Siân Berry MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Could you come back to us on that? I am sure that there is analysis within the agency on that score. Helen Rance: Yes, I can come back with some written evidence on that.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You look at the origins of the crimes, though, and the market that the criminals are exploiting. Helen Rance: Sorry, I do not completely understand the question; could you phrase that again?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The criminals are exploiting a market by acting in a criminal fashion. That market is potential asylum seekers—many of whom, as we heard from the previous panel, have a legitimate claim to be here. Do you know when and why demand occurred for that kind of journey, which the criminals exploit? Helen Rance: No; I do not have the figures on when that increased.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q To clarify, you say that the criminal investigation of the gangs is not in scope of the Bill. You have been asked to come today to testify about the potential of the Bill to reduce demand, so I think it is completely legitimate for us to ask you about your agency’s analysis of the roots of that demand. The question of the lack of safe routes to claim asylum is very pertinent; I would expect you to have a view on that, at least when it comes to the timeline of what you have noticed in response to previous Government changes. Helen Rance: That is not something that I was specifically anticipating answering questions about on this specific Bill around modern slavery and human trafficking.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q On the way in which many refugees seek to reach this country to make asylum claims, what analysis has your agency done of the factors that led to a market for organised immigration crime? When did that increase in demand occur? Helen Rance: I am not sure that law enforcement is necessarily the right agency to approach for that answer, because we do not deal with the asylum claims.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have some further questions to Vicky. In your observations, you do say that efficiency should not be pursued at the expense of “procedural fairness” but also of “access to protection and successful integration.” You also warn that the Bill could “undermine conditions that support successful integration for those ultimately recognised as refugees.” Could you outline how you think the Bill, in practice, will harm integration? Vicky Tennant: I would say the key area is the recovery of asylum support. We understand that what is envisaged is potentially up to £10,000 per person to be recovered. Imagine that a refugee has gone through a long and difficult set of experiences before arrival in the UK, and has then gone through the uncertainty of the asylum process, potentially for an extended period of time, where they are unable to work or to start the process of getting back on their feet. Then, just as they are getting into employment and starting to rebuild their lives, the prospect of having to repay a potentially large sum of money could impede that. That was the main element that we felt was relevant to integration. The article 8 point and the ability to reunite with family members is also relevant. Many times when talking to asylum seekers and refugees, I have seen the anguish, the disruption and the sense of something that is unfinished. Being reunited with family and able to restart family life is an element that is fairly fundamental to integration, from the perspective of not only the refugee, but the UK public and communities. We think that giving refugees the possibility to start afresh and moving them as quickly as possible into the integration journey is important, and we know that that is also one of the Government’s stated objectives.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Going back to the impact of the repayments, I think you said that people can make claims for asylum support only if they are destitute, but that someone could be in this country and claiming asylum without claiming asylum support—it is not for everybody, and you do not have to claim it. That means there will be more people in the country declining to claim asylum support because of the repayments, and preferring to potentially live in destitution or be exploited. Can you talk about the risk of that? In your written evidence, you also talk about the risks of the Government’s other changes on people’s ability to settle and get jobs. How would that interact with the ability to pay back these payments? Jon Featonby: The point about asylum support is really important. One of the gaps in some of the background material to the Bill is that the Home Office does not release information about how many people in the asylum system are in receipt of support. Historically, the conventional wisdom has been that it is probably about 50% of people. That reduces and goes up over time, so it quite hard to know exactly how many people are going to be impacted by the asylum support measure. It is absolutely our concern that people who really need support will not want to access it, and that that number will go down. The other thing I did not mention before is that most people in that situation are not allowed to work, so their choice is pretty much between Home Office support, with accommodation provided on a no-choice basis, or destitution. We also have concerns about the knock-on impacts on people’s integration. The other bit of the Bill that we are particularly concerned about is core protection—that is about not only what is in the Bill, but the wider introduction of the core protection model, some of which started back in March this year. We have already had around 2,000 people who applied for asylum from the beginning of March and were found to need protection being granted a shorter period of leave, 30 months, rather than getting five years’ leave and being on a five-year route to settlement; we understand that they will be on a 20-year route to settlement. I think there is strong evidence that that increased insecurity, and people’s feeling that they have no degree of permanence in the UK, undermines their ability to seek employment and secure housing, and has a number of knock-on impacts on people’s lives. The other impact of those two measures is that they are going to require an awful lot of Home Office bureaucracy to run. The Home Office currently does not run anything like the asylum support charge, but it will have to have a way of knowing how much money has been paid in by everybody who receives support and what sum still needs to be paid, as well as having a mechanism for dealing with those sums. Similarly, with core protection, if people have to have reviews of their status every two and a half years—potentially they would be in the country for two years—that is an awful lot more Home Office caseworking. The Government have not published an impact assessment published around that. We have done our own assessment and we have worked out that, roughly, it could mean just over 1 million extra reviews over the first decade of the policy being fully in practice. Alongside the core protection model, there will also be a new in-country work and study route. In fairness to officials, that is really complex to design, but it will also be really complex to run. We think an awful lot more time and effort could be spent on making sure the asylum system is doing some of the basics right. First and foremost, that means making sure that decisions are made as quickly as they can be and are right the first time, and making sure that those people who are in need of protection and are given refugee status are supported to fulfil their potential in the UK—

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You have come here to comment on legislation that is intended to reduce demand, so I thought that might be a legitimate question to ask. Helen Rance: When demand rose?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to return to something you said earlier, Vicky, about the expertise needed for the adjudicators on the new panels. The Government’s memorandum on human rights relies heavily on those people being able to weigh up proportionality, particularly in relation to article 8, and that is quite a high-level legal determination in many cases. Is that one of your concerns about the expertise needed on the tribunals? Vicky Tennant: It would certainly be really helpful to have more detail on the balance between legally qualified adjudicators and lay adjudicators, what the respective roles of the two profiles will be, and, more widely, how legal expertise and subject matter expertise will be built into the process. Other jurisdictions have a mix of legally qualified adjudicators and other adjudicators. Often, they sit together in panels, and the other adjudicators will often bring subject matter expertise for the specific requirement around knowledge of conditions in countries of origin, for example. The real issue is that it is important that legal expertise is strongly reflected in the appeals body, and more detail on that would be helpful for consideration of the Bill.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent. Helen Rance: No, I do not have those figures.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a quick question on engagement. One thing that has come out of my own constituency work is that people making asylum applications are mainly successful in the end—sometimes when they get my help—but there are a lot of criticisms of the process, particularly in relation to access and the way that the forms are presented, and in understanding what they need to do, being able to provide the right information and being asked for it in a clear way. All those different things might cause discrimination in the process or cause claims not to be approved when they should be. We have established that claims that should have been approved in the first place are a burden on the courts. There is also human error in the Home Office. Have you managed to engage with any asylum seekers on solving their problems, or about their views on the Bill? We have heard from witnesses representing asylum seekers, but engagement with the people who are affected would be useful, so I wonder what the Department has done. Anna Turley: I am always a believer in service user feedback, including from people who have been through the process and have lived experience, to help us develop better policymaking. This Bill process notwithstanding, I would be keen to look at that more broadly. In terms of the Bill process, there was a consultation after the Home Secretary’s statement—before my time, I believe—which everybody would have had the opportunity to feed into. I reflect on the point about perhaps looking at specific users’ experience that they might not have been able to share during the process for fear of compromising their situation. On whether there is another means by which we can talk to people who have been through the process, we are always trying to improve our processes. Dan Hobbs: Most of our consultation is done through the advocacy group. There is a national framework of stakeholder engagement with various different aspects—children, accommodation and elements like that—that the asylum group runs. Much of that lived experience is expressed through those groups. That is done in partnership with organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Refugee Council. Bas also has a community engagement team that gets a lot of information from people who use our services. Bas Javid: We have two very distinct elements of engagement. I have a national community engagement team, which links with local authorities, charity groups, churches and other places of worship, and communities more generally—just on immigration, not necessarily on enforcement. Only this week, I have set up a new command, called the returns assistance and engagement operations. The primary focus of that command is people who are failed asylum seekers, still in the UK, and would need some returns assistance. Part of that is engagement and communication, as there are often language barriers and other communication challenges, and part is building up a level of trust. The focus of the command is entirely on trying to increase the voluntary returns, which is my primary focus. I would much rather do a voluntary return than an enforced one—it is safer, cheaper and quicker, and it is more dignified.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Do you have routes through to the people affected so that you could ask about the Bill’s provisions? Bas Javid: Yes. On when we pick up feedback from people, particularly around the system, for example, one of the things that we recently rolled out is different apps and communication systems that we did not have before. We are much more on the front foot about contacting people at an early stage of a removals process, rather than later. When we do that, we feed back to our asylum colleagues any information or feedback relevant to assisting them to improve the process.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a couple of questions that seek more information, so I will fire through those two to begin with. Madeleine Sumption and the Refugee Council told us that there is not full data on which human rights claims grounds are currently accepted, refused, appealed and then accepted, or refused on appeal. Is there any way the Department could get more of that information to us before our line-by-line consideration of the Bill? The Refugee Council said there was no information on the proportion of people claiming asylum support as opposed to living off their own means while they are here, or not living off any means and being exploited. That is important information to know about in the context of the repayments clauses. Could you try to get that information for us before our line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill? The Government need a baseline for the outcome that they are seeking. Anna Turley: I appreciate that. We may have that information, but I do not have it to hand today—apologies. I am more than happy to have a look internally, have discussions and see if we can get that information to the Committee, if we have access to it.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Sarah, you talked about the initial review process that should happen when an appeal is lodged. What more do you think could be done to improve that process? Professor Singer: I will defer to my colleague on that front, if that is okay. Jacqui McKenzie : What more could be done to improve—

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I ask one final question, Ms Jardine? Are there more Members waiting?

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q The initial review. According to Sarah, it simply does not happen. Jacqui McKenzie: It does not. I do not know whether that is a target in the Home Office—I do not know how the internal operations work—but it seems to me that the Home Office want everything to go through the tribunal. They refuse almost everything that they can, and then it goes through the tribunal, and there is the review mechanism, which they ignore. Even when they are directed to do things like reviewing the evidence or reviewing the decision, they do not do it. This is mainly in deport cases, which I suppose are difficult in terms of how they play out in the public and so forth, but even when you win a case in the tribunal that has been allowed on very strong grounds and very strong evidence, they appeal again to the upper tribunal. Sometimes, these things are in the system for three or four years, so it does need a root-and-branch change in how it all works.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Jacqui, you also raised something that I like, because it is Green party policy—though I should not be bringing that up here—which is breaking up the Home Office. In the discussions and the evidence we have heard, other people have said that it is a huge amount of work to set up the new tribunal service. Would it be easier to just start again with the Home Office and create a new branch of it that does immigration versus and police and enforcement, or is that for the future? Jacqui McKenzie: Maybe for the future, because I totally accept Professor Singer’s point: one of the issues about the new authority—I keep getting its name wrong, because it has changed its name three times—is that it is going to be expensive and unwieldy. For much less money, we could probably make the current system work. I know that these are difficult times for the country with budgets and so forth, so I do not necessarily want to propose something that is going to be very expensive. However, in the long term, the bit of the Home Office that makes these sorts of decisions probably needs to be a separate entity.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Jacqueline, you mentioned the poor quality of decision making. The evidence from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association offers multiple casework examples, and offers more such examples to the Committee if we wish to get them—and I think we should. Obviously, as an MP, I see many such decisions in person. What more can be done to improve that decision making? I know that the National Audit Office has looked at it. One thing I have noticed in my constituency is that some migrant groups have tried to get migrants themselves, successful asylum seekers, to give evidence on the process, but they are scared to do that, because they worry about their next visa decision. Is there more than we can do to bring people in to improving the process and the accessibility of it? As I understand it, the first decision is usually when people are without lawyer representation, so that is where these kinds of issues can arise. Can you say more about that? Sorry, that is a very long question. Jacqui McKenzie: That first instance that you are talking about is asylum claims, where people go in themselves, claim asylum and they have a screening interview and a longer, more elaborate and substantive interview and then lawyers tend to get involved in putting together all the evidence that is available to support the claim— [ Interruption. ] Sorry—there is an awful fly. It has kind of made me lose my thoughts. The other day I was here it was a mouse; now it is a fly. What is going on in this building? The issue is about training. Very rudimentary errors that you see—the wrong country, the wrong gender and the wrong names of people—are partly to do with what Professor Singer picked up on: very often, it is a cut-and-paste approach. I almost know the decisions off by heart, because you see the same paragraphs. When you have been doing it for as long as I have, you know what you are going to get. I am not casting any aspersions on people who are probably working very hard in their jobs, probably not for the best of pay, but I suppose there are some perks—it is a career and there is a pension at the end of it and all that sort of thing. It is difficult. I understand that they have targets; somebody in the criminal casework department told me they even had a star sheet on the wall, and each time they got someone deported, they got a little star. I do not know what sort of place that is, but I think it needs more people—it needs expansion—and better training. I do not think the numbers of people who are coming through the system are going to increase exponentially—in fact, we are seeing a decrease.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have some questions about family reunion. In your submission, you said that the measure will have a negative impact on integration. You also expressed concern that what you consider to be a right to family reunion is being made conditional, in clause 19, on socioeconomic factors—the ability of someone to support themselves. Can you tell us more about why you think family reunion should remain a right? Angela Afzal: The core protection framework sets out that refugees would not be granted family reunion as a protection right. Our experience is that the family framework is the best basis for a refugee to integrate. It is the best support network that there can be. Our experience is that refugees have a much better integration outcome when they have their families with them. For example, family reunion has been suspended since September last year. For a whole year, many clients have not been able to reunite with their families or apply for that, and that has really impacted their ability to focus on accessing language and employment. They are deeply concerned about their families—often a spouse and young children in places of danger. We are concerned that that could cause those families to resort to smugglers to reunite, when they do not see another option. The proposal is that people would get family reunion on transitioning to a work and study pathway. We have questions about the eligibility criteria for that and the support that there will be for refugees so that they can access the pathway, given that it gives them those entitlements. To what extent will people be able to access family reunion through that pathway? Those are our main concerns.

• 15 Sept 2026 · Immigration and Asylum Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q A few witnesses asked—as does some of the written evidence—for more information on the regulations that will follow the legislation to be published before we consider the relevant clauses of the Bill. I think that relates mainly to the definitions and criteria of protection status under clause 21, and to how destitution will be defined under clause 23 and where the threshold for making contributions will be set in order to avoid hardship. Will those regulations be published in draft form for the Committee before we consider those clauses? Anna Turley: I take your point on the core protection point and on destitution. Our intention was always to set out that detail in due course. On any legislative changes, we want to ensure that we lay that out properly for proper scrutiny, so I will endeavour to do that for the Committee.

• 11 Sept 2026 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am here because we do need to change the law, so that dying people have the choice of a better death than too many horrible progressive terminal diseases allow for now. I am here because of my own conscience; I am a humanist and a patron of Humanists UK. I am also here with the support of so many of our citizens who desperately want to see a change in the law. Many of my constituents have written to me to tell me their personal story of losing people under the worst circumstances because the status quo did not allow them another choice. Two weeks ago, I heard from my constituent, Julia, who told me about her mother, Jane, and asked me to speak about her case. Faced with a progressive terminal neurological diagnosis at 92 and unable to travel alone for help, Julia’s mother decided in secret to end her life in a very distressing way that I cannot bring myself to describe today. Julia said: “I had no idea that she was going to act on her oft-stated desire, although in retrospect I realise that a phone call we had in the morning of that day she said goodbye in her own way, and she also made sure that it would be her friend and carer who would find her.” That was instead of Julia herself the next morning. Julia continued: “While I miss her terribly, I am proud of her for her determination, and grateful that, the manner of her death apart, she has left me with positive memories of her, rather than the gradual eroding of her self that she (and I, to be honest,) were both dreading… Now I am coming out of the weeds of my grief at her loss, I am determined to help make her legacy the right for people in her situation—when they are faced with losing all agency—to have the choice to take the ultimate act of agency over their life.” That is what we are here for. We are here to make something more humane than the situation that Julia and her mum Jane faced. Examples like these are real people—brave for telling us their stories—who have demonstrably been harmed by the law as it stands. People are raising concern about potential harms if we change things. We have debated this so many times, and now, for every concern I have heard expressed that this new law might be used by someone who is ineligible or by someone who is not choosing freely the way that their terminal illness will play out, I believe we see real safeguards in the Bill before us. They are very, very strict. These requirements will be too much for some dying people, in fact. Some people will be denied the service in this Bill today, but others will benefit, and there is a clear moral case and duty for Parliament as a whole to act to progress this issue. Now, there is not just a moral case for this Bill, which we have debated before, but a democratic case, too. The serious, careful work we started here must be completed in the normal way in the upper House for the democratic process to be complete. Last year, we voted and voted again on the principle, in Committee and on Report. The promoter of the previous Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), listened and proposed over 100 of her own amendments and accepted more than 30 from opponents who wanted to go maybe further than she or I would have liked. She worked with civil servants to make its workability crystal clear, and a Minister reported back to us that the Bill was workable. Other amendments were voted on in this House on Report. On Third Reading, we debated what we had designed, and voted again. We passed a sound piece of legislation last year, and I believe we sent the Lords a good Bill and a safe Bill—a compassionate and workable change in the law that they could refine if they wished. We must now say to the Lords that they must collectively do as MPs did and consider the Bill with the seriousness it deserves, do their duty in putting their votes on the record—vote, just as we did—and bring it to a conclusion in that place. I ask hon. Members to please vote for this Bill to continue so that its progress and all the work we have done so far to build something better than the status quo for dying people does not end today.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  At a recent event hosted by my wonderful local progressive synagogue, lots of issues were raised with me. This is a synagogue—it is not a representative of the Israeli Government. We cannot have anyone conflating Jewish faith with that. This is a synagogue that prays for Palestinians every week, but in that place, in my progressive city of Brighton and Hove, security and safety were still the absolute backdrop to everything raised; they have real fear. Would the hon. Member agree that it is so important for us to build solidarity and cohesion in communities, and make sure we do not drive further wedges between people in tackling this issue?

• 7 Sept 2026 · Dover and Portsmouth: Protests · Hansard source

  More

  I thank hon. Members who share my disgust at the sight of intimidating, fascistic gangs and squads of men in black on our streets in Dover and Portsmouth, but the roots of organised violence are political and this needs a political response. So does the Minister agree with me that it is time to start naming hard-right and fascist politics when we see it, recognise how frightening this is for people in our communities, and stand up to the racists on our streets and here in the Chamber, rather than pandering to, repeating and accepting anti-migrant propaganda and lies.