Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 22nd October 2026
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2026 - (22 Oct 2026)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
Clause 22
Interpretation of Refugee Convention: “lawfully staying”
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 22, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would omit the transitional provision for clause 22. Amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, and that would mean that the transitional provision could also be included in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 61—Removal of persons within Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention: disapplication of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998—
“(1) Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) does not apply to a decision of the Secretary of State to remove from, or require to leave, the United Kingdom a person who is not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (as inserted by this Act).
(2) In proceedings relating to such a decision, a court or tribunal may not treat the decision as unlawful by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right.
(3) In this section ‘Convention right’ has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This new clause would mean that the Human Rights Act 1998 would not prevent the removal from the United Kingdom, where the Refugee Convention permits their return, of a refugee who is a danger to national security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community.
Anna Turley
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. If the Committee will bear with me, I will set out some reminders of the purposes of the clause to which amendment 133 refers, to give some context to the discussion and debate that I look forward to this morning.
Clause 22 provides that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a “particularly serious crime” or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws and contribute positively to life in this country. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations. It is right that we help individuals from around the world who flee conflict and oppression, but the asylum system must be fair and effective so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection. Those who break our laws and undermine our way of life do not deserve to have our support or indulgence any longer.
Those granted refugee or human rights protection status are provided with the rights and support necessary to rebuild their lives, to integrate into our communities, to support themselves and their families, and to contribute to the UK. That includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. However, we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome. Those who can be deported will be deported, and those we are unable to remove will be denied the benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws. Through their serious offending, they have demonstrated conduct that justifies a different approach to the benefits and entitlements associated with protection status.
All those who claim asylum undergo a series of security checks against immigration and police databases, and they are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both inside and outside the UK, or are of national security interest. Under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, we have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcomed here. We have expanded the definition of “particularly serious crime” so that any registered sex offender or any individual convicted of a schedule 3 sex offence can be denied protection status, alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
This is a huge concern in rural constituencies like mine. There is no support any more for the immigration and asylum system. Will the Minister explain how she believes that these changes will assure people that there is a safeguard in place to make sure that those who are threats not only to individuals but to our nation will not be welcomed here?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his. There is real concern that anyone who comes here and breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide to those genuinely fleeing persecution who abide by the rules and standards we expect of them. No member of this Committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We have deported more than 12,000 foreign national offenders, up 41% on the two years before we came into power. As I say, no one should be in any doubt about our determination.
The clause focuses particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, those individuals are already granted shorter, more restricted leave, with conditions attached, and are subject to regular review until they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. We are clear that we will continue to monitor and review these individuals until removal is possible. They cannot qualify for settlement, and their continued presence in the UK is permitted for only so long as the barrier persists.
We are determined that protection from removal, where required by international obligations, should not automatically confer the broader benefits associated with protection status. It is right that there is a clear distinction between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not—those who make the effort to integrate into the UK and those who do not.
Certain rights under the refugee convention are owed only to individuals who are “lawfully staying” in the UK. The Secretary of State’s policy is that refugees who have been excluded from the protections of the refugee convention under article 33(2) are not lawfully staying in the UK. Clause 22 puts that policy on a statutory footing for the first time, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. That will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope the Committee agrees that it cannot be the case that those who have committed those crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws.
New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would enable the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. I look forward to hearing his argument for the new clause, but it is important to clarify that we would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. My initial response is that simply disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 does not address the point about international law or customary international law, and that any attempt to ignore those obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. That would not comply with our obligations under the refugee convention, which we ourselves established, to ensure that we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.
Ben Goldsborough
Is not one of the risks with the Opposition’s proposition that, by disapplying the European convention on human rights, we would have to strike a new deal with other nations every single time? That is the reason for the slow returns processes we currently have with countries that are not in the ECHR.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in every experience I have ever had in this portfolio and others, international co-operation has been the solution, not the problem, whether it is driving down fraudulent asylum applications or dealing with those who break the rules when they are here.
Finally, Government amendment 133 will simply allow for transitional provisions to be included in the commencement regulations, rather than being on the face of the Bill.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
The current rules allow too many foreign national offenders to avoid deportation. That undermines public safety and confidence in our immigration system, so it is right that through the Bill we strive to balance the public interest against individual rights, and to ensure that the application of article 8 of the ECHR in deportation cases reflects that balance. The existing tests do not place enough weight on the public interest, especially on public safety and crime prevention. The tougher action that the Government propose is intended to ensure that the courts consistently prioritise public protection, which is welcome.
It is incomprehensible to most people how those who have been granted permission to live and work in the UK and then seriously break the law of the land do not then forfeit the rights that have been conferred on them. That view is heightened when people are part of organised crime gangs, have only recently arrived in the country or have arrived without permission and request asylum. We say that the UK is a tolerant country, but I see that tolerance fracturing as UK citizens see the rules of the country failing in the face of modern migration. We are not the only country experiencing this, and failing to address it will only ensure even greater civil unrest.
It is worth noting that, between 2016 and 2021, about 70% of successful appeals by foreign national offenders allowed them to stay solely on article 8 grounds. Other data shows that nearly 20,000 foreign offenders remain in Britain due to a clogged appeals system, with many winning cases based on human rights arguments. It is interesting to see an amendment propose incredibly tough, specific measures when, during their time in government, the Conservatives failed to implement any changes that would have prevented the disgraceful scenes that we see around the country today.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Even before these incredibly welcome tough new actions, we saw the deportation of foreign national offenders go up by 41% compared with under the last Government. Does that not demonstrate the abject failure of the last Administration to deal with the issue?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will come to that. Even within the existing rules, there was an opportunity for the previous Administration to take tougher action to prioritise this. Instead of using those rules, they looked at fanciful arrangements with other countries, with completely empty planes taking off. They wasted huge amounts of public money on schemes that were little more than a gimmick.
The stats that I mentioned—that 70% of appeals are successful, and that there are 20,000 foreign offenders in a clogged appeals system—do not demonstrate a system that is fair or working at full capacity, or indeed working as it should.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. It is right that our immigration and asylum system should, first and foremost, be fair to the population of the United Kingdom. Does she agree that, on the question of whether we can remove people who have committed serious crimes, it is also unfair to legitimate asylum seekers, who risk being tarred with the same brush, with their reasons for fleeing often serious and horrible situations in other countries coming under suspicion?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where people seek to game the system, it undermines it for those with legitimate claims. That is where we start to see a real breakdown of trust in the system, with everybody being put into the same category. In my view, that creates even greater civil unrest and the potential for pretty heinous actions to be taken by those in local communities. We have seen the situation around the country spiral in recent times, with very vulnerable individuals being targeted because of an improper and unfair narrative due to those who have sought to exploit weaknesses in a system that was left abjectly under-resourced under the previous Government.
The Minister and my hon. Friends have mentioned that around 70,000 people have been deported since July 2024, an increase of over 41%. It has probably gone up since I made these notes, because my next sentence says, “of these, 10,000 were foreign national offenders.” As we have heard, it has gone up to 12,000, and the increase is 41%, not the 36% that I noted. That is a remarkable achievement within the confines of a system that is straining at the seams, and it demonstrates this Government’s determination to try to fix a broken system and give that reassurance to the British public. It is worth reiterating that at every opportunity.
There are other signals that the Home Office is intent on providing that reassurance, as enforcement funding is rising. Immigration enforcement spending will increase from £681 million to £1.33 billion by the end of this Parliament. Staffing numbers will rise from 4,500 to 7,300. Those are not small measures, and they not only reassure the public but make the system work as it is supposed to. Although deportations have increased, there remains a substantial backlog, so new powers allowing immediate deportation after sentencing for most determinate sentence offenders will start to show a reduction in the coming months and years. There is also the added benefit that earlier removal will reduce pressure on prison capacity, which we all know is under great strain.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, especially as she is caveating our relative success in removing foreign offenders by providing the wider context about criminality in this country. The vast majority of crime is committed by British citizens—indeed, British-born citizens. Sometimes that is lost in this debate.
Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that foreign offenders are often synonymously conflated with violence against women and girls? There are certain elements in our politics that wish to leverage that narrative to demonise certain communities and to further their own political interests. Does she share my concerns about the politicians who do that, and does she agree that when it comes to people who commit violence against women and girls, the common theme is largely not one particular community or immigrant population, or indeed foreign offenders, but men?
Melanie Onn
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I agree that the commonality is men. I would also say that there is great fear in communities. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, there is already suspicion when there are new arrivals. There is work to be done to demonstrate the reality that, where there is criminal activity, this country has strong institutions in place that are prepared to set the record straight. There can often be unfounded rumours that lead to vigilante groups and the targeting of individuals—I have seen that happen in my constituency, and it is completely unacceptable.
When there is criminal activity, swift action should be taken to apprehend that individual and, whatever their background, they should be subject to the full force of UK law. They should be dealt with quickly, and where appropriate, if they are a foreign national offender or an asylum seeker, they should be deported as quickly as possible. Immediate deportation after sentencing would address the issue and comfort people in communities around the country. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and perhaps I have not given him enough comfort that we share entirely the same perspective. There is certainly more that can be done.
We have to do all we can to strengthen public confidence and to restore trust in our systems. We have to be honest about the scale of the issue, the backlogs and the delays. Removing people more reliably and quickly through improved co-operation with receiving countries, as the Minister mentioned, will go a significant way towards doing that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I know I am a voice in the wilderness, but I wish Parliament would use these Committee sessions to try to improve legislation instead of collapsing into the pantomime of the Chamber. That is not a criticism of the hon. Lady by any means, or any of the contributions I have heard, but sometimes we fall into political discourse when we should be trying to improve things.
Melanie Onn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because this is his first appearance and we are now five days into the Committee. He will have no doubt looked at Hansard or listened to the recordings and seen that we have gone through the detail of this legislation line by line in previous sittings.
Mr Kohler
That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said—[Interruption.] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that.
The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question. I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it:
“The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence. UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.”
If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. We support clause 22, and I rise in support of new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Both address the same question: what happens when someone claiming our protection is a danger to this country?
Clause 22 says that a person who falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention is
“not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom”.
That covers two categories: someone whom there are reasonable grounds to regard as a danger to our national security and someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community. Those are, by definition, the most serious cases our asylum system deals with. The public will understand why such a person should lose the rights that depend on lawful stay, such as the right to work and access to public funds, but they will ask a far simpler question: why are they still here?
Clause 22 changes how we describe someone’s stay. It does not cancel their leave, make a deportation order or remove the human rights barriers to sending them home. In particular, article 3 of the European convention on human rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose, so the clause on its own does not give Ministers a clear route to removal.
New clause 61 addresses that gap. For decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by proposed new section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, it would disapply section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it is incompatible with the convention right. It would apply only where the refugee convention already permits return. The measure is targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals identified by clause 22.
The Minister may say that the new clause would not change our obligations under the convention and that cases could still go to Strasbourg. That is true and is precisely why we believe this country should leave the ECHR.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member not agree that we are currently a proud member of the European Court of Human Rights and, with that membership, we have still managed to deport 12,000 foreign national offenders to other countries that are signed up to it? It is absolutely no barrier and, in fact, it helps us to fulfil our obligations. We are a proud nation of sanctuary in Wales and we are also going to have safe and legal routes for immigrants. Surely he agrees that being part of the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent us from deporting people.
Matt Vickers
If you believe that we are deporting everyone we should be deporting, and if you do not believe that the European convention on human rights has got in the way of us removing people, you start from a very different place from me. People I represent are very concerned about our immigration system. They are very concerned that the laws we are making in this place are not acting to control that immigration system. I think we start from very different perspectives.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member makes a fair point. We have had lots of things to say about the past. It is that experience that has led us to the point where we believe that some of the human rights framework that is in place gets in the way of deportations. Clause 22 actually concedes that point. It says that these people should not be able to exercise some of those rights, but it does not remove them. New clause 61 is the step that actually solves that problem.
This system is not working. I would be celebrating if we were a bit further forwards than we are. Actually, 7,042 people arrived from Eritrea in the year to March—how many went back? Two. There were 4,490 who arrived from Afghanistan—how many went back? One. And 4,389 arrived from Eritrea—how many went back? Zero.
The system is not functioning. Progress is progress. We would welcome progress. The opportunity with this Bill is to make much further progress and remove the people who should be removed.
Melanie Onn
Perhaps the hon. Member might like to take the opportunity to correct the record. He mentioned Eritrea twice there.
The hon. Member says the system is not working. It plainly is. It could work better, but we are seeing big increases from the failure of his Government to manage to deport people under the current rules. By applying what rules we have and exercising them by putting additional resources behind them, as well as tightening up some of the deportation rules, we will see a marked improvement in the number of foreign criminals who have no right to be here being returned to their country.
Matt Vickers
We welcome deportations of people with no right to be here, but when we start going back through the records to see who arrived and who left without us even knowing, we have the Home Office scratching numbers together to work out who has gone. It is a positive that we can improve deportations, but in recent times, we have gone from the point where we said that somebody who arrives in this country illegally cannot claim citizenship—there was legislation in place—to a point where that has been unpicked by this Government. We sat through the debates on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 on that subject.
This is an opportunity to improve things. We are determined to get among it. We are determined to improve it. Whatever the deportations are, they need to be significantly higher for my constituents to be happy.
I will correct the record—7,042 arrivals from Eritrea, two were removed; 4,490 from Afghanistan, one was removed; 4,389 from Sudan, zero removed. That is not a satisfactory system. That is not working. This is the opportunity to improve that.
David Smith
Notwithstanding the abject failure of the last Government to manage our immigration system, there are many ways to skin a cat. The hon. Member mentioned Eritrean immigrants or asylum seekers and deportations. He may have noticed that the Government are looking to work with the Eritrean Government to say that there will be no access to visas to the UK for Eritreans unless that Government agree to take people back. There are many ways to address this.
Those on the Opposition Benches repeatedly mention the ECHR. We have had a long debate about the part of this Bill that addresses article 8 of the ECHR, which has been problematic, but does he ultimately want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do he and his constituents care about article 2, the right to life; article 3, the prohibition of torture; article 4, the prohibition of slavery; article 7, no punishment without law; or article 9—something very close to my heart as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion and belief—the freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Is it not true that the Opposition’s approach is to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Matt Vickers
We are talking about people who pose a threat to our national security and are, categorically, a danger to our community. I think that the rights of the people in my community should trump the rights of people who pose a threat to our national security and are a danger to that community—[Interruption.] I will try to make a bit of progress, or we might be here for quite a while.
New clause 61 would remove the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves Ministers unable to act. It is a concrete step that the Committee could take today. If the Government reject that approach, what is the answer? Where removal is lawful, how quickly will it happen? Where return home is barred, will Ministers seek agreements with safe third countries? While the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk, and who is accountable for making sure that they work?
Government amendment 133 removes the transitional provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applies only to decisions made after it comes into force. The Minister’s explanatory statement says that amendment 135
“would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations,”
which means that the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill. That means that the question of who this clause applies to and whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by Ministers, not by this Committee. I ask the Minister directly: will existing cases be reassessed, or will this apply only to future decisions? When will the regulations be published, and when will this clause actually take effect? Until Ministers commence clause 22, neither it nor new clause 61 can apply to a single person.
We also need to know who will decide that someone falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention, what evidence will be required and how challenges will be handled. Those decisions must be robust, otherwise we risk years of litigation while the person concerned stays put.
We will support clause 22 because it tightens the position of these individuals, but our support should not be mistaken for confidence that it solves the problem. Declaring someone dangerous is not the same as protecting the public from them. New clause 61 confronts the gap between the two, and we will press it to a Division at the appropriate point. If Ministers will not support it, they must explain what they will do instead to keep this country safe.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that.
As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence.
To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes.
I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.
Catherine Fookes
I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.
Anna Turley
I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law.
I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful.
The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born.
As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”.
The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes.
This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended.
That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.
Ben Goldsborough
That gets to the crux of the issue that we are trying to combat within the Bill. The issue itself is not necessarily the principles behind the ECHR; it is the over-interpretation—the juridification—of the law. What we are seeking to do through the Bill, which my constituents greatly welcome, is rein in the courts and make them understand that Parliament sets the rules of the game. We will ensure that they are firm but fair for all residents, as well as for those stuck on waiting lists who need swift action.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the Bill: ensuring that we define matters for courts so that we do not see the free-for-all of over-interpretation that we have seen before.
I see this as a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants and foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protect our individual rights and freedom.
Matt Vickers
The Minister talked about Winston Churchill. Does she think that Winston Churchill would have desired legislation that allows people who are categorically a threat to our national security, or a danger to the community, to stay in this country?
Anna Turley
I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.
Matt Vickers
The clause relates to people who are too dangerous to lawfully stay in the country. It is not giving us a perspective by which to remove those people. Those people are a danger to our community—you are saying that they are a danger to our community and a threat to our national security—yet we are not going far enough to remove them. It undermines the entire clause.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that there have been several uses of the words “you” and “your” this morning. This is not about me.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.
Anna Turley
I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.
Matt Vickers
This new clause sets out that we would remove people under the mechanism only where doing so complied with the refugee convention. It is there in black and white: we are complying with our obligations under the convention on refugees.
Anna Turley
The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. Is there a point to be made about retaining our responsibilities in relation to the ECHR? Critically, international co-operation will enable us to deport more easily people who have no right to be here.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.
Matt Vickers
Disapplying the Human Rights Act is about disapplying our domestic legislation—our domestic barriers. That is entirely compliant with the international refugee convention. This is not about international barriers; it is about our domestic barrier, the Human Rights Act.
Anna Turley
That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it.
Amendment 133 agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made.
(3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant.
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
Siân Berry
It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments.
The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention.
The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
That absolutely applies to refugees.
Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.
Catherine Fookes
I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from in relation to local authorities, but does she agree that clauses 23 and 24 exclude certain groups of people, including under-18s and those whom the payments would make destitute?
Siân Berry
One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities.
The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that
“around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”.
She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later.
I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed.
Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.
Ben Goldsborough
One really important aspect of the Bill is the focus on avoiding destitution. This is not about asking people to pay a never-ending tax or preventing them from living and working in the UK. When they can afford to, they can pay back to the state. I would just like the hon. Lady to bear that in mind, because the system we are proposing is fair but firm.
Siân Berry
I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence we have heard about the impact on people’s ability to integrate and on community cohesion has been clear. Amendment 81 in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivise the Home Office to reduce those costs and make decisions on time. It would also mean that people kept in the system for longer than necessary are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of the amendment. If the asylum claim took longer than six months because of the actions of the applicant, this would not apply—the amendment covers that as well.
On my amendment 76, as mentioned earlier, if the Government decide to go ahead with the payments, they cannot guard against destitution with their requirement. Poverty ought to be the defining measure. That would allay a lot of the fears of local authorities, which are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty. It would also save money, reduce those impacts and be much clearer about what would happen. People are fearful that the word “destitution” is a very low bar. As defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, someone is destitute if they do
“not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it”,
or if they have
“adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs.”
The Government’s definition of “essential living needs”, as set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal. As the Bill is drafted, individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty, or even deep material poverty, if we are to use those definitions.
Ben Goldsborough
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. She said that if we changed definitions, it would save the state money. Could she elaborate on that and give evidence that that is the case?
Siân Berry
The evidence I have comes from local authorities that have given evidence to the Committee and are very worried that their obligations will be extended by this Bill. People will be driven into poverty by the Home Office taking this money away from the overall system in the local area. It would be useful if the Home Office told us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate that. I am not sure that the Bill sets out where the repayments are going to go, but the implication is that they will go to the Home Office, not to local authorities.
Amendment 76 would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. It also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median—a fairly normal definition of poverty that is also the Government’s own definition for whether a household is low income.
Clearly, it is the Government’s intention to provide safeguards to ensure that people are not made destitute. This amendment would strengthen that safeguard on the face of the Bill so that people who fled war and have been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities.
Finally, my amendment 79 is fairly pragmatic. It sets out that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. Currently, there is no link in the Bill between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. I would like to hear what the Government’s intentions are in setting out those charges. There is a broad power in the Bill and it would come through regulations. However, we need reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they have received.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that clause 23 creates a power
“that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 13 July 2026; c. 678.]
The implication is clearly that this should not exceed the cost of being supported. Government amendment 124 would allow the Home Secretary to reduce the payments owed. It would be useful to hear more detail from the Minister about the criteria for applying the power to reduce the payments and about the cases in which they would expect the amounts people owed to be reduced. If the Government plan on reducing them, in line with the amendment, would they consider putting that on the face of the Bill?
Mr Brash
I fear that there may be some issues with the numbers that the hon. Lady has just given. One of the commitments that this Government have made on dispersal accommodation is to disperse more fairly across the country. As a result of the private contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, areas of low housing cost were targeted in my Hartlepool constituency. This Government, as I understand it, are looking to do that much more fairly to reduce the burden on deprived communities such as mine. As a result, dispersal accommodation costs will probably go up.
Siân Berry
That is an entirely fair point. There has been a focus on the lowest-possible-cost accommodation, and it is only right that people can stay closer to where they may have a connection and all the other considerations.
It is important that those figures are just the current average. Overall, given the gravity of the impacts and the concerns from local authorities and many of my constituents about the problems, I want to see answers from the Minister on the amendments that would mitigate the impacts. I will be pressing my amendments to a vote if I do not hear good answers, and I will be opposing clause 23.
Melanie Onn
On the point about contributions, it is worth reflecting on this country’s tradition of collective contributory institutions. Whether it is the welfare system, the NHS, education or pensions, we recognise that we all pay something in so that we can all benefit. Some pay less and some pay more, and some people use those institutions a lot and some use them very rarely, but we accept the balance and the level of fairness in the system. Provided we get our bins collected and we can see a doctor and so on, we are all generally fairly satisfied. When people are feeling a great financial squeeze—it is fair to say many across the country are—and they see examples of others not participating in that agreed settlement, which is our social contract with the state after all, it starts to breed discontent. We should have measures in place to ensure where people have received from the state, they give something back when they are able.
Those who arrive on a work visa are already required to pay reapplication fees every few years for them and their family, which can amount of a significant sum, and to pay annual NHS surcharges. The question is why those on work visas who are aiding this country in shortage occupations have to pay that while others are not required to contribute anything. Should they be granted asylum and are able to work and participate in general life, they should recognise the contribution that enables them to live a settled life in this country. Why should one group be required to pay something and another group not?
Ben Goldsborough
In my South Norfolk constituency, I have the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital trust, which has a huge number of people contributing to our society and making sure the NHS in my area is performing some of the best cancer services available. It is an issue that they are paying the NHS surcharge. It would surely be unfair to continue down a line of thinking where there are two tiers in our immigration system.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes a valid point that we should seek to avoid multiple tiers of different systems applying to people in those circumstances wherever we can. He is also right to recognise the contributions that people make to this country.
Siân Berry
I take the hon. Lady’s point that people who have claimed asylum should be regarded as akin to those here on work visas. However, does she understand the points in my amendments about how different groups of asylum seekers are being treated differently? People who needed accommodation due to poverty will be asked to pay back, while those who did not need accommodation, due to not being in poverty, are not. That distinction, which sets different asylum seeker groups against each other, is unhelpful.
Melanie Onn
I recognise the point the hon. Lady is making. However, as I pointed out in my opening statement, some people pay more and benefit more already. We have an accepted system that there is a general balance between those who pay higher rates of tax and others who pay lower rates, and between those in receipt of more NHS care and support, and others who rarely need it. We must recognise that we will not be able to get everything exactly right or accurate for every subsection of society.
Melanie Onn
Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on my broad, non-specific contribution?
Melanie Onn
That is a slightly different argument. I was trying to explain how we have a broad group of existing British citizens who pay, contribute and get some benefit. It is the same for asylum seekers: those who benefit should contribute at a later stage when they are able. That is a fair and reasonable point.
Siân Berry
For clarity, if this is akin to those on work visas, why are the Government proposing that only those asylum seekers who were here in poverty should pay back those contributions? Why not have a more redistributive approach and also charge the most well-off people seeking asylum, or make it more progressive?
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I feel uncomfortable about dropping the shoulder like this, but you are asking about what the Government should be doing, yet there is a Minister in the room—who will hopefully provide more detail.
Melanie Onn
Did I say “you”? Apologies, I am normally very good at avoiding that, Mrs Barker.
When Ministers and the Government look at the payment and repayment schedules further down the line, they will have the opportunity to look at that point in greater detail and see whether flexibility is required. But the anticipation is that people who are here and were given the opportunity to settle and start their life again—as we have seen with so many people who have come to this country in asylum circumstances and have gone on to do great things—will be able to make the contribution as it is set out.
David Smith
Not to do my hon. Friend’s work for her, but the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked why anyone else in receipt of benefits should not make a contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction? By definition, if someone coming here to seek asylum has not contributed to the wider economy—and if we can guarantee that historically—that differentiates them from someone who is already here and most likely did, in most cases, make a contribution, through work or otherwise, to the benefits that they receive? As I have already mentioned, before my time in Parliament I ran a homelessness charity, and we often had asylum seekers in our accommodation—which is literally behind where we are sitting right now, in Southwark—who were desperate to make contributions. They repeatedly told us—they made it very clear—that they wanted to make a financial contribution to the country that had given them sanctuary.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am going to come to that, because making sure that what is and will be expected of people is clear and up front, without any ambiguity, will help those applying to understand the expectations that will be conveyed upon them. That will also give some reassurance to the UK public that this country is not seen as a soft touch. It might help to reset some negative views about how migrants who arrive here to claim asylum are, in some way, only here to milk the system and get all they can, or that they only want to take, take, take, and are not prepared to give, give, give. My hon. Friend’s example proves the exact opposite: people claiming asylum want to contribute.
Melanie Onn
I will not, because I am on my final sentence.
Rather than having a negative perception of those asylum seekers, this could help the public to understand that they are making a contribution—that they are willing to make a contribution. Then we will see a settlement that is deemed to be acceptable and that hopefully contributes to a much more cohesive society.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time.
As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost.
This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
Mr Kohler
Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
David Smith
I am delighted to hear the Opposition spokesman say that this is not a refugee tax. Does he agree, as we approach other issues in the Bill and elsewhere, that redistributions of funding and contributions in other areas are not always a tax?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax.
On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified?
Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only.
Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target?
Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary.
Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt?
The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost.
During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:
“I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]
Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs?
Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment?
The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their important contributions to this debate on asylum costs and the mechanism the Government are creating to recover some of them. As we heard from my hon. Friends, fairness is at the heart of this debate. We are discussing the concept that individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers should contribute towards the support that they received. That is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who have received support having a stake in the success of this country and contributing to the cost of that support, and thereby to the sustainability of giving it to others, once they are financially able.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. Each year, the taxpayer funds £4 billion of asylum costs. While it is right that we support those fleeing war and persecution, it is also right that those who have received that support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can. The measures will ensure that they put back into the system that supported them and contribute towards the provision of that support to others, as well as ensuring that others who are paying for that support consent to doing so.
We have heard examples of our constituents contributing to many different forms of collective support, including through national insurance, and through tax to fund access to healthcare. Contribution is an important principle of the social contract in this country. For that reason, the Bill introduces a new power, under which asylum seekers will pay back a portion of the cost of their support when they are financially able to do so. It will be possible to recover those costs through tax receipts, benefit payments and/or as a debt to the Home Office. That mirrors the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions deducts from universal credit where people have child support payments due, owe money for hardship payments, or have unpaid bills or tax.
Amendments 81, 76 and 79, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seek to prescribe in the Bill how and when asylum support contributions should be calculated and reduced. The Government cannot accept the amendments because they would be too complex to enable effective delivery of the policy and would move us away from the policy intent of a fair and proportionate contribution towards the costs of support once a person is financially able to pay.
Clause 23 establishes an important principle that, where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute, it is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23(5) already requires regulations to include provisions to ensure that nobody pays where it would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the regulations that we have committed to sharing during the passage of the Bill.
Anna Turley
I have a huge pile of responses to the points the hon. Lady made, and there are some important clarifications I want to make. If I do not answer her questions sufficiently, I will be happy to take an intervention.
I want to pick up the hon. Lady’s point about destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set the provision at this level, and I do not think it is appropriate to define poverty in the statute book. Given I have wards in my constituency where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that the hon. Lady set out—I am sure the same is true for the constituencies of other Members present—I am afraid I cannot accept an amendment that says that people in my area can be below that poverty line but asylum seekers cannot. All my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it is appropriate to safeguard one group and not another, as much as we all have a desire—an absolute commitment—to reduce poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country.
The hon. Lady also raised the matter of whether the Bill breaches article 25 of the declaration of human rights. We are absolutely confident that it meets our international obligations, including under the refugee convention. We believe it is compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a sustainable system for the future.
The convention does not anywhere require states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual’s circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution be given protection and access to support, which we are doing. Asylum seekers receive a comprehensive package of taxpayer-funded accommodation support, which is very different from the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the refugee convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a contribution, when they can, towards the system that they benefit from. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive—we can and will do both.
The hon. Lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations. I want to reiterate that we have committed to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill’s passage, and I undertake to do that as soon as possible. I am sure that colleagues will understand that it requires a lot of complex engagement with the Treasury and others. We want to make sure that we have got this absolutely right and that we do not fall foul of the situation Opposition Members found themselves in when they tried to introduce this Bill—the workings out had not been done.
The hon. Lady asked why anyone should pay more than the cost of the support they received. This policy is intended to generate a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not to be an itemised recovery of the precise costs incurred by an individual. That would be extremely difficult—nigh on impossible—and it would undermine the ability for us to raise any money through the measure. The flat rate will be calculated by reference to average support costs and the average time spent in asylum accommodation. A flat rate is clearer and more feasible to administer, while payments will remain linked to affordability.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Secretary’s power to make exemptions. I want to flag that it is very similar to an existing power that the Home Secretary has that is covered by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. It is really important to maintain the ability to make exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances.
I want to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. That will not be the case. Payments will apply only where someone has the means to pay. Safeguards will ensure that no one is pushed into destitution. Payments will be linked to income and affordability thresholds. Deduction rates and exemptions will be designed to protect those without the means to contribute. As I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this Bill’s passage. Could a person be penalised where a payment could cause destitution? No. Clause 23 requires regulations to contain provisions that ensure that a person is not required to pay where doing so would cause destitution, as we have already flagged.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)
Thursday 22nd October 2026
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2026 - (22 Oct 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert—
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we have had so far today. I will pick up my response to the various Opposition amendments, starting with amendment 141, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, which would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including for settlement. The Government are already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hon. Members will hopefully have seen from some of the media debate. That is currently undergoing a lot of discussion, so it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, paying towards the cost of their asylum support will form part of their wider contribution to society. People with outstanding asylum support debt will be prevented from returning to the UK until that debt is repaid. It is our intention that those who receive support will be expected to make contributions when they are financially able to do so.
The detailed operation of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. As I have mentioned to hon. Members already today, we have committed to sharing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill, providing them with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how those provisions will operate in practice. That approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight, while retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy. The draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.
I will take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The Government are determined to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That is part of the principle of this, although the primary objective is fairness and sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. As I have said, details of the scheme are under development and will be published in draft regulations. We will look for as much transparency as possible, not just in the process but in how we can publish data in our regular asylum statistics.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned amendment 124, which is about the powers given to the Home Secretary for exemptions, and the circumstances in which they might be used. The amendment enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities arising under the asylum support contribution scheme. As I mentioned this morning, that is commensurate with article 8 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, which gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. The power will of course be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and we anticipate that it will be used only in exceptional cases.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the amount payable and how the income threshold will be set. Hon. Members have raised the £10,000 figure, which is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required. The final flat-rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation. As we discussed this morning, it is intended to reflect average asylum support costs across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. That is how the figure was reached. The estimates will depend on the final design and implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We will continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five-year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty. I hope I have addressed the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
On Government amendment 124, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of the support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be fair and proportionate to depart from that general principle. The amendment provides flexibility to respond to such circumstances and supports the fair and effective administration of the scheme. The detailed circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme, while ensuring that it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases.
Government amendments 125 and 126 are technical amendments that deal with how the requirement to pay back a contribution towards asylum support operates if the recipient becomes bankrupt or enters another form of insolvency process. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the effect of a person becoming insolvent on their liability to make payments. They also define when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will allow the Government to set out in regulations that, where appropriate, liabilities under the scheme are not extinguished by bankruptcy or certain other insolvency processes.
In addition, the amendments provide a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the asylum support scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. They make no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken.
The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here.
This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “18 at all times” and insert “21 at any time”.
This amendment would extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “all times” and insert “any time”.
This amendment would exempt from being required to make payments to the Secretary of State any persons who were, at any point, under 18 years of age during the time they received asylum support.
Amendment 78, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were over the age of retirement at the time they ceased to be an asylum seeker (within the meaning given by section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999),
(ab) have received a positive conclusive grounds decision (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022),
(ac) are a survivor of sexual or gender-based violence, or have been a victim of domestic abuse (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021)
(ad) are an individual who has been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence,”.
This amendment would add people over retirement age and victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, or serious sexual or physical violence to the list of people who would be exempted from repaying any asylum support they received.
Amendment 82, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom following an appeal by the person against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse a protection claim.”
This amendment would exempt from the requirement to make payments under Clause 23 anyone who is granted protection following a successful appeal.
Amendment 139, in clause 23, page 22, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the exemption from making payments for asylum support received for people who received support before clause 23 comes fully into force.
Amendment 80, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must cancel the liability of any person to make payments required under section 23 when one of the following occurs—
(a) the person dies;
(b) the person receives a disability-related benefit and because of the disability is permanently unfit for work;
(c) the person reaches the age of 65; or
(d) the tenth anniversary of the date on which the person stopped receiving asylum support (as defined in section 23(2)).”
This amendment would set out circumstances in which the liability for making payments for asylum support received would cease to apply: the death of the person; the person turning 65; the person being permanently unfit for work; the tenth anniversary of the person stopping receiving asylum support.
Amendment 142, in clause 50, page 52, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) regulations under subsection (6)(c) of section 23.”
This amendment would make regulations exempting further categories of people from the requirement to contribute towards the cost of asylum support subject to the affirmative procedure, so that they cannot be made without the approval of both Houses.
Siân Berry
I have four amendments in this group, and I will speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are in the spirit of trying to improve the clauses even though I oppose them in principle.
Amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. As the explanatory statement says, it would
“extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.”
It is welcome that the Government have already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependants who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. First, on the face of the Bill, an individual has to be:
“under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”
That implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full payment of up to £10,000, which the Government have confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate. That seems particularly unfair, especially when one considers that applicants have no control over how long it will take for their application to be processed.
Additionally, the Bill does not reflect that when someone turns 18, they are still a young person just starting their adult life. Through measures announced elsewhere, such as the work and study protection framework, the Government have made it clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities. It therefore seems both harsh and counterproductive to be giving a young person thousands of pounds of debt when they are taking their very first steps in building a new life in a new country. The change in amendment 77 would therefore better protect children and young people who have gone through the asylum system and allow them to have the best start at rebuilding their lives in the UK.
Amendment 78 adds further exemptions to those that the Government have outlined. The only exemption on the face of the Bill is currently for children who are under 18, although more amendments could be added through regulations. I am happy for amendment 78 to be a probing amendment, provided that the Government are prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions that they might be prepared to add.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142.
Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?
Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those?
Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force.
Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.
Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.
Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that
“the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]
Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest.
Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report?
Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what?
Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).
Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they
“were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”.
I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.
The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter.
It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members across the Committee for tabling the amendments in this group and for the explanations that they have given. The Committee will forgive me if I once again stress that clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity: where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help to maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. That ensures that those who have a right to support still receive it, but that comes with responsibilities and expectations.
Joe Robertson
It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.
Anna Turley
Apologies for any misconception. A person will not have to pay for the support they received entirely as a child. I will make sure that I clarify the wording of that for the Committee’s understanding.
The Bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. That is the appropriate mechanism. It provides flexibility, allows clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks, such as in relation to debt, and enables the approach to be kept under review. The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility would be evidenced, when liability should cease or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual’s current means. Those details are critical to protect the policy’s aims and mitigate against abuse, so such exemptions should not be in the Bill.
In relation to amendment 82, which suggests an exemption for those granted status on appeal, the policy in the Bill seeks a contribution from all recipients of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest of hon. Members in terms of those exemptions. We will consider everything discussed and heard in Committee when preparing the secondary legislation to which the Government have committed during the passage of the Bill.
I will respond to some of the issues raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned targeting those who are destitute. I want to be clear: we are still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment begins only later, when individuals have the means for it. There are clear safeguards, such as income thresholds and exemptions, to protect the most vulnerable. There will also be a grace period after support finishes but before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, the policy reflects a principle that when someone can contribute, they should.
The hon. Member also mentioned exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those exemptions are not in the Bill because that is the wrong place for them, but we will make those regulations. Hon. Members’ contributions and concerns have been heard and will form part of that discussion. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Amendments 139 and 142 concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the asylum support contribution scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling them, but we cannot accept them. Amendment 139, which aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this legislation. The Government’s approach is deliberately prospective: liability should arise only once the detailed rules, notification arrangements and safeguards are in place. Applying the scheme retrospectively to earlier support would create uncertainty, move the goalposts and not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.
Joe Robertson
I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?
Anna Turley
That example is about changing the level of a loan that has been provided. I do not think we can expect people who may have fled war and persecution to come to this country on one understanding, only to have that changed while they are here. This is an entirely new system; it is not about changing the level of a loan or a return. It is important that we do it only going forward; trying to apply it retrospectively would be open to an extreme amount of legal challenge.
Amendment 142 would require any regulations that specify further exemptions under clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will reject the amendment, but again, with an emphasis on consensus, I say that I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly on important regulations such as these. Although we are rejecting the amendment, I undertake to review the matter during the passage of the Bill, because such important exemptions need appropriate scrutiny, and these regulations will need the full scrutiny of Parliament. As I say, I am open-minded about considering that as the Bill progresses.
As we have already committed, the detailed scheme will be published in secondary legislation during the passage of the Bill, so I hope that will give hon. Members plenty to engage with during the process.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and
(b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of—
(i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3),
(ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and
(iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 62—Asylum support payments: annual report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for each financial year beginning after section 23 comes fully into force, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the power in section 23(3).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out, for the financial year to which it relates—
(a) the number of persons required to make payments under section 23(3);
(b) the total sums required to be paid;
(c) the total sums recovered, including sums collected by HMRC under regulations made by virtue of section 24(4);
(d) the total sums written off or treated as irrecoverable;
(e) the number of persons exempt by virtue of section 23(6), by description of exemption; and
(f) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.
(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament within six months of the end of the financial year to which it relates.”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament each year on how many people have been charged for asylum support, how much has been charged, recovered and written off, how many people are exempt, and what the scheme costs to run.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when.
Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote.
Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations.
Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected.
We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now.
The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those
“who have had their case concluded”;
but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November?
The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers
“take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,
but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge?
Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I will speak in favour of clauses 23 and 24 stand part. The clauses reflect an important principle at the heart of the Government’s approach to immigration. We must have a properly managed system that commands public confidence and treats people fairly, while ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. My South Norfolk constituents want a firm but fair immigration system. They want rules to be enforced, decisions to be made promptly and public money to be spent wisely. They also want a system that operates with humanity, upholds the law and does not allow people to exploit weaknesses in its administration. Those expectations are entirely reasonable. Indeed, they are complementary. Fairness and effective enforcement are not competing objectives; they are both essential to rebuilding trust in our immigration system.
That is why I welcome the principles behind clauses 23 and 24. They have established a framework through which the Government can require appropriate payments from certain people who have received asylum support, while providing protections for those who cannot afford to pay. That is a practical measure designed to ensure that, where someone has received support at public expense, their circumstances can be taken into account and a contribution can be sought where it is appropriate and affordable. That demonstrates that this Government are serious about responsible management of our asylum system. We are not simply talking about reform: we are putting in place the powers and mechanisms needed to make the system work better.
Clause 23 establishes the central power for the Secretary of State to require payments from people who have received asylum support.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It strikes me that the point that the hon. Gentleman is making goes some way towards answering the point that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was making regarding the financial circumstances in which asylum seekers may find themselves, and her suggestion that poor asylum seekers would perhaps be required to pay back while those who had wealth would not. If somebody does not have the means with which to pay, they will not be required to.
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As it says on the face of the Bill, deprivation has to be taken into account. Again, that reinforces the idea that the Government are putting forward a firm but fair immigration system.
Siân Berry
Does the hon. Member have any insight into the gap that I think the Minister left in the discussion on the last group, between claims that repayments will be affordable and what it says in the Bill, which is that it will only avoid destitution? Does the hon. Member agree that there is a gap between those two definitions?
Ben Goldsborough
What was really important in the Minister’s closing comments on that group was that this is obviously not something that is taken into account for our own constituents who have not sought asylum themselves. There is no definition of destitution versus poverty. What we need to do is have a fair system, not only for those that are seeking asylum, but for our constituents as well. We need to ensure we do not create this two-tier running that then undermines the confidence in the system that we need.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that provision covers support provided through several existing statutory routes, including sections 4, 95 and 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as accommodation in accommodation centres under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That is an important foundation for a coherent approach. Asylum support is delivered through different statutory arrangements, and the Government need a framework that can operate across those routes rather than leaving gaps in the system.
Subsection (3) provides the power to require payments, while subsection (4) allows regulation to establish how those payments will be calculated, when they will be required, the timeframes for payment and how individuals will be notified. I welcome that approach, because effective reform requires more than setting out a principle in legislation; it requires practical machinery to implement the principle consistently.
Taxpayers rightly expect public money to be managed responsibly across our public services. We have to make difficult decisions about how resources are allocated and ensure that money is used where it is needed most. The asylum system should be no exemption from that. Where someone has received support at public expense and is subsequently in a position to contribute towards those costs, it is reasonable for the Government to have the power to require an appropriate payment. That is not about penalising people for seeking asylum; it is about recognising that the public support comes with responsibilities where an individual has the means to meet them.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
At the danger of reiterating a point from earlier, does my hon. Friend agree that, not only does the contributory principle approach a sense of fairness, but it enables a dignifying process for asylum seekers to show that they actually belong—that they are part of something that we are all part of?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he rightly said earlier, as a former homelessness support worker, he has seen the difference it makes when people want to provide support and repay the UK for giving them refuge.
This is precisely the kind of practical reform that can help restore confidence in the immigration system. It demonstrates that the Government are prepared to address the detail of how the system operates, rather than relying on grand announcements that do little to resolve the underlying challenges.
One of the most important features of clause 23 is subsection (5), which states that a person cannot be required to make payments where those payments would render them destitute, as defined under section 95(3) of the 1999 Act. I strongly welcome that safeguard.
A responsible Government must be able to pursue appropriate payments, while recognising that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has the means to contribute and someone who does not. The purpose of the clauses is to establish a fair and workable payments system, not to create further hardship for those who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The protection against destitution ensures that the Government’s approach can be firm without being indiscriminate. It allows the system to take account of financial circumstances and to distinguish between those who can reasonably pay and those for whom a payment would put their basic welfare at risk. That is an important distinction.
I also recognise the practical value of allowing regulations to take account of a person’s financial means. Circumstances can change, and a system that is capable of recognising those changes is more likely to operate effectively.
I look forward to the Government setting out how the regulations will ensure that payment requirements are clear, proportionate and based on the relevant circumstances. That will help to ensure that the scheme delivers its intended benefits, while maintaining the safeguards Parliament has rightly included.
Subsection (6) sets out the exemptions from the payment requirement, which include people who were under 18 throughout the period in which they received asylum support and people who began receiving support before the relevant section comes into force. It also allows additional exemptions to be specified in regulations. I welcome those inclusions and exemptions as part of a balanced legislative framework.
The exemption for children is particularly important, and I know it will be important to my constituents as well. Children should not be expected to carry the financial obligations arising from support provided to them during their childhood. Their circumstances are different from those of adults and the legislation appropriately recognises that difference.
The provision for people who began receiving support before commencement also establishes a clear distinction between existing recipients and those who enter the system once the new arrangements take effect. That is important for a fair implementation of the policy.
Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that the Government are seeking to establish a system with clear expectations and appropriate protection. That is the right foundation for lasting reform.
Clause 24 builds on the framework established by clause 23, setting out further provisions relating to the calculation and collection of payments. The Government are right to provide a framework that can account for the circumstances in which support was provided, rather than assuming that every case is identical. That flexibility should help to ensure that payment requirements are based on relevant factors and that the scheme can be administered fairly.
Subsections (4) and (5) provide for HMRC to undertake preparatory work ahead of regulations that may give it the responsibility for collecting payments. I welcome the Government’s intention to establish a workable arrangement for collection. There is a strong practical case for making use of existing administrative expertise and infrastructure where doing so can help to deliver policy effectively.
Subsection (6) amends the UK Borders Act 2007 to permit HMRC information to be shared for the purposes of determining liability for payments and requiring them. Appropriate information sharing can support accurate assessments and effective administration. It can help to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of relevant information and that payment systems operate as intended. Of course, that information must be handled lawfully and securely; public confidence depends on people being able to trust public authorities to use information for legitimate purposes and in accordance with the law. Those safeguards are compatible with effective administration—indeed, they help to underpin it.
Finally, subsection (8) allows consequential regulations to be made in support of the operation of clauses 23 and 24. That is a necessary part of creating a coherent framework. Legislation of this kind needs to work alongside existing arrangements, and the Government must be able to make the consequential changes required to implement it effectively.
Mr Kohler
As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details?
Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence. How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face.
I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point? Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.
Siân Berry
I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work.
I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out.
Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this.
It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers?
The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration.
A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax.
Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments?
Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group, as well as for the discussion and interest they have shown in this provision, which we have debated at length today.
Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require those who have received asylum support and accommodation, known as section 4 and section 95 support, to pay a contribution towards those costs. The clause contains an important safeguard: it requires the regulations to ensure that individuals are not required to pay when doing so would cause them to become destitute. That means that people will not be required to pay if it meant they could not meet their essential living needs or if it would place them at risk of homelessness.
The clause exempts children. Other exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation to ensure safeguards, thus protecting vulnerable groups. I look forward to working further with Members on that throughout the course of the Bill. Details of how the charge will be applied and how the system will operate will be set out in regulations and the Home Secretary has committed to sharing a draft of those regulations with Parliament.
The Bill is built on a balance of rights and responsibilities. This reform protects support for those who need it most, while reinforcing the principle that support should come with an expectation of contribution when that is affordable. When confidence in the asylum system is low, and with asylum support costing the taxpayer around £4 billion, it is right to take steps to reduce costs and ensure that those who can make a proportionate contribution do so. This policy achieves that.
The measure is not a tax on asylum seekers or refugees. It does not affect a person’s right to claim asylum nor their entitlement to receive support when it is needed. The clause reflects the broader principle that, alongside the rights and protections afforded to those seeking asylum, there are responsibilities that our constituents would expect one another to undertake: to contribute towards public costs where it is fair and reasonable to do so. This aids integration, helping to foster a shared sense of fairness, responsibility and belonging. It says to our constituents who contribute for their entitlement that no one should be entitled to a free pass.
Building on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the measure is also about asking people to contribute for those who come after them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland mentioned the desire that he heard expressed by asylum seekers coming to this country that they want to pay and contribute. Many of them will want to enable the system to continue, so that other people fleeing war and persecution can benefit.
Clause 24 enables asylum support repayments to be recovered through the tax system. It provides a power for regulations to make provision for HMRC to collect repayments on behalf of the Secretary of State from individuals who are liable under clause 23. The clause also creates the statutory framework for information sharing between HMRC and the Home Office where that is necessary for the administration and collection of repayments.
Hon. Members asked whether HMRC will be responsible for collecting payments. We are ensuring a range of repayment mechanisms, including options that could make use of the tax system. Decisions on the final repayment model will be taken in due course, informed by our discussions. We will continue to work across Government to identify the most effective and proportionate response.
The powers we are introducing will help ensure that, should the Government decide to use the tax system as a collection mechanism, repayments can be administered effectively and efficiently. The clause therefore provides the legislative framework necessary to support recovery of asylum support costs through the tax system. I listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members and their detailed questions on the set-up of the scheme, its processes and the collection mechanisms. The Home Secretary has committed that information on those factors will be published during the process of the Bill. I undertake to ensure that hon. Members continue to get more information as the drafts are published.
Moving on to the amendments in this group, amendment 140 and new clause 62 concern transparency and reporting on the asylum support contribution system. The Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, but we cannot accept these provisions. On amendment 140, the Government have already committed to sharing draft regulations during the Bill’s passage, allowing Parliament to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme. Building on the conversation we had on the previous group, I will review whether exemptions will be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I hope hon. Members will take that commitment.
The amendment would also make commencement of the scheme conditional on publishing five-year estimates of the number of people liable, sums recovered and administrative costs. Those will depend on the final design and operation of the scheme, and may be subject to considerable uncertainty. For example, the numbers of asylum claims in this country are coming down, so five-year estimates would not necessarily give us any degree of certainty. We will provide relevant analysis through the impact assessment, and are committed to providing data to support transparency on the effectiveness of the scheme as implemented. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement dependent on such five-year forecasts.
Likewise, we do not think that a separate reporting scheme on liabilities, recoveries, write-offs, exemptions and administrative costs, as set out in new clause 62, should be prescribed in primary legislation. We will explore what appropriate information on the operation of the scheme can be incorporated into Government asylum statistics and reporting once the scheme is operational.
To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money.
Matt Vickers
The Home Office confirmed that it spent £22,000 on its “don’t rape women” guide for asylum seekers. Can the Minister confirm that clause 23 restricts the sums that are recoverable purely to accommodation and subsistence, rather than to the Home Office’s comms budget?
Anna Turley
I moved to my conclusion too quickly; forgive me, Mr Twigg. I still have a number of points to respond to—I thought we were getting an early escape.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I wanted to cover, regarding asylum support. Section 98 support is temporary emergency accommodation, which is not within the scope of clause 23. Section 98 is the immediate emergency support, and asylum seekers then apply for section 95 support, which is what the clause addresses. He asks why that is not included, and I take his point. We are trying to move away from the kind of expensive and unsustainable emergency support that we saw explode under his party’s Administration. We have already saved more than £1 billion by closing hotels, so that will not be part of this measure. The asylum support that people apply for is what is covered by the clause.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked about repayment thresholds. As I said, the Bill establishes the principle and the key framework for the recovery of asylum costs; the detailed operation, including thresholds, will be set out in secondary legislation. That is a common and proportionate approach to drafting such legislation, for which operational detail may be adjusted over time. The policy intent is that repayment will begin only once an individual reaches a defined threshold for repayment, and that deductions will be set at a manageable rate, so that recovery remains proportionate and does not cause hardship or destitution. Any regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there will be clear safeguards.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked whether we expected to raise any money. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned, the asylum system represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of about £4 billion. The Government are determined to bring those costs down. The policy of recouping asylum support is a world first. It is about ensuring that those who benefit from this specific, targeted form of support contribute towards its cost, when they can. Our objective is fairness to everyone in this country, as well as sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. It is about not just recovering costs, but contribution. Costs will be recouped over time from individuals who have moved into employment or otherwise have the means to contribute.
Anna Turley
I was going to mention work and study, but I will come back to that.
Siân Berry
My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share.
The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.
Mr Kohler
I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help.
Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.
Mr Kohler
The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.
Anna Turley
I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.