Siân Berry

Party	Office	Area	Period	Began	Ended	Source
Green	MP	Brighton Pavilion	4 Jul 2024 – present	elected	—	Party history

Latest on this tracker 517

2 Nov 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Budget Resolutions
I cannot begin without congratulating the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali) on her speech. I know her constituency well, and she is a distinguished former colleague of mine on Camden council. I am here today to speak about council housing. The Government’s priorities are still not right on this issue, despite the Chancellor explicitly naming in his Budget speech the loss of more than 2 million council homes since the 1980s and the Prime Minister’s focus on rough sleeping. We have millions of people waiting in overcrowded homes, rented homes that they cannot afford and temporary accommodation that councils cannot afford. That goes well beyond a crisis. What have the Government given us in this Budget? We have new money, with £1.5 billion added to the pot for councils to bid on for affordable home building. In paragraph 5.4 of the Budget, the Chancellor says that that will help to build potentially 10,000 more real council homes over the next four years. That is not terrible, but in paragraph 5.5 in the same document we get £4.7 billion for the Government’s new version of the Help to Buy scheme. The Chancellor explains that that will support private, profit-making developers to sell an extra 20,000 new builds. I presume that is without expecting developers to cut their prices or profits—it is possible that they will increase them. I note that the Government plan to collect some small fees from the house builders, but I assume that they have been agreed with them. I also note that one impact of the previous Government’s Help to Buy scheme was to keep house prices rising out of many people’s reach and to boost profits and profit margins for developers, as the recent Government evaluation of the scheme concludes. Can Ministers tell us whether £4.7 billion for loans that they do not expect to be paid back for many years to support 20,000 extra private sales by developers really represents better short-term or long-term value for the public purse than £1.5 billion to enable 10,000 new build council homes? That is three times more funding out of the door for just twice as many new homes. Even under the Government’s broad house building target, is that really the best use of public money? It may not be that simple, so I ask the Government to give us their workings on these choices, especially if I am wrong in my assumptions. Can they commit to publishing, for comparison, the Green Book assumptions and appraisals for each of these investment decisions, and the time it takes for money to move out of their loan scheme and back into it? We need much more investment in real council housing. We need “buy the supply”—the funding of acquisitions. I cannot see why the Government are not putting together an equity loan scheme for councils to help them buy the supply, instead of going with another help to buy scheme, just as the last Conservative Government did.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
My new clause 22 asks for a report on decision making in relation to asylum applications. My amendment 62 is intended to prevent the Bill from being brought into force until the report set out in new clause 22 is published. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish a report on decision making in the asylum system. Making asylum decisions as efficiently as possible, so that they are right the first time, should be the main function of the asylum system. It is noteworthy that there is no mention in any of the Government’s asylum reforms of improving the quality of decisions. As we heard from a range of experts during oral and written evidence, poor-quality initial decisions have had a corrosive impact on the asylum system, adding to the number of people appealing on decisions—people who should and eventually will be granted status—and contributing to the overall costs of asylum support. In the 2025-26 financial year, 64% of appeals processed were either granted by the tribunal on appeal or withdrawn before they were heard by the court. The majority of withdrawals are done by the Home Office after reassessment of the initial decision. As the chief inspector’s report indicated earlier this year, the Home Office makes those withdrawals because it feels that it cannot defend its decisions on appeal. That issue deserves further consideration before the Bill comes into force. We have heard officials say that the tribunal grant rate has gone down. That may be true, but their point is undermined if that is a result solely of the withdrawal rate going up because the Home Office is withdrawing its most poorly made decisions before the tribunal can consider them. New clause 22 would provide the data to support or refute that case. The chief inspector’s report did a quality check on about 47 cases and found that decisions had been made using insufficient evidence in over 75% of them. If that number were repeated throughout the system, it would mean that a significant number of initial decisions need improvement. What does that mean in practice for the system as a whole? According to the Government’s statistics, at the end of March, 87,450 asylum appeals—relating to roughly 113,000 people—were outstanding. Based on those numbers, the Refugee Council has estimated that between 27,900 and 33,480 of those people will be housed in dispersal accommodation while waiting for an appeal that will end with them getting status. The Government are looking to close hotels and are opening military sites in response, but it would be well worth focusing on making better-quality decisions. That would significantly reduce the number of people who, because their initial decision was rejected when it should have resulted in a grant of protection, need to be housed in those divisive and often horrible types of asylum accommodation for longer than necessary. Crucially, that is not about giving status to more people but about ensuring that those who are going to get status get it earlier in the process. That is better for the refugee, the asylum system and the public. The new clause lays out what needs to be included in the Government’s report to better understand how the process is working and how the Government can better address this urgent issue. That should be the top priority, before we have any more asylum system reform. The Minister may be able to address some of those points now, including how the Government intend to deal with these issues. Given that the provision would have such a significant effect on the appeals backlog, I have also tabled amendment 62, which would prevent part 1 of the Bill from being implemented until the report has been published, so that any learning from the report could guide the development of the independent immigration appeals authority. Finally, given that other parts of the Bill, including part 4, respond to some of the consequences of poor-quality decision making—the backlog and the need for asylum support in the longer term before people are allowed to work—it is important that the Government prioritise fixing that problem. That must happen before they take the scythe that this Bill represents to the spirit—and, I believe, to the letter—of so many of our international obligations on human rights.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I have worked on new clause 23 with the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and a wide coalition of groups that support victims, survivors and refugees, who have long wanted to see the introduction of protections for safe reporting. That is what the new clause would do. My new clause is a wider safe reporting amendment than new clause 15, which Lib Dems colleagues spoke to earlier. It would solve a number of important problems because migrant victims of many crimes, not just modern slavery, trafficking and exploitation, but also domestic abuse and many kinds of violence against women and girls, avoid reporting them due to the fear of the police sharing their data with immigration authorities. This problem limits and deters access to other statutory services for victims and survivors, including to GPs and social services. That needs looking at. We know that perpetrators and exploiters weaponise immigration status and immigration policy as a tool for coercive control, deterring reporting. Victims with insecure immigration status already fear the police will not support them, so when data sharing occurs, the fear is reinforced, which further harms trust in the police and compromises the rights set out in the victims code. Statutory independent watchdogs say that police data sharing causes significant public harm. It also obstructs the police’s own wider efforts to tackle modern slavery and violence against women and girls, if people do not report it. It increases the risk to all women and girls if perpetrators are left in the community. As we have discussed, the Bill already creates new fears that people may be targeted for immigration enforcement and increases the fear that people will not be treated fairly. We need to do something to mitigate the weakening of the protections for victims of abuse and exploitation in the Bill; now is the ideal time to introduce the safe reporting provision outlined in new clause 23. The principle at stake here is that no one should have to choose between remaining in an abusive or exploitative situation and risking immigration enforcement by seeking safety and support. It is important to note that a safe reporting mechanism—a firewall between authorities—is not an amnesty. It is not an immigration route in itself; it is simply an extension of people’s privacy rights. It is a safeguard designed to ensure that reporting crime and seeking protection do not, in and of themselves, trigger immigration enforcement. The police should not have to be involved in this work. Earlier, we discussed the separation of duties that needs to happen within the Home Office, and the sharing of data that occurs is a symptom of the mixing-up of security and immigration policy that currently happens in too many ways in the Home Office. The police should be able to focus on their job of investigating serious crime, protecting public safety and protecting victims of crime; immigration enforcement should be completely separate. As such, my new clause would introduce a firewall within the Department—a separation between the police and other statutory services and immigration enforcement, so that migrant victims can safely report crimes against them. There are successful international examples of safe reporting mechanisms, such as in Spain and Belgium. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has also recently implemented a safe reporting mechanism. Victims in England and Wales should receive the same level of protection. If victims do not report crimes, the police may lose access to evidence, intelligence and opportunities to protect victims and investigate perpetrators. Furthermore, it creates an environment in which the perpetrators of serious crimes feel they can act with impunity and continue their abuse. With a firewall such as the one in my new clause in place, the police would still be able to investigate crimes, protect the public and ensure that victims can come forward safely. It would enable them to build trust with communities and focus on their main job. That is one reason why safe reporting mechanisms have been supported for a long time by specialist violence against women and girls, anti-trafficking and migrant organisations. It is also one reason why the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy admits: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future”, and promises that “this Government will introduce a requirement for police to seek a domestic abuse victim’s consent before sharing their information with Immigration Enforcement.” That is some progress, but the proposed consent-based model set out in that strategy will not work in practice to prevent migrant victims. It is limited to domestic abuse alone and does not cover the wider crimes associated with uncertain migration status, and it fails to recognise the power imbalance, lack of clarity and lack of safeguards that would come with what has been promised. We need wider safe reporting protection for these kinds of victims, and I hope the Government will look at this issue again. I hope they will listen to the groups that asked me to table the new clause, and could help to tell Ministers the real impact of the policy on the victims and survivors they represent. I hope the Government will also talk among themselves—that they will talk to everybody involved in the violence against women and girls strategy, who can hopefully persuade the Home Office to relent on this matter.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
The Minister says that solving crimes and immigration are linked, but the way they are linked in the logic of the new clause and in the logic of current data sharing means—I think the police would agree—that immigration threats hamper crime investigation. Does the Minister not see that?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Another key part of the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy is that it offers protection only to victims. Will the Government look again at considering the inclusion of witnesses as well?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
I thank the Minister for her answers. I do not think she has really dealt with the issues at hand, particularly in respect of witnesses and the idea that the provision would be a one-way firewall and therefore not open to any kind of abuse. However, I am happy to withdraw the new clause and continue the discussion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 24 Right to work for asylum applicants where decisions not made within six months “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make such changes to the Immigration Rules as may be necessary for the purposes of granting a person making an application for asylum, and any adult dependants of that person, the right to work in the United Kingdom where— (a) a period of six months has elapsed from the day on which the person made an application for asylum, and (b) the Secretary of State has not made a decision on the person’s application. (2) A grant of the right to work under subsection (1) must— (a) be granted without the need for an application by the person making the application for asylum or an adult dependant of that person; (b) permit the person to take up employment or self-employment without restriction on occupation, skill level or salary; (c) be on terms no less favourable than those that would apply to a person granted refugee status in the United Kingdom; (d) persist until— (i) the person’s claim has been finally determined, or until any right of appeal has been exhausted, or (ii) the person otherwise ceases to be an applicant for asylum or an adult dependant of such a person; and (e) be capable of being evidenced by documentation or a digital status which can be relied upon by an employer for the purposes of a right to work check. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘the Immigration Rules’ mean rules laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”—(Siân Berry.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to grant applicants for asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work where a decision has not been made on their application within six months. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
It is a pleasure to have you overseeing proceedings this morning, Mr Stuart. I will abstain on new clause 8, but I absolutely appreciate the sentiments behind it. I will not back it in full because the Green party has been thinking about this issue for some time, and we have our own alternative proposal. I will speak a little about the ways in which breaking up the Home Office—along the lines set out in new clause 8—would be a good idea. I refer in particular to the “No Way Home?” report, which was commissioned in June 2025 by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), and produced by Zoe Gardner, an independent researcher and campaigner on immigration and asylum policy. The report recommended that we make a new Department for population, infrastructure and immigration and a Department for community security from the Home Office. Previous Green party policy has used different names for those ideas—including in 2019, when we talked about creating a Ministry for sanctuary and a Ministry for the interior—but they follow the very same lines in splitting up the responsibilities. The “No Way Home?” report goes into more detail. It says in particular that cross-governmental work should be embedded in the remit of the new Departments, and that “A Department for Population, Infrastructure and Immigration” should be “taking on joint task forces with shared budgets with Department for Housing, Communities, and Local Government in order to ensure a long-term approach to the country’s population, workforce and infrastructure needs is built into the management of immigration policy.” On the other side, the new Department for policing and security matters—a “Department for Community Security”—should have “joint teams working across mental health, housing, homelessness and social services” to manage things such as addiction, rather than taking an enforcement approach to drug policy—allowing social services to deal with that—and ensuring that policing work is better integrated across the board with a preventive approach to crime. The report says: “The current remit of the Home Office does not include responsibility for long-term integration, infrastructure planning, and community cohesion”. Those are all issues that we have raised in this Committee as being harmed by the Bill, potentially because the Home Office is not tasked with being concerned about such harms. The report talks about the history of the Home Office as a Department, and how it has been “beset by repeated scandals”. Very famously, those have included the Windrush scandal, which emerged out of the policies of the former Prime Minister, now Baroness May of Maidenhead. Her hostile environment policies, which I think were enacted between 2012 and 2016, were “designed to make life unbearable in the UK for immigrants who were unable to prove their status”, and the Windrush scandal resulted. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” made it abundantly clear not only that the political direction set by the then Home Secretary but that the culture and internal structures at the Home Office were at fault for producing the crisis. Earlier, in 2006, a scandal emerged regarding the release of about 1,000 foreign national prisoners, which forced the resignation of the then Home Secretary, Charles Clarke. He was replaced by John Reid, who famously proceeded to describe the Department as “not fit for purpose”. We are nearing a consensus view on the issue, I believe, and the Department should be looking very closely at what it can do. The current work and remit of the Home Office “covers some of the most hotly politically contested areas”. I know that from my brief as my party’s spokesperson in the House on the Home Office and the Justice Department—we are constantly in the news on these issues. Every change is fought over in the public arena, because these are some of the most salient issues of the day. It is no wonder that “the role of Home Secretary is often viewed as a poisoned chalice.” Ministers—in the room today and more widely—might be interested in a more focused remit if they are to take on these responsibilities in future. Despite repeated attempts at reform, “the Home Office has continued to exhibit deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems in its management of the immigration brief, in particular…As a result, a growing number of voices from across the political spectrum have begun to call for an exploration of options for more radical reform. In most cases, the conclusion is that the Department should be split,” with immigration moved into a more dedicated department. The report concludes: “The remit of the Department itself contributes to negative outcomes by linking immigration with security, but neither immigration nor security with community cohesion, infrastructure, or the country’s economic needs”. It says: “The time is ripe for root and branch reform, and only a full break up and redistribution of the responsibilities of the Department has the potential to solve all the problems”. I hope that Ministers will look at that in the future, and that this new clause nevertheless stimulates some discussions in Cabinet and with the Prime Minister about how to improve those deep-seated problems and scandals and avoid them in future.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
The right to work does not impact only those seeking sanctuary; the impact also falls on their children and on communities. Giving people seeking sanctuary the right to work—or, rather, restoring their agency—is a matter of basic dignity and human rights. People who have fled war or persecution should have the opportunity to rebuild their lives in the UK with dignity and independence. That means that they need a safe place to live, access to support and a genuine right to work, as set out in new clause 24. It is important to stress that this debate is about restoring choice and agency to people seeking sanctuary, not imposing new requirements on those who are not ready or able to work. As it stands, the law permits a person seeking asylum to request permission to work if they have been waiting more than 12 months for a Home Office decision on their asylum claim through no fault of their own. That may be 12 months after they initially claimed asylum or 12 months after they made further submissions, which are then considered as a fresh claim. It has been more than two decades since those seeking asylum could apply to work after six months. People repeatedly raise the issue of enforced worklessness while claims are processed. My new clause 24 would simply restore the previous time limit and match the Home Office’s own targets for decision making. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 10 would grant the right to work at three months, which is also perfectly reasonable. New clause 24 goes into more detail about how the proposal should be implemented. It states that the right should be automatic, without the need for an application, and that there should be no restrictions on the type of employment. It also states when the right should end, if a decision on the application is made one way or the other. More often than not, vulnerable people are left waiting for months, and often years, for a decision. For that entire period, however qualified and willing they are, they are not permitted to work. That is profoundly felt by people who arrive with real skills, a keen willingness to contribute and a desire to rebuild their lives. Instead, the current rules require them to survive on a small weekly allowance. They are unable to contribute, build a life and often even volunteer in their communities without navigating endless bureaucratic red tape. The most potent and poisonous rhetoric of the far right plays up the dependence that people are left in; it stokes conflict between people in the asylum system, who are denied the ability to earn, and others in society. Members can hear the voices I am referring to in their heads right now. There is absolutely no need to leave in place the restrictions that fuel that kind of rhetoric and racism, and that badly harm the acceptance and integration of refugees. Work can bring not only integration and community strength but genuine benefits to people fleeing war, trauma or oppression. That is because people seeking sanctuary in the UK are five to six times more likely than the general population to have mental health needs. A review of the impact of asylum processes on mental health found that policies restricting work contributed to psychological distress and social exclusion. The mental health cost of robbing vulnerable groups of the ability to exercise their agency and provide for themselves and their loved ones is far too high. Many people seeking asylum in the UK and elsewhere are living with trauma. That contributes to their poor mental health. They might also be recovering from illness or caring for family members. It is important that a humane and just system recognises the structural barriers to finding work that many of these people will face. We must recognise that some people will want to work immediately, while others may need time and support to rebuild their lives. Therefore, my new clause is set out as a right to work. If the Government make any moves in this direction, they must refrain from making it a mandate to work. Despite the clear and mounting evidence in favour of the right to work, successive UK Governments have closed their minds to the idea and refused to implement it. The usual response, which has already been aired in this debate, is that permitting work sooner risks acting as a pull factor to further migration, but that does not hold water given the evidence. The UK maintains one of the strictest systems in Europe concerning the right to work for people seeking asylum. The international evidence is unequivocal and the difference in waiting times across comparable countries is enlightening. In 2018, Ireland opted in to the recast EU reception conditions directive and allowed work after nine months. That was subsequently reduced to six months in 2021. Comparable countries in Europe have far more lenient policies on the right to work. In Germany, it is granted after three months, with the only restriction being on self-employment. There is a similar policy after 60 days in Greece. In Italy the period is two months, in Spain it is six months, in Belgium it is four months, and in Denmark it is six months—all with no restrictions. In Sweden someone can apply to work immediately in limited sectors, and in France there are restricted types of work that someone can do after six months. All this is evidence that an alternative can be imagined that is intensely practical, would not have the knock-on effects that other parties have suggested, and can work. Alongside the moral arguments, there is a strong economic angle to be considered. The Lift the Ban coalition, which has already been quoted in this debate, estimates that lifting the ban could save the Treasury over £280 million per year, and recent research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that lifting the ban after six months could save the Government a total of £4.4 billion per year, increase tax revenue by £880 million and add £1 billion to GDP. Restricting access to legal work inevitably increases the risk of exploitation. When people are prevented from supporting themselves lawfully, they can be pushed towards unsafe and illegal forms of work. Granting people the right to work therefore extends itself to protecting vulnerable people from further exploitation and abuse, and extends the ability to maintain community cohesion and safety. In my view, though, the greatest cost of the current policy is the human cost—years of wasted potential, lost independence and lives left on hold while awaiting a decision. The Government should heed the approach taken by much of mainland Europe already and accept these amendments.
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
On a point of order, Mr Stuart. I did not withdraw new clause 24. Am I allowed to press it to a vote?
Hansard source
29 Oct 2026ParliamentSiân Berry
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Of course! New Clause 11 Refugee family reunion “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six 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 refugee family reunion in accordance with this section. (2) Any changes to the immigration rules included in any statement laid before Parliament under subsection (1) must come into effect after 21 days. (3) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (4) A statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. (5) In 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; ‘refugee status’ and ‘humanitarian protection’ have the same meaning as in the immigration rules; ‘family members’ include— (a) a person's parent, including an adoptive parent; (b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; (c) a person's child, including an adopted child, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; (d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but who was under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to— (i) the importance of maintaining family unity, (ii) the best interests of a child, read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (iii) physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person, (iv) risks to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; ‘adopted’ and ‘adoptive’ refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules.” —(Tom Gordon.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. Brought up, and read the First time.
Hansard source

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Latest on this tracker 517

Budget Resolutions

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Thirteenth sitting)