Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for clearly and comprehensively articulating the key facets of the petition that has resulted in us all being here on this sunny afternoon. I am grateful to him, to the petitioners and to all other Members who have spoken. We have heard a wide range of views. I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced and the various points raised, and I will seek to respond to as many as possible in the time available.

Before I get into the detail, I must do two things. First, I assert again this Government’s unshakeable commitment to tackling illegal immigration. I am sorry to have to remind Members of the situation we inherited, but it was so dire that, two years on, the legacy of past failures remains. When we took office, smuggling gangs saw this country’s borders as a soft target. The enforcement of basic rules had ground to a halt. The system was in disarray.

We have worked hard since July 2024 to turn things around, and our efforts are having an impact. Over 44,000 channel crossings have been stopped in partnership with the French. Under our landmark returns agreement with France, those arriving can face immediate detention and removal. Removals and deportations of illegal migrants and foreign criminals have gone up, as have illegal working visits. We have more officers tackling organised immigration crime, and disruption of OIC is at record highs. Asylum costs, meanwhile, are down, as is the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers.

We are reducing the pull factors, and we will do whatever it takes to secure effective returns co-operation with our international partners. We will use every lever available to return those with no right to be in the UK. In November, we threatened visa penalties against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Within weeks, my Department had successfully negotiated new arrangements and it is now conducting returns on that basis. My message is clear: if foreign Governments refuse to accept the return of their citizens, they will face the consequences. That is just the start of our action. Countries that do not co-operate on returns cannot expect a normal visa relationship with the UK.

We do all of that and more, because the Home Secretary has said from day one that we must do whatever it takes to restore order and control to our borders, but we also know that there is much more to do.

[Dr Mullan]

Let us say that in a year from now, all this stuff has not worked and the Home Secretary has committed to doing whatever it takes. Does “whatever it takes” include withdrawing from the ECHR?

[Mike Tapp]

We must remember that the ECHR, which I will say more about later in my speech, underpins many of the exact returns agreements that we rely upon to deport and remove people.

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister really think that Canada or Australia do not get to deport people? Those countries are not in the ECHR, but they have deportation agreements with third countries, so in no way is it a necessity to be in the ECHR to have deportation agreements.

[Mike Tapp]

It is an absolute fact that many of our returns agreements are underpinned by our membership of the ECHR. I will now make some progress.

That is why we are embarking on the most significant set of asylum reforms in a generation. Under our plans, the UK will continue to play its part in helping the world’s most vulnerable people. However, to meet the challenges of today, we must address the fact that this country is more attractive to asylum seekers than other countries in Europe, so we are acting, including through the introduction of new legislation, to build a new fair but firm asylum model, based on contribution, integration and respect for UK laws.

Of course, the reason I mention all that is that it goes to the heart of the problem that this petition seeks to answer, which is the arrival of illegal migrants and their continued presence in this country. We understand why people are frustrated after years of chaos and crisis. That is why we are taking concerted and decisive action to restore order and control.

I will now move on to my second point, which is to address the specific thrust of this petition, namely that the Government should seek to establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally.

We have been clear that we will continue to work with international partners to tackle the global challenge of irregular migration. However, interventions must work in practice, they must offer value for money and they must comply with the UK’s international obligations. The Government are doing whatever it takes to secure our borders, including the introduction of the most sweeping asylum reforms in a generation.

The petition also refers to deportation, to which I would reply that more people with no right to be here are being removed from British soil under this Government than at any time in years. Since the election, we have removed or deported nearly 70,000 people who were here illegally.

I turn now to some of the specific points made by Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made an absolutely fantastic contribution. I agree with him wholeheartedly that it is important that we get the rhetoric right and that it is our responsibility —the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber—to ensure that we do not pitch neighbour against neighbour. Unity is British; division is not.

I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). She made a good point about visa overstayers; they do make up a large proportion of those who are here illegally. We have paused the health and social care route and we have also paused automatic family reunion. We are imposing stricter measures on universities to ensure that that route is not abused, and we have already seen the number of those who are seeking to claim asylum after signing up to a university drop significantly. But of course, we are looking to go further across the board on legal migration and overstayers.

The hon. Member also talked about rapists and paedophiles. Everyone here agrees that if a rapist, a paedophile or a criminal has come to this country, they should not be here, and it is important that we make changes to the ECHR—a process that is ongoing at this time—to deport and remove those people.

[Dr Mullan]

But we do not deport all rapists and paedophiles, because some of them make successful ECHR claims and get to stay in the country. Again, unless the Government are willing to tackle that, they will not get to do the things that the Minister has so much rhetoric about.

[Mike Tapp]

The hon. Member’s party had 14 years to make changes, but they absolutely failed. We inherited their open borders and their broken system, but we are working hard behind the scenes, as we speak, to make the ECHR more fit for purpose.

Let me move on to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made very good points about the cost of some of these proposals. Everything that we do in the Home Office must be costed and must be affordable to the British taxpayer, and of course we have a duty to protect those who are fleeing war and persecution, which is one of the things that makes Britain so great.

The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made a good point about the single dinghy having more individuals on it over the weekend. The reason is that we are attacking the supply chains and taking boats out of the supply chain, which means that more people are being forced on to these boats. We acknowledge that that is dangerous, which is why we are working hard with our international partners to stop these boat crossings. Disruptions of boat crossings are now at around 44,000.

[Esther McVey]

The average daily arrivals of illegal immigrants under this Labour Government are 94% higher than under the previous Government, so can the Minister tell me exactly which policies are working?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate intervention. We took on her Government’s open borders. Over the last year, we have seen a reduction of around 41% in small boat crossings. It is not something that we celebrate, because we know that we are only seven months into the year, but we are working hard with our international partners. I have already given the stats on the number of disruptions.

I will move on to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I know has been a voice behind this petition in the media and on social media. I have never referred to anybody who cares about this topic as on the mad fringe or as a racist. It is about people’s own perceptions; it is for them to decide whether they are racist or mad-fringe. Having these concerns is absolutely valid, in general, but I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool that we must mind our rhetoric, because the public do listen to what we say in this place.

I have not eaten much today, and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth talked about some fine-sounding snacks being delivered by Deliveroo. He is absolutely right that we must crack down on that issue, and we are making efforts to do that. Arrests are up about 81% on illegal working, but that is by no means finished, and we will continue to work hard on it.

I have talked about the ECHR already. The hon. Gentleman has produced a large book; he did say that he would not go into detail, but maybe there is some in there. I respect that sort of work going into policy development, but as I say, we have to make sure that we maintain our British values throughout.

[Rupert Lowe]

I think the British public have had enough of Labour blaming the Tories and the Tories blaming Labour. Meanwhile, this national emergency continues to get worse. Does the Minister accept the fact that just playing “he said, she said” is not good enough? We need to change that attitude.

[Mike Tapp]

I respect the intervention. I did say that I apologised for having to raise this again, but it is a fact that we inherited a completely broken system. It does take time to fix a broken system, and we are working hard to do so.

[Esther McVey]

How much time, exactly? The Government have had two years in office and have already changed Prime Minister.

[Mike Tapp]

I am absolutely fed up of being lectured by the Opposition, who gave us this problem. It is like being lectured by the arsonist on putting out the fire. I will go absolutely no further with that.

I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). It is absolutely right that we must remove the pull factors. We have to ensure that there are deterrents for people looking to come over. When we came into the Home Office, the fact is that there was asylum shopping going on across Europe, because the offer that we gave to those seeking asylum was better than many others, so we have brought ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. That will make it less attractive to come here.

We are also moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites, removing one of the pull factors. I have already mentioned that immigration enforcement, when it comes to illegal working, is up 81%, which is removing another pull factor. But of course compassion is essential; that is what makes us great. Looking at safe and legal routes to be introduced in due course is another part of the solution.

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a good point about our duty to help those who are fleeing persecution and war. Capped safe and legal routes will ensure that we do our bit to help people. He talked about decision making; the speed of our initial decision making is up 71%, and there is still further to go. We have reallocated and employed more caseworkers to ensure that we get through that, but our initial decision making is up.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a point about the Dublin agreement and its impact on increased arrivals. I think that he was right to make that point, but wrong to associate it with the EU, as countries such as Norway and Iceland are signatories. Has any consideration been given to joining multinational returns agreements to speed up decision making in the UK?

[Mike Tapp]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw the start of the boat crossings crisis only after we left the EU; of course, the Dublin agreement provided some sort of deterrent. However, reopening the Brexit wound is not something I want to do, which is why we are looking at introducing more returns agreements, so that we can deport and remove more people.

[Dr Mullan]

I do not know whether hon. Members know this, but just for the record, we took more people than we sent back under the Dublin agreement. It did not act as any deterrent, because a person was more likely to get to the UK on the basis of the Dublin agreement than they were to be sent away.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is now on the record. I would be keen to discuss why he thinks the numbers went up, and why we saw about 180,000 people cross after 2018. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is something to discuss outside this room.

I will now move on to some broader points. I have tried to get around everybody who spoke; my apologies if I have missed anybody.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the Minister for being generous with his time. Can he clarify a point? The Secretary of State was trying to stop some of the pull factors, and I welcomed the extension from five to 10 years in the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain, but it seems that the incoming Prime Minister will now water those new policies down. Is that the case?

[Mike Tapp]

The Home Secretary made it clear at Home Office oral questions that the announcement on the five to 10 years absolutely stands. We opened a large consultation and had 200,000 responses that are still being worked through. Announcements on transition arrangements and so on will be made in due course—around the autumn, we expect.

Let me move on to small boat arrivals more broadly. They are unacceptable, and we have made a commitment to restore order and control by making it less attractive to come here and easier to remove people. We have also been working with international partners, and we have seen small boat crossings go down 41% in the last year.

In March, we extended the duty to deport foreign national offenders who have been given suspended sentences of 12 months or more. FNOs who have a prison sentence, a suspended sentence or a community order are referred for deportation. Foreign national offender removals are now up by 36%, and we will continue to remove those who should not be here. Progress is being made to end the use of hotels, which is something that we will achieve by the end of this Parliament. Hotel use is down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today. Asylum support costs are down 15%. I have already covered illegal working a number of times in response to interventions.

Small boat crossings are down, decisions are up, hotel use is down, deportations and removals are up, and net migration is down by 82%. This is not an overnight fix and there is no silver bullet, but two years in, this Government are heading in the right direction with a solutions-based approach, which includes safe and legal routes and increased deportations and removals. This does not have to sit anywhere on the political spectrum; it is about finding solutions, and that is what we are doing.

I will conclude there, with thanks again to all who participated in today’s debate. I know that the strength of feeling around these issues is significant on all sides. This debate and the original petition are further evidence of that. Although we may disagree on how best to respond to the very significant challenges that this country faces from illegal migration, I think we are mostly united in believing that those challenges must be addressed if we are to be the strong, secure nation that the people we serve rightly demand. As I have set out, this Government are taking more and stronger action than any in recent memory to restore order and control to our borders. That is the task, and in that task we will be unrelenting.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call John Lamont to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

11. When she plans to announce the number of seasonal worker visas available for 2027.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

This Government recognise the importance of a prompt announcement on visa numbers to enable the agriculture industry to plan and prepare. The Government are committed to supporting the UK horticulture sector, but it is important that the sector reduces its ongoing reliance on significant numbers of seasonal workers from overseas. We are engaging closely with the sector and other stakeholders, and will announce the number of seasonal worker visas available for 2027 shortly, in line with usual practice.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I am currently taking part in the excellent National Farmers’ Union food and farming fellowship. On a recent visit to a vegetable farm, I was told that the numbers of seasonal worker visas are announced far too late in the farming cycle for farmers to be able to plan in advance. If we are to have domestic agriculture, we are going to need some seasonal workers. Will the Government look at working with the industry so that we can plan in advance and actually run our farms and agriculture sector properly?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I will ensure that we work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—we already do—in engaging with the sector to ensure that the announcement on numbers is timely, as it needs to be, so that farmers can plan.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

12. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the British national overseas visa settlement route.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

We assess that the route has been a success. Since it launched, more than 170,000 Hongkongers have moved to the UK, and thousands have now been granted settlement. The Government remain steadfast in our support for the Hong Kong community in the UK and those who will arrive in the future.

[Peter Swallow]

The Hong Kong community in Bracknell Forest has welcomed the announcement of the continuation of the five-year settlement route for BNO visa holders, as well as the expansion to adult children. However, real concerns remain around changes to language and income requirements, as well as concerns that Hongkongers prosecuted by the Chinese state under the national security law are seeing delays to accessing indefinite leave to remain status. Will the Minister set out when my constituents will be given clarity on these really important issues? It is right that we stand by the Hong Kong community, given our long and historic ties.

[Mike Tapp]

We have consulted widely on earned settlement. We are considering the responses, and will bring forward reforms at the earliest opportunity. In the meantime, those on the BNO route can continue to apply, and the service standard for those on that route continues to be six months. If there are any individual circumstances, my hon. Friend can grab me after this and we can go through them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Ann Widdecombe was a force of nature, and my heart goes out to all her friends and loved ones.

The BNO route has provided sanctuary for Hongkongers fleeing the autocracy of the Chinese Communist party. However, its effectiveness should not be measured in visas granted, but in whether people are actually safe here. BNOers live under CCP bounties, doxxing and surveillance. A year after the foreign influence registration scheme went live, not one person or company has registered as working or taking money from the Chinese state, and the Government still refuse to put the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced tier. Do the Government really believe that not a single organisation in the UK is engaged in political influence on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, and if not, how many investigations have there been into those failing to disclose? The annual report on FIRS was due to published by the end of June. Are the Government planning on sneaking it out during the summer recess to hide their failure to protect us and Hongkongers from the Chinese Communist party?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important point. It is essential that we keep those who are here safe. The Minister for Security is keeping this matter under review, and will write to her in due course.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

13. What estimate her Department has made of the number of police officers in September (a) 2024 and (b) 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

The scampi catching sector in Northern Ireland is currently reliant on foreign seasonal workers. To stay afloat, the sector needs about 66 visas to be valid for just seven months of the year. Will the Minister consider extending the seasonal worker visa route to the nephrops industry to give the catching sector the certainty it needs and protect processing jobs at Whitby Seafoods in my constituency?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. I work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many sectors in agriculture to ensure that they can operate if they need access to foreign workers. Of course, we are looking to reduce the need for that, and I am happy to meet afterwards and talk more about the specific issue of scampi, which I love.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Asylum Minister for his professional courtesy in calling me on Friday to say that the asylum dispersal plans for Stoke Heath in my constituency have now been scrapped. I am grateful for that, and it is a great relief to many residents—it was a completely inappropriate location from the get-go. However, can I ask him to put on the record whether the Government have any plans to put asylum seekers into Clive barracks at Tern Hill in Shropshire, which is currently home to the Royal Irish Regiment?

Border Security: UK-Ireland Co-operation

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate on a topic of great significance. We have had a number of contributions, and I am grateful for them all. I respect the valid concerns and absolutely agree that having those concerns is not racist.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I began my remarks by making the very simple, but important, point that the security of the UK border depends to a very large extent on co-operation. The nature of the threats we face demands that we work relentlessly across services, sectors and borders to ensure that we have the clearest possible picture of what and who is coming into our country.

In that effort, Ireland is without question one of our most crucial partners. It is a deep and long-standing partnership underpinned by a shared determination to uphold the first duty of any Government: ensuring the safety and security of our nations. It is also an active partnership. The CTA is at the centre of the active partnership. Having been in operation for over a century, it is an enduring arrangement between the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Crown dependencies. It is unique and invaluable, allowing British and Irish citizens to move freely, live and work across our jurisdictions and maintain the close links that underpin our shared history.

However, the success of the CTA depends above all on us preserving its security and integrity. That means working closely with our Irish counterparts to identify emerging risks and trends. Our co-operation is comprehensive, spanning operational activity, intelligence sharing and joint strategic planning. When patterns of abuse are detected, we co-ordinate action to disrupt them, ensuring a consistent and effective response on both sides. We are taking that co-operation further. At the UK-Ireland summit in March, the Prime Minister and Taoiseach agreed to expand our immigration data sharing arrangements. That work is aimed squarely at preventing those who are not entitled to CTA rights from exploiting the free movement provisions. That is an important step forward in further strengthening the security architecture that underpins the CTA.

It is also important to recognise that although the CTA enables close co-operation, it does not require fully harmonised immigration systems. Each country retains control of its own borders and decision making. While there are no routine immigration controls within the CTA and no controls on the Northern Ireland-Ireland land border, the UK operates intelligence-led enforcement activity on CTA routes to identify those attempting to abuse the CTA arrangement. Those targeted risk-based interventions also operate away from the land border in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: everyone entering the United Kingdom must meet our immigration requirements, regardless of where they arrive from. Where individuals attempt to evade those requirements, they are liable to be detained and, if appropriate, removed and deported.

In Northern Ireland, the absence of a hard border remains fundamental, supporting peace, stability and the commitment of the Good Friday agreement. However, the openness must be matched by robust modern enforcement of our border security through our joint work with Ireland and the Crown dependencies, to further secure the external border of the CTA, and in-country through our intelligence-led operational activity on intra-CTA routes.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on securing this debate. Does the Minister understand that when he speaks of co-operation between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, it rings hollow when immigration officials in Dublin airport indicate where the bus to Belfast is? They proactively indicate to individuals how they can access the United Kingdom. Does the Minister understand that I could give him a litany of cases of individuals who have been removed from the United Kingdom and returned to Dublin—the country in which they arrived—only for them to return on the Ulsterbus? One individual flouted the system in that way on three separate occasions.

Does the Minister understand that any agreement around data sharing rings hollow when the Home Office will not tell us how many people enter the UK from the Republic of Ireland, how many apply in Drumkeen House in Belfast or how many are removed not just from Northern Ireland, but the United Kingdom as a whole, and even more so when the Home Secretary says that is because of the Belfast agreement? That is not right and there needs to be some openness.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his well-made points. I disagree that those important diplomatic relations and agreements are hollow, but I will take away the point about the Irish border and feed it back to officials. That is disturbing, and of course I absolutely disagree with it.

I turn briefly to our work on immigration enforcement. We have removed nearly 70,000 individuals since the end of March, which is a 41% increase on the number of returns recorded in the previous 21-month period. The Government will step up and intensify immigration enforcement to track down, detain, arrest and remove illegal migrants in Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary is investing more than £3 billion in immigration enforcement activity over the next three years, including in Northern Ireland, where we will see a 20% increase in officers compared with 2023.

I cannot ignore the extremely important points made about the incident in Belfast, which disturbed us all. I agree that action needs to be taken to ensure that those in our country do not commit offences. Foreign national offender removals have increased significantly under this Government, but we do not hide behind that. We understand that there is more to do, and we will continue to pursue, deport and remove those who should not be here. I will not go into any more detail about that specific individual than we have already given. We have confirmed that he is Sudanese, and we know how he entered the country.

An important point was made about pull factors. We inherited a situation in which illegal and legal migration was too high. Illegal migration is still too high. We see that on small boat crossings and other clandestine entry points. We have reformed and are reforming the immigration system to remove the pull factors, making it less attractive to come to the country. We are aligning our asylum system with the rest of Europe to reduce the asylum shopping that we have seen over the last four or five years. We are also making it easier to remove and deport people, which is why that number is up 41% to nearly 70,000, but we will go further, and there will be more announcements on that in due course.

Illegal migration is costly, which is another reason to bring it down. Asylum accommodation costs the taxpayer far too much, so we are moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites. In Northern Ireland, asylum accommodation has reduced by about 10%.

I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann for securing this debate. I am grateful to her and all Members who contributed. They raised important points, and I am pleased to have had this opportunity to reaffirm the UK Government’s steadfast commitment.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the Minister for his response, but my constituents will be listening, and they will say that they have learned absolutely nothing and know nothing more about illegal immigration than is already in the public domain. They will have heard the word “disturbing” in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who referenced the case of an individual returning three times.

We are living with this in Northern Ireland. We are living in communities that feel unsafe because of illegal immigration, yet they see a Government who are not even willing to take the full time to debate this issue, and are unwilling to give us evidence that they are taking it seriously. The Minister talks about data sharing—really? We need action. We need buses. We need real checks. We need action, not data sharing.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I absolutely disagree with the framing that we are not taking this issue seriously. We are here today having a debate, and on top of that we are working day in, day out to fix the immigration system that we inherited. Deportations, removals and asylum processing are up, and hotel use is down. That is not by accident; it is through commitment and hard work from the Home Office.

I am the Member of Parliament for Dover and Deal, and I, too, am at the front of the illegal migration problem, so I understand the frustration and the passion. I agree that it is not racist to have those views against illegal migration. We are working so hard to fix it, but it does not happen overnight. Members have an absolute commitment from the Home Secretary and all Home Office Ministers that we are dealing with it, and we are looking at the CTA, too. As I have set out, a close and active partnership is already in place, and it will undoubtedly remain an integral part of our efforts to detect, disrupt and deter the threats we face to secure our border and ultimately to keep our country safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Lowering the e-gate age to eight is a logical next step in realising our vision for the future border and is an extension of existing Government policy. We anticipate that the change will allow an additional 1.5 million children to become e-gate eligible, making it easier for families to move through the UK border, especially during the busy summer months, and enabling our highly skilled Border Force officers to focus their efforts on those who may pose a threat to the UK.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

My intervention is about the age for access being lowered to eight years old. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us on what assessment has been done of safeguarding. That would make me very happy.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his pertinent question. Our best mitigation to counter any safeguarding concerns is our Border Force officers. Officers will continue to be deployed to provide a visible presence to counter risks and interact with passengers should any safeguarding concerns arise. Border Force will continue to play an important role in monitoring the use of e-gates, intervening where necessary and protecting the public at the UK border.

We already encourage parents travelling with children to use e-gates first, ensuring that their child remains in the protection of Border Force should either face any issues when using e-gates. I reassure the Committee that this change will apply only to those children accompanied by a responsible adult. Any child under the age of 18 who is unaccompanied must proceed to the desks and be processed by a Border Force officer.

The Committee may have concerns about the increasing dependence on automated technology deployed at the UK border. I cannot comment on the specifics, for obvious reasons, but I can confirm that we rigorously test all border equipment and the Home Office has robust technical and business continuity arrangements in the event of any system failures.

The draft order makes the most modest of changes to existing legislation, but allows us to take a significant step forward in the development of our future border—one that remains secure and fluid, and targets resource where it is most needed. Subject to approval from Parliament, we intend to implement this lower e-gates age for accompanied children at airports and juxtaposed controls with e-gates on 8 July. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her questions. On the first one, tech at the border is under continuous review, I meet with officials on a regular basis to look at friction rates, data and stats. We can adjust accordingly if needed in future. Those are under continuous review. On the anti-slavery question and whether there was consultation, I do not have an answer at the moment, but we will write to her in due course with an answer.

The order will enable a positive next step in our ambition to transform the UK border and drive up the use of automation for legitimate travellers to the UK. I emphasise again that the change is minor and builds on existing policy, with robust safeguards in place to support children and their families to cross the UK border in a safe and efficient way. I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain on skilled legal migrants resident in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Our immigration system must operate in a way that attracts the best and the brightest. Earned settlement will reward those who integrate and contribute to this country, with shorter pathways for higher earners and those in public service roles among others. We are carefully considering responses to our public consultation before setting out the next steps.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

Last month I joined a very generous community event at Herali, a much-loved Sri Lankan restaurant in Aylesbury, which is dependent on staff who are here on skilled worker visas. The proposed changes to ILR put many of my local residents, including Sri Lankans and Indians, in a very uncertain and difficult position. When they arrived, the clear path to settlement was five years, but now they do not know what to plan or hope for. That is equally difficult for their employers, whether in the care sector, nurseries or hospitality businesses such as Herali. Will the Minister tell me what reassurance I can offer to these skilled legal migrants, who are such an important part of our communities?

[Mike Tapp]

That sounds like a fantastic restaurant. As the Home Secretary has already laid out, there are around 1 million young people currently out of education, employment or training. We are creating a system that is firm, protects the economy, protects welfare from rising further and avoids more pressure on our social housing demands, and also fair, so that it encourages and rewards genuine economic contribution and integration. We have consulted and had 200,000 responses, and we are working on a final solution, which will be announced in due course.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Last week, the Government voted against my amendment to the Armed Forces Bill, new clause 5, which would have waived visa fees for the spouses and children of armed forces personnel and veterans. That was, of course, a Labour manifesto pledge—as it was a Conservative manifesto pledge— to ensure that the families of those who have fought to defend this country are allowed to reside here without being charged £3,229 per person just to remain in the country following service. I understand that the reason the policy has not been pursued is a Home Office issue, rather than a Defence issue, so will the Minister explain why it has not been progressed in two years? Could he give an update on whether the policy will be amended when the changes come out later this year?

[Mr Speaker]

That is not quite your area, Minister.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question—as a veteran, it is an important question, and I respect it. I am working with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence at the moment to deliver that important manifesto commitment.

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

5. What discussions her Department has had with police forces on the adequacy of competitive tendering for trials of AI.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

6. When she plans to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Living in this country permanently is a privilege, one that should be earned, not granted by default. We are currently analysing 200,000 consultation responses, and we expect to introduce major reforms in the autumn.

[Jack Rankin]

In January 2025, I urged the Government to act on indefinite leave to remain, to prevent the fiscal calamity of locking in the Boriswave. I thank the Ministers for their movement in that regard. It is important that we are transparent with the public about who is using visas as a route to a life on benefits, so can the Minister provide an estimate of the number and proportion of individuals holding ILR who are currently in receipt of universal credit?

[Mike Tapp]

As of January 2026, 222,000 people with ILR were actively claiming universal credit.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle illegal trading on high streets.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T5.   Immigration, especiallynon-EU migration, remains too high. Many of my constituents across the Scottish Borders want to see a cap on the number of people who can come into the United Kingdom. Will the Home Secretary introduce a binding cap, set by Parliament, to bring down immigration once and for all?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Under the previous Government, we saw 2.5 million people arrive in just four years—that is one in 30 people in the country at this time. This Government have brought migration down by 82% since its peak and by 41% in the past year.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. Surviving Economic Abuse estimates that around 750,000 women are trapped in a joint mortgage with an abusive partner or ex-partner, with the only way out often being to let their home be repossessed, as abusers refuse to contribute their share of repayments or prevent the sale of the property. I welcome the fact that the Government want to explore solutions, including what could be done through the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but what steps will the Government take to stop joint mortgage abuse as part of their wider commitment to halving violence against women and girls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

The horticultural sector in Cornwall is worth about £100 million a year, but it is reliant on the seasonal worker scheme. The scheme numbers are announced annually at the end of the year, but the daffodil season in Cornwall begins in January. Will Ministers meet me to discuss an earlier announcement and a two-year rolling scheme?

[Mike Tapp]

It is important that we continue our strategy to bring net migration down while also maintaining agricultural industries. I have met a number of people across the sector and of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend after questions.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) earlier, Mohamed Fayed is beyond the reach of terrestrial justice, but many of the ladies he abused are still waiting for justice. The Metropolitan police has been conducting an inquiry into the activities of those who aided and abetted Fayed for many months. Will the Home Office ask the Met to expedite the inquiry so that those ladies can at last have justice?

Improving the UK Visa System

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important, wide-ranging and interesting debate.

We inherited a difficult system from the previous Government. At its peak, net migration hit nearly 1 million in one year. We saw around 600,000 individuals enter the country to fill just 40,000 vacancies in health and social care. One in 30 people currently in the country arrived in just four years. In our time in government, we have seen net migration fall by 82% from its peak and by 48% in the last year, and emigration, despite what it says on X, has remained flat.

I will do my very best to respond to each of the many specific points that were raised during the debate, but Members should feel free to intervene near the end of my speech if they feel that I have missed one. I will start by setting out this Government’s overarching approach to legal migration, of which our visa system is an integral part.

For generations, people have come here from around the world to visit, work and contribute to our society, and that will continue to be the case. Of course, this topic excites very strong views, but I continue to believe that this is, at heart, an open and tolerant country. At the same time, the public rightly expect their Government to have a firm grip on who can come here and who must leave. They expect the rules to be enforced and the numbers to be controlled. We can debate the intricacies of different policies, but the fact remains that on all those counts, the system this Government inherited was failing. Since taking office, we have acted decisively to put that right.

We have placed new controls on legal migration routes, the impact of which was laid bare recently with official figures, and we have moved to crack down on abuse of our immigration system. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government over the preceding decade. Illegal work and enforcement visits are at the highest level in years. In 2025, we carried out nearly 13,000 visits, resulting in more than 90,000 arrests. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their sponsorship privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government.

Allegations of visa abuse are taken incredibly seriously and will always be investigated. We are removing and deporting more illegal migrants and foreign criminals, and, for the first time, deploying a visa brake on certain routes for nationals from four countries following a surge in visa-linked asylum claims. We are doing all that and more because we recognise that without order and control, public trust is impossible. The people of this country rightly expect an immigration system that is fair but firm, and that is what this Government are determined to deliver.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

On deporting illegal migrants, people who do not have a right to be in our country should not be allowed to stay and should be removed, but will the Minister reflect on the way in which deportations have been publicised—the videos that go on X, which he mentioned, and the dehumanisation? Whether legal or illegal, human beings are human beings. Could he explain the thinking behind the Government’s publicity around deportations?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his important question. It is right that we keep the public informed of what we are doing. In the current atmosphere, there is a lot of misinformation. When we tell the public that there are deportations and removals going on, we are simply not believed—that is the climate that we currently operate in. There have been some representations of illegal migrants boarding planes, but the faces are always blurred and it is not possible to tell who they are, because I completely agree that it is important to respect an individual’s dignity.

I will move on to compliance and enforcement. In under two years, we have tackled abuse to a level that surpasses action taken by the previous Government. Since the Government came to power, more than 5,800 work-related sponsor licences have been revoked, meaning that more employers have been stripped of their privileges in just two years than in over a decade under the previous Government. Through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act, the Government have introduced tough new laws to clamp down on illegal working. That means that, for the first time, right-to-work checks and associated sanctions for non-compliance will be extended to cover businesses hiring gig economy and zero-hours workers in sectors such as construction, food delivery, beauty salons, courier services and warehousing. Those changes will restrict rogue employers’ ability to take advantage of illegal workers and encourage businesses to provide work opportunities for those permitted to work in the UK. They will provide parity across industries and set a level playing field for businesses to uphold their responsibilities.

A number of Members mentioned work visa sponsorship. The ability to sponsor overseas workers is a privilege and not a right. That privilege must be earned by meeting strict criteria, which establish that the organisation is lawfully trading or operating in the UK, is suitable and trustworthy, and is capable of offering roles that meet the requirements of the immigration rules that we set. That comes with specific duties and responsibilities through which sponsors are held to account. The Home Office will not hesitate to act when organisations fail to meet those standards, and licences can and will be refused or revoked as a result. Arrests involving illegal workers are up by around 60%. I take the point that there are defunct employers on the list, and I will ensure that officials look at that.

I will turn briefly, because I am strapped for time, to data. I agree with the sentiment that the Home Office data falls down in many places; that has been a problem for decades. We are looking to combat it, and I will ensure that we work hard to improve it. I always find it unacceptable when I have to respond to written questions and we do not have the data.

I will talk briefly about the religious routes, which were also mentioned. The immigration system maintains two dedicated immigration routes for religious workers—the religious worker and minister of religion routes—in acknowledgment of the valuable contribution that faith groups, including religious institutions from overseas, make to our society. All visas are kept under regular review to ensure that they are operating as intended and remain properly controlled, and there are no plans at this point to close those routes.

Turning to student and graduate visas, the Government continue to welcome and value the contribution made to our society, economy and higher education institutions by those overseas students who choose to come to our great country. We have the best universities in the world, and we want the best minds in every country to aspire to complete their education here. International students can apply for a student visa if they demonstrate that they meet the requirements of the route, including a sufficient level of English, the ability to support themselves financially throughout their stay and an offer from an approved institution, and pay the immigration health surcharge. We are looking at basic compliance, and there will be more information on that coming—tomorrow, I believe. I was with a number of university stakeholders on Monday. It is important that we work together with the universities to ensure compliance, but that we still attract the greatest minds to the country. Abuse on that route is down by 30% since we came into government, but last year we still saw 11,000 individuals enter on the student route and go on to claim asylum.

[Jim Shannon]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for pressing him on the issue of fishing and seasonal visas, but we really need an answer, please.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am conscious that I only have two minutes before having to hand back—

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Tapp]

Let me just make a little progress. I will touch on fisheries. I have had important meetings with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and we are working to ensure that we come to the right conclusion on that. We have provided whaleboat fishermen —and sheep shearers—with concessions, but I think the agricultural sector needs a more holistic approach, and we are absolutely looking at that and working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Before my time comes to an end—my apologies if I have not been able to get through all the many points that were made—I will talk about earned settlement, which is vital. Someone who is looking to settle has to contribute to and integrate into the country. We saw unprecedented numbers arrive, as I have already detailed—I will not go through that again. We have had a massive consultation—the 200,000 responses are being analysed—and I and the Home Secretary will make it our personal mission to ensure that we provide a system that is firm but also fair and that absolutely rewards contribution, because that is what makes this country great.

A number of hon. Members raised specific cases with me. Please can we talk about those afterwards rather than trying to address them in this debate?

[Robbie Moore]

I appreciate that the Minister is short for time. Will he write to me in response to my question about the loophole associated with domestic abuse claims?

[Mike Tapp]

I will touch on it very quickly. I think “loophole” is a misrepresentation; I think it is an abuse of the system. We have new guidance, which came out in March, but there are other abuses—for example, those who say that they are gay when they are not—and we are ensuring that we deal with that.

I will conclude now, with apologies to Members that I could not get through all their many points, but we can of course talk outside the Chamber.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

We value the contribution that rural businesses make, and our immigration system takes account of their needs. Immigration is not a sustainable solution to the challenges facing our rural economies, and we are committed to controlling migration across the whole UK.

[Seamus Logan]

Sheep shearing may not be on the Home Secretary’s bucket list, but in another U-turn, following pressure from NFU Scotland, the Government have apparently listened to the farming industry and agreed to a sheep shearing visa extension for one year. The Home Secretary is looking a little sheepish in her place, so in order to avoid being accused of woolly thinking, if she cannot commit to a longer-term extension for the farming sector, will she transfer powers to the Scottish Parliament so that farmers, fishers, and the hospitality and care sectors can deal with their labour shortages?

[Mike Tapp]

I think that was a close shave for really poor humour. The sector has been supported for 14 years to enable it to train up UK workers, reduce reliance on migrant labour and provide a sustained workforce within the United Kingdom. We have extended the immigration concession for sheep shearers to cover this shearing season, but after this final extension, we expect the sector to complete its transition to using domestic labour.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to use technology to increase police efficiency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

12. If she will take steps to provide Ukrainian refugees with a route to permanent settlement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

The Government remain grateful for the generosity shown towards the Ukrainians who sought sanctuary here. The recent 24-month extension of the Ukraine permission extension scheme demonstrates our intention to ensure that people have stability through the Ukraine schemes. The Government have always been clear that that bespoke offer of sanctuary is temporary and in line with the wishes of the Ukrainian Government —that position has not changed. We are, however, monitoring developments in Ukraine and intend to update the House on long-term plans later this year.

[Mike Martin]

I know that the Minister will listen carefully to this question because he used to live in Tunbridge Wells. Elena is a Ukrainian woman who works in our local hospital. She has not been able to advance her career because her visa restrictions mean that she cannot study. I know that the Government do not want to give the Ukrainians permanent settlement—they have made that very clear—but will the Minister at least devise a pathway by which to give visa security to Ukrainians so that they can study and get mortgages and jobs? They are restricted in their ability to do those things.

[Mike Tapp]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am listening and take these concerns seriously. I assure the House that the UPE scheme provides continuing access to work, benefits and services for those who provide proof of immigration status using a share code. We have been clear that this bespoke cohort is temporary, and we will lay out long-term plans for them later this year.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

13. How many asylum seekers were in asylum accommodation on (a) 30 September 2025 and (b) 30 June 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

14. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the introduction of the visa brake on Chevening scholars.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

We have discussed the introduction of visa brakes across Government, including the impact on Chevening scholars. Chevening scholarships continue to attract and support exceptional future leaders across the globe, and will continue to do so. Restoring order and control to our system is a top priority. Through the visa brake we are acting quickly and decisively to address high numbers and proportions of visa-linked asylum claims. By the year ending September 2025, asylum applications from students from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan had risen to over 470% of their 2021 level.

[Siân Berry]

Including prestigious Chevening scholarships in the Government’s clampdown on certain study visas is devastating for those who have been shortlisted, including students who are set to join our world-leading programmes at Sussex University. It raises questions about the value that the Government put on nurturing talent, particularly for women from Afghanistan, from whom I have seen heartbreaking accounts of terminated applications. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary urgently revisit that decision?

[Mike Tapp]

I have laid out the concerns, and the reasons for this brake. For example, 93% of those coming over from Afghanistan as students are claiming asylum. The Green party may well want open borders; that is not what we stand for. We stand for control and order, but, at the same time, compassion. That is exactly why we are looking at safe and legal routes, while working to control the borders.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to help tackle violence against women and girls.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

(Urgent Question:) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the impact of the UK’s electronic travel authorisation rules on British citizens who are also dual nationals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I thank the hon. Member for her urgent question. The introduction of electronic travel authorisations—ETAs, as they are known—is part of plans to modernise and digitise the UK’s border and immigration system by providing a much clearer picture of who intends to travel to the UK for short periods. ETAs will enable a more targeted approach to border control, strengthening security and ensuring a smoother travel experience.

From today, carriers will check that eligible passengers hold an ETA before travelling to the UK and will deny boarding to those who do not hold the correct permissions. British citizens, including those who hold dual nationality, do not need and are not eligible for an ETA. They must travel with a valid British passport or another passport endorsed with a certificate of entitlement to the right of abode, known as a COE.

Since the outset of the scheme, the Home Office has embedded clear messaging for dual nationals across the ETA communications campaign and published comprehensive guidance on gov.uk setting out clearly what dual citizens need to do. Since 2024, we have provided explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies. Since the start of the year, we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold usable contact details.

In order to support British nationals overseas—particularly those who have not held a passport for some time or have never held one—the Home Office has put in place temporary mitigating measures, which include issuing temporary operational guidance to carriers confirming that they may at their discretion accept an expired UK passport issued in 1989 or later alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport. Carriers may also choose to accept alternative evidence and can contact the Home Office’s carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport system.

It is not the intention of the ETA scheme to penalise our citizens who choose to live abroad. That is why we have given as much time as possible to allow passengers in such a position to make the necessary arrangements and why we have now put in place additional short-term measures to assist our nationals when travelling to the UK.

I finish by noting that the approach we have taken is comparable to that taken by many of our closest international partners, including the USA, Canada and Australia, who have already introduced similar systems—for example, the electronic system for travel authorisation for visitors to the United States—and we expect the EU to launch its own version. We are doing these checks to ensure that illegal migrants and foreign criminals cannot set foot here through our ports and borders by screening them before they travel. I am delivering a more secure, modern border.

[Manuela Perteghella]

I begin by declaring my interests as a British dual national and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on citizens’ rights. From today, British citizens are at risk of being prevented from returning to their own country because of the Government’s mishandling of the electronic travel authorisation scheme. British dual nationals cannot apply for an ETA, and they do not have a visa, so unless they hold a valid British passport they must produce a certificate of entitlement costing £589 simply to prove they are British, compared to £16 for a tourist. Carriers face £2,000 fines, so it is no good that that is left to their discretion. The result is chaos for law-abiding British citizens, and families will be separated.

Communication has been wholly inadequate. Putting guidance on a website is not a communications strategy. I understand that the people who recently naturalised were not warned in their grant letters or at their ceremonies, and there have been no clear messages at the border. When Canada introduced a similar scheme, it delayed enforcement and created a low-cost, temporary authorisation—and it worked. Why has this Government refused to adopt the same common-sense approach?

I therefore ask the Minister: will the Government postpone enforcement to prevent British citizens from being wrongly denied boarding? Will the Government introduce a low-cost, one-off travel authorisation, like Canada did, for dual nationals whose citizenship can easily be verified? Will the Government ensure urgent help through consulates, high commissions and the UK Visas and Immigration helpline? These are British citizens who have followed the rules. They deserve better than confusion, silence and a £589 bill simply to come home.

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for her response to my answer. I am clear that there has been no mishandling from the Home Office on this important issue. As I said in my speech, this has been on the Government website since 2024. We have also spent significant sums of money on getting the message out there, including through the relevant media and through communications to those who have naturalised over the last decade. Communications, as we all know in this place, can be difficult and some people can be missed. I have worked as hard as I can to get the message out there, including on Australian television.

The hon. Lady is right in saying that there is no eligibility for an ETA. That is due to the Home Secretary’s power to grant an ETA deriving from the immigration rules, which do not apply to British citizens. A passport costs £100. The turnaround times that we are seeing after the increase in demand are well within the expected limits, taking four weeks for those applying from outside the country, with the average at around nine days. That is fast. They can also apply for an emergency travel document in extreme circumstances and the turnaround times for that can be as quick as two days. There are also transitional methods in place, such as using expired passports that were issued after 1989. There has been significant communication and advice to carriers, including my meeting many of them to ensure that they fully understand the new measures in place. The carrier support line is also active, through which anyone encountering issues can make contact.

It is important that we introduce these measures. They are modernising, they are making our border more secure and they are very much in line with what other nations are doing. I have sympathy for those who may be encountering issues. On Monday next week, I will hold drop-in sessions that all Members of Parliament with specific cases—I do not want to go into too much detail on the Floor of the House—can visit.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I was contacted in the early hours of this morning by two constituents who became proud British citizens in December. They did not have time to apply for British passports—they are from other EU countries with passports from there—because they were off on an extended honeymoon in south-east Asia. They now feel that they cannot get back into the UK from their honeymoon. They are absolutely stranded. I can pass on the details of the case to the Minister’s officials, but what would he advise? My constituents need to get back into this country as soon as possible. They should not have to pay a fortune for the privilege.

[Mike Tapp]

My suggestion at this point is that my hon. Friend’s constituents visit the Government website and call the support line to see what advice can be offered. I cannot go into specific details right now about that case, but if she comes to my drop-in session on Monday, where there will also be officials, we can deal with that. I am also happy to speak after this urgent question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response.

The ETA scheme was introduced by the Conservative Government to secure and modernise Britain’s borders. Under the previous system, someone holding a passport from a non-visa nation could enter the UK for six months with minimal formality. That left the Home Office unable to distinguish between a genuine British citizen travelling on a foreign passport and someone who had simply overstayed.

The changes strengthen our borders, and I am afraid that the Liberal Democrat suggestion that three years’ notice is somehow insufficient is not serious policymaking. Most immigration and border changes take effect within months. Tax changes happen within a single Budget cycle. A three-year transition for a documentation requirement is not unreasonable.

The change does not remove rights. It does not strip anyone of citizenship. It concerns the evidence required when travelling. People have known since 2023 that change was coming, so this is not a radical change. Citizenship carries rights, but it also carries responsibilities. Maintaining appropriate documentation is one of them. If the Liberal Democrats wish to argue for weaker evidential standards at the border, they should do so plainly. What they should not do is pretend that three years’ notice is somehow an injustice.

Turning to practical questions, the Minister has set out the contingency plans to support dual nationals. Will he confirm that consular services within the Foreign Office will be properly resourced to support individuals? Will he also commit to improving the communications plan, which has been insufficient? I note that ahead of today there has been no communication on the Minister’s Twitter account, when normally he is so busy creating videos that he believes may or may not go viral.

I understand that some airlines are accepting expired British passports issued since 1989, but will the Minister confirm whether that will become a consistent approach across all airlines? That is the minimum expectation that the Government should put in place. Finally, will he also confirm what specific efforts have been made to ensure that those serving under the King’s Colour, if deployed abroad, will have no issues coming home? The Conservatives support robust improvements to ensure that we have enforceable borders.

[Mike Tapp]

Agreement across the House on much of this is welcome, despite the mess that we inherited from the previous Government on immigration.

On the question of consular services, yes, they are in place but they are limited. They are for the most extreme cases such as bereavements and funerals or urgent medical care. On the use of social media, this morning I posted a tweet on X, which I am surprised that the hon. Member is not monitoring; I suggest she puts me on alerts. On the advice to airlines around the passports issued after 1989, that is the advice that has been issued but we cannot control exactly what each carrier does. It is important that members of our military—I speak as a proud veteran—are served correctly by the Government, and of course they will have no issues returning to the country.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that I wrote to the Home Secretary in a letter co-signed by 30 Labour MPs raising serious concerns about the new rules and how they will impact British dual nationals. The reality is that British citizens will be left stranded abroad and many will be priced out of returning home, adding them to a growing list of people who are effectively classed as second-class citizens. The Minister will also know that hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by these ill-thought-out, rushed reforms that lack any parliamentary scrutiny. I gently ask the Minister to please pause the rules to allow for meaningful consultation and proper parliamentary scrutiny and to please remove the outrageous £589 charge for the certificate of entitlement.

[Mike Tapp]

I reject some of the framing. This has been public knowledge since 2023, it has been on the Government website since 2024 and we have spent significant funds on media. Communication is always difficult, and if this were extended for another year there would still be people who might not know about it. Travelling to this country on a British passport if someone is a British citizen, is not controversial. We have built in transitional arrangements to make it easier for anybody who has missed the messaging to come back to the country. This has not been rushed. There are many nations around the world that have an equivalent scheme, which ensures a more secure and modern border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing this urgent question. The Government’s lack of planning and haphazard communications over these changes are totally unacceptable. Countless dual British nationals have found themselves in heartbreaking circumstances, unable to visit family members or attend weddings or funerals, or having to stump up huge sums of money and face long waits just to get back home.

Take Nick from my constituency. He found out about these regulations by chance. Had he not found out in good time, his two daughters—dual nationals—would have faced the real prospect of being stranded in France. That is a dangerous situation for someone’s children to be in. More urgently, his niece and nephew, aged just two and four, were born in Canada. They are British by descent. They do not currently have UK passports and have not yet registered with the UK passport system. These rules are literally tearing families apart. The Minister’s solution is a drop-in event a week after the fact—that is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government continue to refuse a grace period for families like Nick’s? If the Minister refuses to take steps to introduce a transition or grace period, will he compensate those who are losing out?

[Mike Tapp]

I find the framing of this absolutely absurd—it is nonsense. There have been years in planning from the officials and Ministers. As I said, this has been in the public domain for some years. For those looking to travel for emergencies, there are emergency travel documents, and I urge them to explore that through the Government website to see if they are eligible. It is great that the hon. Member’s constituent found out in good time. That says to me that the communications in that instance did work. On the specifics of that case, I ask him to visit the drop-in with officials on Monday and we can go into that further. We should all be very proud to hold a British passport.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister says this has not been mishandled, but I am sure even he would accept there are elements that could have been done better. One of those is to do with babies. I have two constituents—a three-month-old little boy stuck in Italy, and a little girl stuck in Uruguay who was born in Whipps Cross hospital in Walthamstow—whose mothers have dual citizenship and who both want to be back in the United Kingdom within the next month. If they come home with their families, under the current policy they face being turned away or separated from their mothers on arrival. Alternatively, families who have just taken on the biggest cost of all—having a baby—will have to find hundreds of pounds to pay for a certificate that will take months to arrive. In those circumstances, will the Minister at least accept there should be a waiver on the fees for babies so that they can come back home to their country?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point on babies. There is no exemption at this time; I am happy to meet and talk about that further. At the moment, the average turnaround time is nine days, so the four weeks should not be a problem. If there are any problems, please do approach me. We will not separate any families at the border.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I cannot be the only Member of this House with constituents who are dual nationals for whom the information and data requirements are making it difficult to get hold of passports overseas. In the light of those difficulties, might the Minister consider an interim measure, perhaps allowing those individuals to use an electronic travel authorisation for a limited amount of time, while they sort out getting hold of the passports?

[Mike Tapp]

We cannot open ETAs to British citizens for the reasons I explained in my statement. The turnaround time on these applications is good; we are looking at within four weeks and, on average, nine days, but as I have said to many Members, please do bring that specific case to the drop-in.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

My constituent Steve Bainbridge is a dual UK-Greek national. He has raised his experience of a delay in receiving his UK passport forcing him to have to use his Greek passport to attend his daughter’s wedding in the UK. He also highlighted bureaucratic issues faced by women travelling from Greece, such as with their maiden name having to be displayed in their passport and Greek documents using a different alphabet from British ones. Will the Minister outline how, if someone’s UK passport is delayed, they can avoid having to pay several hundred pounds and facing the bureaucratic issues that Steve has highlighted?

[Mike Tapp]

I would urge a meeting on Monday to go through the details of this, rather than trying to break it down in the glare of the public eye.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

The Minister put the changes on the gov.uk website. Why did not he do something original, like maybe writing to people with dual nationalities across the UK? He would not have got to everybody, but there would be records in the Home Office of everybody who has been naturalised in the UK, just as there will be files relating to citizenship and immigration. Why did he not get in touch with them directly? Is this not just a result of Brexit chaos catching up with British nationals? We now have people with dual nationality paying a Brexit border tax; where does this chaos end? With chaos in holiday airports across Europe, and limits on residence in the EU, has Brexit not been absolutely fantastic for this country?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. I will ignore the rant about Brexit—we are well past that. Whenever anyone in this House, in the Gallery or at home seeks to travel, the first place they should go is the Government website, to receive travel advice. We do not hold a database of dual-national citizens, so it is difficult to reach them directly. However, we did send emails and messages out to all those naturalised over the last decade, and spent significant funds on media—and I went on Australian TV to get the message out there.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

After 40 years in the UK, it was the proudest moment of Petra Gartzen’s life when she obtained British citizenship. She is on holiday in Spain, and was shocked to discover that she will not be able to re-enter with her normal German travel document, because she is a dual national. Up until now, she has never needed a British passport or a certificate of entitlement, and she is ineligible for an ETA. She has done the right thing and applied for a British passport from Spain, which is a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare in itself. What would the Minister suggest that she does if the passport does not turn up in time for her flight home on 6 March?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; it is important, and well done to her for standing up so well for her constituents. Again, I ask that she drops into my session on Monday—civil servants will be there as well—and we can ensure that the right advice is issued, but at this point that there is information on the Government website, and a phone number to call for these sorts of incidents.

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

I am going to take the unusual step of thanking two journalists—Lisa O’Carroll of The Guardian, and whoever writes for the BBC website—because they wrote about all this last week. That is relevant, because I have three constituents who would not have known about this, had it not been for the media coverage, and this is a really serious matter for some of them. One is in their 90s, and has had a number of strokes. Their daughter’s passport ran out last month and she, as a dual national, felt that she could not return to see her own parent. That is a family disaster for them. I take the view that one of the absolute constitutional rights of British citizenship is the right to return to your own country and not to be intimidated out of doing so. I do not particularly demand a reply from the Minister today—I have written to the Home Secretary—but will he consider allowing a simple grace period of six months. So that people can get across this, and do not have their family life disrupted?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question about his three constituents. I will let him in on a little secret: perhaps that media coverage is a result of the Home Office’s efforts to get this information out there as widely as we possibly can. There is no intimidation here. This is about a secure border and modernising. Equivalent nations around the world are doing exactly the same. On the individual circumstances he mentions, I cannot answer today, but let us get together on Monday and go through them.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On behalf of my constituent David, I want to ask: has the ETA regime created a de facto UK passport requirement for British citizens? I also want to ask a question on behalf of my constituent Dolores, whose son, Tommy Roberts, an aspiring Royal Marine, was murdered in Bournemouth, aged 21, by somebody I will not name in this Parliament, who should not have been in this country. I thank the Minister for Border Security and Asylum for meeting me recently about this matter. We are not past Brexit, because that murder was possible as a result of a lack of intelligence sharing. Will the Minister share how, through these changes, the Home Office is taking action to stop illegal migrants and foreign criminals coming into our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

My sympathy goes to my hon. Friend’s constituent. These changes make a more secure border. They mean that we can check whether foreign criminals are coming into the country, and if they are, we can stop them, which makes us all safer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. As always, these problems have resulted because of a realisation that the small print does not really work. Many of my constituents take flights from Dublin because they can be more cost-effective, but the need to have a British passport can be incredibly cost-prohibitive. I am trying to be helpful and positive, so will the Minister and the Home Office give consideration to providing for an ID card that could be accessed online, on production of a birth certificate, and could be provided free of charge, or at a minimal cost?

[Mike Tapp]

We are modernising across the board. I will not make any new announcements in response to this urgent question, but the modernisation of the border includes digitisation, which will impact all of us positively.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Helen Hayes to ask the final question.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

In 2018, in the Windrush scandal, many of my constituents suffered the detriment of being denied access to their own country. A part of the learning from that scandal is that people do not always read information that is in the public domain, and they do not always have a hotline to Home Office messaging. One of my constituents is in Australia and was due to come back, but his father has been placed on end of life care, so he has had to extend his visit. Another constituent, who was due to travel next week, only found out about the new requirements this week, and it is too late for her to apply for a passport. The scale of the cases raised today implies that there is a problem. What assurance can the Minister give my constituents that this is not another Windrush scandal in the making, whereby British citizens end up being denied access to their own country?

[Mike Tapp]

I take the lessons from the Windrush scandal extremely seriously. I meet the Windrush commissioner on a regular basis to ensure that we fix those wrongs, and that they never, ever happen again. I reject my hon. Friend’s framing. People can apply for a passport, a certificate of entitlement or an emergency travel document, and there is a phone line that they can contact. If she would like to meet on Monday to go through the specifics of the cases she mentioned, then I am happy to do so.

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

Today marks a significant milestone in the transition to a fully digital immigration system with the UK moving to full enforcement of its digital “permission to travel” requirements. First, everyone (except British and Irish citizens and some other exempted cohorts) wishing to travel to the UK will need a “permission to travel”, and this requirement will be enforced. Secondly, from today most visa nationals applying for a visit visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.

This marks a further step in the move away from paper-based evidence towards secure, digital records linked to the passport used for travel. Carriers, including airlines, are required to check that passengers hold permission to travel through automated checks against Home Office records before boarding.

The permission to travel must be in the form of:

an electronic travel authorisation (ETA);^[1]

an eVisa (a digital record of identity and immigration status);^[2] or

other acceptable physical proof, where permitted.<sup>[3]

[1]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/eta

^[2] https://www.gov.uk/evisa

^[3] https://www.gov.uk/evisa/travel-with-evisa

Wherever possible, the permission will be digitally linked to the passport being used for travel, enabling status to be confirmed quickly and securely. Anyone who has an eVisa must ensure their travel document is linked to their visa via their UK Visas and Immigration account, to ensure the smoothest travel experience. This also applies to those with status under the EU settlement scheme and I particularly urge everyone in that group to ensure that their latest passport is linked to their UKVI account.

The benefits of introducing a digital permission to travel requirement are twofold. First, we will know more about people before they travel to the UK, strengthening the security of our border, enabling a more targeted approach to border control with more efficient processing of arrivals. By maximising the use of upstream interventions, we are preventing people who pose a threat to the UK from traveling in the first place, by refusing them permission to travel here.

Secondly, this approach enables the Government to deliver key innovations through end-to-end digitisation, making it easier for people to come to the UK to live, study, work or visit, thereby boosting the UK economy through tourism, trade, and investment opportunities.

The Home Office continues to promote the ETA scheme and transition from physical immigration status documents to eVisas through a comprehensive programme including media activity, gov.uk, extensive stakeholder engagement, cross-Government engagement and targeted customer communications. In parallel, we have undertaken extensive engagement with carriers to ensure they are prepared for these new requirements.

Electronic travel authorisation (ETA) for non-visa nationals

The ETA scheme was launched in October 2023 with over 19.6 million ETAs granted up to September 2025. Phased roll-out brought EU nationals into scope in April 2025 and, since then, it has become a universal requirement for all eligible non-visa national visitors, which is now being enforced from today. Public and stakeholder communications have been ongoing since 2023 and we continue to update guidance on gov.uk, work with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office posts and engage directly with carriers and the travel and tourism sector.

With the ETA requirement now in force, carriers such as airlines are required to check passengers hold the appropriate permission before they travel. Linked to this, carriers may be liable to a penalty if they bring someone to the UK who does not have the correct documentation or permission. Passengers can also check their ETA status and expiry online.<sup>[4]

[4]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/check-eta

Dual nationals

British citizens,^[5] including dual nationals, are not eligible for an ETA and should prove their permission to travel and enter the UK border with a valid British passport or a passport containing a certificate of entitlement (CoE) to the right of abode. From tomorrow, the CoE will be available in digital form, linked to their passport. Without either of these documents, British citizens risk being refused boarding or may experience delays when travelling to the UK from today. Further information is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/electronic-travel-authorisation-eta-guide-for-dual-citizens

^[5] https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizenship

The nature of British nationality law means there is no central register of British citizens or British dual nationals and therefore no mechanism to directly contact all those who may be affected. We have, however, taken active steps to raise awareness of what this means for dual British citizens. Public information strongly advising dual nationals to travel with a valid UK passport or CoE has been available since October 2024, including official guidance on gov.uk, and we included guidance for dual citizens in our ETA communications campaign which has been running since 2023. In November 2025, we announced the enforcement of ETA from 25 February 2026, which included information about the requirement for dual citizens: “No permission, no travel: UK set to enforce ETA scheme”.^[6] We provide explicit written and spoken guidance to people who naturalise or register as British citizens, including through their application and at citizenship ceremonies, and since the start of the year we have also emailed people who have registered or naturalised in the last 10 years where we hold useable contact details.

^[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/no-permission-no-travel-uk-set-to-enforce-eta-scheme

This supplements our wider updates via gov.uk, engagement and promotion via Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office networks.

This position is long standing. Under the Immigration Act 1971, British citizens cannot be granted an ETA, a visa or other immigration permission. To enter the UK as a British citizen, people must evidence their right of abode by presenting a UK passport or a foreign passport endorsed with a CoE. Where all supporting information has been provided, people can expect their UK passport within three weeks when applying from the UK, and within four weeks for most applications from outside the UK. Where a dual national holds a foreign passport, His Majesty’s Passport Office reserves the right to request the original document to support completion of its checks. However, a colour photocopy of the foreign passport will usually suffice to help meet travel needs while the application is in progress.

ETA enforcement does not change this legal framework. What changes from 25 February 2026 is that carriers are now required to apply permission to travel checks consistently for non-visa nationals, in the same way that carriers already do for visa nationals, to avoid the risk of a penalty. We recognise this represents a change to how some British dual nationals experience pre-departure checks, particularly where they have travelled historically on a non-UK passport. Our approach aligns with that of comparable countries, such as the US and Australia.

Transitional arrangements and temporary measures

We do not plan additional grace periods. The ETA scheme has been rolled out to eligible nationalities since October 2023, and our approach has been clearly communicated throughout. A further transitional phase has been in place since roll-out completed in April 2025, meaning the requirement to have an ETA was not strictly enforced by carriers, giving passengers time to prepare.

Alongside this, we have supported carriers to prepare for these changes through sustained engagement, technical readiness work, partner materials, webinars and the introduction of a 24/7 carrier support hub. We have engaged with over 55,000 check-in agents globally to embed these checks in day-to-day operations.

Recognising the potential impact on dual British nationals, we have issued temporary operational guidance to carriers on the acceptance of alternative documentation. This includes carriers accepting, at their discretion, an expired UK passport (issued 1989 or later) alongside a valid non-visa national third country passport, where biographic details match. This is a short-term transitional measure and remains an operational decision for carriers. It does not replace the requirement to hold a valid UK passport or a valid CoE.

Carriers may also contact the carrier support hub, which may be able to confirm British citizenship for those with a digital record on the UK’s immigration and passport systems. This service is available to carriers only and our clear advice to passengers remains that they should travel with a valid British passport or CoE to ensure the smoothest experience. Carriers remain responsible for ensuring that passengers are adequately documented for travel; carrier liability requirements remain in force, and carriers may face charges if they transport passengers who do not have the required permission to travel. Carriers also set their own operating processes, and the decision on whether to carry a passenger is their commercial and operational decision.

Emergency travel documents remain available for urgent travel in defined circumstances. Adults and children who have previously held a UK passport issued after 1 January 2006 can apply where they need to travel urgently.^[7] Where a person has not previously held a UK passport, they can only apply if their urgent travel meets the exceptional circumstances criteria, for example urgent medical reasons or attending the funeral of a close relative. This long-standing arrangement is unaffected by ETA enforcement, but it does not remove the need to hold the correct documentation for future travel.

^[7] https://www.gov.uk/travel-urgently-from-abroad-without-uk-passport

In line with current practice, on arrival at the UK border, Border Force will continue to assess a person’s suitability to enter the UK and may conduct additional checks if required.

We will continue to take a compassionate and pragmatic approach to travellers who experience genuine difficulty while this process settles. The clearest way to ensure a smooth journey remains travelling with a valid UK passport or a CoE to the right of abode.

Transition to eVisas

Over 10 million people are already using secure and convenient eVisas, which are replacing physical immigration status documents such as biometric residence permits and visa vignette stickers in passports. We are now in the final phases of implementation, with eVisas becoming the default evidence of status for most immigration routes to the UK.

From today, 25 February 2026, most visa nationals applying for a visitor visa will receive an eVisa only, replacing physical visa vignette stickers.

These changes streamline the process for visa applicants who now only need to visit the visa application centre once to confirm their identity and receive their passport back at the appointment. Decisions will be communicated by email, and for those granted a visa, they will create a UKVI account to access their eVisa.<sup>[8]

[8]</sup> https://www.gov.uk/evisa/set-up-ukvi-account

Eligible applicants applying for evidence of exemption from immigration control from outside the UK will also receive a digital record of exemption instead of a physical vignette, allowing carriers and UK Border Force to confirm exemption status automatically through existing checks.

By the end of 2026, the Government intend to stop issuing all physical visa vignette stickers in passports, with all successful visa applicants receiving an eVisa. The latest information on the transition to eVisa is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas/updates-on-the-move-to-evisas

The enforcement of the ETA requirement, alongside the continued transition to eVisas, reflects our commitment to modernising and further securing the UK border. They also lay the foundations for a contactless UK border in the future.

Members may wish to signpost their constituents to further information about these changes. Supporting materials can be accessed here: eVisa partner pack^[9] and ETA partner pack,^[10] including key messages, factsheets and materials that may be shared to amplify these changes.

^[9] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=9DCD0592

^[10] https://homeoffice.brandworkz.com/bms/albums/?albumShare=828F5184

[HCWS1361]

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026

Mike Tapp Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mike Tapp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. The draft order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount—or maxima—that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. Within the order, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate Government policy. Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the Department’s funding settlement. This order will increase fee maxima across a number of chargeable functions, including those for electronic travel authorisation, known as ETA; entry clearance as a visitor for visas valid for a period of more than 12 months; a visa on a route to settlement; settlement; naturalisation and registration as a British citizen or as one of the specified other categories of citizenship; and certain nationality-related services.

The actual fee levels that are charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not changing in this order; any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation. We will increase the fee maximum that applies to an application for an ETA from £16 to £20 in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee to £20. The fee maximum for entry clearance as a visitor for a period of more than 12 months will increase from £250 per annum to £253 per annum. It will facilitate a subsequent increase to the two-year visit visa fee from £475 to £506. We are increasing the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement from £3,600 to £3,635. That will facilitate a subsequent increase to the fee for applications by other adult dependent relatives of a British citizen or a person with settled status who wishes to join their family member in the UK from £3,413 to £3,635.

We are also amending the fee maximum for settlement applications from £3,600 to £3,635 in order to align with the changes to the fee maximum for visas on a route to settlement, reflecting the connection between those two chargeable functions. The fee maxima for naturalisation as a British citizen or as a British overseas territories citizen and registration as a British citizen or for other nationality statuses will increase from £1,605 to £1,709, and from £1,500 to £1,540, respectively. Subject to parliamentary approval, that will allow us to increase the fees for naturalisation and registration as a British citizen by adult applicants to the new maxima levels.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The explanatory notes suggest that the increases are linked in part to the consumer prices index rate of 3.5%, plus a 6.5% tariff to compensate for other areas. But according to the figures in the statutory instrument, the range for some increases is as low as 1%; for others, it is 25%. Can the Minister set out why there is such variation in the percentage increase, and why there is a deviation from the explanatory notes, and the CPI 3.5% plus 6.5%, in the order?

[Mike Tapp]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I cannot set out the exact details right now, but I can say that this is to ensure that we are recouping the costs of individual routes and that each individual route will have different costs to it. I can come back to him with further detail and break that down after the debate.

We are increasing the fee maxima for nationality-related services by 6.5% to support a subsequent increase in relevant fees to the new maxima level. The changes will facilitate the generation of additional income for the migration and borders system, which will in turn support the broader funding of the system, reducing reliance on the general taxpayer while supporting delivery of the Government’s priorities. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Tapp]

I will first answer hon. Members’ questions. On how the funding is used, I am sure the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would not expect me to lay out today how the Home Office will spend its budgets beyond what has already been announced. On whether there will be any future fee increases, of course that will be kept under review, but I have set out the extent of the increases in today’s order.

The hon. Member for Woking talked about dual nationals—he framed them as Brits stuck abroad. We are bringing in new measures around ETA enforcement, which begins tomorrow. We have been communicating that since 2024 on the Government website. In 2025, a significant sum of money was spent on such communications. For clarity, if someone is a dual national, they will need their British passport to travel on. That is the same as Australia, the United States and many other countries around the world. It modernises and makes our border more secure. On meeting to discuss this, absolutely—he will see an email in his inbox. I believe it is on Monday next week that any Member of Parliament can come and talk to me about this matter.

Question put and agreed to.