Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Most asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the UK, yet some choose to work illegally while also claiming asylum support and accommodation. I suggest to noble Lords that that is not right. This undercuts legitimate businesses and takes genuine work opportunities away from other citizens. It is unlawful to undertake work without the requisite authorisation, and this measure ensures that there is now a clear and proportionate consequence for those who choose to disregard that requirement.

Through the statutory instrument before the House, illegal working will be an explicit ground on which Section 4 support may be withdrawn from failed asylum seekers, therefore aligning with the changes made to Section 98 and Section 95 support that were laid on the same date as these instruments and came into force on 27 March. This ensures that public resources are directed only to those who abide by the rules and who genuinely cannot support themselves, reinforcing the credibility and fairness of the system as a whole.

Taken together, these measures will deliver a coherent system in which support aligns with responsibility. I emphasise to the House that this shift is about fairness and responsibility. Rights must come with responsibilities, and the British taxpayer cannot be expected to fund support for individuals who deliberately disregard the rules of the asylum system and the laws of the United Kingdom.

Crucially, none of these changes alters the legal safeguards that remain firmly in place. Our human rights and equality obligations will continue to provide strong protections, ensuring that we operate within a framework that upholds fundamental rights. Our intention is to provide greater flexibility over who we provide support to, ensuring that support is targeted, proportionate and sustainable. The revocation of Regulation 5 is an enabler for the development of a new framework that provides us with the ability to make changes in relation to those who have the ability to support themselves or who fail to comply with the conditions set by the Home Office or who break UK law.

This is the first step in building a modern and controlled asylum support system, which protects the vulnerable, encourages compliance and ensures public confidence. By tightening eligibility, we strengthen public confidence in the system and, I contend to the House, ensure that support is focused on those who play by the rules. I commend both orders to the House.

If, as the Home Office argues, policy is insufficiently developed for the provision of a proper impact assessment, then, as the Refugee Council argues, it should have waited and introduced a measure as part of the primary legislation expected in the next Session. Indeed, as some of us argued last week, and as my noble friend Lord Dubs, who is unable to be in his place, pointed out, this and the changes as a whole

“are quite fundamental to the way in which we deal with asylum seekers and refugees ”.—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 299.]

and should be included in primary legislation in the name of democratic accountability.

I welcome the fact that, despite the revocation of the duty to provide asylum support, families containing a child aged under 18 will continue to receive support for the whole household where otherwise adequate accommodation or the child’s essential living needs are not being met in line with Section 122 of the 1999 Act. I would be grateful if my noble friend confirmed that my reading of this is correct so that it is on the record.

Nevertheless, I am worried about the likely impact of the removal of the duty to provide support. The SLSC tried to get clarification of what the EM meant when it said that support will remain available to those “in genuine need”. One example given was an asylum seeker who has the right to work. When the committee asked whether support might be withdrawn where an asylum seeker is not able to exercise the right to work because they cannot find employment—particularly bearing in mind that changes to the list of jobs they are allowed to take after 12 months could mean it becomes harder for those who do not have the necessary skills—the answer was:

“We are developing our policy on this”.

That really is not good enough.

Another example given was

“where an asylum seeker could be supported by friends and family”.

How on earth will this work? Will an asylum seeker have to give a list of friends and family, and will they then be means tested to see if they can afford to support them? Even if they can afford to do so, there is no legal obligation to support family and friends in this way, in either the short or longer term. Personally, I find this suggestion extraordinary.

I am not surprised that the committee considered the inability to answer questions about the meaning of “genuine need” unsatisfactory, despite Home Office assurances that cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as my noble friend said earlier, taking account of obligations under the ECHR—which, as the committee notes, raises questions about staff resources.

Moreover, there is an underlying issue here that the report did not explore: the difference between a right and a discretionary power. The EM states that

“human rights legislation and equality law … ensure that any changes to policy will operate within a framework that respects fundamental rights”,

a point made by my noble friend. Sir Jonathan Jones KCB KC points out for the Institute for Government that this means that decisions not to grant support could be subject to judicial review. But that is a last resort, and I am concerned about the implications for everyday decision-making.

I have been around long enough to remember when some basic elements of the social security safety net were subject to discretion rather than set out as clear rights. Discretion opens the door to inconsistency and even discrimination, not necessarily conscious. Back in 1975 the official Supplementary Benefits Commission warned that discretion provides scope for decision makers’ own “moral judgments” to shape decisions on eligibility, so the promise that the decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis is not necessarily reassuring.

Discretion robs asylum seekers of dependability and certainty and reinforces their sense of precarity, which the noble Baroness referred to, along with the changes debated last week. While it might meet the letter of our international obligations, I am not sure it meets the spirit expressed in a statement from the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that asylum seekers should be able

“to enjoy economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination”.

One reason why rights are so important in this context, as we have heard, is that they provide a firmer protection against destitution, although it should be remembered that asylum support provides a pretty minimal standard of living. Asylum seekers are already disproportionately likely to be in deep poverty and to suffer food insecurity. It is disgraceful that the press release accompanying the draft regulations had the headline:

“Asylum handouts and accommodation removed for illegal migrants abusing Britain’s generosity”,

once again conflating asylum seeking and illegal migration and using pejorative terms such as “handouts”. As Minister Norris himself said in a debate last year,

“we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/25; col. 285WH.]

Nevertheless, the SLSC was concerned about the likely risk of destitution due to the revocation of the duty to provide support and how this could lead to crime, illegal working and homelessness, in conflict with the national plan to end homelessness and, according to the Times, the subject of an internal warning from the MHCLG. It notes:

“The Home Office has not set out how it will manage these risks, and the House may wish to enquire further”.

I hope my noble friend can be more forthcoming now, including on the particular dangers for women, who Women for Refugee Women fear will be at increased risk of abuse, violence and exploitation, including being forced into sex work.

Given my noble friend’s welcome repeated assurances last week that

“equality considerations are at the front and centre of our work”,—[Official Report, 14/4/26; col. 321.]

I hope he will give this point serious consideration. Here I find it difficult to believe the Explanatory Memorandum’s statement that

“no significant … impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”

is foreseen. Again, to pick up on what the noble Baroness said, surely the risk of destitution could have a significant impact on local authorities and on refugee and homelessness charities, which will have to pick up the pieces.

Before making my final point on these regs, I take this opportunity to raise the question of the move-on period. The Refugee Council points out that the third set of regulations published alongside those that we are debating provided the perfect opportunity to update the previous 28 days to the 42 days now in operation. I ask my noble friend why that opportunity was not taken. Will it be taken soon? Is he able to tell us what arrangements will be made for monitoring the 42-day move-on period, which is a real improvement that I welcome but is less than the 56 days in the initial pilot which was what local authorities and charities had been calling for? Is he able to commit to publication of the evaluation of that pilot before Parliament is prorogued? I raised these matters in a letter that I sent my noble friend yesterday so I apologise for repeating them today, but anything that he is able to put on the record now would be helpful.