The Chancellor will deliver a Budget later today [26 November] that takes the fair and necessary choices to deliver on the Government’s mandate for change.
It will include action to cut NHS waiting lists, cut debt and borrowing, and cut the cost of living to secure a strong future for the country, built on fairness and fuelled by growth.
Action to keep prescription costs under £10 (in England – Ed.), freeze rail fares for the first time in 30 years and increase the National Minimum Wage and National Living Wage by £1,500 and £900 respectively has already been confirmed to put more money in people’s pockets at this Budget.
Investment for 250 Neighbourhood Health Centres (in England – Ed.) has also been confirmed as part of the Chancellor’s commitment to slash NHS waiting lists further and end the postcode lottery of healthcare access.
Ahead of her Budget speech, Rachel Reeves said:“Today I will take the fair and necessary choices to deliver on our promise of change.
“I will not return Britain back to austerity, nor will I lose control of public spending with reckless borrowing.
“I will take action to help families with the cost of living…cut hospital waiting lists…cut the national debt.
“And I will push ahead with the biggest drive for growth in a generation.
“Investment in roads, rail and energy. Investment in housing, security and defence. Investment in education, skills and training.
“So together, we can build a fairer, stronger, and more secure Britain.”
“GENERATION DEFINING” BUDGET MUST DELIVER FOR WORKERS
Scotland’s largest trade union body has issued a stark warning ahead of the Chancellor’s budget calling on Rachel Reeves to “deliver for workers” as the UK Government sets out, what the STUC call, a “generation defining” budget.
The Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) has set out five tax demands ahead of the statement, including actions on wealth taxes, bank profits and a “settling up” tax for those moving wealth and assets abroad.
The trade union body, as part of the wider Scotland Demands Better campaign, has also reiterated the call to scrap the two child-benefit cap in a move STUC General Secretary Roz Foyer said was “long overdue”.
The STUC is further calling for increased investment in publicly owned energy as well as direct support for workers in carbon intensive sectors such as those in Grangemouth and Mosmorran.
Commenting, STUC General Secretary Roz Foyersaid: “The upcoming statement from the Chancellor is generation defining. It will signal to all whether the UK Government will continue to adhere to self-imposed financial rules and chaotic quick fixes, or whether they will invest in the public services and the industries and jobs of the future, delivering for workers with bold, radical policies to redistribute wealth.
“We’ve set out how the Chancellor can target those with wealth and assets and use it for the public good. For too long Labour Government policy has been about meeting self-imposed fiscal rules rather than setting out a bold plan for public sector-led growth.
“That must change. We must see, once and for all, the long overdue scrapping of the two-child benefit cap in addition to targeted action on reforming Capital Gains Tax. The Chancellor must also reign in the wild-west of banking profits, raising the surcharge from 3% to 35%, potentially netting £50 billion over four years.
“The people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom voted for change. It’s high time it was delivered and the Chancellor simply cannot afford to waste this opportunity come Wednesday.”
The UK Government must invest in public services, support economic growth and take action on the cost of living, Finance Secretary Shona Robison has said.
Ahead of the UK Budget on Wednesday 26 November, Ms Robison is calling on the Chancellor to:
deliver more funding for Scotland’s public services, infrastructure, and cost of living support – including actions to lower household energy bills
ensure that any major taxation choices do not see Scotland losing out on vital funding
completely reform the Energy Profits Levy and replace it with a sustainable system, to support jobs and investment across Scotland’s energy sector
Finance Secretary Shona Robison said: “The UK Budget process has been chaotic and mired in damaging uncertainty. It is disappointing that neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor were able to meet with the First Minister in London this week.
“Given the limited time to consider the implications of any major policy changes between the UK Budget and the Scottish Budget on 13 January, this lack of engagement is a particular concern.
“Last year, the UK Government increased employer National Insurance contributions without any consultation, which led to a funding shortfall of around £400 million for public services in Scotland and acts as a tax on jobs. We cannot see a repeat this year.
“We need to see a change of course from the Chancellor – with investment in public services and infrastructure, which supports industry and jobs and delivers support on the cost of living challenges people across Scotland are facing.
“Energy bills in particular are a source of real worry for people this winter. While the UK Government promised to cut energy bills by £300, they have actually risen by almost £200 – so this Budget must provide some relief for households who are struggling.
“The UK Government must also listen to industry concerns around the Energy Profits Levy. This was always supposed to be a temporary measure and it is now affecting investment and jobs in Scotland.
“The UK Government needs to set out how a stable and long-term fiscal regime will be used to treat the offshore energy sector fairly, alongside other parts of the UK economy, and deliver business and investor certainty.
“Scotland must not be left as an afterthought yet again in the UK Budget.”
The 2026-27 Scottish Budget will be published by the Finance Secretary on 13 January.
Home Secretary sets out controversial reforms to the UK’s asylum and returns system
HOME SECRETARY SHABANA MAHMOOD’s STATEMENT TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS YESTERDAY:
I will make a statement about how we restore order and control to our borders. I do so as this Government publishes the most significant reform to our migration system in modern times.
This country will always offer sanctuary to those fleeing danger, but we must also acknowledge that the world has changed and our asylum system has not changed with it.
Our world is a more volatile, and more mobile, place. Huge numbers are on the move. While some are refugees, others are economic migrants seeking to use, and abuse, our asylum system. Even genuine refugees are passing through other safe countries searching for the most attractive place to seek refuge.
The burden that has fallen on this country has been heavy. 400,000 have sought asylum here in the last four years. Over 100,000 people now live in asylum accommodation, and over half of refugees remain on benefits eight years after they have arrived.
To the British public, who foot the bill, the system feels out of control and unfair. It feels that way, because it is. The pace and scale of change has destabilised communities. It is making our country a more divided place.
There will never be a justification for the violence and racism of a minority, but if we fail to deal with this crisis, we will draw more people down a path that starts with anger, and ends in hatred.
I have no doubt about who we really are in this country. We are open, tolerant and generous. But the public rightly expect that we can determine who enters this country, and who must leave.
To maintain the generosity that allows us to provide sanctuary, we must restore order and control.
[Political content redacted]
My predecessor as Home Secretary picked up this [political content redacted] inheritance, and rebuilt the foundations of a collapsed asylum system.
Decision making has been restored, with a backlog now 18% lower than when we entered office. Removals have increased – reaching nearly 50,000 under this Government.
Immigration enforcement has hit record levels, with over 8,000 arrests in the last year.
The Border Security Bill is progressing through parliament, and my predecessor struck a historic agreement with the French, which means small boat arrivals can now be sent back to France.
These are vital steps, but we must go further. Today, we have published “Restoring Order and Control”, a new statement on our asylum policy. Its goals are two-fold: firstly, to reduce illegal arrivals into this country, and secondly, to increase removals of those with no right to be here.
It starts by accepting an uncomfortable truth: while asylum claims fall across Europe, they are rising here, and that is because of the comparative generosity of our asylum offer when compared to so many of our European neighbours.
This generosity is a factor that draws people to these shores, on a path that runs through other safe countries. Nearly 40 percent come on small boats and over perilous channel crossings, but a roughly equal number come here legally, via a visitor, work or study visa, and then go on to claim asylum.
They do so because refugee status is the most generous route into this country. An initial grant lasts five years, which is then converted, almost automatically, into permanent settled status. In other European countries, things are done differently.
In Denmark, refugee status is temporary, and they provide safety and sanctuary until it is possible for a refugee to return home. In recent years, asylum claims have hit a 40-year low, and now, across Europe, countries are tightening their systems in similar ways.
We must act too. We will do so by making refugee status temporary, not permanent. A grant of refugee status will last two and a half years, not five. It will be renewed only if it is impossible for a refugee to return home. Permanent settlement will now come at 20 years, not five.
I know this country welcomes people who contribute. For those who want to stay, and are willing and able to, we will create a new ‘work and study’ visa route, solely for refugees, with a quicker path to permanent settlement.
To encourage refugees into work, we will also consult on removing benefits for those who are able to work but choose not to.
Outside of the most exceptional circumstances, family reunion will not be possible, with a refugee only able to bring family over if they have joined a work and study route, and if qualifying tests are met.
While over 50,000 were granted refugee status in the last year, more than 100,000 claimants and failed asylum seekers remain in taxpayer funded accommodation, and we know that criminal gangs use the prospect of free bed and board to promote their small boat crossings.
We have already announced that we will empty asylum hotels by the end of the Parliament, and we are exploring a number of large military sites as an alternative.
We will now also remove the 2005 legislation that created a “duty” to support asylum seekers, reverting to a legal “power” to do so instead. While we will continue to support those who play by the rules, those who do not – be that through criminality or anti-social behaviour – can have their support removed. We will also remove our duty to support those who have a right to work.
It is right that those who do receive support, pay for it if they can, so those with income or assets will have to contribute to the cost of their stay. This will end the absurdity that we currently experience. Where an asylum seeker receiving £800 each month from his family, and who had recently acquired an Audi, was receiving free housing at the taxpayers’ expense, and the courts judged we could do nothing about it.
These measures are designed to tackle the pull factors that draw people to this country, but reducing the number of arrivals is just half of the story. We must also enforce our rules and remove those who have no right to be here. This will mean restarting removals to countries where they have been paused.
In recent months, we have begun voluntary removal of failed asylum seekers to Syria once again; however, there are still many failed asylum seekers here from Syria, most of whom fled a regime that has since been toppled. Other countries are planning to enforce removals, and we will follow suit. Where a failed asylum seeker cannot be returned home, we will also continue to explore the possibility of return hubs, with negotiations ongoing.
We must remove those who have failed asylum claims, regardless of who they are. Today, we are not removing family groups – even when we know that their home country is perfectly safe. There are, for instance, around 700 Albanian families living in taxpayer-funded accommodation having failed their asylum claims.
This is true despite an existing returns agreement, and that Albania is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. So, we will now begin the removal of families. Where possible, we will encourage a voluntary return, but where an enforced return is necessary, that is what we will do.
Where the barrier to a return is not the individual, nor the UK Government, but the receiving country, we will take action.
I can announce today that we have told Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Namibia that if they do not comply with international rules and norms we will impose visa penalties on them. And I am sending a wider message here: unless other countries heed this lesson, further sanctions will follow.
Much of the delay in our removals, however, comes from the sclerotic nature of our own system. In March of this year, the appeals backlog stood at 51,000 cases. This Government has already increased judicial sitting days, but reform is required, so we will create a new appeals body, staffed by professional independent adjudicators, and we will ensure there is early legal representation available to advise claimants and ensure their issues are properly considered.
Cases with a low chance of success will be fast-tracked, and claimants will have just one opportunity to claim and one to appeal, ending the merry-go-round of claims and appeals that frustrate so many removals.
While some barriers to removal are the result of process, others are substantive issues related to the law itself. There is no doubt that the expanded interpretation of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights has contributed.
This is particularly true of Article 8: the right to a family life. The courts have adopted an ever-expanding interpretation of this right.
As a result, many people have been allowed to come to this country, when they would otherwise have had no right to, and we have been unable to remove others when the case for doing so seems overwhelming.
This includes cases like an arsonist, sentenced to five years in prison whose deportation was blocked on the grounds that his relationship with his sibling may suffer.
More than half of those detained are now delaying or blocking their removal by raising a last-minute rights claim.
Article 8 is a qualified right: that means we are not prevented from removing individuals or refusing an application to move to the UK if it is “in the public interest”. To narrow Article 8 rights, we will therefore make three important changes, in both domestic law and our immigration rules.
Firstly, we will define what, exactly, a family is – narrowing this down to parents and their children.
Secondly, we will define “the public interest” test so the default becomes a removal or refusal, with Article 8 rights only permissible in the most exceptional circumstances.
Thirdly, we will tighten where Article 8 claims can be heard, ensuring only those who are living in the UK can lodge a claim, rather than their family members overseas, and that all claims are heard first by the Home Office and not in a courtroom.
We will also pursue international reform of a second element of the European Convention: the application of Article 3 – the prohibition on torture and inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment.
We will never return anyone to be tortured in their home country, but the definition of “degrading treatment” has expanded into the realm of the ridiculous.
Today, we have criminals we seek to deport, but discover we cannot because the prisons in their home country have cells that are deemed too small, or even mental health provision that is not as good as our own.
As Article 3 is an absolute right, a public interest test cannot be applied. For that reason, we are seeking reform at the Council of Europe, and we do so alongside international partners who have raised similar concerns. But it is not just international law that binds us.
According to data from 2022, over 40% of those detained for removal claimed they were modern-day slaves. This well-intentioned law is being abused by those who seek to frustrate a legitimate removal.
So, I will bring forward legislation that tightens the Modern Slavery system to ensure that it protects those it was designed for, and not those who seek to abuse it.
Taken together Madam Deputy Speaker, these are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure our asylum system is fit for the modern world, and that we retain public consent for the very idea of providing refuge.
We will always be a country that offers protection to those fleeing peril, just as we did, in recent years, when Ukraine was invaded, when Afghanistan was evacuated, and when we repatriated Hong Kongers.
For that reason, as order and control is restored, we will open new, capped, safe and legal routes into this country. These will make sponsorship the primary means by which we resettle refugees, with voluntary and community organisations given greater involvement, to both receive refugees and support them, working within caps set by Government.
We will also create a new route for displaced students to study in the UK, and another for skilled refugees to work here. Of course, we will always remain flexible to new crises, across the world, as they happen.
I know the British people do not want to close the doors. But until we restore order and control, those who seek to divide us will grow stronger.
It is our job – [political content redacted] – to unite where there is division, so we must now build an asylum system for the world as it is. One that restores order and control. One that opens safe and legal routes to those fleeing danger across the world, and one that sustains our commitment to providing refuge for this generation and those to come.
I know the country we are. We are open, tolerant and generous. We are the greater Britain that those on this side of the House believe in. Not the littler England that some would wish we would become. These reforms are designed to bring unity, where others seek to divide.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Campaigning organisation Asylum Matters said: ‘Today’s asylum reforms put the basic principle of refugee protection under threat. They won’t stop irregular migration.
‘But they would make us a country that has given in to extremists and abandoned vital protection principles set up after the horrors of the Second World War.’
Nature is not a “blocker” to delivering new housing, but rather a necessity for building resilient towns and neighbourhoods, MPs argue in a new report.
In its report on ‘Environmental sustainability and housing growth’, Westminster’s cross-party Environmental Audit Committee challenges the “lazy narrative” that nature is a blocker or an inconvenience to delivering housing.
The Committee finds that the measures contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, passing through final stages in Parliament, are not enough to allow the Government to meet its targets on both the environment and housing.
MPs also find that without further action, severe skills shortages in ecology, planning and construction will make it impossible for the Government to deliver on its housebuilding ambitions.
A full summary of the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations is included below.
Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Toby Perkins MP said: “The Government’s target to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament is incredibly ambitious.
“Achieving it alongside our existing targets on climate and sustainability – which are set in law – will require effort on a scale not seen before.
“That certainly will not be achieved by scapegoating nature, claiming that it is a “blocker” to housing delivery. We are clear in our report: a healthy environment is essential to building resilient towns and cities. It must not be sidelined.
“There are certainly issues standing in the way of meeting both our housebuilding and environmental targets.
“For instance, the skills we need in construction, planning and ecology simply do not exist at the scale we need right now. The Government has made welcome investments in construction skills, but it may not be enough, and staff at local authorities and regulators are already stretched to their limit.
“We also need much better incentives for people to construct and live in carbon-friendly homes, or to retrofit existing ones. That’s why this report suggests innovative approaches to boost manufacturing viability of climate friendly construction products and alter the tax burden in favour of climate friendly homes.
“It is possible to build the homes we need while protecting a resilient and healthy environment and allowing nature to thrive. Some major changes might be needed, but nature is not the enemy.”
Nature must not be a “scapegoat” for housebuilding issues
While the Committee acknowledges and welcomes the Government’s amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (PIB) it says these changes are not enough on their own to ensure the Government can meet its environmental targets alongside housing targets.
“The Government must not veer down the path of viewing nature as an inconvenience or blocker to housebuilding,” the Committee says. “At worst, this approach could lead to the degradation of the natural world, preventing the achievement of legally binding climate and nature targets, upon which our society and economy depend.”
Skills shortages put targets in question
The Committee finds that local planning authorities are severely under-resourced in ecological skills. It heard evidence that staff at Natural England are “stretched to their limits”, that the skills needed to deliver the ecological aspects of planning reforms “simply do not exist at the scale, quality or capacity that is needed”.
The Committee recommends the Government establish a pilot programme for local ecological resource hubs, available to local authorities facing acute resources challenges, by July 2026.
It also recommends that the Government set out a realistic analysis of the construction workforce required to deliver housing targets and the skills that will be needed, and to clearly lay out how Natural England will operate amid staffing cuts and the additional responsibilities that will apply when the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is enacted.
Planning rule changes prioritise growth over the environment
Throughout its inquiry, the Committee heard repeated concerns that the Government’s changes to the presumption in favour of sustainable development, made in the 2024 review of the National Planning Policy Framework, would lead to the environment being “sidelined”.
The Committee finds that the present form of the presumption could result in unsustainable and speculative development. The Committee recommends that the Government amend the current definition of the presumption, to give greater weight to sustainability. It should also strengthen safeguards against environmentally unsustainable, unplanned and speculative development.
More incentives for greener homes
The Committee concludes that the Government must accelerate policies to decrease the carbon emissions of the built environment. MPs recommend the Government should consider steps it could take to incentivise homeowners, housebuilders, landlords and tenants to favour homes with lower levels of embodied carbon.
The Committee also recommends the Government review tax policies such as Council Tax and Stamp Duty to consider the merit of offering lower bands of taxation for homes with lower levels of embodied carbon.
Biodiversity net gain needs more time to succeed
The Committee offers support for the government’s Biodiversity net gain policy. It says it is too early to assess the overall success of BNG but warns against introducing new wide-ranging exemptions to BNG. Whilst accepting minor alterations to the policy, MPs say the Government should not exempt all small sites to ensure that the effectiveness of the policy is maintained.
The Committee also recommends that the Government should:
Incentivise the use of sustainable building materials such as timber or hemp, e.g. by introducing eco-labelling to identify materials with lower embodied carbon and offer support to further expansion of manufacturers in these fields.
Consult on incentives to develop houses with lower full lifecycle carbon, such as a levy on new build properties containing higher levels of lifecycle carbon.
Prioritise retrofitting over demolition by reducing VAT on retrofit projects from 20% and confirm that a property brought back into use would count towards housebuilding targets.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven KC has been appointed to lead an independent review of laws on public order and hate crime.
Following the terrorist attack in Manchester on 2 October, the Home Secretary announced an independent review of existing public order and hate crime legislation.
This resulted from concerns around community tensions and the impact of disruptive and intimidating protests and hate crime on the cohesion and safety of society.
The government will always protect the right to lawful protest and free speech, but we will not tolerate individuals or groups who intimidate others, incite hatred, or create disorder.
The review will therefore look at the powers police have to manage protests and the current hate crime laws, including offences for aggravated behaviour and “stirring up” hatred.
It will examine whether existing legislation is effective and proportionate, and whether it protects communities from hate and intimidation.
It will also consider if the law protects free speech and peaceful protest, while also preventing disorder and keeping people safe.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: “The terrorist attack in Manchester on 2 October shocked the nation and showed how hatred and division can fuel violence. It happened at a time of growing concern about protests and hate crime in this country.
“Our laws must protect the public, while upholding the right to protest and free speech. That is why we have asked Lord Macdonald to lead this review. His experience will ensure it is thorough and independent.
“Lawful protest and free speech are fundamental rights, but we cannot allow them to be abused to spread hate or cause disorder. The law must be fit for purpose and consistently applied.”
This review follows recent changes to the Crime and Policing Bill, which will require police to consider the overall impact of protests in one place before setting conditions on future demonstrations.
Lord Macdonald is the former Director of Public Prosecutions and brings extensive legal expertise and independence to this work.
He will be supported by Owen Weatherill, a senior policing expert who brings operational experience from his role as the National Police Chiefs’ Council Lead for Civil Contingencies and National Mobilisation.
The terms of reference for the review will be confirmed in the coming weeks with the review expected to commence imminently and conclude by February 2026.
‘just one meeting between jobseekers and advisors a year is like trying to fill an ocean with a teaspoon‘
Funding for careers advisors will be reformed, the UK Government has confirmed, following criticism of the current model in a report by a cross-party Committee of MPs.
Westminster’s Work and Pensions Committee’s Creating a new jobs and careers service report said that a combination of poor funding and badly designed targets had led to the service spending too little time with people and focusing too much on low impact interventions.
In its response to the report, the Government said that bringing “careers advice in England in house will end the current incentivised model and enable the development of a more integrated service”.
Careers advice in the UK is devolved, so these changes will not automatically apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government also agreed with the Committee on the importance of recognising the distinct roles of work coaches and careers advisors. It added that it was looking into a “dedicated training pathway” for advisors in addition to the planned Coaching Academy for work coaches.
MPs on the Committee made their recommendation following fears that the planned Jobcentre-careers service merger would eliminate the distinction between Work Coaches and Careers Advisors, which they thought would reduce the effectiveness of the service.
The DWP also committed to providing certainty to staff at the National Careers Service by publishing a transition plan in the next 6 months. Since publication of the report, the Government has moved to bring the contracts for careers advisors in-house, sparking concerns among advisors over what will happen when their contracts run out on 30 September 2026.
Committee Chair, Debbie Abrahams said, “We welcome the Government’s recognition that the careers service funding model was broken and that it must be reformed.
“Budgeting, as it does now, for just one meeting between jobseekers and advisors a year is like trying to fill an ocean with a teaspoon.
“The job is about finding out enough about people, their ambitions and interests, their skills, the barriers they face, what drives them, their needs, in order for them to be effective. A new, less exclusive, model would help meet the goals of Government and get people into work that suits them; benefitting jobseekers, employers and ultimately, the economy.
“The recent brief shake-up will help. Giving the DWP sole responsibility over the adult skills brief, instead of sharing with the Department for Education, should help to reduce the incoherent patchwork of services that are available. And bringing the careers service in house, rather than outsourcing, will in time provide clearer lines of accountability, and greater efficiency.
“But we have to recognise that pressing on with little detail on what will happen after current contracts end in September 2026 has caused significant worry among careers advisors. Certainty on this could be the solid foundation that ensures the new system gets off to the best start.
“So, the Government really needs to crack on with fleshing out the detail of the service from 2027 to boost the confidence of advisors and in the new system.”
Westminster’s Scottish Affairs Committee has launched an inquiry investigating the strategic and economic case for improved fixed transport links between Scotland’s islands.
Transport connectivity is a major challenge for Scotland’s islands, with many island communities currently being connected via ferry services. This lack of fixed-link connectivity can restrict economic development.
Fixed links to connect the islands, such as bridges or tunnels, are increasingly being considered as long-term solutions. For example, Shetland’s Island Council has approved a feasibility study into building tunnels into undersea tunnel connections.
Fixed link infrastructure like this has been a success in the Faroe Islands, an archipelago 200 miles further into the Atlantic than the Shetland Islands, which has been building undersea tunnels since the 1960s.
Scotland’s islands have been highlighted as a key region for economic growth, due to their clean energy, tourism and space sectors.
As momentum grows at a local level, the cross-party committee could examine the economic case for these fixed link projects and the UK Government’s potential strategic interest in supporting this infrastructure.
Submissions can be made via the committee’s website until 12 December 2025.
Connectivity is a crucial issue affecting communities across Scotland, particularly those in remote, rural and island areas, where infrastructure delivery is complex and costly.
Alongside this inquiry into physical connectivity, the committee will shortly be launching an inquiry into digital connectivity.
Patricia Ferguson, Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, said: “Current transport links between Scotland’s islands simply don’t seem to be up to scratch. Delayed and cancelled ferries cause disruption for entire communities, and undoubtedly also pose huge barriers to the development of island economies.
“Fixed link infrastructure projects like undersea tunnels could be transformational for Scotland’s island communities.
“Throughout this inquiry, we’ll be looking closely at the economic case for these fixed link projects, their value for money and, ultimately, whether there could be a strategic interest for the UK Government to support their development.”
Tracy Gilbert MP’s Absent Voting (Scotland and Wales) Bill, the first Private Member’s Bill of the new Parliament, has now received Royal Assent, officially becoming law.
The new legislation will make it easier for voters in Scotland and Wales to apply for a postal or proxy vote in devolved elections, allowing them to do so online.
Currently, voters must apply for postal or proxy votes using physical forms, a process that can be particularly challenging for people with disabilities or those living overseas. The new law will remove those barriers and modernise the voting system ahead of next year’s Scottish and Welsh elections.
1/2 My Absent Voting Bill has now received Royal Assent and become law, the first Private Member’s Bill of this Parliament! It means it can be used in the Scottish and Welsh elections next year, which feels like a such an achievement. pic.twitter.com/rOKtu53RNR
Tracy Gilbert MP said:“I’m incredibly proud that my Bill has now become law, and as the first Private Member’s Bill of this Parliament to do so.
“It now gives both the Scottish and Welsh Governments the time they need to implement these changes ahead of next year’s Holyrood and Senedd elections, ensuring voters can benefit from this new, more accessible system.”
Flawed contract design and incompetent delivery left the Home Office unable to cope with the surge in demand for asylum accommodation, a report by the Home Affairs Committee has found.
Hotels went from a temporary stop-gap to the go-to solution for asylum accommodation, leading to a failed system that is expensive, unpopular with local communities and unsuitable for asylum seekers.
As the cost of asylum accommodation contracts more than tripled, inadequate oversight meant failings went unnoticed and unaddressed. The Home Office failed to keep costs down and underutilised mechanisms to penalise providers for poor performance and reclaim excess profits.
No performance penalties are applied for poor performance at Napier, Wethersfield or asylum hotels, despite hotels accounting for over 75% of spending on asylum accommodation.
Break clauses in 2026 and the end of the contracts in 2029 offer the Home Office an opportunity to end the failed system. However, without a clear long-term plan and the institutional capability to deliver a model that is more effective and offers value for money, past failures risk being repeated, the Committee warns.
The Home Office’s approach has been a series of hasty, short-term responses. It must now learn from past failures and deliver a clear long-term strategy for asylum accommodation that provides value for money, adequate standards of accommodation and takes account of the impact on local communities.
Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Karen Bradley said: “The Home Office has presided over a failing asylum accommodation system that has cost taxpayers billions of pounds.
“Its response to increasing demand has been rushed and chaotic, and the department has neglected the day-to-day management of these contracts. The Government needs to get a grip on the asylum accommodation system in order to bring costs down and hold providers to account for poor performance.
“Urgent action is needed to lower the cost of asylum accommodation and address the concerns of local communities. While reducing hotel use is rightly a Government priority, there will always be a need for flexibility within the system, and the Home Office risks boxing itself in by making undeliverable promises to appeal to popular sentiment. It shouldn’t set itself up for more failure.
“The Home Office has not proved able to develop a long term strategy for the delivery of asylum accommodation. It has instead focused on short term, reactive responses.
“There is now an opportunity to draw a line under the current failed, chaotic and expensive system, but the Home Office must finally learn from its previous mistakes or it is doomed to repeat them.”
The first Private Members Bill of this Parliament has passed all stages in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The bill, proposed by Labour MP for Edinburgh North and Leith Tracy Gilbert, will make it easier for voters in Scotland and Wales to apply for a postal or proxy vote in devolved elections next year.
The Private Member’s Bill, Absent Voting (Scotland and Wales) Bill, passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords today (Friday 24 October). As no changes were made to the Bill in the House of Lords it will now go forward for Royal Assent.
Tracy Gilbert MP was drawn 12th in the Private Members Bill ballot last September. Twenty MPs are drawn in the ballot, giving them a right to introduce a bill.
Ms. Gilbert’s bill will allow voters to apply for a postal or proxy vote online, making it easier for voters to participate in elections and ending the anomaly in Scotland and Wales where voters can apply online for UK Parliament elections but not devolved elections.
Currently, voters must apply for a proxy vote by sending a physical letter. This can make the process difficult for people with disabilities or for those living outside the country. This necessary legislative change means voters will now be able to apply online for a postal or proxy vote for Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru elections next year.
During the passage of the bill through Parliament, Gilbert won cross-party praise for her bill being called a ‘modern day chartist woman’ by Tonia Antoniazzi MP.
Tracy Gilbert MPsaid: “I’m thrilled that my Private Member’s Bill is the first of this Parliament to pass both Houses of Parliament. I am grateful for the cross-party support the Bill has received.
“My bill will simplify the process for applying for a postal or proxy vote in next year’s Scottish and Welsh Parliament elections by enabling voters to apply online, extending access to democracy.”
