PMQs live: Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs as Home Office blocks citizenship for small boat refugees

PMQs is coming soon.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has blamed Home Office foot-dragging for a failure to change the rules to allow forces to sack officers who fail vetting procedures, Matthew Weaver reports.

Ministers have pledged another £350m to help build affordable and social rent homes, as Angela Rayner has said that the government “can’t afford not to” hit their 1.5m housebuilding target, PA Media reports. PA says:

Officials have said that up to 2,800 extra homes will be built with an extra £300m for the affordable homes programme, half of which will be social rent.

£50m will also be given to the local authority housing fund, with the expectation that this will produce “over 250” more council homes.

The government has pledged to build 1.5m homes over the course of the parliament, but there have been warnings that there are not the staff available to fulfil the promise.

Asked whether she was worried about the target being met, deputy prime minister and housing secretary Rayner said that she was “determined” to meet the challenge. “We will meet that target because we can’t afford not to,” Rayner told broadcasters.

Asked whether the 250 increase of council homes predicted with Wednesday’s funding was a big increase, Rayner said: “We think the measures we’re taking will unlock thousands more council and social homes as part of that programme. We want to help councils who want to build those homes.”

Stephen Doughty, a Foreign Office minister, has suggested that that the Chagos Islands sovereignty deal is necessary to prevent a “serious confrontation” with China over the UK/US military base at Diego Garcia.

He made the argument in an article in the Times in which he is more explicit than ministers have been before about what the government sees as the risks of not finalising the deal.

Mauritius claims sovereignty over the British-held Chagos Islands, a remote and mostly uninhabited archipelago which is important to London and Washington because it includes the Diego Garcia airbase.

Labour has negotiated a deal that will transfer sovereignty to Mauritius, while the UK at the same time retains control over Diego Garcia for at least 99 years in return for payments reportedly costing £90m a year. But critics claim the deal is unnecessary, and the cost is too high, and even some Labour MPs now view it as a mistake.

In his article, Doughty says that critics are wrong to argue the the UK can ignore the legal threat because an international court of justice (ICJ) ruling in favour of Mauritius in 2019 was advisory. He says:

Claims that we negotiated this deal solely because of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion are simply wrong. This was not the only challenge we faced — without a deal Mauritius would inevitably pursue a legally binding judgment. “Provisional measures”, themselves legally binding, could be introduced within weeks, affecting our ability to patrol the Chagos archipelago waters.

Doughty says that measures like this would have “serious real-world operational impact” on Diego Garcia. He says:

It would erode our ability to operate key frequencies — vital for our own communication and to counter hostile states — and affect everything from overflight clearances to securing contractors with consequential rocketing costs, declining investment and a degraded facility.

And Doughty also suggests that, without a sovereignty transfer and payments for use of Diego Garcia, the base would be at risk from China, the power seen as most keen to establish a spy outpost on one of the Chagos Islands, near Diego Garcia. He explains:

[Under the deal] we will retain full control over Diego Garcia with robust provisions to keep adversaries out. These include unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and US; a buffer zone around Diego Garcia; a comprehensive mechanism to ensure no activity in the other islands threatens base operations; and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces.

A financial element over the 99 years was crucial to protect the operation of such a vital base. If we don’t pay, someone else will. Our adversaries would jump at the chance to establish outposts on the outer islands. With a guise of legality on their side, we would have no basis to remove them and efforts to do so could spark a serious confrontation.

King Charles is due to host political leaders from across the UK at Windsor Castle tonight, PA Media reports. PA says:

Keir Starmer, as well as devolved leaders from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, have been invited the event, it is believed.

While there are reports that a number of the leaders will stay in Windsor, it is expected that Northern Ireland first minister Michelle O’Neill has decided to not spend the night at the royal residence.

She will be attending the event alongside deputy first minister Emma Little-Pengelly of the DUP.

A Sinn Féin spokesman said on Wednesday: “As first minister, Michelle O’Neill has been invited to a political engagement in Windsor Castle, hosted by the British King today, Wednesday 12th February.

“This event will be attended by the British prime minister, the first ministers from Scotland and Wales, and the first minister and deputy first minister.

“This is an opportunity to advocate for the best interests of people and communities on our island.”

The Telegraph has written this up as O’Neill snubbing the king because she is going to overnight somewhere else. (Starmer is not staying the night either, but the Telegraph does not seem to mind that because he can return to his London home after the dinner.)

Earlier this week British Future, a thinktank that focuses on race, migration and identity, released some polling suggesting a majority of Labour voters, and a plurality of Britons, believe that people granted asylum in the UK should be able to get citizenship, even if they arrived on a small boat. The polling was commissioned in the light of the Conservative party’s policy announcement on citizenship, but it has become more topic in the light of the Home Office policy change.

In its summary of the findings, British Future says:

The survey also asked about refugees being able to apply to become citizens. A plurality (44%) agrees that “If someone was granted refugee status and lived legally in Britain for six years, they should be able to apply to become a British citizen, regardless of how they arrived in the UK to claim asylum,” while a third (33%) disagree. Six in ten Labour voters (62%) and Lib Dems (60%) are supportive of refugees being able to become citizens, regardless of how they arrived in the UK, while 20% of Labour voters disagree. Conservatives are split, with 40% agreeing that refugees should be able to apply to become a British citizen, regardless of how they arrived in the UK, while 42% disagree. Reform voters respond quite differently, with 68% disagreeing with the statement.

In his Substack post on the new Home Office policy saying refugees arriving on small boats won’t normally be allowed citizenship (see 9.22am and 9.35am), Colin Yeo, the immigration barrister, says this is a breach of international law. He explains:

Although this is hardly the main point, it’s also in breach of international law. I’m wary of making claims for international law but I struggle to see how this could not be a breach of the Refugee Convention. Article 31 says:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence

The new policy also appears to breach another part of the convenion, saying countries should “as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees”, Yeo says.

Yeo says the convention is binding on the UK. But he says it is also unenforceable, because it has not been incorported into domestic law.

The British economy is on course to expand by 1.5% this year after the budget gave a boost to public spending but could be blown off course if Donald Trump goes ahead with threatened tariffs, a leading economic thinktank has warned. Phillip Inman has the story.

Sonia Lenegan revealed the new Home Office policy in a post on the Free Movement website yeseterday. She found out about the change by looking at additions to the Good Character guidance for immigration caseworkers. Here are the two key passages that have been added.

Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.

A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance. It does not include, for example, arrival as a passenger with a commercial airline.

Lenegan also says that, in practice, this means there would be no point in someone who arrived on a small boat even applying for citizenship.

Naturalisation applications are expensive and there is no right of appeal against a refusal, so even though the guidance states that applications will “normally” be refused, meaning that there is room to ask for discretion to be exercised and a grant still made even where there has been illegal entry, in reality many people will be deterred by this change from even applying.

Good morning. On Monday MPs debated, and passed, the second reading of the border security, asylum and immigration bill. It is a signficant piece of legislation that repeals a lot of the Rwanda-policy law passed by the Tories and gives the authorities new anti-terrorism-style powers to tackle people smuggling. There is a good summary of it here.

During the debate Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said one reason why the Conservatives were opposed to the bill was because it repealed section 32 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 which “prevents people who enter the country illegally from gaining citizenship”. He went on:

By repealing that section, the bill will create a pathway to citizenship for people who entered the country illegally, and I think that is unconscionable.

Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, pushed back at one point, saying the Home Office had “strengthened the powers to ensure that small boat arrivals cannot get citizenship by strengthening the rules”. But her point did not seem to register in the debate, and several other Tories repeated Philp’s claim about the pathway to citizenship for illegal arrivals.

Now it is clear what Cooper was talking about. The Home Office has tightened the law in relationship to citizenship. Labour is getting rid of the Tory law that was supposed to stop people arriving on small boats from claiming asylum. But being granted asylum is not the same as getting citizenship, and the Home Office is at the same time tightening guidance to make it harder – in fact, almost impossible – for small boat arrivals to claim citizenship.

This was first revealed yesterday in a post on the Free Movement website. Rajeev Syal explains it in our story here.

In the past the debate about small boat arrivals has mostly focused on whether or not refugees should be to stay. (The last Conservative government said no, but it did not get very far in terms of removing people because of international human rights law and practical problems with the Rwanda policy.) But last week Kemi Badenoch shifted the focus to citizenship, not residence, with a new policy that will make it much harder for all migrants (not just refugees) to become British citizens. The new Home Office policy looks like a political attempt to in part match that.

The move is facing strong criticism. The Refugee Council says the latest policy does not make sense. In a statement it says:

This change flies in the face of reason. The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives. So many refugees over many generations have become proud hard working British citizens as doctors, entrepreneurs and other professionals. Becoming a British citizen has helped them give back to their communities and this should be celebrated, not prevented. We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.

And the Labour MP Stella Creasy has also spoken against the new guidance. In a post on Bluesky yesterday she said the policy “should be changed asap”. And she told the Today programme this morning that she did not think it made sense to let refugees stay in the country, but deny them citizenship. She said she was happy to vote for the bill on Monday night. But she went on:

What this message is saying is that we will judge your asylum claim, so we will let you stay in the country, but we will not expect you to be part of our community. I just genuinely, gently, say to my colleagues on the front bench, I think that is counterproductive. That is not where the British public are at.

They recognize that there are not safe routes [for many refugees wanting to come to the UK]. If you are an Iranian dissident right now fleeing the regime, there is not a safe route. So you may well have come in a boat. We should absolutely interrogate your claim. If your claim is not well founded, you should not be able to stay.

But if we let you stay in this country, we should also have a route that you can be part of this country, and that is what citizenship is.

Colin Yeo, the immigration barrister who runs the Free Movement website, has also written about the move on his Substack blog. He calls it “spiteful”. He explains:

At first I hoped this was some sort of accident, a residue of the Illegal Migration Act, which legislated to have this same effect, still making its way through the system. But it doesn’t look like it. It looks deliberate. Even though those provisions of the Illegal Migration Act are being scrapped by this government.

A permanent bar on citizenship for illegal entrants is a bad idea. It creates a permanent group on non citizens who are forever excluded from civic life no matter how long they live here and no matter what they do.

It also has zero deterrent effect. This is never going to stop someone coming here. It merely punishes them for doing so. It’s punishment without rehabilitation. It’s spiteful.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretay, gives a speech on the probation service.

Morning: John Healey, the defence secretary, meets Pete Hegseth, the new US defence secretary, in Brussels. Politico is describing this as “the first proper in-person US-UK bilateral of the second Trump era”.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

2.20pm: Bridget Phillipson and Anneliese Dodds, who are both ministers for women and equalities, in addition to their other roles (education secretary and development minister respectively) give evidence to the Commons women and equalities committee.

2.30pm: Eluned Morgan, the Welsh secretary, gives evidence to the Commons Welsh affairs committee.

2.30pm: Starmer meets relatives of the victims of the Nottingham attacks in Downing Street.

4.30pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, and Richard Tice, his deputy, hold a press conference where, according to the party, they will deliver “a stark warning … relating to the economy and renewable energy”. (Reform UK suggest this will be important stuff; the press notice says the press conference will start “after markets close”.)

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.

If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.