector should lead from the front and only sponsor visas in cases where candidates bring genuinely world-class expertise.

Astonishingly, thousands of visas are also being issued for religious and charity work to those who meet pathetically low financial requirements. Would you believe that £2,270 in the bank is enough for a religious minister to bring in a family of five for three years? A robust visa system would scrap those routes entirely. The hard truth is that they are being used to take advantage of Britain’s good will, and that must stop.

Work is not the only area where there is a problem. If someone has a high-paid, skilled job in the UK and their passport is from all but one country, they can bring their non-British spouse to the UK on a five-year dependent visa for around £1,500 in application fees. However, if a British citizen is bringing their non-British spouse to the UK for five years, that will set them back over £3,200 in fees and require two family visas. That is madness. What possible justification can there be for it to be more expensive and more difficult for British citizens to bring a non-British spouse to the UK? Even the family visa is not exclusive to citizens. Settled individuals have the same right to sponsor family visas that British citizens do. That is not fair to British citizens.

On student visas, our universities have a commercial incentive to fill lecture halls with international students, and the UK’s visa policy hands international student graduates the right to live and work in any job they like through the graduate visa. As a result, the UK takes the second largest number of international students of any country in the world—750,000 in the past couple of years. Far from attracting the best and the brightest, the visa system fails to distinguish between the quality of students.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. International students have always come to the UK and it is not because of the visa system; it is because we have fantastic universities. The hon. Gentleman will know that our very best universities do not actually rely on the graduate visa scheme.

[Blake Stephenson]

I agree that we have a thriving university sector, and we must maintain it. However, the reality is that many students arriving in the UK are doing so to attend poorly performing universities, and not just the best ones. That is doing long-term harm to our country and our economy. We must close down that route by establishing a minimum academic standard for incoming students and setting a cap on institutions, based on the quality of educational provision.

Eligibility for graduate visas should also be linked to academic performance, to keep the best and the brightest while slamming closed this back-door route for low-skilled migrants. Universities should be stripped of their power to assess English language skills for incoming students, which allows them to bypass the official secure English language testing system. Those with a commercial incentive to bring in as many students as possible should not be allowed to mark their own homework. That has created an unacceptable loophole, one that trashes rules designed to ensure that the most basic of requirements is satisfied—that those who come to the UK can speak our language.

On English language testing, the Government are acting without sense and rationale. The Home Office is pressing ahead with plans to move official English language testing to a fully remote model, despite serious security concerns. Having initially ruled out remote testing, the Government U-turned after being lobbied by Peter Manderson’s firm, Global Counsel, on behalf of Duolingo. That US tech firm is now expected to win the £816 million contract, after a consortium of leading British firms withdrew from the application process, warning that the proposal exposes the UK’s immigration system to weaker security. Remote tests are extremely vulnerable to organised criminal gangs and cheats who, as I have seen at first hand, can easily overcome safeguards with technological workarounds, some of which use cheap equipment readily available on Amazon.

The Government have repeatedly promised to smash the gangs, yet they are opening a new back door to Britain for organised criminals to exploit. In a further insult to the British public, the Government initially denied meeting with Duolingo, yet a recent response to a freedom of information request shows that the Minister for Investment met Duolingo in September 2025 to discuss its offer on English language testing. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and apologise to the British public.

All that raises serious questions about the Government’s seriousness on UK border security. There are also questions to answer about whether the £816 million contract is good value for money. The Department will have received a letter from the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, inviting officials to brief the Committee, and I hope the offer will be taken up. It is clear from a YouGov poll that the majority of adults from across every political party, gender and socioeconomic group oppose a move to remote-only testing for an English visa application, so why on earth would the Home Office pursue that course?

In answer to my written parliamentary questions, the Minister alluded to the changes delivering a “net positive” financial benefit for the Department. In plain English, that means that the Home Office are looking to trade the security of high-stakes English language testing for cash for the Department. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. What other reason could there be for the Government’s diverging from our Australian and Canadian allies, who have both recently rejected proposals to move testing online?

We do not permit remote-only testing for driving theory tests, “Life in the UK” tests or GCSEs, so how can we, with a clear conscience, permit it for the test that decides who makes the UK their home? Has the Home Office consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote testing? The reality is clear for all to see: a fully remote model cannot match the security of in-person supervised testing. Are Ministers so naive that they cannot see the disaster coming down the tracks?

I hope that much of my speech will not come as a surprise to the Minister—I have asked him enough questions on this topic, and I have been told that my “Backdoors to Britain” report, which I published in March, has been read. I am grateful for the responses to it that I received from the Department. However, given the inadequacy of the Government’s response so far, I am not satisfied that they have listened to my concerns and those of many in the country.

I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect on the seriousness of these issues and demonstrate that the Government understand the problem. The British people do not want a blame game; this problem is too important for point scoring. I recognise that the responsibility for the problems in our visa system lies with both the current and with previous Governments, but the responsibility to act now lies with current Ministers. They need to be ambitious and brave but also thorough and serious.

It is crucial that we improve the visa rules and the compliance and enforcement system. More than almost any other system, it defines who we are as a nation and what it means to be part of our community. The conversation about how we get our visa system to work in the national interest must involve all of us, regardless of our politics. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues from right across the political divide.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank everyone who has contributed to this wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am afraid that I do not have time to reflect on each contribution, but I thoroughly appreciate Members coming and providing their thoughts on this important subject.

I thank the Minister for answering my many written parliamentary questions as I was doing my research, and for considering thoughtfully the recommendations in my report and writing to me with his thoughts. I know that he had limited time, but I was disappointed that he did not pick up on the move to remote-only English language testing, which is a very important topic to both me and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to emphasise that it is important that there is confidence in the system before the Home Office goes ahead, and I encourage the Minister to encourage his officials to accept the invitation to brief the Public Accounts Committee on that.

Fixing our visa system, closing the loopholes and putting the British people and their Government back in control of who our neighbours are should not be controversial. It is the norm throughout the world, and we need to make it the norm here in Great Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system.

Immigration Reforms

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. Immigration is one of the defining issues of contemporary politics. Polls regularly show that it is one of the most important issues for the public. Much like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I am told by my constituents that they are fed up with a system that seems to work for absolutely nobody. I send surveys to villages on a monthly basis, and regularly more than 80% of those who return the surveys tell me that this issue is important to them and we need to fix the immigration system.

The Government’s attempts to reform the system are welcome. I encourage them to be ambitious. This is not about chasing Reform, as has been suggested by Members today; it is about focusing on an issue that matters deeply, certainly to my constituents. Earlier this month, I published a short report, “Backdoors to Britain”, which sets out 30 recommendations for strengthening our legal migration system. It comes after months of work and hundreds of written questions to the Home Office—I must apologise for pestering Home Office Ministers with them—which uncovered some alarming truths.

Nearly 17,000 micro-companies with five or fewer employees are eligible to sponsor visas, but there seems to be no data on how many people they have sponsored. There is a clear commercial incentive for our universities to undercut our legal migration system in exercising their power to conduct their own English language testing at the start of study. Completion of a degree, regardless of what it is in or where the individual has come from, itself acts as proof of English language competency for future applications to the Home Office.

Thousands of visa holders come through hard-to-enforce routes with minimal financial requirements. Two examples that I focused on in the report are religious and charity visa routes. We are operating a system where it is easier for someone to bring their non-British spouse to the UK if they are an immigrant than if they are a British citizen. I do not think that is fair to hard-working British citizens who want to bring their non-British spouse to the UK.

[Sir John Hayes]

I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate and said how pleased I am that you are in the Chair, Mr Stringer.

My hon. Friend will know that the care visa system established by the previous Government brought here more dependants than care workers. Everyone who arrives in a country brings an economic value and an economic cost; they all want houses, they all want health and they all want education for their children. That was a flagrant example of what my hon. Friend described: more dependants came, and the cost was much greater than the value.

[Blake Stephenson]

I could not agree more. That is clearly a back door to Britain, and we need to close it.

Our public sector is dependent on a huge number of worker visas, while we debate—even today, in the Chamber —record youth unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we need to get those young people into work rather than relying on importing labour.

Perhaps more worrying are the huge gaps in fairly basic compliance data that I uncovered through my questions to the Home Office. Responses to many of my questions indicate that there is a lack of robust data in the Home Office, or that data might be available but producing an answer is simply too expensive. In either case, without robust and easily accessible data in the Home Office, I and my constituents are concerned that our legal migration system is effectively unenforceable.

Britain’s immigration system is not working for the British people. It is time that changed. As we continue to shape a new immigration system over the coming months and years, I hope the Minister will consider the recommendations in my report, which I have shared with Members and might well be in his inbox. I am more than happy to meet him to go through the recommendations if that would be of any use to the Government. My constituents want this Government—any Government, in fact—to end the loopholes, close the back doors to Britain and build an immigration system that works for British citizens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer.

Too often when immigration is spoken about in public discourse, whether in the media, online platforms, or indeed in this House, the tone becomes detached from reality and at times from a basic sense of humanity. I do not know anybody who supports or condones illegal entry into our country, or exploitation of our compassionate rules to take advantage and usurp other people’s rights. However, we must reject the false binary that elites seeking to divide us are all too willing to present: that we have to choose between compassion and prosperity. That is simply not true.

I want to present a real-world example of what a compassionate and beneficial immigration policy might look like: in January 2026, Spain’s left-wing Government issued a royal decree to create a pathway for around 500,000 undocumented migrants to obtain legal residency. To be eligible, migrants were required to have lived in Spain for at least five months—not 30 months, not five years, not 20 years—before application. Eligible individuals could apply for a one-year renewable residence permit, or a five-year permit for children. Permits allow people to work in any sector in any region of Spain.

Why is Spain doing this? To address labour shortages and support economic growth. Spain has argued that undocumented migrants are already contributing to the economy but cannot work legally. The Government say that migration has accounted for 80% of Spain’s economic growth in the past six years. Spain has an ageing population and labour shortages in key sectors, making additional legal workers essential. The reform aims to strengthen the formal labour market and increase tax and social security contributions. The Government also argue that the policy will promote social cohesion and rights integration. It is a model based on human rights, focusing on dignity, inclusion and co-existence. Spain needs an estimated 2.4 million additional workers in the next decade to maintain productivity.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thought I would intervene to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. Is he arguing for an amnesty here in the UK? What does he think British citizens would think of such an amnesty? Does he believe that that would be fair or unfair?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

The reasons why Spain introduced the policy also apply to our country. Whether we address the challenges that both Spain and the UK have in the same way or differently is a question for the House. It is for the Government to make proposals and for the House to contribute to a fair, compassionate, productive and ethical policy. We do not want mass illegal or uncontrolled migration without benefits to our nation.

Spain requires 2.4 million workers in the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to support the pensions system. My question to the Government is, what estimate have they made of how many new workers will be needed in the UK over the next 10 years to maintain productivity and to deliver the Government’s mission for growth, and how will that requirement be fulfilled?

Firearms Licensing

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for introducing what has been a really balanced and thoughtful debate. I hope that the Minister has found it useful and will take lots of useful comments from it as the Government move forward with their plans. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on firearms licensing and the reforms we need to strengthen public safety while retaining the trust of responsible shooting communities.

I begin with a case that has been referred to by hon. Members in this debate: the tragic Prosper case in Bedfordshire, which revealed serious vulnerabilities in our current licensing system. An individual, Nicholas Prosper, obtained a shotgun using a highly convincing forged certificate, which appeared legitimate to a lawful vendor. On the following day, he went on to commit a triple murder within his own family. That was on my doorstep in north Luton. Police later confirmed that he had also planned an attack on a local school, prevented only through the swift actions of Bedfordshire’s officers.

Just last week I again met with a member of the extended Prosper family—someone whose life has been utterly shaken by this tragedy. Listening to their grief, their unanswered questions and their determination that no other family should ever endure such devastation has shaped my contribution to this debate. It took courage for them to speak out and to speak to me about something so profoundly painful; I am grateful, and I am hopeful that their experience will help drive the reforms needed to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

For that family and for our wider community, change must be about preventing real, life-altering harm and ensuring that the system designed to keep people safe cannot be exploited again. It is important to acknowledge that that case was not an isolated vulnerability. There has been at least one further attempt to use a similar forged certificate; fortunately, it was spotted by a vigilant registered firearms dealer, whose professionalism prevented a potentially catastrophic situation. However, we cannot depend on vigilance and instinct alone—public safety must rest on systems, not luck.

At the centre of this issue lies the national firearms licensing management system. It is an outdated platform, unable to provide real-time certificate validation and no longer fit for the demands placed upon it. The Home Office is now tendering for its replacement, which is expected in mid-2027.

Crucially, the new system will introduce real-time online certificate verification, akin, in my mind, to the MOT checking service that people are familiar with, and is strongly supported by the police, licensing experts and responsible shooting organisations. The replacement platform will enable wider modernisation, new digital licensing formats, stronger anti-fraud measures and a public portal allowing certificate holders to update basic information themselves. Those changes will reduce pressure on police forces, improve data accuracy and support a move to a more efficient and secure licensing environment.

Serious concerns remain in the interim, however. The seven-day review mechanism is helpful, but it cannot eliminate the risks exposed in Bedfordshire and across the country. If a firearm is transferred before police notification, there is a dangerous window in which harm can occur. Bedfordshire police made clear to me in our interactions that the system must be capable of validating a certificate before the transfer proceeds, in order to make the secondary market much safer, and I agree.

Some have suggested that the solution lies in a far more radical structural change: merging the section 2 shotgun licensing regime with the stricter section 1 system used for rifles and higher-powered firearms. I understand why people reach for a radical change in the wake of tragedy—it happens after every tragedy, and we have the strictest gun laws in the world as a result. Constituents understandably want reassurance and decisive action to ensure it never happens again, but the evidence simply does not support the approach being proposed by Government, for all the reasons explained by hon. Members here today.

Shooting organisations and licensing specialists tell me that merging section 1 and 2 would not materially improve public safety. Both regimes already require rigorous background checks, suitability assessments and medical scrutiny. Tragedies have arisen from failures in the system, outdated technology and administrative gaps, not from the distinction between certificate types. A merger would generate significant unintended consequences: increased strain on already overstretched police licensing teams, slower processing times, higher costs for responsible shotgun owners, and damage to rural economies, game management and conservation work.

At the same time, I must highlight the unacceptable licensing delays that residents and shooting organisations consistently report—delays that are particularly acute in my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which falls under the Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire firearms licensing unit. That unit is now formally recognised as the worst performing in the country: some applicants are waiting up to two years for renewals or grants, placing livelihoods, rural businesses, conservation activity and community clubs under real pressure.

[Leigh Ingham]

One of my constituents, Martin Price, who holds both a section 1 and a section 2 licence, got in touch with me before this debate. He is clear that ownership is a privilege and safeguards are essential for the system, but he also describes significant delays as well as inconsistency between forces where applications are in place. Does the hon. Member agree that, whatever the outcome of the consultation—although I have had to dip in and out of the debate, I think the message has been pretty consistent—improving consistency and efficiency across firearms licensing departments would be a vital step in ensuring public safety?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree. My constituents, like the hon. Lady’s, want a system that works, that is swift and that is safe.

The delays coincide with rising licensing costs, meaning that responsible, law-abiding certificate holders are paying more while receiving a poorer service. That is not sustainable, and any reform must ensure that those who follow the law are not unfairly penalised by the overstretched system. Crucially, merging regimes would not address the real vulnerability: the absence of real-time verification. I would be grateful if the Minister in her summing up could assure us that she understands that distinction and will take on those views as she moves forward with the legislative proposals.

Across Bedfordshire, more than 1,000 residents, including nearly 300 in Mid Bedfordshire alone, have signed the national petition calling for section 1 and section 2 licensing to remain separate. Their message is clear: we must focus reforms on the real risks, not on measures that burden those who already comply with the law. A modern verification system will improve public safety; a structural merger of shotgun and firearms licences will not.

I want to put on record my thanks to Bedfordshire police for their professionalism, insight and commitment to preventing further loss of life, and for the compassion they have shown to the Prosper family and the wider community. Their insight into the system’s shortcomings must shape the reforms that follow—we must empower them, not encumber them. Can the Home Office Minister now set out the precise timetable for delivering real-time verification, what interim safeguards will be put in place before 2027, and how both technological and legislative reforms will be accelerated?

Our objective must be to ensure that what happened in Bedfordshire can never happen again. We owe that to the Prosper family, every family in the county and every community in the country—but we also owe it to the responsible shooting community to ensure that regulation is proportionate and supportive, rather than a block to their participation in country sports, conservation and stewardship.

Before I conclude—I should have said this up front—I declare an interest: I have worked closely with BASC on this issue and I have been on a deer management course with BASC to improve my knowledge of firearms. I am not a firearms licence holder, but I have in the past held shotgun licences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

While we are on the topic of Bedfordshire, will the Minister reflect on the lessons that have been learned from the Prosper case? I went into it in some detail. It is of concern to not only my constituents but constituents in Luton—the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) is here—so I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on it. In particular, what can be done to improve controls on the secondary market and the onward sale of guns?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He may wish me to meet family members; if he thinks it appropriate and they want to, I am happy to do so. The onward sale of guns—the illegal market in guns—is a massive issue that we need to tackle, and indeed we are.

As many people have said, we are fortunate in this country that we have a very strict regime and do not have a very significant gun issue. The number of murders involving the use of illegal guns is coming down, but of course there is always more that we can do in this space. We work with the National Crime Agency, Border Force and police forces to look at these issues, and, again, the setting up of a national police service that can have more specialism in some of these areas will help us to do that. If the hon. Member would like me to have a meeting to learn more, I am very happy to do that.

We have not been idle since we came into government. There are always changes that we can make, and we have made a number of significant ones, including reissuing, in August 2025, the statutory guidance to chief officers of police on firearms licensing. That ensures that the police carry out robust and consistent checks on the suitability of those who hold or apply for a shotgun or firearms licence. I will not go into the other things we have done, but we have made other changes and are always open to ideas.

I should briefly say that medical markers are really important and are already working. We will keep under review whether to mandate, but we already have 98,000 active digital markers on patient GP records. In 2024-25, there were over 1,100 cases in which the GP notified the police of a medical concern. That is a good thing, but it is worrying that people who have mental health issues, or whatever it might be, and obviously need support are going to the GP and the GP has raised a marker. It shows how important the system is, but also how careful we need to be when licensing.

To conclude, I hear, I understand and I will continue to learn—I learned about geese today, which I did not know much about, and crofting. I cannot say I am an expert, but I absolutely understand the economic benefit and the need for the use of guns in this country. I want to make sure we have the best regime possible, and that is why we are conducting the consultation. I am very open to hearing more views and to learning more from hon. Members. We will publish the consultation in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Tapp]

The Home Office English language testing procurement has formally launched. Given that there is a live process, I will not comment on that specifically. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that the delivery model must meet appropriate integrity requirements.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Nearly 17,000 companies licensed to sponsor worker visas have five or fewer employees, and over 3,000 of these have just one employee. Ministers have been unable to tell me how many inspections have been made of companies since the general election. How sure is the Home Secretary that these are not bogus companies offering a back door to Britain?

[Mike Tapp]

Any UK business can apply for a sponsor licence, provided that it complies with the relevant requirements. I will take that point away, look at it and come back to the hon. Member with more detail.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. While the clandestine entrant penalty scheme has to be rigorously enforced in order to be effective, it also provides a very fair process of appeal for hauliers against penalties that are not justified by the facts of a case. I am sure that my hon. Friend will assist the company in his constituency through that appeal process.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T3. Does the Home Secretary agree with Labour police and crime commissioners that the money allocated by the Chancellor at the spending review is insufficient to deliver the Government’s policing priorities?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have provided an additional £200 million for neighbourhood policing as part of more than £1 billion of additional funding for police forces across the country. That is how we are putting an additional 3,000 neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers on our streets this year, after the decimation of neighbourhood policing under the Conservatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Too often antisocial behaviour is dismissed as a low-level crime, yet it can make people’s lives a complete misery. That is why we need more neighbourhood police back on our streets, working in communities to prevent and tackle the kinds of problems that communities face.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister recently said he was:

“hardwiring growth into all the decisions of the Cabinet”.

How did he react when the Home Secretary told him that her policy on electronic travel authorisations would cost the economy nearly £735 million over five years?

[Seema Malhotra]

We are introducing electronic travel authorisations in line with the approach of our international partners such as Australia and the USA, who have also been looking at how to enhance their ability to pre-screen travellers upstream, to stop those who pose a threat from travelling to the UK. As the former immigration Minister and now shadow Secretary of State of Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), said at the time:

“ETAs will enhance our border security by increasing our knowledge about those seeking to come to the UK and preventing the arrival of those who pose a threat.”

If the hon. Gentleman disagrees with him, I suggest they have a catch-up. Perhaps the Conservative party will have worked out by then where it stands on the policy.