Blake Stephenson

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 349

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Budget Resolutions

   “What incentive is there for hard-working families and young entrepreneurs to remain in Britain after this Budget?” That is the question that a constituent put to me at a community meeting I held in Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire last week. Let me start with what I think is the main test that really matters for any Budget: will it make my constituents richer in five years’ time than they are today? Having listened to the Chancellor and the reaction over the weekend, I am afraid that the answer is no. There is simply no confidence whatsoever that this Budget will deliver growth in their postcodes, and it certainly does not give hope in their hearts. Given that the Prime Minister is extremely comfortable looking to the past, whether it is to the 1970s or 2016, but not to the future, I did a little reflecting myself over the weekend. It is fitting that we debate this Budget 40 years on from the big bang in 1986, when regulations that were strangling our economy were swept away, making London into the powerhouse of global finance that it remains today, opening the City of London to the world and delivering prosperity here at home. The courage of that decision in 1986 benefited every corner of Britain, delivering more jobs, investment and tax revenues that paid for schools, hospitals and public services.<span id="647" class="column-number" data-column-number="647"></span> During my 15 years in the City before coming to this place, I saw at first hand how EU regulations after the credit crunch steadily ratcheted up costs and de-risked our entire economy. The courage and ambition of 1986 have slowly given way to the caution and complexity of 2026. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is right to say that Britain needs a new economic revolution even bigger than the big bang. Where are we today? The OBR says that the tax burden will reach a record 38.6% of GDP. The Budget raises tax on savings and rental income—again. It doubles the bank surcharge and leaves Labour’s damaging jobs tax untouched. After Labour’s first Budget, I told the House that it was “a job-cutting Budget”. Some 1.7 million people older than 16 are now unemployed—up by 276,000 under this Government—and vacancies are at their lowest level since 2014. Last year, about 136,000 more British nationals left the country than came home, with two thirds of them under the age of 35. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor may have changed, but this Budget makes it clear that Labour has not. It is still picking the pockets of working people to pay for welfare. That was plain to hear this weekend, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury redefined working people to exclude employees. It may be a new team at the Dispatch Box, but their contempt for British business and British business owners in this Budget is as strong as ever.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   This group is about transparency, as the hon. Member for Wimbledon has just explained. New clause 14 would provide for regular statistics on asylum appeals, and new clause 22 for a report on decision making. If Committee members care—or dare—to cast their minds back a few weeks, we Conservatives pressed for appeals statistics under clause 3, so we have some sympathy for both new clauses. Amendment 62, however, would stop the new appeals body starting until the report is laid, which I fear is a delaying tactic. We cannot support it. New clause 57, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asks for the figure that matters most: how many people have been removed every month after failed asylum claims, as well as when they arrived and why they were removed. Monthly figures linked to date of arrival would allow the House to see whether refusal leads to removal. If removals are rising, the Government can of course take credit for it. If not, Parliament can use that data to hold the Government to account. Will the Government publish monthly figures on removals of failed asylum seekers, with their date of arrival? How many people whose claims and appeals have been finally refused are living in the UK today? I commend new clause 57, which I intend to push to a vote, to the Committee.

   Hansard source
3. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 15 would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to prevent information about people identified as potential victims of modern slavery from being shared for the purposes of immigration enforcement or removal. We oppose it. The Conservatives’ borders plan to remove every year 150,000 people who have no right to be here, and to deport all foreign criminals, relies on the Home Office knowing who they are. A legal firewall, as has been proposed, around one of the main routes by which people come to the attention of the authorities would obstruct that. It would also invite abuse. The Committee has heard how modern slavery referrals have been made late in the process, after detention and removal directions, in order to delay removal. New clause 15 would make a referral not just a source of delay but a shield from enforcement altogether. Genuine victims deserve protection, and the referral process exists to provide it. However, being referred should not make someone invisible to the immigration system. We fear that the new clause would facilitate <span id="504" class="column-number" data-column-number="504"></span>that. What proportion of referrals in the past year were made after the person had been detained or served with removal directions?

   Hansard source
4. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 16 would require the Government to set a deadline and a road map for implementing their own immigration White Paper of May 2025, including the rules on settlement—that has come up in previous sittings of this Committee. Unusually—I do not say this very often—I find myself with some sympathy for the Liberal Democrats in relation to this particular clause. I emphasise that I will not say that too often. The White Paper promised earned settlement and a 10-year route, but by my calculation we are 17 months on and only one element—a higher English requirement—has been pursued. It is worth noting that the Government’s weakening of that testing requirement will render it practically pointless. In March, the Home Secretary said that she would change the law in the autumn. On Thursday, the Minister told the Committee that the Government’s approach to settlement is “currently undergoing a lot of discussion”.<span id="vol_col338" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="338" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="518D7475-F5E1-495D-84F4-12471A7EB7B7"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>22 October 2026; c. 338.]</span> We heard earlier a reference to the “media frenzy”. That is not delivery. Our new clause 49 would put a 10-year qualifying period into law today. Our borders plan goes further still, but whatever our differences on the content, the public are entitled to know when the Government’s promises will be kept. I ask the Minister again: when will the earned settlement rules be laid before Parliament?

   Hansard source
5. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 18 would require the Government to exercise the break clause in the asylum accommodation contract as soon as reasonably practicable. As we just heard, the public’s anger about hotels and their costs is entirely justified; £2.1 billion was spent on hotels in 2024-25 alone. The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made the case for triggering the break clause, but breaking the contract does not by itself reduce the number of people who need accommodating. Demand must be reduced at source. Basically, fewer people in the system would mean fewer beds needed. I know that the Government are planning to reduce dependency on hotels, but I ask the Minister: how many hotels are in use today? How many people are in them, and what is the daily cost? When will the last one close? Have the Government assessed the cost of exercising the break clause under new clause 18?

   Hansard source
6. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   New clause 19 would create what is sometimes called, as the hon. Member just called it, a humanitarian travel permit: a free visa with at least six months’ leave for anyone, anywhere in the world, who intends to claim asylum in the UK and has a realistic prospect of success. That would potentially open up access a huge number of claimants and we oppose it. The new clause would create an uncapped route to come here to claim asylum with no limit on the numbers and no fee. The judgment of a “realistic prospect of success” would itself generate applications, reviews and litigation. Safe and legal routes should be decided by Parliament, capped, and targeted at those we choose to help. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government will not introduce such a scheme.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   The new clause would require legislation within six months to secure full compliance with the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and we oppose it. The shadow Attorney General conducted a review for our party and concluded that withdrawing from the trafficking convention and amending the Modern Slavery Act would be prudent, because modern slavery claims—sometimes genuine, but too often not—have become one of the main ways of delaying removal and deportation, including of foreign criminals.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   Part 5 of the Bill, which we support, tries to correct some of the ways the system has been stretched. New clause 21 would undo that by entrenching the convention more deeply into our domestic laws. It would make it harder, not easier, to remove people with no right to be here.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

   Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

   Again, I will attempt to be brief. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, new clause 23 would build a legal firewall so that personal information about victims, witnesses and people who report crime cannot be used for immigration purposes. To achieve our ambitions of removing 150,000 people a year who have no right to be here, the Home Office needs to know who and where they are. The police are one of the most important sources of that information. A blanket firewall, as has been described, would cut it off and apply whoever the person is and whatever their history.

   Hansard source
10. 29 Oct 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. New clause 6 would require the Government to start negotiations to join the EU pact on migration and asylum within three months. Committee Members should not be surprised to hear that the official Opposition oppose this new clause. The hon. Member for Wimbledon spoke at length about the returns agreement, but it is not simply a returns agreement. At its heart is a so-called solidarity mechanism, under which member states either accept asylum seekers relocated from other states or pay contributions instead. Joining it would mean the United Kingdom accepting people we did not choose, under rules we did not write, ultimately subject to the European Court of Justice. That is the opposite of taking back control. The Conservative borders plan takes a completely different approach. We would ban asylum claims by people who enter the country illegally and remove them within a week. We would seek returns agreements with countries of origin, backed by visa sanctions on those that refuse to take their nationals back, and we would support our allies in Europe to stop illegal entry with intelligence, policing and maritime resources. That is co-operation, and it does not require us to hand control of our asylum system to Brussels. The Liberal Democrats have shown clearly during this Committee that they are not capable of being serious about controlling immigration. They will say that the pact will let us return people to the EU, but the price is relocation quotas and EU jurisdiction, and the evidence from the pact so far is that returns between member states remain very limited indeed. I hope the Minister will confirm today that the Government have absolutely no intention of seeking to join the pact or its solidarity mechanism.

    Hansard source