“(1) This section applies to a person (‘P’) who has—

(a) applied for, or been granted, asylum or refugee status in the United Kingdom;

(b) appealed the refusal of asylum or refugee status in the United Kingdom; or

(c) made a claim to the Secretary of State that to remove P or require P to leave the United Kingdom, or to refuse P entry into the United Kingdom, would be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

(2) If P returns to their country of origin—

(a) during any of the processes specified in subsection (1); or

(b) subsequent to receiving asylum or refugee status or otherwise being given leave to remain,

P must have any claims automatically discontinued, and any status previously granted revoked.”—

This new clause would require the revocation of asylum or refugee status (or leave to remain) in relation to an applicant who returns to their country of origin, either subsequently or while their application is being processed. It would also apply to people who make an immigration human rights claim.

Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause would require the revocation of asylum or refugee status, or leave to remain, in relation to an applicant who returns to their country of origin, either subsequently or while their application is being processed. It would also apply to people who make an immigration human rights claim.

If an individual has made a claim that being made to return to their country of origin would violate their human rights and put them in danger, then their choosing voluntarily to return to their home country would suggest that something does not add up. Fundamentally, no reasonable person would consider an individual’s returning to their home country to be compatible with their claim for asylum in such circumstances. If a person needs to remain in this country because they have a legitimate fear of persecution in their country of origin, a return to that country of origin fundamentally undercuts that claim.

I have studied this measure closely. Conditions change within the countries that people leave, and asylum status and human rights records change accordingly. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is no reason whatsoever that an asylum seeker may go back to their country of origin and then come back to the UK? What about family emergencies? Surely the Conservatives are not so callous as to suggest that people cannot go back to their country of origin for a family funeral, for example.

People arrive in this country out of fear of persecution. People come from the most awful, extreme circumstances. That is the bar that we put to asylum. We allow people to come here to claim asylum out of fear for their welfare, and if they are happy to pack their bags and pop back for a break, then that is on them. I believe, and I think the public would believe, that if someone comes here claiming fear of persecution in their country of origin then they should not be going back. It is not an opt-in or opt-out—it is not a holiday. If they are coming here out of fear of persecution in that country then they should not be going back.

We have tabled new clause 41 in order to address a loophole that people can and do exploit. The new clause would uphold British fairness—a value that welcomes those in need but rejects exploitation. As Members from across the House know, the United Kingdom has supported over 20,000 Afghans since 2021 through the Afghan relocations policy and over 200,000 Ukrainians since 2022 via visa schemes, alongside our Hong Kong friends with British national overseas visas, backed further by £4.7 billion in asylum costs in 2023-24. These commitments reflect our readiness to help those with genuine cases—those fleeing real danger who have ties to Britain. The value of fairness demands a fair system that is not abused.

What would happen in a scenario in which somebody from Hong Kong went back in order to attend the funeral of their mother or father?

We are talking about all sorts of circumstances, and I am sure that every one of these things would be pushed to the max, with lots of discussion and debate. The idea here is the principle that if someone cannot be in a country because it would be to their detriment and damage their wellbeing, then they should not be going back. If it is such a security threat that they need to come to the UK for asylum—

To clarify, if a lady goes back to Hong Kong and is willing to entertain the risk in order to briefly grieve with her family and to bury her mother or father, she would lose her right to safe haven in the United Kingdom. Is that right?

People who claim asylum arrive here from some of the most terrible, awful circumstances—their life is threatened and they are at real risk. If someone is at that level of risk, on the balance of probabilities, they would not be going back. If someone fears persecution in the way that many of the people who get asylum in this country do, then they would not be returning.

We really cannot let them away with this, because it is just cruelty personified. Would the hon. Gentleman not make every effort and take every risk to return to his country of origin if it were the funeral of his mother or father?

I hear what hon. Members are saying, but in the current system we allow people to pop back on holiday. Is that acceptable?

It is not a holiday; it is a funeral.

I am talking about those circumstances. We have heard one extreme; at the other extreme, we have people claiming asylum at huge cost. That is not a cost to well-heeled people, in particular, but to British taxpayers, some of whom are struggling to get by, but are contributing to this country and this system, which pays out for various other things. We want to be generous. We want to support the people who need that help. It is the right thing to do and, I have just outlined, we have done that. But we cannot allow that generosity to be abused; we cannot allow people to pop off on holiday back to wherever they came from and then come back. That is the principle that is at stake here. People out there feel that it is very unfair that people pop back, and use asylum here as something hotel-like. That is the other extreme. That is the abuse that we are seeing, and that is what the new clause aims to end.

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Hongkonger population would be very disheartened to hear what he is saying? Does he think it is right for him to stick to what he is saying? Would it not be better to show some sympathy to that particular population who are here?

I show lots of sympathy. It is right that we have put all these schemes in place, and it is right that we are supporting these people in the way we are. I also think a little bit about what the British people would think about what I am saying, and the abuse they are seeing of these schemes that allow people to pop back to other countries for various reasons. The hon. Gentleman has given one extreme; I have given the other. I think that is a principle that the British public would be on board with.

The value of fairness demands a system that is not abused. When claimants return to their origin countries after securing status, they undermine that support. The new clause would ensure that voluntary return means revocation, protecting a framework meant for the truly persecuted, not those gaming it. We should ensure that those who genuinely need refuge and support from the United Kingdom, and not those individuals who may want to misuse our generosity, are the first in line. This simple measure would help ensure that the system is fair.

I would be interested in the Minister’s views on whether it is reasonable for someone who has made a successful human rights claim to stay in this country and to return to their country of origin at will and without consequence.

Throughout our long history, Britain has been an unusually compassionate place. From time to time, people have come to this country to seek sanctuary from tyranny and authoritarianism elsewhere in the world. My county of Kent became home to many of the Huguenots who fled religious persecution in France in the 16th century. Indeed, Canterbury cathedral still hosts a French-language service every Sunday, in honour of those who came to this country in search of tolerance and religious freedom.

My grandmother came to Britain in 1937 at the age of 13, as a refugee from Germany. Her grandfather was a state senator and a fierce critic of the Nazis. When Hitler came to power, the whole family were stripped of their citizenship and several were arrested. After years imprisoned and various daring prison escapes, the family first made it over the border to Czechoslovakia, where they set up a resistance radio station broadcasting back into Germany. One night, that was raided by the SS and one of the operators was shot dead. They then fled to England and to freedom.

We should be proud of our history. There are so many Brits like me who would not be here and would never have been born without the past generosity of this great country. But as I said earlier, we must also be realistic about the very many ways in which our system can be exploited by the cynical and the sinister. There are, of course, people who come to these shores legitimately seeking asylum, but we must also be honest about the fact that not everyone who comes to this country and applies for asylum has a legitimate case for doing so. We can see that evidenced in the fact that not all claims are approved.

Too often, asylum is used as an immigration route for those who otherwise would not be able to come here. Our compassion is therefore exploited by those who are in no real danger at all, a sad truth made clear by the fact that many would-be asylum seekers regularly return home without issue. The bar to claiming asylum should rightly be high. People should be in serious danger in their home country to qualify. Government Members are right to say that the new clause might cause difficult and, in some instances, heartrending situations, but that in and of itself does not make it the wrong thing to do.

Last December, as I mentioned earlier when discussing our human rights legislation, a Turkish heroin dealer was allowed to stay in the UK after first seeking asylum here in 1988. Despite claiming that he would be persecuted in his home country, the man had returned to Turkey at least eight times since arriving in Britain. On one of those trips, he even got married to a woman with whom he had been having an affair, despite already being married with children in the UK. Nevertheless, he escaped deportation, as it was ruled that deporting him would interfere with his right to a family life. That kind of scenario is clearly wrong and contributes to the persistent feeling that so many ordinary British people have that our asylum system is broken and unfair.

New clause 41 would require the revocation of protection status or leave, or discontinuation of asylum claims, where an applicant returns to their country of origin. The Government are in absolute agreement on the principle behind the new clause. Although we are committed to providing protection to those who genuinely need it for as long as it is needed, in accordance with our obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, such protection status must be granted only when it is required. As such, I want to reassure Opposition Members that, under our existing policy, where an individual returns to their country of origin, we consider whether they have re-availed themselves of the protection of that country. Where that is the case, we seek to revoke their protection status under the appropriate provision set out in the immigration rules.

We are also clear that asylum claims may be discontinued and withdrawn where the applicant fails to comply with the asylum process, which includes leaving the UK before a decision is made on their claim. I hope Opposition Members are therefore assured that the immigration rules enable protection status to be revoked already and applications to be discontinued where an applicant has returned to their country of origin. As such, new clause 41 is not required.

We wish to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.