What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 3 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 11,997 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
One of the lifts at Woking station was out of service for 40 days in one year, and constituents in West Byfleet have complained that their station’s platform is too high for them to use safely. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that stations on the South Western Railway line are accessible for all?
Yesterday’s Budget included an announcement that Surrey would get a mayor. The Red Book said we were in advanced talks to have a mayor in my county, which is news to MPs like me, who have not been consulted, and there has been no vote by any local authorities in the county. Can we have a debate in Government time about the merits of introducing new mayors and on the process that could result in my constituents having a mayor without having a say?
The two local authorities that serve my constituency are due to be abolished next year as part of the first phase of local government reorganisation, and now we hear that Surrey is likely to have a mayor. Will the Minister confirm that the <span id="475" class="column-number" data-column-number="475"></span>Government will let Surrey choose whether or not to have a mayor via a public consultation and a vote of councillors?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a breakdown of the appeals made against Home Office decisions on asylum claims since March 2023, and would provide for their ongoing quarterly publication. It is a source of concern that no detailed Home Office data on appeals has been published since 2023. Such data includes much more information that that contained in published tribunal statistics, and it is essential for scrutiny, especially of the quality of first-time decision making. The Bill makes large-scale changes to the way in which claims are handled, and it is vital that we have a clear picture of its impact. As I made clear in a previous sitting, I have serious concerns about the use of the independent immigration appeals authority to handle first-tier tribunal cases, in particular because Australia trialled something similar and found that non-judicial tribunal panels often took more time to reach decisions because their members struggled with the complexities of immigration law. We also heard in oral evidence from Professor Richard Ekins and Dr Conor Casey about the concern that there would just be more appeals. Dr Casey said: “You might just relocate the backlog from the first-instance appeal level up to the upper tribunal.”<span id="vol_col22" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="22" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="89692846-14C4-4C52-8D15-8E29A8FF3ED7"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 22, Q42.]</span><span id="499" class="column-number" data-column-number="499"></span> Data and information on appeals will therefore be crucial in judging how the new system works. I appreciate that, in answer to a written question, the then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), stated: “Appeals data from April 2023 onwards is currently unavailable for publication due to ongoing work as immigration data transitions to a new caseworking system. Work is ongoing to make this information available, and it will be included in a future edition of the Immigration System Statistics Quarterly release.” However, it has now been three years since the last set of data was released, and I am left with a sense of incredulity that this great office of state needs such a lengthy timespan to make itself accountable. Perhaps this goes back to the point I made in new clause 8: the Home Office is just too large, and often does not have the bandwidth, to do everything that it needs to do. New clause 14 would legislate for the continued publication of all data relating to appeals made against Home Office decisions on asylum claims, whether in the first-tier tribunal or the IIAA. Only with that data can we effectively scrutinise the impacts of the changes introduced by the Bill. I therefore ask the Minister to guarantee the regular publication of that data to ensure proper scrutiny by Parliament.
This was a probing new clause. I am pleased that the Minister is addressing the issues that underly it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy, as announced in the “Protecting What Matters” social cohesion plan, and to address in the strategy the impacts of the core protection model on integration. In June, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee noted “with disappointment that no strategy for integration in England was written following the publication of Indicators for Integration.” The Committee said: “We welcome the commitment to develop an effective cross-government integration strategy but are concerned that the lack of date of publication means that the issue is being kicked into the long grass.”<span id="509" class="column-number" data-column-number="509"></span> It is necessary for the Government to offer greater clarity on their work to develop a cross-governmental strategy that assesses the impact on integration of the core protection model introduced by the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that having to renew asylum status every two and a half years could jeopardise employment opportunities and be detrimental to the education and integration of asylum seekers. We need to ensure that the state allows those with a legitimate claim to be here the best possible chance to thrive. In particular, refugees are often especially vulnerable upon arrival. It is crucial that they are properly supported to recover, build a new life and become productive members of society as quickly as possible. The Home Office must work with local authorities and the charitable sector to provide refugees with robust support networks. New clause 17 would require the Secretary of State to publish an integration strategy outlining the support that will be put in place for those who are most vulnerable. Can the Minister tell the Committee when the proposed and promised report will be published?
This was a probing new clause. Although the Minister’s response has given me some comfort, I wish that we could have a backstop date for when the report will be published. Otherwise, there is a danger that it is promised but never comes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 18 Break Clause: Asylum Accommodation Contracts “(1) The Secretary of State must exercise the break clauses available under each Asylum Accommodation and Support Service Contract as soon as is reasonably practicable. (2) In this section, ‘Asylum Accommodation and Support Services Contract’ means any contract entered into by the Secretary of State for the provision of asylum accommodation and support services.”—<em>(Mr Kohler.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise the break clause available under each Asylum Accommodation and Support Services Contract at the earliest opportunity.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to exercise the break clause available under each asylum accommodation and support services contract as soon as possible. The use of hotels is one of the most objectionable issues for many people in this country, as was mentioned earlier in today’s proceedings. Contingency hotel suppliers <span id="511" class="column-number" data-column-number="511"></span>receive an average of £145 per person per night at the expense of the taxpayer—it is quite outrageous. Many hotel rooms have three or four asylum seekers in them, so providers make £500 or £600 per night for each room. The ballooning costs come because of Home Office inefficiencies in processing asylum cases and inadequacy in negotiating the initial contract. The Liberal Democrats want to temporarily open Nightingale processing centres and double the number of asylum case workers to clear the asylum application backlog. That would cost a fraction of the £2.1 billion spent on hotel accommodation in the year to March 2025. The Home Office tells us and we have heard in today’s Committee that it is reducing dependence on hotels. However, its progress has been stalling of late. Recent data shows an 8% increase in hotel usage, undermining official claims that reliance on this accommodation is successfully being phased out. All that is against the backdrop that costs to the Home Office for asylum accommodation contracts are estimated to triple in the 10 years from 2019 to 2029, from less than £5 billion to more than £15 billion. We have tabled new clause 18 to try to require the Secretary of State to exercise the break clause available under each asylum accommodation and support services contract. The power to terminate contracts without penalty is now exercisable and includes a nine-month notice period, so it will not come in overnight. Why does the Home Secretary not trigger this clause and begin moving asylum seekers immediately? Will the Minister clarify when the break clause will be exercised and how long British taxpayers will have to foot this unacceptably high Bill?
One problem is that under the contracts the providers are incentivised to spend money. They have no great incentive to move out of hotels because they make so much more money from hotels. That is why we really need to focus their minds, and the Home Office’s mind, on getting out of those hotels. I fear that just leaving it to the providers to find other forms of dispersal accommodation will not really encourage them enough to get out of contingency accommodation from which they make so much more money.
I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment or how hard the task is. The new clause was a probing amendment. I would only say in passing that when the new contracts are negotiated, please do not offer the private sector cost-plus contracts, which just encourage them to spend money. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. The new clause would require the Government to open negotiations with the European Union on UK participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact. Dangerous small boat crossings were sporadic and rare before Brexit. In diverging from European immigration policy, we have weakened our ability to deal with this crisis. We removed the deterrent of collective enforcement and lost access to the Eurodac biometric database. Being outside the EU is the single biggest pull factor driving this crisis. Failed asylum seekers in the EU know that the UK is a second bite at the cherry, because without access to the EU’s biometric database, we have no idea who they are or whether they have already been refused asylum by our neighbours. Without a watertight returns agreement, we have no way to send asylum seekers back to the safe countries they passed through before arriving in the UK. A report by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford found that, in interviews, migrants in northern France often cite the departure from the Dublin accord as a reason for wanting to seek asylum in the UK, particularly if they have already been refused protection in the EU. Chris Philp admitted in a leaked audio recording that just before the Conservative Government exited the EU transitional arrangements, his Conservative colleagues realised that Brexit meant losing the Dublin agreement—
I apologise. The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) said that they realised they could no longer “rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”. In spite of the Home Secretary’s statements to the contrary in the recent Home Affairs Committee evidence session, the Prime Minister was quoted in <em>The Times</em> as saying “the small boats crisis has arisen in the last 10 years because we lost that returns agreement”. There seems to be a belated admission—in No. 10, at least, if not in the Home Office—that Brexit has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration to this country. We cannot continue to be on the outside looking in. The security needs of our border demand closer alignment with Europe. The Home Secretary has signalled her desire to negotiate access to the Eurodac database, and we are asking the Government to go further in working with our European neighbours by joining the migration and asylum pact. Our new clause would mandate negotiations to join the pact, so that we can share the benefits of European collaboration on immigration. Although Border Force <span id="466" class="column-number" data-column-number="466"></span>has had some success in reducing dangerous crossings, there will always be a market for criminal gangs to exploit unless we join the EU’s comprehensive framework. Does the Minister acknowledge the potential for the migration and asylum pact to deliver more effective border security, or was the Prime Minister wrong to draw attention to the negative impacts of Brexit?
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answer. Does she know whether the migration pact will be discussed in the forthcoming summit with the EU?
I am saddened by the responses from both the Minister and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, who do not see that this is a collective problem that we must work on collectively to address. Beginning negotiations would help us to start that process and to not sit in isolation, as we do now. I will <span id="469" class="column-number" data-column-number="469"></span>press the new clause to a vote, because it is important to make it clear that we think the Government should be negotiating with the EU. The Prime Minister says that he wants to negotiate on many issues. This is a particularly important issue and, let us remember, one that was caused by Brexit, as the Prime Minister has admitted. It is also one that can be solved by closer collaboration with Europe.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.<span id="470" class="column-number" data-column-number="470"></span> I was grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the previous new clause, even though she did not agree with me. I hope new clause 7 will help her to address the evidential issues she referred to and examine whether entering the pact would be more sensible for the UK. The new clause would require the Government to conduct an annual cost-benefit analysis of the UK’s bilateral immigration and asylum agreements and arrangements. The assessment would consider the costs and outcomes of each arrangement against the cost of the UK’s participation in the EU’s migration and asylum pact.
I think we all believe in evidence-based policy making, and we need to do things such as cost-benefit analysis. To argue that one cannot do a cost-benefit analysis before making any policy change is not a solution; it ends up meaning that we just guess. We have to actually plan policy.
We are talking about civil servants doing a cost-benefit analysis as part of their role. To suddenly say that that is a huge expense, and therefore that we cannot examine policy changes, is a strange argument.
Of course, that is true. We have to move forward; making debating points when these are important issues is not the way forward.
That is an excellent idea. I am, of course, willing to go along with the Government on such a compromise—I thank the hon. Member.
Yes—we are going to be here a long time.
The hon. Member is simply repeating herself and taking party political positions. The Bill has many policy positions and clauses without cost-benefit analyses. The Liberal Democrats believe in evidence-based politics. I realise that Labour Members simply like to take positions that look good to the red wall, but we are actually trying to move things forward.
We are trying to push forward a cost-benefit analysis. As I said in my first intervention in this Committee, we do not use Committee stage well when we sit like this—pretending we are in the Chamber—and get into party political arguments with each other. The House should address how we use Committee. We should sit as a Committee, discuss things and really enter into line-by-line scrutiny. I have covered that before, so I will not bore the hon. Lady with it any more. I have now utterly forgotten where I had got to, so I will start again. In fact, I had not yet said this bit, and it will goad the official Opposition even more, I suspect: the Liberal Democrats enjoy talking about the European Union. We make no secret of the fact that closer relations with the bloc would go a long way to resolving the small boats crisis and illegal immigration. However, it should not be a question of ideology or party political posturing; it must be a question of what works and how much it costs. The Government talk about reducing pull factors for migrants, but they seem unwilling to face the realities. Ensuring a coherent international approach to irregular migration is the single most powerful weapon that the Government could utilise to reduce the pull factor. I suspect that Government Members secretly agree with that. I understand the Minister’s reticence about new clause 6, but understanding the costs of joining the migration and asylum pact would enable us to do a value-for-money comparison with the current bilateral deals that the Government have made and are negotiating.
I will start with one: since Brexit, the Government have spent more than £1 billion on the agreement with France. We do not yet know the costs of intelligence sharing with Belgium, so I cannot give an answer on that. However, those deals fail to recognise that people who seek asylum are desperate. Sadly, making the French coast a more difficult place from which to embark pushes asylum seekers towards longer, more dangerous routes. Small boat departures from Belgium <span id="472" class="column-number" data-column-number="472"></span>used to be rare, but that has changed since the start of 2026. There were 32 attempts to launch small boats from Belgium between January and April of this year, of which five were prevented. In comparison, there were just two launch attempts in the whole of 2025. We believe that agreeing a deal with the entire bloc would be more effective in preventing dangerous small boat crossings, by implementing a deterrent that encompasses all of Europe. I take the Minister’s point, however. We do need some evidence, which is why the Liberal Democrats suggest a cost-benefit analysis. New clause 7 calls on the Home Secretary to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of bilateral arrangements, to compare their costs with the estimated costs of joining the pact. Does the Minister acknowledge the benefits that that information could yield? Hon. Members have shown that they are interested in the answer, so let us give them the answer. I would like to hear what the Minister thinks.
Does the Minister know how many migrants were sent back under the one in, one out deal?
Does that not show that these bilateral arrangements are not sufficient and we need a collective approach? That deal cost a lot of money, but not many people went back via that route. We need to take a collective approach to this issue, because the problem is shared across Europe.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire was surprised that I want to rejoin the EU. Has he not been listening?
Was it ironic?
The Dublin accord—our previous arrangement, when we were in the EU—was a success. As the right hon. Member for Croydon South made clear, the previous Conservative Government did not realise until the last moment the problems that would be caused by no longer being in the Dublin accord after Brexit. The Minister is right to say the accord’s successor is only just starting—I understand that—but at some point we must make a decision on whether to join it. A cost-benefit analysis would surely be useful. We will again press the new clause to a vote. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would establish a new Department for immigration and border security, transferring the immigration, asylum and border security functions of the Home Secretary to that office. The Home Office is a large organisation, and its functions are various: immigration and borders, passports and security, counter-terrorism and homeland security, policing and crime, drugs and alcohol policy, and public protection. Serious questions must be asked about the capacity of any single Department to handle all those responsibilities. Those concerns manifest when Department inefficiencies become clear. The average wait time for an asylum decision has come down substantially since Labour took office, but over a quarter of cases still take more than a year to process.
As I have said, we believe that the Home Office is too large and cannot focus on all things for which it is responsible. I ask the hon. Lady to consider the disaster of asylum hotels. Why was that a disaster? Because the Home Office was not concentrating on that particular issue. It signed contracts that made millions for businessmen but did not help asylum seekers at all.
But that mistake was made because the attention of the Home Office was diverted to other issues at the time. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> The hon. Member looks at me quizzically, but a mistake was made. Yes, the Government have started to solve that mistake, but asylum hotel numbers went up by 8% last year, so the idea that they have just gone down and down is not accurate. The new clause would create a new Government Department that could put its entire focus on effective immigration policy. It would produce an annual immigration plan—subject to scrutiny and a vote in Parliament—setting out how the Government will deliver a fair, controlled and effective system. It would also work across Government to develop long-term workforce plans for public services and critical national infrastructure, ensuring that migration policy is designed in tandem with investment, domestic skills and training, to strengthen our services. This plan would ensure that British people and services finally get a system built to work for them—a system based on evidence that works across Government and different sectors to deliver better public services and a growing economy.
I am, for my many sins, a member of the Home Affairs Committee. Time and again, we see that the Home Office does not have the bandwidth to deal with every issue that it has to confront. I am still bemused by the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire that, because the Home Office is now beginning to solve one of the problems it caused for itself, that somehow proves that it does not make mistakes. It makes mistakes because it does not have the bandwidth. The Home Office signed asylum contracts it did not even read, which incentivised providers to spend money, and surprise, surprise, the providers did spend money. Why did the Home Office make that mistake? Because it was not focusing on that issue at the time—it does not have the bandwidth. As the Minister anticipated, the new clause is a probing amendment. We will not be pushing it to a vote. However, I am sure that I am not telling too much of a secret by saying that I suspect the Home Affairs Committee will be addressing issues such as this in the not-too-distant future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 9 Refugees: Anti-Homelessness Taskforce “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a taskforce (‘the Taskforce’) to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.<span id="481" class="column-number" data-column-number="481"></span> (2) The purpose of the Taskforce is the elimination of homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees in the United Kingdom. (3) The Taskforce must include representatives of— (a) the Home Office; (b) the Department for Work and Pensions; (c) local authorities; (d) non-governmental organisations with experience of or expertise in working with and supporting asylum seekers; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) For the purposes of seeking to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees, the Taskforce must— (a) work to ensure that the work of different services involved in facilitating the transition out of asylum support of asylum seekers and refugees is coordinated; (b) work to ensure that asylum seekers and refugees granted core protection status are promptly provided with essential documents; (c) develop and oversee arrangements for the early identification of persons at risk of homelessness following the grant of protection status; and (d) keep under review the appropriateness of the length of the period during which a person may occupy asylum accommodation following a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection (‘the move-on period’), including by considering evidence on the extent to which persons are successfully moving into work and settled accommodation within that period. (5) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after the establishment of the Taskforce, and annually thereafter, lay before Parliament a report on— (a) the work of the Taskforce; (b) the evidence considered under subsection (4)(d) on the move-on period, and any recommendations made by the Taskforce; and (c) any changes made, or proposed to be made, to the move-on period or to related policy as a result of the work of the Taskforce. (6) In this section, ‘asylum accommodation’ means accommodation provided under sections 4, 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”—<em>(Mr Kohler.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce, whose stated aim is preventing homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First </em><em>time</em><em>.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a cross-departmental taskforce whose stated aim is to prevent homelessness among asylum seekers and refugees. The Prime Minister has, to his great and huge credit, made ending homelessness a priority, but why, then, is the Minister pursuing the measures in this Bill that contradict such a noble aim? We have already seen that the refugee tax and core protection introduction risk exacerbating the precarity experienced by refugees with settled status. In December 2024, the Government doubled the grace period refugees were given to move out of Home Office accommodation to 56 days. They did that, as they stated at the time, to provide refugees with more time to find alternative accommodation, reducing the risk of homelessness and putting pressure on overstretched <span id="482" class="column-number" data-column-number="482"></span>council housing services. The Home Office has now reduced the grace period to 42 days, which would increase such pressures. The longer move-on period was shown to be effective. According to the Refugee Council, an estimated 1,000 refugee households in England avoided homelessness in 2025 thanks to the increased time they had to begin rebuilding their lives in the UK. I am concerned that a reduction in move-on time would lead to increased refugee homelessness, and I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has seen any data on refugee homelessness levels since that reduction in the grace period. The issue of a shorter move-on period is compounded by systemic issues identified by the Refugee Council. Those include refugees receiving documentation in stages instead of all at once, delayed access to e-visas, local authority uncertainty on refugee entitlements and challenges of low digital literacy. Those challenges require a tailored approach, which is why our new clause would establish a taskforce to combat refugee homelessness. It would be responsible for co-ordinating the different services, moving people out of asylum support, ensuring that people who are granted refugee status get their essential documents promptly, identifying those at the greatest risk of homelessness and monitoring the impact of changes to the move-on period. Asylum has become a politically charged issue, but we cannot lose sight of our obligations to those fleeing war and persecution. We must ensure that move-on initiatives deliver. The National Centre for Social Research found that constraints of systemic housing shortages and the concurrent roll-out of e-visas were holding us back. It made recommendations that included restoring the move-on period to 56 days, better data sharing and strengthening the support on offer. It would be within our taskforce’s remit to ensure that those recommendations are properly implemented. Having a body dedicated to protecting homeless asylum seekers is a way to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities and action those recommendations.
On my specific question, though, has the Home Office studied whether the move from 56 days to 42 days made the situation of homelessness worse for those granted refugee status?
I thank the Minister for her answer. On the basis of her assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. <em>Clause, by leave, withdrawn.</em> New Clause 10 Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes to the immigration rules for the purposes of making provision for asylum applicants to take up employment while their application is being determined where it has been over three months since the application was made and no decision has been made. (2) For the purposes of this section, the ‘immigration rules’ mean any statement of rules, or any changes to such rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—<em>(Mr Kohler.)</em> <em>This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to enable asylum seekers to take up employment, if it has been over three months since they applied.</em> <em>Brought up, and read the First time.</em>
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Our proposal to allow refugees to begin working after three months waiting for a decision would generate five times more revenue than the misguided debt levied on asylum seekers by earlier provisions in the Bill. It would have an instantaneous effect and generate a much more positive financial outcome than that immiserating proposal, both for the Home Office budget, which is under strain from the ballooning asylum bill, and for the Treasury’s tax receipts. In 2022, the Labour party acknowledged that the current 12-month waiting period should be halved, yet the Government refuse to pursue this common-sense policy. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has modelled the macroeconomic effects of lifting the ban. According to it, allowing those who have been waiting more than six months for a decision to work would save the Government £4.4 billion a year, increase tax revenue by £800 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Time spent being prevented from working has a scarring effect on refugees’ future likelihood of being in work. These effects are well documented; the longer someone is out of a job, the harder it is for them to get one. A study of Swiss asylum seekers found that, for each year they are prevented from working, their future employment rate falls by 4 to 5 percentage points. Furthermore, preventing refugees from working only drives greater numbers of people towards the black economy. Instead of pursuing policies that improve prospects for asylum seekers, the current path serves only to increase state dependency and enrich criminality. We must remember that if this country works for refugees, refugees will work for this country. The argument that giving asylum seekers employment rights will encourage further illegal immigration is well worn but ultimately unsubstantiated. Available evidence suggests that employment rights play little to no role in people’s destination of choice, whereas factors such as language and familial relations are far more influential. The Government’s position is disputed by their own Migration Advisory Committee. Indeed, asylum seekers come here in spite of the fact that our working regulations are a complete outlier in comparison with other states. EU law requires access to work after six months at most, while Canada allows it immediately and the US after six months. Even Denmark, which is always held out as being quite hard-line on immigration issues and undocumented migrants, allows it after six months. A three-month limit would be in line with our allies and may incentivise the Home Office to improve the efficiency of its decision making.<span id="486" class="column-number" data-column-number="486"></span> Allowing refugees to work after three months would be worth £437 million per cohort, which is five times the cost that would be recovered with a £10,000 payment scheme. Importantly, the public support this measure. Lift the Ban research found that 71% of the public agreed that people seeking asylum should have the right to work. Ultimately, people who work while they wait for an asylum decision are more ready to support themselves when they get status. This is good for the taxpayer, good for the asylum seeker and good for the country.
I am saddened that the Minister will not move on that point. The Labour party, when out of power, supported this proposal. As my party knows, supporting something when out of power, but not when in power, is not a good message to send to the electorate. The dignity of labour is important, and work is important to the ability to integrate into the community. The new clause would also make money for the Treasury. Why is work a pull factor for the UK but not for every other country? Why are we such an outlier? No answer has been given. The existing policy simply excludes migrants from society. It makes them vulnerable to the black economy and the criminals who frequent it, and simply does nothing to improve the lives of people, many of whom will be granted asylum. I am saddened—as I suspect are many Labour Members in their hearts—that the Government will not concede the point. <em>Question put, </em>That the clause be read a Second time.
After years of government chaos and failure we can only end the brutal cost of living crisis and fix our broken public services if we get the economy growing. We need a real growth plan with Europe at its heart, so Labour must fix the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal by joining the single market, negotiating a new customs union and using the billions of pounds that that raises to cut people’s taxes and bills.