PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Immigration Policy - 9 March 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Order. Before we come to the urgent question on immigration rules, I should say that time is tight today as there is an important Bill to be discussed as well as the three statements that the Government have chosen to make. However, I must put on record in the strongest terms my disappointment that the Home Secretary did not come to the House last week to make a statement on immigration. This follows a week of drip feeding announcements to the media and a major speech outside this place. It is simply not good enough. If that is the impact of the reported changes to the Government’s comms grid, it needs a rethink. It is unacceptable for important policy announcements to be made to the media before the House is informed.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on her recently announced immigration policy.

The British public expect and deserve an immigration system with order and control. In November, the Home Secretary announced the most sweeping reforms to tackle illegal migration since the second world war, and last week the Government took concrete steps to implement those necessary changes. I hear clearly the strong message from the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course we would never mean any discourtesy to you or to your colleagues.

Features of the steps taken last week include that refugee status will now be reviewed every 30 months. At a 30-month review, refugees with a continuing need for protection will have that protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home.

Further, we are introducing targeted measures known as a visa brake to help protect the integrity of the UK immigration system. As such, from 26 March we will refuse applications for specific visa routes from nationals of Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan, where evidence shows a consistently high number and proportion of visa-linked asylum claims. This is the beginning; other nationalities may face similar measures in the future.

Due to the number of asylum claims from nationals of Nicaragua and St Lucia, we have also introduced visit visa requirements and direct airside transit visa requirements on those countries to prevent visitor visa misuse. Those came into force on 5 March.

We have tabled further legislative changes to revoke the current legal duty to provide support to asylum seekers, instead restoring it to a power to provide support so that those who can support themselves do so. We are also amending existing conditions of support legislation to enable the suspension or discontinuation of asylum support when an asylum seeker is working illegally.

We have started a consultation on our approach to family returns, exploring reforms to the support available to families with no legal basis to remain in the UK and the approach used when enforcing the returns of families who have not departed voluntarily.

After years of chaos and crisis, it has fallen to this Government to fix the broken systems we inherited. I know this country, and I know the protection that people want to provide to those who need it—we have seen that with the Syrian scheme, Afghan resettlement, Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders and Homes for Ukraine—but we can do that only when there is confidence that the system has order and control. These reforms restore order and build the system that the British people deserve.

It is disappointing the Government did not come here voluntarily to announce their policies, and I notice that there was no apology, but given the scale of their failure, this is not surprising. Since the election, 67,000 people have entered the UK illegally, a 45% increase compared with the same period before the election. Many of those 67,000 have since committed serious crimes, including murder and rape. In the last six days alone, 900 illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel. The Government’s promises lie in tatters: the gangs are not smashed; the French are not intercepting boats near the shores, as we were promised last year; and the so-called one in, one out deal saw 41,000 illegal immigrants come in across the channel last year and only 300 go out.

The Government are now resorting to bribing illegal immigrants with £40,000 per family to leave—that is more than most working people here earn in a year. British workers should not have to pay record high taxes for this Government to give their money away to illegal immigrants. It is frankly disgraceful. Instead, the Government should now agree to our plan to leave the European convention on human rights, which would enable them to rapidly deport all illegal immigrants. The crossings would then quickly stop and there would be no need to bribe illegal immigrants to leave.

Let me turn now to indefinite leave to remain. When we proposed a 10-year path, the Government voted against it, but I am delighted that they have now done yet another U-turn and adopted our policy. We do not agree with every detail in their plans, but we agree with the substance. However, I am sorry to hear that some of the Minister’s own MPs are apparently unconvinced, so let me help him. Given that the Government appear to need our votes to pass these ILR changes, we will support them. Will the Minister confirm whether the ILR changes will be made in primary legislation or via the rules? If the Government use primary legislation, that will take some time to pass, by which time the 2021 and 2022 arrivals will have ILR, so we would also support him to pass emergency legislation if he will accept that offer—

Order. I call the Minister.

It is a challenge to be lectured on the need for apologies from the architects of the Trussonomics that mean my constituents are paying more on their mortgages month on month. However, we have seen more of that mathematics from the right hon. Gentleman, because he says that spending an average of £158,000 on families in hotel accommodation who now have no right to be here because they have finished making their way through the asylum system is better value than spending £40,000 in order for them to return home and to build their lives again. I am not surprised.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about gangs, but he will know that there has been a record level of interventions—more than 4,000. He talked about our work with the French, but he will know that 40,000 crossings have been prevented. He also mentioned returns. He will know that 60,000 people have been returned under this Government, a 31% increase on his time in the Home Department. He offers criticism, but the only answer that he offers in lieu is to tear up international agreements with no sense of what change that would drive. It would merely set back that returns work and lead us back to years of debate and no action. I will not do that.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned ILR, but of course that was not the nature of the announcement last week. That related to the closing of an important consultation on earned settlement in this country. We will be having those conversations with Parliament, and measures will be laid in the usual way in the weeks and months ahead.

Could the Minister update us on the discussions about people who arrived in this country pursuing leave for five years, or whatever period their visa stated, to get status in the UK, and who are approaching the end of that period? I have a number of constituents who will reach that point in April, and they are concerned that they will have to start all over again under a new process. Could he update the House on their position?

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to earned settlement. It has always been the case that the immigration rules in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry to the country, are the ones that are germane to the conditions an individual has to meet. Nevertheless, she will know that we consulted on what transition protections there could be, and that consultation closed last month. There is an important reality for all colleagues to wrestle with here. In the first five years of this decade we saw unprecedented levels of migration through legal means as a result of the Conservatives’ open borders experiment, which means that one in 30 people in this country came in during that window. That means that those people will become eligible for social housing and other benefits at the same time, which represents a significant challenge to the taxpayer and to public services. Nevertheless, that consultation took place and we will be coming back to respond in the usual way.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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?

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.

As other colleagues have said, some people came here under one system, but now the system is changing, so have the Government done any assessment of where those people are working? In my constituency, a large number of people are now in their fourth year before their cases were about to conclude, hopefully, to secure status. They work in the care sector and without them, to be frank, the care sector in my constituency would collapse.

We know where these people are working because they came to this country on work visas, so we are clear on where they are. On the assessment, that was the point of the consultation that ended last month. We got more than 200,000 responses—that shows the strength of feeling. We are looking at that in the usual way, and we will come back with our plans after that in the usual way.

I call the Father of the House.

May I quote approvingly the remarks of my constituency neighbour and Labour MP, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White)? She said that if Labour is to win its battle against Reform, it has to do much more on illegal boats. I am sorry that she is not here, but I have warned her that I was going to ask this question. Specifically, she makes the good point that people should only be allowed to claim asylum abroad. If that were the case, surely there is an argument that if people arrived here illegally, they would not be able to claim asylum and would not be covered by the convention, and they could be detained and deported.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that I always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White). I have known her for a very long time, and have found that being disagreeable to her is a bad idea. The third chapter of our November statement is about safe and legal routes. The Home Secretary has talked about our first foray in that endeavour being a study route, to provide options for people to seek sanctuary in this country—to the degree to which our communities can sustain that—from outside the country, so that they do not make dangerous journeys and we do not see people crossing the channel. I think that is in everybody’s interests, and I am glad to see it drawing consensus.

My constituent came to this country after leaving a very good job and uprooting his whole family, including young children, on the promise that he would be allowed to work and contribute to our NHS, which he has done for the past four years. However, because of the Government’s harsh and hostile policies, not only is his future now uncertain, but his children may not even be able to go to university. Does the Minister not understand the hostility and unfairness of this?

I think we all recognise the absolutely important role that people from outside the UK have played in the NHS for decades. My hon. Friend will know that our proposals set out that working in the NHS and other public services was one proposed way in which people could earn that route to settlement. As I have said to other colleagues, we are looking at the consultation closely. We must understand that there is a real challenge beneath this, and that the immigration rules have always been applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that he and other hon. Members have made with vigour.

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Has the Home Office made an assessment of the number of people who will be affected, and of the amount that will be saved, by moving from a statutory duty to support asylum seekers to a discretionary power?

The overall supported population is 107,000. The decisions of approximately half of those people are now more than a year old, so they can access work in many cases. Similarly, a smaller proportion retain the right to work because they have overstayed their work visas. We are now doing the work of considering all those people individually to see who could work and therefore pay towards their own support costs, on the basis that if people can pay for their own support, they ought to—like our constituents—so that the cost does not fall on the taxpayer and we can reduce the burden.

In my constituency, people of all faiths and backgrounds live, learn and work next to each other. Unlike many other European countries, the UK has a good reputation on integration, so can the Minister reassure me that these reforms will not lead to the UK becoming like our European neighbours with much poorer records?

I absolutely can. I saw my own community in my hon. Friend’s description of hers. All our reforms seek to promote integration. With regards to illegal migration, for example, when people seek refuge and have their claim accepted, they should enter work or study, and learn the language, which is crucial for integration. We also have important work to do across Government on social cohesion, of which the Home Office has a significant component. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will make a statement later about the important cohesion work to make this a brilliant, integrated and multicultural place, like Hounslow, Nottingham and the rest of the country.

There are thousands of Ukrainians in this country—most of them women and children—who are effectively stateless. They did not come here as asylum seekers; they came as refugees. They do not know whether they are coming or going. They cannot return to their country, and there is no prospect of them being able to in the short or medium term. They need to be able to determine accommodation, education and employment, so what will the Government do to create some sort of proper settled status for Ukrainian refugees?

I am grateful for that question. It is really important that colleagues appreciate that the Homes for Ukraine scheme—the way by which people came to this country from Ukraine—was never intended as a settlement scheme. That was part of our engagement with the Government of Ukraine at the time. Nevertheless, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have extended that period of protection for longer, in line with the challenges that people are facing. We want those people to live fully while they are here, and I hear the challenges that he describes, but, as I said, that scheme was never designed as a settlement scheme.

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question. On work visas and people integrating into our communities, will he say something about the abuses that we hear of—including how sponsors control the situation for these people—and about the potential damage that will be caused, especially to our public services, if the thresholds are unobtainable to many of our key workers, especially those in our health service?

I absolutely recognise the characterisation offered by my hon. Friend. We know there was abuse of that scheme by unscrupulous employers. We have been working with trade unions—indeed, I met their representatives only this morning—on what a future model could look like to avoid such abuse, so that if people come to this country, they are not so precariously reliant on one employer, who therefore has a very unhelpful amount of power over them and their lives—it is an imbalance. We are looking at that closely.

In Afghanistan, women and girls are being persecuted on grounds of their gender. They cannot work, they cannot study, and by law their husbands can punish them however they see fit. Last year the Home Office closed safe and legal routes for Afghan women to come to the UK, and last week it closed the door for both professionals and students. The work of the Linda Norgrove Foundation means that a number of female medical students are currently studying at Scottish universities, including St Andrews. What hope is there for others to complete their studies and support the maternal healthcare crisis that is under way in Afghanistan?

We take our obligations and commitment to Afghans very seriously; since 2021, over 37,000 have come here via resettlement schemes. The change last week is because we have a student visa system that is being used as a de facto immigration system, which cannot be right. Of the 3,730 visas issued to students from Afghanistan, there were 3,454 claims for asylum. That is not an orderly system. I feel the power and passion with which the hon. Lady speaks, but to accept that premise is to say that we believe universities ought to set our asylum system, which cannot be right. I hope she will recognise that, taken in concert with what we have announced about a safe and legal study route, these measures must be a much better way, so that we as a Government accountable to Parliament know who is coming, what their protection need is, what their institution is and what they are learning while they are here. I think that is the right balance.

Order. Members should be aware that I am hoping to finish this urgent question by around half-past 4, because we have three statements to follow, so please keep questions and answers short.

The Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile has found that restrictive policies have had an insignificant effect on the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Denmark. Instead, the discrimination and constant uncertainty make it harder for young refugees to learn, build relationships or plan for their futures. Will the Minister commit to keeping permanently the five years’ leave for unaccompanied children, to create stability for the most vulnerable asylum seekers?

I can give my hon. Friend succour in that regard. Our 30-month protection announcement last week does not include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and we take our responsibilities to children very seriously. I have optimism in our new system. We need those children to study and then get into work, as well as to learn the language, as they have the most to benefit so that, so the protected work and study route will be particularly important for them.

The Minister and the Government are to be commended for trying to wrestle with this issue, and where there can be cross-party consensus, let us build on and foster it. Lots of groups of people who come to this country generate complaints, but one group that does not are those who come from New Zealand and Australia to help our sheep farmers at shearing time. May I urge the Minister to rethink the measure in this regard, as not a single rural Member of Parliament is calling for it? Those people should be allowed in. This is an animal welfare issue, and it is important for our food security and agricultural sector.

The announcements about illegal migration that we made in November were the most sweeping since the second world war, and they were unpacked last week as well, but they were not so sweeping or broad as to include sheep shearing, although I know that that has become a pertinent point for some. The Minister for Migration and Citizenship and I are having conversations with rural MPs, and we have heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s words.

In response to the urgent question, the Minister did not mention the announcement last week that people from four countries—Sudan, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Cameroon—will no longer be able to apply for a student visa. Many students who applied for such visas and came to study here subsequently found that the situation in their country had materially changed, so they then applied for asylum. I am very concerned that when things materially change, we will change the policy on student applications. We are seeing a war in the middle east now, and the situation in Ukraine, and I am concerned that this is now the Government’s policy. We should take it in good faith that people who come here to study do so—that they study and contribute, and that they can go back to their countries to contribute there when things have settled. We should not be cutting off student visas for people from countries in conflict.

I hate to correct my hon. Friend, but I did mention those countries. No matter what reforms we announced in November and the impact of any element, everybody will have their claim individually assessed on the basis of their own individual circumstances. If someone has come here for a three-year course, I accept totally that the circumstances at home could have materially changed during that period. I say gently to my hon. Friend that when that is happening, in virtually every case, those systems cease to be merely a study route and become a de facto asylum route, and it is better that these routes are organised and co-ordinated by the Government rather than academic institutions.

The Minister is unhappy that we are conflating two different announcements, but the issue is that the Home Secretary has not actually made an announcement about this matter—she has not come to the Chamber, set out the position and made an announcement. The Government are planning to make these changes without parliamentary approval, because the changes will not come before the House for debate. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all hon. Members can have a voice, that the changes are not made through a negative statutory instrument, and that MPs from across the House will be able to make our points clear in order to ensure that the goalposts will not be moved after refugees have arrived here?

I hate to disagree with the hon. Lady, but I am not unhappy at all. The way I look at it, I get to give the answers, and right hon. Members and hon. Members get to ask the questions—I do not get to do both—so colleagues can raise whatever issues they wish to raise. On her point about scrutiny of the policies, as she will be aware, there has been a public consultation that with very good participation. There were two statements in November, one relating to restoring order and control—our asylum policy statement—and one relating to earned settlement, and colleagues had the opportunity for debate then. She will know that there has subsequently been at least one debate in Westminster Hall; I am sure there will be more. I have no doubt that colleagues will find parliamentary opportunities to debate these policies and any others of the Home Department.

On the issue of indefinite leave to remain, the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that there will be “close consideration” of the public consultation that concluded last month, and yet last week the Home Secretary said that she is determined to push ahead with those changes to retrospective indefinite leave to remain. Which is true? This is about people who are working here and people who are contributing in many ways, not just financially.

At the outset of the consultation, we were very clear that there were certain non-negotiable elements that we had decided prior to the consultation, including moving to a system with a default 10 years that could be reduced to five on the basis of the people’s contribution to their community and in relation to speaking English. Within the consultation, there were also questions about transitional protections. We are looking at all those issues in the round and I do not see an inconsistency in the two positions.

Where will we send an illegal entrant with no right to remain but whose country of origin is unsafe?

The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have removed 60,000 people with no right to be in this country—a 31% increase on our predecessors. It is not possible to effect return in every case; everybody knows that. There are certain countries to which we are unable to do so. In those cases, we are not effecting returns, but we have to have a system that has a backstop of removal. I think that is an accepted principle.

I acknowledge the considerable challenge that the Government have in winning back public confidence in the asylum system. The Home Office published a report last year concluding that there was insufficient evidence that restrictive asylum policies reduce claims, so will the Home Office publish evidence to show that cutting refugee leave from five years down to 30 months will deter claims in the UK? Does the Minister accept that a substantial settlement pathway of 20 years-plus is also unlikely to deter those claims?

My hon. and learned Friend knows that we bring forward our impact assessments alongside the policies as we publish them, and as we seek to debate or implement them. He knows about the case that we made in our document in November as well. With regard to whether these policies work, I would gently say that Germany and Denmark have a similar period of time for protection, and both are seeing reductions in asylum claims. In the UK, there have been over 80,000 asylum claims for the last two years; for the previous decade, claims averaged 27,500. I do not think we can say that no change is an option.

My constituent is a hard-working taxpayer, but his wife and daughter remain in Iran because the family reunion route has effectively been closed since September. Does the Minister accept that failing to provide controlled, safe and legal routes not only lets down families like this one, but fuels the use of dangerous routes?

That route is paused for now. The hon. Lady will know that over the last four or five years, we have seen a huge increase—fivefold, I think—in the use of that route. Given the significant changes, it is right that the Government ensure that the system is effective. We are looking at it closely and we appreciate the importance of family reunion. She will have heard what I said about safe and legal means.

Given these changes, what changes to the national referral mechanism in relation to modern slavery does the Minister expect to see? What does the switch from a duty to a power for housing people waiting for asylum mean for the national dispersal method, including for places that have routinely had more people than was agreed, such as Stoke-on-Trent—and, if there are no changes, will he look at funding integration work in those places?

My hon. Friend will know about my work on modern slavery over my years in this place. We know that is a constantly moving picture. We want to make sure that the protections for victims of slavery are robust—I think there is a consensus here on that—and that the system is being used properly. I also take his point on dispersal. The Department’s view is that there should be full dispersal, meaning that communities share the challenge across their means. With regard to payments, we pay £1,200 per head to help that integration work.

Paying illegal asylum seekers £40,000 to leave the United Kingdom is a kick in the teeth for my hard-working constituents. Why are we not using that money to build a detention centre so that we can detain and immediately deport those who arrive in this country illegally?

See, this is funny, Mr Speaker: when the hon. Gentleman was in my office saying he wanted the hotel in his constituency closed, he was saying, “Make sure we get a grip and get them closed”, but then when he sees the proposals to do so, he does not want them. He cannot have those two things together.

We see reports of armed criminal gangs operating with confidence along the northern coastline of France. My constituents ask what the French authorities are actually doing to deal with the issue. Can the Minister give an update on the ongoing discussions that he is having with his French counterparts? What will change on the back of these reforms?

This is an important point. The gangs are well embedded; they had a head start of a good six-plus years on this Government. It is not easy for the French authorities, which we work very closely with. Through the Sandhurst agreement, we have seen 40,000 preventions, but we are in active negotiations about where we go next to tackle that pernicious threat.

Aside from the cruelty of asking people who have fled war and persecution to re-justify their already-recognised refugee status every 30 months, how does the Minister plan to pay for this huge additional administrative burden? As we have heard, the Refugee Council has estimated that it will cost £725 million over 10 years, but he contests that estimate. Perhaps he can tell us how much he thinks it will cost, and why—when our NHS and schools are crying out for funding—he is spending taxpayers’ money on scapegoating migrants instead.

I gently say to the hon. Lady that we will not be asking those who come to this country, have a protection need, enter into work and study, learn the language and do not commit crimes to re-justify their protection need. I think that strikes the right balance between the taxpayer and the individual, and I do not recognise or accept the figures that she cites. Turning to the issue of cost, we must recognise that we in this country support a significantly bigger supported population than we have traditionally. That number needs to reduce —we need to break that attractiveness—which is why we have proposed these reforms.

Last week, the Home Secretary mentioned that our immigration policy needed to be based on the idea of fairness. Is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?

I am grateful for that question. On fairness, the applicable rules have always been those in force at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry, so I do not accept that that in itself represents a lack of fairness. Nevertheless, I have heard the point that my hon. Friend and other colleagues have made, which is why we carried out the consultation in the way we did.

There have often been occasions on which somebody has leaked in advance the contents of a statement that they are going to make to the House of Commons, or part of its contents, but this is the first time I have seen a total revelation in the press of something that the Government had no intention of making a statement about to the House of Commons. Why is that, and what will these measures do to deter people from breaking into this country illegally, with it then being impossible to deport them?

On the deterrence point, as I have said, we are receiving applications at an unprecedented level, and at a time when our European Union counterparts are seeing fewer applications. There is an attractiveness to this country, which is why we are changing the protection package and carrying out record levels of enforcement against illegal working. Those are the changes we are making to break those pull factors to this country.

Turning to announcements, we would of course mean no discourtesy to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman will have heard the apology I made at the outset. However, we stated our policy in November, and what we are now doing is building it out.

My hon. Friend is exactly right. With regard to family returns, I hear from Conservative Members that they would rather pay a family with no prospect of staying in the country an average of £158,000 to stay in a hotel, rather than pay that £40,000. There are 150 families in the pilot; if we were to be successful with all of them, that would save the British taxpayer £20 million. I think we would be doing right by them in doing so.

Yesterday we marked International Women’s Day with the statistic that women hold fewer than two thirds of the rights enjoyed by men globally. Afghan women are already barred from secondary and higher education, and they now face further violence and discrimination under the Taliban’s new criminal regulations. What is the Secretary of State doing? She is stopping them from applying to study at our universities. Does the Minister not agree that the aim of ending violence against women and girls extends beyond borders, and that his Government have a moral duty to help women fulfil their potential in safety?

I totally agree, which is why we have offered sanctuary to over 37,000 Afghans via resettlement schemes since 2021, as well as those who have come via the asylum system. I do not think that the point of difference between the right hon. Lady and me is about the substance; it is about whether those sorts of routes to provide sanctuary to people who want to study and have their protection needs met should be run by universities on our behalf, without the scrutiny of Parliament, or by the Government themselves. I cannot agree with her on that.

I thank the Minister for his updates. The Home Secretary was absolutely right last week that the public expect a controlled and orderly immigration system. I fully support her plans, but can the Minister say more about how quickly the measures announced will be implemented, and how the Home Office will ensure that they are properly enforced in practice?

I know that the public are eager to see change. We were able to make some immediate changes in November when we announced the policies, and last Thursday we tabled statutory instruments that we hope will effect further changes. Similarly, we made changes to the immigration rules last week, and we will do so at future opportunities when the need arises. Of course, where there is the need for primary legislation—particularly on important appeals reform—that will come in front of the House in the usual way.

The only country that has successfully tackled illegal boat crossings similar to ours is Australia, and it did so not by paying people £40,000 per family to leave, but by sending them to a safe third country. I noticed that the Minister completely failed to answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). Does the Minister accept the reality that the only way to tackle this problem will be to get on with having a safe third country to deport these people to?

I follow the hon. Gentleman’s work. He always says no to large sites and no to hotels, and then proposes fantastical third countries that he is not capable of naming. Ultimately, this is the choice: do people want fantasy, more empty rhetoric and argument, or do they want change and action with this Government? I know what I choose.

Along with Home Affairs Committee colleagues, I spent time in northern France last year seeing the challenges of intercepting small boats. The French maritime doctrine has clearly been an obstacle to adopting the more assertive tactics that my constituents wish and expect to see. Can the Minister outline the progress in getting the French to change their tactics, and will he make the continuation of Sandhurst funding dependent on that?

From my perspective, with regards to action in northern France, what works is what works. It is a matter of record that we have enthusiasm about maritime doctrine-type tactics, but there are other things prior to that which need to work as well, particularly our work with the French to disrupt organised crime, which is having a significant impact. My hon. Friend mentions Sandhurst, which we are in the process of negotiating. I can absolutely assure him that all of that will be seen through the prism of bringing forward effective action.

If the Government are serious about stopping dangerous small boats crossings and smashing the gangs, there must be safe routes for those fleeing war and persecution. I remind the House that bombs are falling right now in the Gulf and in the middle east. What progress has the Home Secretary made in establishing safe and legal routes for refugees, so that people do not risk their lives crossing the channel?

The hon. Lady will know from our announcements in November that we believe in safe and legal alternatives. She will know that the “one in, one out” work with France is itself a safe and legal route. She will also know of the announcements we have made about a refugee study route. We are getting on with those things, alongside the difficult decisions we have made in front of Parliament in relation to the balance in disrupting that model and changing those behaviours from irregular and dangerous to safe and legal.

Like many towns, Long Eaton is home to an asylum seeker hotel. It was gifted to us by the last Tory Government, but I know the Minister is doing everything in his power to close it as soon as possible. A secondary effect of the Tories’ hotels, however, is illegal work associated with the exploitation of local asylum seekers. Can the Minister elaborate on how measures announced recently will help to end illegal work in Erewash?

We know from the materials of the traffickers that illegal working is one of those advertising features used to suggest to people that they should try to come to the UK. The impact of that is then felt in communities such as Long Eaton, and it means that we have got hotels open, but we are changing that equation. We have extended the powers around illegal working to the gig economy in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which is now coming into force. The message is clear: people will not be able to employ people illegally, and people will not be able to work illegally.

We learn from the press, if not from the Minister, that up to £40,000 of taxpayers’ money will be used to reward illegal activity. Does that not make a mockery of the law? Would it not be far better to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, so that we can deport people who have no basis to be here?

It is tricky, because the right hon. Gentleman talks with power and vigour that was lacking from his colleagues in their 14 years in government. Indeed, he may well know, as colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench certainly know, that they paid people to leave the country, because it is in the taxpayers’ interest. There are choices between measures that work and measures such as leaving the ECHR, which are fantastical and would just lead to years and years of arguing, disruption and no impact.

Some say that this Government are controlling our borders in spite of our progressive values, but no, we are securing our borders because it is in line with our Labour values. In my constituency, residents want to feel safe, and they do not feel safe with our borders not yet controlled. In wanting to tackle illegal acts, will the Minister set out what this Government are doing to stop illegal working, particularly within Deliveroo, Just Eat and Uber Eats?

My hon. Friend is right, and I make exactly the same assessment of the position in Nottingham that I make of the position in Bournemouth. Those are people who leant into the Afghan scheme, the Syrian scheme, the Hong Kong British national overseas scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but who are rightly fed up about the three hotels in Bournemouth and the impact on their community. My hon. Friend’s vigour in working for the closure of those hotels is well known. As for the question of illegal workers, to prevent them from using those facilities we have introduced new punishments. People who work in the gig economy and are using the substitution of labour to circumvent legal working rules will be caught and punished, and we are doing that at record levels.

At lunch time today I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on fisheries, during which we heard about existential threats to the fishing industry across these islands. Will the Minister agree to attend a meeting of the APPG so that he can hear at first hand about some of the threats posed by his party’s immigration policies?

I am sure that the subject of that meeting was not how to help people to work illegally in the fishing industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are discussing today, but of course I am always open to meetings with colleagues to hear about their important work and what they want to see from the Government.

I welcome the Government’s focus on closing the hotels, and I am delighted that the last remaining hotel in my constituency that was opened by the Conservatives will be closing in the coming weeks, but will the Minister recommit the efforts of the Home Office to recovering the excess profits made by the providers of the contracts that were so badly negotiated by the last Government?

My hon. Friend has timed his question perfectly, enabling me to say, just as the Chancellor joins me, that we have recouped tens of millions of pounds from those contracts, not to mention reduction amounting to hundreds of millions as a result of our improvement in relation to hotels. Nevertheless, all those hotels will be closed—opened by the Tories, closed by Labour.

Raising that point was useful, because many of the migrants are going into houses in multiple occupation, which is a real problem in my constituency. Along with my Liberal Democrat-run council, I have raised concerns not only about the impact on our community, but about where people are being placed. Those concerns have been raised with Serco, which is ignoring them. Will the Minister meet me so that I can discuss them with him? Those in my community are extremely concerned.

Of course I will. I want to see equitable dispersal, and I am desperately trying to close the gap between the Home Office and local government so that there is better information sharing. Local authorities should not be surprised: there should be an early conversation about possible sites in their communities, not because they will have a veto but because they may have a better way of doing things.

I know that the Minister will agree that it is important for us to have a working and fair immigration system, but that, sadly, is not what we inherited. Constituents of mine in Harlow are rightly concerned that people who come to settle here should be law-abiding. Does the Minister agree that if they are not law-abiding, they will not be settling here?

I totally agree. My hon. Friend can assure people in Harlow that every element of our system will incentivise people to come here and follow the rules, and if they do not, that will be a bar to citizenship. It will bar them from getting what they want from our settlement system. That is the right balance for the British people to ensure that our generosity is not abused.

I am very perplexed, and indeed I suspect that most Brits will be perplexed. We have more than 650,000 job vacancies, of which more than 165,000 are for unskilled workers. Why are we not dealing with the refugees—processing their applications, giving them training, putting them into jobs and enabling them to earn some money, rather than paying their hotel costs?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier that we in the Home Office are making decisions faster than ever without affecting the grant rate. We are making those quick decisions so that those who need protection can build their lives in this country. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard Question Time earlier today, when we were talking about the number of young people in Britain who are out of work. I cannot accept that so many young people in Britain can be out of work and the Government can have no aspiration for them to fill roles.

My constituents want the Government to get off their back and get on their side, rather than using their hard-earned taxpayers’ money to spend up to £40,000 on removing illegal asylum seekers. Will the Minister rule that out?

The hon. Gentleman has heard what I have said to his colleagues: the choice is between paying £158,000 for those families to live in hotels and paying £40,000 for them to leave the country. I do not know whether he needs a calculator, but I think that is a good equation.

Can the Minister tell us what modelling those in the Home Office have done in respect of whether these visa bans will actually affect the backlog of refugee and asylum seekers? Have they looked at the impact on local services in constituencies such as mine? People running care homes have told me that they are losing vital workforce members and may not be able to stay open.

Of course we take a lens on reform. The hon. Lady will know that those seeking asylum cannot work in such environments, so they would not be germane to that conversation. We look very closely at the impacts of our policies and publish reviews at the appropriate moments.

The concept of paying someone who has come here illegally £40,000 to leave will stick in the throats of all taxpayers in this country. Notwithstanding the arguments that the Minister has put forward, what assessment has he made that making an offer of 40 grand will not act as a huge pull factor and cause more people to come here to collect our cash?

First of all, I can offer the hon. Gentleman some degree of comfort: this is a targeted pilot at this stage. It cannot act as a pull factor, because people will not be eligible for it. Other countries that offer money, including Denmark, are seeing their numbers go down, which can also give him a degree of comfort.

The Minister failed to answer the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). In the absence of a third-country scheme, to where do we remove people when their countries are not safe or there are no returns agreements?

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the Rwanda scheme would not have removed those people; it would have removed a tiny proportion, at an eye-watering cost. We are ramping up removals of those who have no right to be here. If the hon. Gentleman is really saying that he wants to rip up the ECHR because he wants to send people back to countries that are not safe, he should name which ones.

Alongside last week’s announcements was the most welcome announcement that BNO passport holders will not be required to hold B2 language qualifications, but Hongkongers resident in Wimborne are really concerned about the income threshold. Can the Minister confirm whether that is also being exempted?

As I have said to other colleagues, I can confirm that the income threshold, and particularly how it is resolved at a family unit level, was part of the consultation. We have had more than 200,000 replies, and we are looking at them closely.

Over 330,000 people have signed a petition urging the Government to scrap the plan to increase the ILR period from five years to 10 years, especially the retrospective nature of it. This will have a detrimental effect on the core of our society, especially the NHS, and will exploit workers, who will be vulnerable to exploitative bosses. Does the Minister agree with many of his Back Benchers that the Government must stop this cruel proposal taking effect?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as I have said previously, the governing criteria for settlement have always applied at the point of application, rather than at the point of entry. He will also have heard from me that one in 30 people in this country came during the last three or four years, so a significant problem must be resolved in terms of pressure on public services and fairness to the British taxpayer. That is why we are looking at this issue so closely.

Some time ago, there was a debate on fisheries in this Chamber. The Minister who replied for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that she would meet those of us who represent fishing villages. There is a need for visas for fishing crews, and it will not cost this country any money to have them here, as they contribute to it. Will the Minister please agree to a meeting?

Whether it is with me or the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, I will ensure that a meeting on fisheries takes place.

My constituents are deeply alarmed that retrospective changes to ILR could leave long-term residents living in fear of deportation. Does the Minister accept that leaving families across this country in a state of profound uncertainty risks undermining the very sense of security and fairness that our immigration system is supposed to uphold?

I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we were very clear in our settlement consultation that coming here, working hard, contributing, paying taxes, learning the language, taking part in the community and not committing crimes will get someone the best route to settlement. I think that gives people the security they need.

I believe the Minister had a telling-off earlier, and I just want to reiterate the problem. The scrapping of the communications grid may be of benefit to the Government, but it is not beneficial to this House. This House does not want to be drip-fed for seven days via the news; the Government should come here first. We have got it the wrong way round. I hope the message goes back that this should happen no more.