Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 General Committees

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I have to say, I was a tiny bit anxious about speaking on this issue today, because of the risk of being painted a hypocrite or a traitor to my scientific comrades. I am a biomedical scientist and have worked in premises licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I have worked in labs where animal models have been used—primarily fish embryos under five days. None the less, I will speak on this instrument because I am very concerned about a number of issues, and well-versed in the arguments about the necessity of animal models and testing versus investment in alternatives. I am disappointed that, instead of further regulation in this area, we are seeking to punish protesters.

I am probably right in saying that I am one of the few MPs who has ever grown human cells in a flask or replicated DNA in a lab, but it is important that we can bring some of these arguments in, because there is a desire within the science community to move away from animal models. I do not think that anyone wants to use animal models where they are not necessary.

It is undoubtedly true—undeniable—that advances have been made using animal models, but the fact remains that accuracy has always been a concern when using animal models, because to get closer to our biology, one would have to use animals that are no longer used in research, such as rhesus monkeys and other primates. That is why we need alternatives, and investment in alternatives. I did most of my research through in vitro models in Petri dishes, and it was incredibly frustrating that we were not yet at a point where we could have full confidence in those models. That is why we will always need some form of human testing at the end of the process when it comes to pharmacology.

With the advent of AI and the tools that are now available to scientists, we should be at the forefront of finding alternatives if we want to remain at the forefront of biological and life-sciences research in the UK. If we do not, I fear we will be left behind by other countries, which are also trying to speed up research. Animal models are slow; it takes a long time to get to the answer. They are also a messy environment: a scientist does not know whether the thing they are changing is ultimately what is making the difference; there is always the chance that something else is going on. So animal models are not the silver bullet that some people might think they are.

I have a real problem with the definition of “key national infrastructure”, because I think this measure makes a mockery of it. We are not talking about a source of water or electricity, or a main road or transport hub; we are talking about the ability of scientists to go about their daily business. I know of the abuse that scientists have suffered, but we have to balance that against the democratic right of people in our country to say, “Actually, no, this isn’t good, and we should be looking to alternatives.” Calling these premises “national infrastructure” is, quite honestly, hilarious, because a protest at a local site is not going to disrupt the whole country, or even a region. Yes, it might slow things down in the long run, but the reality is that the UK got the vaccine off the ground incredibly quickly in response to the last pandemic. I therefore find it a little distasteful that the main reason given in the briefing notes for this legislation is the protection of vaccine production and research. I do not think that is an accurate portrayal of how we managed during the pandemic.

With the definition being stretched so far, will it cover every single premises with an Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act licence? That would mean a huge number of laboratories and institutions being protected, which would become almost unpoliceable. At a time when our criminal justice system is on its knees, further criminalising protests will only add additional pressure on those stretched services, whether that is the police, the law courts or the prison places that will be taken up as a result of these criminal sanctions.

I know that this is a difficult and controversial topic, but this is too significant a change to make through a statutory instrument or delegated legislation and to debate in this room today. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and consider bringing something to the House, or at least allowing us to have a vote on this.

I believe that this measure runs counter to what we want from a democratic society. It is fair enough that we have developed a policy on phasing out animal testing, but that is being completely undermined by the draft regulations. If people no longer feel able to stand up and protest for what they believe in, where will the pressure come from for companies in the pharmaceutical industry to change their models?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; perhaps he is telling me to get a move on with my speech and address the public order aspects, which I want to cover, as they are so important.

The draft regulations were laid on 27 November. Members have raised concerns about that, saying that we are going too fast. I wrote to the Home Affairs and Science, Innovation and Technology Committees, as is the right thing to do, so we are following a process. The draft regulations will also go to the Lords, after which they will be agreed, if Members vote for them.

We are amending the 2023 Act, but we are not changing the thresholds of anything; we are just adding an additional category to the list of key infrastructure. We are not changing what can or cannot be done under the existing law, or the level or threshold of police intervention. We are just adding life sciences to the list.

[Olivia Blake]

Given that many of these institutions are universities with licences, and hundreds of scientists and labs work under the 135 licences that the Minister has described, many of which have nothing to do with vaccines, is this not a knee-jerk reaction to a concern that is yet to be fulfilled, given the extra emergency legislation that was brought in when we needed the vaccine?

[Sarah Jones]

I do not think it is knee-jerk at all. It is right and proper that this Government make sure that we are prepared for a future pandemic and that we have sufficient resources in this country. Also, we must protect the life sciences sector and the huge contribution it makes to our national wealth. A vast number of people work in the life sciences sector, which brings huge innovation and leading-edge technology to the UK.

Where the Public Order Act has been used to date, most of the cases where people have been charged are ongoing. We are carrying out a post-legislative scrutiny process, in which we will send a Command Paper to the Home Affairs Committee that sets out how the legislation is being used. The process started in May, and we will publish the paper next year. Hon. Members will be able to read it, and of course, we will always continue to debate the boundaries of public order legislation. The Home Secretary asked for a review of our existing legislation, and that is being done at the moment, as there are other huge debates ongoing about the right to protest and how we make sure we get the balance right. We are not on any level stopping people peacefully protesting through this change; we are responding to a challenge in which legitimate industries are being prevented from producing the medicines and vaccines that we need. That is the change that we are introducing.

To be clear, section 7 of the 2023 Act makes it a criminal offence to interfere

“with the use or operation of…key national infrastructure”.

That is the defined scope. It does not include, for example, intimidation as a threshold. Interference is defined as an act that prevents or significantly delays the infrastructure being used or operated to any extent for its intended purposes. People will not stop protesting. They are absolutely within their rights to protest. It is absolutely a fundamental right that this Government will always allow. We are responding to an issue where people are being stopped from developing the medicines and vaccines that the country needs.

No Recourse to Public Funds: Homelessness

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered No Recourse to Public Funds and homelessness. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I point hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for the work I do in this area. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

This is the second debate I have secured this year on no recourse to public funds. It is also the second time I do so with a profound concern that our stated ambitions of prosperity over poverty, and reducing homelessness and child poverty, are being actively undermined by immigration policies that are designed to do the very opposite.

This debate could not be more timely. Just days ago, the Government published their homelessness strategy. While I welcome the strategy—there are a number of measures contained within it—it is disappointing that it stops short of introducing meaningful action to tackle homelessness among one of the most vulnerable groups, which is migrants affected by the no recourse to public funds condition. As was highlighted in my previous debate, that group includes many children.

Our understanding of homelessness remains partial and fragmented. Official data routinely fails to capture hidden homelessness, which is especially prevalent in migrant communities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady—I spoke to her beforehand. It has been brought to my attention in this last period of time that there is a proportion of people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are survivors of trafficking. They were brought to the UK with unresolved status and they therefore struggle to access public funds for secure accommodation. Does the hon. Lady agree that those who are here illegally, but not because of their own choices, should be able to access the necessary support to help them gain safe and secure accommodation while they figure out how to get out of the mess they are in?

[Olivia Blake]

That is a very timely intervention, as we consider our aims to reduce violence against women and girls. As we know, many women are trafficked and suffer sexual abuse and sexual violence as a result. I absolutely agree: the least we could do is make sure they have a safe roof over their heads when they come forward for help and assistance. The hon. Member highlights an important point.

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee has repeatedly highlighted the urgent need for robust data on migrant homelessness and no recourse to public funds. Will the Home Office commit to collecting better data on the number of people subject to no recourse to public funds who are at risk of, or are currently experiencing, homelessness?

Even in the absence of comprehensive figures, every available indicator points to a growing crisis. Around 4.5 million migrants in the UK are subject to no recourse to public funds, which means no access to universal credit, child benefit, personal independence payments if they are disabled, or social housing. The latest rough sleeping figures underline the scale of the problem. On a single autumn night this year, 27% of those sleeping rough in the UK were non-British citizens. That is the highest proportion recorded since 2017. This is clearly a growing problem.

Migrants face the same pressures that could push anyone into homelessness, which is something we are all at risk of, including low wages, a shortage of affordable housing, the lack of support for mental health needs or substance abuse, but these challenges are compounded by the additional barriers imposed by the immigration system. These include prolonged settlement routes, high visa fees, the immigration health surcharge, lack of rights to homelessness assistance, the local housing allowance and discrimination from private landlords due to the right to rent.

As a result of being routinely locked out of social housing and housing-related benefits, people with no recourse to public funds are often forced to rely on overcrowded, unstable and often unsafe accommodation. When those arrangements break down, as they often do, people may be unable to access the last resort safety nets that exist to prevent homelessness. People with no recourse to public funds are therefore far more likely to fall into rough sleeping, not because services do not exist, but because their immigration status prevents them from being able to use them.

Once someone with no recourse to public funds becomes homeless, the reality they face is bleak. I have many examples, but most homelessness accommodation services have little or no provision for people excluded from the social security system. With services under immense pressure, more and more people are being forced to compete for fewer and fewer bed spaces. Too often, that leaves people relying on short-term emergency help from charities and faith groups that are already stretched beyond their limits.

Nowhere are the consequences of no recourse to public funds more stark than for survivors of domestic abuse. Many migrant survivors have their documents, finances and movements tightly controlled by a perpetrator through coercion and abuse. Those survivors are among the most vulnerable, yet they may be barred from welfare and housing support because of no recourse to public funds, leaving them unable to access safe accommodation, including refuges. Women’s Aid has found that over a quarter of women refused refuge spaces in the UK had no recourse to public funds, with many being forced to sleep rough, sofa surf or even return into the hands of their abuser. I know that some people can submit a change of conditions application to have the no recourse to public funds condition lifted, but the application process is complex and often requires legal advice to navigate and complete successfully. That advice is also in desperately short supply.

In South Yorkshire alone, two out of the five legal aid firms have stopped delivering legal aid and immigration services entirely, and there was a gap between provision and need of nearly 9,000 cases in 2023 and 2024 across Yorkshire. Research has found that 90% of people surveyed who attempted to have their no recourse to public funds status changed unassisted were unsuccessful. Yet when professional advice was sought and provided, 95% were subsequently successful.

Successive Governments have justified no recourse to public funds as a way to save money for the taxpayer and to ensure that migrants earn their settlement. The reality is very different for local authorities. Their statutory duties to support families with a child in need or adults with care needs means that councils end up supporting thousands of migrant households experiencing destitution and homelessness each year. Research from COMPAS, the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, estimates that if all local authorities recorded data consistently, the annual cost of supporting no recourse to public funds households would be around £102 million each year. In 2023 to 2024, Sheffield city council spent at least £1.2 million supporting people with no recourse to public funds.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is right that it is not cost free to do this. London councils spend tens of millions of pounds supporting families through emergency accommodation. Does she agree with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report in the last Parliament, which suggested exempting parents with dependent children from no recourse to public funds?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, I think that that is a very valuable solution. It is one that we discussed in the last debate we had on children. This is an issue that affects children profoundly; therefore, councils have to pick up that cost, so the Work and Pensions Committee makes a very valid point.

I am glad that the commitments in the homelessness strategy provide £3.5 billion to homelessness services and welcome the renewed emphasis on prevention. However, despite those positive steps, the strategy falls short in its response to homelessness driven by the immigration system. It fails to grapple with the impact of restrictions on access to public funds and ignores the damaging consequences of the 28-day move-on period for refugees, which is another pinch point where people find themselves falling into homelessness.

I am glad that the Home Office is included as one of the key Departments responsible for delivering on the cross-Government strategy. However, it is disappointing that the Home Office is not held to the same standards as other Departments, which have been given clear measurable targets to end the discharge of people from institutions into homelessness. The strategy mentions a pilot in four council areas for people with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on that initiative and how local authorities are expected to use funding to support such migrants.

However, it is not clear how local authorities should use funding allocations to prevent and reduce homelessness among migrants at the moment. Existing successful schemes such as immigration advice services for people who are rough sleeping, including the Sub-regional Immigration Advice Service in London, the Restricted Eligibility Support Service in Manchester and the Home Office homelessness team and escalation team should be maintained, extended and replicated if we are to meet the challenge we face.

In the immigration White Paper the Government claim they want to halve long-term rough sleeping and tackle homelessness, but the policy outlined in the paper will inevitably prolong the risk for migrant communities for decades, extending qualifying periods to settlement to 10, 15 and 20 years. Prolonging the time without access to public funds will inevitably inflict penalties for those who do not receive benefits, which will exacerbate homelessness among migrants and create longer periods for which homelessness will become a concern and an issue for individuals.

Examples highlighted by Praxis are a stark reminder of the profound consequences of the policy. A child brought here at 14 on a visitor visa could face waiting until middle age for settlement. A mother who lawfully accessed universal credit after losing her job could be forced on to a 20-year path, and someone who lost their immigration status following a mental health crisis, already street homeless for two decades, could now confront an additional 30 years of uncertainty. Applying the proposals retrospectively would be a profound injustice for the hundreds of thousands of migrants and their British families who have already invested years of their lives, built communities and contributed financially to this country. I remind the Minister that anyone can fall victim to homelessness. We are each of us in a precarious state in the UK. We can pretend that some of us are isolated from it, but certain communities are exceedingly vulnerable to it, including migrant communities.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. The points she makes are extremely accurate and relevant. She talks about the ease with which people can fall into homelessness. It is incredibly sad that at this time of year my inbox is seeing an explosion in homelessness cases, including hidden homelessness and people living in cars, some still in work. No recourse to public funds is especially painful in rural areas, where there might be limited additional support of the type she talks about from charities and a shortage of emergency accommodation. Does she think that the recommendations she has made to the Government and what the Government need to look at should also focus on the peculiarities of rural areas and the difficulty of providing services there?

[Olivia Blake]

Yes, it is more challenging to provide support in rural areas, but there is also huge pressure on cities as well. As I mentioned earlier, the financial burden that falls on councils as a result of the policy is huge. Wherever they are in the UK, I think local authorities would say it is a challenge. That is why this needs to be taken in the round and why we need to look at how we tackle individual support.

I would also like to ask the Minister, in relation to the White Paper, on what basis the Government will be applying rules retrospectively. Will holders of indefinite leave to remain be subject to no recourse to public funds? How will local authorities be supported to manage the resulting poverty and homelessness? Will there be new burdens funding, for example, for local authorities, as they have to pick up the pieces? Does the Minister generally think that the Home Office’s earned settlement model is compatible with the Government’s ambition to halve rough sleeping and get back on track to end homelessness?

In my debate in June, I urged the Government to ensure that immigration policies do not deliberately plunge people into destitution and homelessness. I find myself stood here today repeating that call. Instead, we should be reviewing restrictions on access to public funds. We need clearer guidance on the legal powers and responsibilities of local authorities so that councils know when and how they are expected to accommodate and support migrants with limited eligibility for public funds. Crucially, we need proper funding from the Government so that local authorities can provide minimum standards of safe, suitable accommodation regardless of immigration status. That should move beyond trials and pilots so that every local authority can benefit from it.

We urgently need to create a system that no longer traps people in poverty or pushes them into homelessness. Without that, we fail some of the most marginalised people in our society, increase pressures on public services and deepen the social divisions and instability in our communities that so many of us are so concerned about.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this debate on a topic that I know is of considerable interest to her, and indeed to other Members. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed to what has been a wide-ranging and interesting discussion, and I look forward to meeting her in the new year to discuss this further.

I will come on to some of the issues and questions that have been raised, but it may be helpful if I set out the positions in broad terms first. As Members are aware, the no recourse to public funds policy is a long-standing one. In essence, it seeks to ensure that those coming to the UK are able to support themselves and their families while in the country, thus avoiding unexpected pressures on the welfare system. When applying for permission to enter or stay in the UK, most migrants must demonstrate that they can financially support themselves and their dependants. On that basis, a no recourse to public funds condition is attached to their permission to stay or enter. That means that most temporary migrants will not have access to benefits that are classed as public funds. Those in the UK without an immigration status who require one are also subject to the NRPF condition.

There are certain specific exemptions to the NRPF condition. Certain benefits, such as those based on national insurance contributions, may still be assessed. A number of safeguards are in place to protect more vulnerable migrants. Those here under the family or private life routes, the “appendix child relative” or the Hong Kong British national route have the option to apply for a change of conditions to have their NRPF condition lifted for free if they are destitute or at risk of imminent destitution, if there are reasons relating to the welfare of a relevant child or they are facing exceptional circumstances affecting their income or expenditure. If there are particularly compelling circumstances, discretion can be used to lift the NRPF condition on other immigration routes.

I will turn to the issue of homelessness, a central theme of this debate. This Government inherited a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping and households in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. There is no single or simple solution, but our cross-Government strategy, published just last week, sets out a long-term vision to end homelessness for good.

The national plan to end homelessness has three key pledges to be achieved by the end of this Parliament: to halve the number of long-term rough sleepers, to end the unlawful use of B&Bs for families and to prevent more households from becoming homeless in the first place. The strategy is backed by ambitious goals to deliver lasting change. That includes a duty on public services to work together to prevent homelessness, a boost to the supply of good-quality temporary homes and £3.5 billion—a £1 billion funding boost over and above previous commitments—to combat rough sleeping and support services.

Furthermore, the Home Office has made a strategy commitment to ensure that all local authorities receive information from asylum accommodation providers for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness. That will enable local authorities to commence a homelessness assessment, which will be received within two days of an asylum discontinuation and within 14 days of family reunion visa issuance.

I will outline the safeguards specifically in place for rough sleepers with NRPF. The Home Office provides a dedicated homelessness escalation service, which helps local authorities and service providers swiftly clarify and resolve the immigration status of individuals if they are rough sleeping or at risk of doing so. I will also highlight an ongoing piece of work directly relevant to the issue. As we know, the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are running a pilot in four council areas. It focuses on access to immigration advice and short-term accommodation, and provides a named point of contact in the Home Office for rough sleepers. Its aim is to provide more support to councils so that they can better help people sleeping rough with restricted or unknown eligibility to public funds. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam says about moving beyond the pilot, and we look forward to the results to see whether we can move it forward. We will consider its evaluation, which we expect to receive next year, to understand whether the approach is working.

For some people, returning to their home country can be the most viable route out of homelessness. To that end, the voluntary returns service will work in partnership with trusted and willing civil society organisations, establishing a clear and accessible process to identify and assist individuals who would benefit from being supported to return to their country of origin. The Government encourage councils and partners to explore all lawful options to help those who cannot access statutory homelessness assistance due to their immigration status. Our shared aim is to work together to identify pathways off the street for everyone, including individuals with a no recourse to public funds condition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of data. We will continue to explore what further information on NRPF can be produced. At this time, we are unable to provide a specific timeframe for data publication or confirm what will be published. Additionally, the Home Office has committed to working with the Department for Work and Pensions to develop questions on no recourse to public funds for inclusion in the 2026-27 family resources survey, which is a household survey undertaken annually to explore living standards in the UK. The Home Office continues to develop the underlying dataset used for its publications so that it can show where NRPF has been applied to leave to remain applicants.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam raised the issue of safeguarding. It is important that safeguards are in place to protect the most vulnerable. A change of conditions application provides that safeguard for temporary migrants, but I hear what my hon. Friend says about access to legal aid in South Yorkshire, and I would like to cover that in more detail when we meet in the new year. There is an option to apply if someone is destitute or at imminent risk of destitution, if there are reasons relating to a child’s welfare that outweigh the considerations for imposing the condition, or if they face exceptional circumstances affecting income or expenditure. On applying the rules retrospectively, we are going through a consultation period in which transitional arrangements are still under consideration. Any representations on that issue are encouraged; the consultation ends early next year, when there will be more detailed guidelines.

To conclude, the NRPF policy is and will continue to be a means by which we operate a managed but fair immigration system.

[Olivia Blake]

I wonder if the Minister wants to make particular comment about violence against women and girls and the impact of the NRPF condition.

[Mike Tapp]

That quite rightly falls under any additional safeguarding issues and circumstances that apply to migrants, which can and will be taken into consideration. As I have set out, the Government are committed to driving down rough sleeping across the board. Our cross-Government strategy will help to deliver on that. Ours is a compassionate and generous society, as has come through in the contributions that we have heard in this debate. One of the tasks of governing is to ask ourselves constantly whether our systems and processes strike the right balance of firmness and fairness. On this issue, we believe that they do, but that does not make the discussion today any less worthwhile. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam for securing the debate and thank all who have participated.

Question put and agreed to.

Asylum Policy

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am not going to provide a running commentary on countries. The right hon. Member will know that I referenced Syria specifically in my statement. Many thousands of Syrians were making claims related to the regime that was in place before, during the conflict, but it has fallen and there is a new regime, so we have already made a small number of voluntary returns to Syria. Other countries are exploring enforced returns to Syria, given the change in circumstances there, and we will of course look at doing the same. In the normal run of things, when it comes to considering whether a country is safe for a person we will keep such matters under review, as I know he would expect us to do.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Yes, we have a broken system, but does the Home Secretary really believe that people having to flee violence, war and persecution means they have won a golden ticket if they are lucky enough to get refugee status here? Does she understand that such rhetoric is deeply offensive and feeds division? Does she accept that shutting down routes for settlement will damage integration in our communities, and will only strengthen Reform, not beat it? Would not a better way of measuring contribution be to allow people to work and pay taxes?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I gently point out to my hon. Friend that we have a large number of failed asylum seekers—that is to say, people whose claims have not succeeded and who do not have the right to be in this country who are still here, despite their home country being safe. Many people who claim asylum in this country have passed through multiple safe countries across Europe before they end up in the north of France. We have seen claims go down in Europe and increase here in the UK. I would just encourage her to remember that we are opening safe and legal routes. The whole point of the reforms is to disincentivise the journeys that lead to criminals earning a lot of money and people being in the north of France, and to move to a system where we have safe legal routes and we accept people as refugees before they set foot on UK soil. That way, when they come here they can earn, contribute and be fully integrated through models such as community sponsorship, which we know work.

Orgreave Inquiry

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. To put things in context, the Home Secretary and I have met a range of key stakeholders already to hear their respective views on the scope and nature of the Orgreave inquiry and what it should seek to achieve. There has already been a consultation with the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the National Union of Mineworkers, South Yorkshire police, the Mayor of South Yorkshire and many Members of this House who have an interest in this issue, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as Orgreave lies in her constituency.

We have also met other interested parties in the field of law. One of them whom I met personally was Michael Mansfield KC. He was the lawyer who represented a number of those who were charged at Orgreave. We have also met academics, because we know that there is value in looking at what academics can show us about what works with inquiries. We have therefore already engaged in a lot of consultation. There is further ongoing consultation on the terms of reference, and that is the responsibility of the chair. I expect that all the parties we have met will be engaged again.

There is active work being done on the Hillsborough law at the moment. I cannot give a timeline today, but I know that it will be brought to the House shortly.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to be in the Chamber today to hear that we are finally getting the inquiry that has long been campaigned for by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, the NUM and many in my community and across South Yorkshire. They are simply asking for the truth. The shadow Minister has just said that the inquiry should not be politicised, but does the Minister agree that Orgreave is political? It is one of the most political things that has ever happened to South Yorkshire, and it is incredibly important that the inquiry is put on a statutory footing so that it can compel people to give evidence and get to the truth of something that many in our communities still bear the scars of.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about how Orgreave has affected her community so many years on. She makes the important point that there is a political context to this inquiry. Those of us who were around then know that it was a very political time, with the miners’ strike and all that. It is absolutely right that we have this opportunity to look across the piece at what happened at Orgreave. As my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said, there was perhaps the involvement of other politicians, so it is important that we recognise the political context. That is why, again, it is so important that the inquiry will be put on a statutory footing, to allow documents to be demanded and witnesses to be compelled to give evidence.

Immigration System

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The care provider in the hon. Member’s constituency will be able to extend the care visas and will also be able to recruit displaced care workers, of whom there were 39,000 when the proper new checks and standards were introduced. He will also be able to recruit from the local community, with a proper fair pay agreement in place. We must have a strategy that values social care and deals with some of the historical causes of recruitment, rather than the social care visa leading to recruitment from abroad at a scale that led to significant exploitation.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that far from being strangers, migrants are our neighbours, friends and family and an integral part of our community, and that moves to cast them as strangers are divisive and hostile and risk legitimising the same far-right violence that we saw in last year’s summer riots? Have we learnt nothing?

[Yvette Cooper]

As I said in my statement, people have come here from abroad through many generations, contributing to our economy, being part of our community and making our country what it is. That is who we are as a country because of that history, and it will continue to be important to our future. We want people to be able to integrate and share with neighbours, and that is why some of the provisions to ensure that we support integration and the use of the English language are also important.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Olivia Blake Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions.

The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it.

I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them.

Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored.

New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right.

New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. If we want integration, why not let people work in their communities and build English language skills?

Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours.

Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Sarah Pochin to make her maiden speech.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Olivia Blake Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the help I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration.

After the mountain of Acts passed by the last Government, I can finally breathe a sigh of relief that today we are debating an immigration Bill that, on its first page, states that it complies with the convention rights. That is a nice change, and one that was much needed.

The Bill builds on some of the vital reforms to our asylum system that our Government have already made. It removes so much of the draconian legislation introduced by the previous Government that stripped those fleeing war, persecution and human rights abuses of their right to seek safety in this country. Repealing the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and a significant amount of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is a step in the right direction, but beyond a functional asylum system is one that is fair and welcoming. With that in mind, there are a few areas of the Bill in which I feel opportunities have been missed, and I hope those can be addressed as it moves to Committee.

I am concerned that the Bill does not repeal section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, which makes any asylum or human rights claim by a national of a safe state inadmissible. Blanket bans on asylum claims from entire countries are fundamentally flawed, and with Rwanda we have seen the dangers of legislating that a country is safe when in reality it may not be so for everyone. Although I know that section 59 has not been enacted, it will set a dangerous precedent if it remains on the statute books.

For example, Georgia, one of the countries that the previous Government added to the safe states list, is becoming an increasingly hostile and dangerous place for LGBTQI+ people. While I have had assurances that the section 59 powers have not been commenced—and I know the Minister shares my concerns about the situation in Georgia—they will be left on the statute book. The Bill provides a golden opportunity to repeal them altogether. If they are not going to be used, what is the use of having them? I ask the Minister to consider that in Committee.

A fair system would also mean people seeking asylum being able to access the UK safely. The four Ps approach to tackling organised criminal gangs, as outlined in the Bill’s explanatory notes—to prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—are all important parts of disrupting the business model of criminal gangs, but I fear that we have lost sight of who needs protecting. No one wants to see more deaths in the channel, but prosecuting people smugglers needs to go hand in hand with other measures to prevent channel crossings. The Bill could provide a vital opportunity to set out clear plans for reviewing and expanding safe and legal routes to the UK.

I hope that those important points can be addressed as the Bill progresses. If not, I hope that we can have a good, grown-up conversation about safe and legal routes, which was absolutely missing from the last Parliament.