Illegal Immigrants: Offshore Detention and Deportation

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled approach to immigration and asylum and a system that treats people with fairness and compassion. My constituency of Woking 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 that helped to resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking, even set up a national immigration service. More recently, Woking has seen how life-changing a functioning immigration system can be. Since 2015, my town has welcomed hundreds of refugees from Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine. Those people arrived fleeing conflict and persecution. They have been welcomed by my town and added to our economy and cultural vitality. I am pleased that we have helped them to rebuild their lives in Surrey.

In 2026, it is right that we uphold Britain’s humanitarian traditions while having control of our borders. That starts by bringing an end to asylum hotels, stopping unsafe channel crossings and ensuring that criminal gangs cannot profit and that they face justice. We need safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. Ukrainians did not cross the channel in dangerous small boats, because this Government provided a safe and legal route for them. We know that safe and legal routes work. We need more of them, not fewer, yet safe and legal routes are not in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that will be debated in the House later today. Arrivals via safe and legal routes are at their lowest level since 2023 as a result.

Before the Brexit referendum, there were almost no recorded small boat crossings, but since we left the European Union, more than 190,000 people have come here in small boats. The fact that we are not in the EU has been a pull factor causing that crisis. People who have arrived on small boats have literally said the word “Dublin”. They are playing the system against us. Asylum seekers are coming to the UK, having failed the first time in Europe.

By not being in the EU or working with neighbouring countries, we are creating more work at great expense to the British taxpayer. Following Brexit, the Conservatives implemented disastrous immigration policies that have led to a huge rise in net migration. Past Governments have introduced five immigration Acts since 2020. We need a watertight arrangement with the EU that would mean everyone arriving by small boat is at risk of being returned. That is how we ensure that the gangs do not have a viable business model, and that there is a proper deterrent to stop people making money in the first place.

A key requirement for tackling this issue is ensuring that the Home Office improves. At the moment, it makes slow and bad decisions. We need to process claims quickly. We need to open Nightingale-style processing centres and double the number of asylum caseworkers to clear the backlog. The Refugee Council estimates that, because of bad decisions made by the Home Office, we are spending at least £974 million—maybe up to £1.2 billion—supporting people currently in the appeals backlog who will have their initial refusal overturned. Is the Minister looking into that in order to improve decision making?

I believe that the people who signed the petition would welcome a swift and humane return for anyone with no right to be here, but would want us to welcome genuine refugees. The Liberal Democrats have consistently set out changes required to restore control and compassion to the immigration and asylum system. We did that during the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 with the previous Ministers, we are doing it with the current Ministers, and we will continue to do it as the Government change next week.

Police Leadership Commission Report

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank the noble Lords Blunkett and Herbert for the report, which is a welcome shining light on the challenges facing leadership in our police forces. I know at first hand from my constituency that police forces deal day in, day out with highly sensitive, dangerous and traumatic incidents. They keep us safe. It is deeply challenging work, and we are greatly indebted to them. That is why the findings of the report are so concerning.

The report shows that officers are too often hampered by scarce resources, excessive bureaucracy and conduct processes, which leave them unable to focus on delivering for the public. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a return to the proper community and neighbourhood policing that our constituents want. For that to happen, officers must be properly supported and equipped to tackle the many issues facing our communities. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to increase the numbers of bobbies on the beat?

Even more concerning are the report’s findings on the inconsistent leadership standards across our police forces. The numerous instances of leaders falling short of the standards of integrity, honesty and professionalism expected of them—including in cases of cronyism, nepotism and abuses of power for sexual purpose—are appalling. It is clear that we need root-and-branch reform of the policing system, as the report calls for, to stamp out that bad behaviour, improve leadership and hold senior officers to the highest standard. Will the Minister confirm that that recommendation and others in the report will directly inform the forthcoming police reform Bill?

Finally, the Police Federation has highlighted poor leadership in the police and an increase in officer suicides, but we do not have the data. Will the Minister commit to requiring police forces to gather that data?

[Sarah Jones]

Taking those points in turn and working backwards, we are working with the Police Federation on data on police suicide. It is an area where there are some contested figures, and we are trying to rectify that so we have the right picture, as well as putting in place more comprehensive wellbeing support for officers and staff so that they can get support in the difficult jobs they are faced with.

The hon. Member asked whether the review will directly inform our reform agenda and the legislation we pass—absolutely it will. It is a very important part of the learnings that we will take forward.

The hon. Member points to nepotism and other challenges we have in policing. Hon. Members might have seen Lord Blunkett on the television yesterday talking about that. It is absolutely true, and many the reforms pointed to in the report that we will carefully consider are aimed at taking that away, whether through having a targeted direct entry scheme or the new rank of senior constable. A leadership fast stream has been recommended, which would be interesting to look at. I recommend that he looks at all those recommendations.

On bobbies on the beat, we have already increased the number of police on our streets by well over 3,000. As the hon. Member might know, we have a target of 13,000 police by the end of this Parliament.

Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

My thoughts are with the victims and survivors, who have already suffered unbelievable harm and trauma. They have been failed at every stage, and they deserve better. It is completely unacceptable that someone who has been convicted of such vile offences, and who has rightly been stripped of his British citizenship, cannot be deported because of what I believe is a loophole in the law. It was not intended back in 1971 that the law should protect people like this, and the law must be rectified as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward the necessary changes, and whether they have set a deadline for doing so? What progress has been made in discussions with Pakistan to ensure that this offender is deported?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman puts his question. I can only rely on what I have said so far: we are highly motivated in this case, and all options are on the table. I appreciate that pace is important, particularly for public confidence—we understand that totally.

As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), we engage frequently with Pakistan. That is an important relationship for us, and we will continue to engage with Pakistan in the normal way.

Asylum Accommodation

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I regret that the Labour Government still have not set out a credible plan to restore fairness and control in our immigration and asylum system. This announcement is another sideways step that fails to address the root cause of the problem.

Simply moving asylum seekers from one form of expensive and unsuitable accommodation to another is not good enough, particularly when the costs are going up. At the Crowborough MOD site, which is currently in operation, accommodation costs around £160 per asylum seeker per night. That is more than the cost of the average asylum hotel place. The Government are choosing a more expensive option, adding an estimated £60,000 every night to the bill faced by taxpayers. How does the Minister justify that? Will he confirm whether this decision is driven by a desire to be seen to be closing asylum hotels, rather than securing the best value for taxpayers? The Government should instead be focusing on reducing the asylum backlog and ending the limbo that many asylum seekers are in. The overall asylum caseload is now higher than when Labour took office, while the appeals backlog has reached record levels. Will the Minister set out what he and his Department are doing to reduce that backlog and ensure that the Home Office gets more decisions right first time, avoiding unnecessary appeals?

Finally, if we are to deliver the controlled and compassionate immigration and asylum system that my constituents in Woking and the whole of the British public want, it is essential that we tackle dangerous channel crossings. Will the Minister work with our European partners to establish a genuinely effective returns agreement that ensures that we can have controlled, legal routes and that those who arrive in small boats can be returned swiftly?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He has heard the plan from me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before: co-operation abroad, quicker and better decision making, and more returns. All those things are going much better than they did under our predecessors. It is also about tackling illegal working, but crucially, it is about reducing pull factors too. I sometimes feel that Opposition colleagues have given up on the idea that the numbers might go down. Actually, the numbers are significantly elevated from what we are used to, and with sensible attempts to tackle pull factors—including tackling illegal working, but also this proposal—we can reduce them.

The hon. Gentleman talked about costs. He cited the per night figure for Crowborough; that figure will of course fall if we stay at Crowborough longer, because some of that is up-front capital investment. Pro-rated over a longer period of time, the nightly rate will come down, but again I say gently that we are doing this because we want less of this activity. We are not merely asking, “We expect to house the same number of people, so where is the cheapest place to put them?” but, “What is the best use of our estate to promote a number of goals, one of which is reducing those numbers?” That is how we get costs down. I might add that we speak with a degree of credibility, given that we have already taken £1 billion out of taxpayer spending in this area. That is progress.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned appeals. He knows very well why the appeals backlog has grown—we have had a huge backlog of initial decisions, because the previous Government stopped making them. Of course, that cohort is now in the appeals system. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech, important reforms to appeals are coming, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will support us in that venture.

On his point about co-operation abroad, that is of course crucial. We engage all the time with our European and EU neighbours, working together on a shared problem. The fruits of that can be seen in our much-enhanced deal with France. That work is crucial, and it will continue to grow.

Improving the UK Visa System

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for securing the debate and introducing it in the way he did. It will not surprise him to know that I do not agree with all of what he said, but he did raise valid concerns about the abuse of our visa system and the loopholes in it. The Liberal Democrats are willing to work cross-party with the Conservatives and the Labour Government to tackle those issues.

The Liberal Democrats believe in a fair and controlled immigration system that works for our economy and our public services. It must function effectively, command public confidence and bring benefits to the United Kingdom and its people. We want a controlled immigration system, with a visa system that meets the demands of our economy and public services, but that must go hand in hand with a credible plan to boost domestic skills. However, this country’s visa rules can hurt our economy, damage families and fail to fully support refugees fleeing conflict, and that is what I will use my time today to talk about.

The Lib Dems wholeheartedly oppose the Government’s plans to retrospectively change the rights to seek indefinite leave to remain, and I know that many Labour MPs do as well. Moving the goalposts in this way violates the fundamental British value of fairness. I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on Hongkongers, who are fundamentally British. Many now reside in my constituency of Woking, and they are really concerned about the unreasonable financial and language requirements being put on them. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that, and particularly any reassurance he can give Hongkongers in my community and across the country.

As well as being unfair to the individuals involved, visa requirements can damage our economy. Thousands already contributing to our society and economy have made an investment in this country, and their firms have made investments in this country and offered them jobs knowing what ILR means. The lack of certainty from moving those goalposts is massively damaging—I have heard that from businesses in Woking, the Law Society and many others. It is not right or fair to change those rules.

The immigration system also damages our economy through the visa costs charged. The five-year global talent visa now costs £6,000— 20 times higher than in competitor countries. Cancer Research UK has said that several pieces of its research have been affected by soaring immigration costs, which have risen by 126% since 2019 and are up to 17 times higher than comparable countries such as Australia, France or the United States. The amount that the charity has had to pay the Government in visa fees or other immigration surcharges has nearly doubled since 2022-23, rising from less than £500,000 to almost £900,000 this year. That money could have been enough to train 40 PhD students, and I know where I would prefer the money to go.

A report from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory has found that there is very little evidence to support the Government’s belief that employers will train or rely on domestic staff because of hiking charges. It just does not agree with the Government. That is why I urge the Government to rule out retrospective changes to ILR and agree transitional arrangements, and to review visa charges based on genuine benchmarking against other similar countries.

Visa rules are not helping us grow our economy, and they are also undermining the right to family life. British citizens who wish to return to the UK with a foreign-born spouse encounter complex and costly application requirements. The application fee varies depending on whether someone applies in or out of the UK, but it can be more than £2,000. UK citizens should have the right to have their family come to the UK, provided that there are proper checks to verify their relationships. The Liberal Democrats think that minimum income and asset requirements for those with visas should be structured to ensure that there is no recourse to public funds, rather than being tied to arbitrary earning levels.

Last year, British citizens were required for the first time to present British passports at the UK border or present a certificate of entitlement attached to a non-UK passport. Dual nationals were really hurt last year by this Government. The current fee for that certificate of entitlement is £589. At the time, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I called on the Government to implement a grace period to allow British dual nationals to travel home without being caught out. There were families with children, children trying to take exams and families with sick relatives who were caught out, not only by the Government’s rules but by their refusal to compromise and adapt based on a poor information campaign. The Home Office did not listen to us, and I hope that it starts to listen to us again.

Finally, I worry that this country’s approach to visas can undermine our very humanity. We should welcome those fleeing war and support them when they are here. I am proud that my constituency of Woking has welcomed over 500 Ukrainians who have fled their homeland following Vladimir Putin’s appalling illegal invasion of Ukraine. I hear from Ukrainians that, as well as being anxious about their homeland and what is happening to their friends and family back in Ukraine, they are also anxious about their immigration status here in the UK. The Liberal Democrats think that the Government should automatically extend visas for Ukrainians who are already granted the right to be here to stay in the UK. It is vital that we remove the uncertainty that hangs over those families and children.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed these issues about Hongkongers and Ukrainians before. We often talk about the Boris wave and the large numbers of immigrants who came to this country. But within those numbers, there were a good half a million people who we wanted to come to this country—who we invited—including Hongkongers, Ukrainians, Afghans and others on humanitarian visas. Does he agree that the language we use and the numbers that we talk about need complete reframing so that we recognise those humanitarian visas, which the vast majority of the British population support?

[Mr Forster]

I completely agree, but I suggest that the hon. Member takes it up with his Government, who seem to be more focused on the hatred from the Reform party than on agreeing with our quite welcoming rhetoric. He should take that up with his Ministers rather than with me as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson—he might risk crossing the Floor, if he is not careful.

The Ukrainian scheme is the only humanitarian visa scheme that does not have the pathway to permanent settlement. I hope that the Minister will start to correct that injustice. Everything about this country—apart from its weather—should be fair. But our visa system is not fair, and it is not working for this country and the people in it. My hon. Friends the Members for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), for Horsham (John Milne), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) have shown real-life examples of that unfairness and failure. I urge the Minister to start correcting it.

Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 General Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. The Liberal Democrats continue to be disappointed that the Government have not set out a credible plan to tackle the asylum backlog and end hotel use. The Minister said that the Government have a vision—yes, a vision, but not a plan—to genuinely tackle the problem. The current system costs taxpayers £6 million a day in hotel bills, and the most recent data shows that the appeals backlog now stands at 80,000.

The Government’s plan to remove the duty to support asylum seekers risks creating knock-on effects for already stretched local services provided by councils and charities. That is especially true because it is not accompanied by giving asylum seekers the right to work. This time last year, during Committee debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I tabled several amendments to lift the ban. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber tabled similar amendments but the Government did not listen. We need to lift the ban, to ensure that asylum seekers can contribute to our country.

The Government say that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to society, but are not allowing them to do so. In what world can someone support themselves without the chance of getting the right to work? The Government are still banning asylum seekers from working, and that is wrong. It is about time the Government did a U-turn on that, as they have on many other things. People are instead forced to work in black market jobs and may become victims of modern slavery, prostitution or drug dealing.

The Government make no bones about the fact that they are following the Danish model, yet Denmark allows asylum seekers to work after six months. We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to lift the ban to ensure that asylum seekers work after three months, which would mean that they could support themselves financially and integrate. We have serious concerns that today’s regulations mean that the housing of homeless asylum seekers will fall to local councils when many are already at real risk of homelessness.

Is the Minister not concerned about how a future Government would use their discretionary powers? If he has to hand the keys to his office to a Reform Government, how would our refugees and asylum seekers be supported? He might think that his Government will support refugees, but this is not just about his Government. Additionally, there is no clear definition of what constitutes “deliberate”. Will the Minister please ensure that the Home Office explains and defines that?

I turn to the statutory instrument on the provision of accommodation. Will the Minister please assure me that that will not increase the burden on local councils following the withdrawal of support? My council, Woking borough council, went bankrupt under the Conservatives, and I would hate for more woes to be added to its problems. Finally, I assume that there will be an exemption for victims of human trafficking. If so, can the Minister outline how it will be defined? We do not want to remove support for them.

Immigration Reforms

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing the debate. He and I served together on the Committee that considered the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, where we proposed amendments to lift the ban on refugees working, and to provide for humanitarian visas to introduce safe and legal routes. I am pleased to work in partnership with him again to support our vulnerable refugees.

I want to start with what the Law Society says about the Government’s proposals:

“The Home Secretary’s proposals to increase the time for migrants to be eligible for settlement from five to ten years lack clarity, risks unfairness and may undermine rule-of-law principles.

The changes must not be applied retrospectively to those already in the UK in a way that would disadvantage them. To do so would run counter to the rule of law, undermine business planning and reduce flexibility and movement in the labour market.

The proposed changes are impacting businesses now, with our member law firms reporting that international hires are declining job offers. This is due to the uncertainty over their plans to build a life in the UK for them and their family. Our members who practice immigration law are left unable to advise clients with any certainty.

These changes risk the UK’s reputation as a centre for global talent and undermine business’s ability to recruit the best people for the job. In an increasingly competitive global services market, it is imperative that the UK can stay ahead and be an attractive destination for talent.”

I would welcome the Minister’s response to the Law Society’s damning assessment of the Government’s immigration reforms.

I will admit that this Government have inherited an absolute mess and a chaotic asylum and immigration system from the Conservatives, who deliberately did not process asylum applications in order to put people off coming to this country. That was a failure both for taxpayers and for putting immigrants off coming here. It means that we spend £6 million a day on asylum hotels.

However, another party is responsible for this mess: Reform. Last week, when we debated immigration, Reform MPs were not here; today, when we are debating immigration, they are not here. Brexit boats now cross the channel, resulting in deaths. Reform’s pursuit of Brexit has resulted in that, yet its MPs are absent from the debate. They need to be held to account for what they have done. The Dublin regulation has already been mentioned: we used not to have these channel crossings, and we used to be able to solve this problem by working with European partners, and it is vital that we get back to that situation.

There are huge benefits to immigration, which some colleagues have talked about, but some have tried to undermine this afternoon. Immigrants are statistically more likely to be employed in the health and social care, hospitality and agriculture sectors. Foreign-born individuals are more likely to be in work than UK-born citizens. Those remarks are not from a “woke” institution, but from the House of Commons Library. Immigrants make this country better financially and culturally, and we need to stand up for the benefits that immigration brings.

I will highlight agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) warned that the Home Office’s decision to end visas for around 75 specialist overseas sheep shearers risks up to 1.5 million sheep going unshorn, creating both an animal welfare problem and a food shortage. The Home Office had no answer to that warning by my right hon. Friend, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it this afternoon—or if not, take it away. It is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and it needs to be corrected.

I will take in turn some of the particular issues that the Government are introducing. ILR should not be retrospective, and I would welcome the Minister’s views on what assessment the Government have made of the legal challenges if it were made retrospective. I am pleased that the Government have done yet another U-turn and agreed to lift the ban on asylum seekers and refugees working—but, despite the fact they are so in love with the rules of Denmark, they have made the rule one year rather than six months. Why have they not followed Denmark?

I also want to talk about the Government’s proposal to review refugee status for every refugee, every two and a half years, for 20 years. The Government do not seem to be able to make a decision on applicants and then cope with the appeals, yet they are adding more work for themselves. Can the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the Home Office can cope?

I want to briefly mention student visas. In Afghanistan, women and girls have been persecuted just because of their gender. Last year, the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women, and this month it closed them for women studying. What does the Minister, who I know has a heart and soul, say to that?

Finally, I was last in this Chamber to talk about homeless people, and I want to mention homeless refugees, and particularly their families. The Government have changed the rules on move-on rights, and that has had a profound impact. There have been exemptions for pregnant women and disabled and elderly people; will the Minister agree to ensure that the move-on rate is changed to exempt families with children?

Immigration Policy

Will Forster Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is deeply disappointing that these changes were pushed through without an explanation in this Chamber. The same Home Secretary who emphasised the importance of scrutiny from MPs at the Institute for Public Policy Research has denied this House the chance to question her reforms. That is not good enough. Does the Minister think that reviewing each refugee’s status every two and a half years for 20 years will really fix the asylum system? That is estimated to cost £725 million over the next decade, so what plans do the Government have to fund this, and can they give a cast-iron guarantee that it will not cause the asylum backlog to further increase? Taxpayers are paying £6 million a day for asylum hotels—a legacy of the Conservative Government. Will the Minister back Liberal Democrat plans to end the processing through faster claims, such as Nightingale processing centres, or set out their own plan? Finally, will the Government confirm their plan for lifting the ban on asylum seekers working? Why have they chosen a year, not six months?

[Alex Norris]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not remember the statement in November on these very issues. I can assure him that one of his Front-Bench colleagues remembers it well and thinks about it quite a bit.

On the 30 months, let me be clear about how the system will work. We do not want people to come to the country and get that good news of their claim for refuge being accepted, and then be at home and not take part in British life. We are saying that if people do that, their claims will be assessed every 30 months. However, they will be offered the chance to move to a protected work and study route, which means that if they are taking part in work or study, learning the language and not committing crimes, they are outwith that. I do not recognise the points on how many decisions would have to be made or the spend—that is not accurate.

The hon. Gentleman talks about quicker decisions. Last year was the best year since records began on initial decisions, so we are operating that system effectively. Nevertheless, significant demand issues mean that applications are down significantly across the EU and up significantly in the UK. Until and unless those issues are addressed, any process changes would simply be overwhelmed.

Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals

Will Forster Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

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

Will Forster Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 General Committees

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse. The Liberal Democrats and I are broadly supportive of this statutory instrument. The plans to put the fees up are broadly in line with inflation and the cost of providing the service, so we have no major concerns about the principal part of the order. However, I am concerned about the entry requirements and fees charged to dual British nationals. Will the Minister look into this matter urgently, and agree to consider a grace or transition period for British nationals stuck abroad, and to hold a meeting with MPs to listen to our concerns and take things forward?