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

Parliament voted on 28 April 2026 to approve the draft Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, passing by 304 votes to 28. The regulations amend the existing framework governing accommodation and financial support for failed asylum seekers, allowing the government to suspend or withdraw that support where someone has been working illegally, and removing the automatic duty to provide support in all cases. The change matters because it alters the legal baseline that currently obliges the Home Office to house and financially support failed asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. By removing that blanket obligation and adding a power to cut support as a penalty for illegal working, the regulations give officials greater discretion to withdraw assistance. Supporters argued this targets deliberate misuse of the system, while critics warned that removing support without granting asylum seekers any legal right to work simply shifts the burden of destitution onto local councils and charities, without addressing the underlying incentive structure. The vote divided broadly along government-versus-opposition lines, though the numbers tell a more complex story. Labour and Labour-Co-operative MPs provided almost all the 304 ayes, with only six Labour MPs voting against and a large number absent. The 28 noes came almost entirely from smaller opposition parties: all nine Scottish National Party MPs present, all five Greens, all four Plaid Cymru members, and one Liberal Democrat voted no, joined by four independents. The Conservative Party, notably absent from the tally, did not register votes on either side in significant numbers. The vote took place on the same day Parliament also approved the related Draft Asylum Seekers (Reception Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which passed by a wider margin of 308 to 81, suggesting that second vote drew broader opposition, possibly reflecting different concerns about reception conditions for those still in the asylum process.