Immigration and Asylum Bill

Thursday 22nd October 2026

(began 13 hours, 28 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:30
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection. Scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum bill. Before we begin, I would like to remind members to please switch for. Today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debates. Members are reminded to Bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate. We start today with Group 19 and Government amendment 133 to clause 22, with which it will be convenient to consider clause 22 stand part and new clause 61.

 I call the Minister to move government. Amendment 133. Thank you very much, Mr. Barker. It's a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship. Obviously, we're coming later in a later grouping to the clauses themselves, but I thought I would , if the committee will bear with me, just set out some reminders about the purposes of these clauses to which the amendments refer. Just 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, could not 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 are fleeing conflict and oppression. But the asylum system must be a fair and effective one, so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection and 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 within the rights .

We 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. This includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. But we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome here. Those that can will be deported and those who we are unable to remove will be denied those benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws through their serious offending. They have demonstrated conduct which 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 are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both in the UK and outside the UK, or are of national security interest through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act of 2025. We have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcome here. We have expanded the definition of a particularly serious crime so that any registered sex offender and an individual convicted of a schedule three sex offence is denied protection status alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 years or more.
11:33
11:33
11:33
11:33
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his real concern that anybody who comes here, who breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide, those who are genuinely here fleeing persecution and abide by the rules and the standards we expect of them. And I think no one in this committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We've deported over 12,000 foreign national offenders since we came to power, which is up by 41% on the two years previous to us being in power.

 So no one should be in any doubt, as I say, for our determination. But these measures focus particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but who cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, these 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 a settlement and their continued presence in the UK is permitted only for so long as that 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, subsection two, are not lawfully staying in the UK.

 The effect of this clause is to put this policy for the first time on a statutory footing, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. This will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope members from across the House agree. It cannot be the case that those who have committed these crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws. Amendment new clause 61, tabled by the member for Mid Bedfordshire. Concerns enabling 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 his argument for his amendment when he moves it, but I think it's a really important that we clarify here. We would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. But my initial response to his amendment is that simply. Disapplying Disapplying. The Human Rights Act does not address the point of international law or customary international law, and any attempt to ignore these obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. This does not comply with our obligations under the Refugee Convention that we ourselves established to ensure we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.

 Finally, I.
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:37
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
-
-
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. The current rules allow too many foreign national offenders to avoid deportation. This undermines public safety and confidence in our immigration system. So it is right that through this bill, we strive to balance public interest against individual rights and ensure that how article eight of the Echr is applied in deportation cases really reflects that balance. Existing tests do not place enough weight on public interest, especially public safety and crime prevention. And I think that the tougher action that the government is proposing really intends to ensure that courts consistently prioritise public protection, which will be welcomed.

 It is incomprehensible to most people how those who have been granted permission to come to the UK live and work here, who then seriously break the laws of the land, do not then forfeit the rights that have been conveyed upon them. This is an even more heightened view, I think when people are part of organised crime gangs, or they've 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're not the only country experiencing this, and failing to address it will only ensure even greater civil unrest. It's worth noting, though, that between 2016 and 2021, around 70% of successful appeals by foreign national offenders were allowed solely to stay on article eight grounds. There's other data that shows that there's nearly 20,000 foreign offenders remaining in Britain due to a clogged appeals system, with many winning cases based on those human rights arguments. So it's very interesting to see that we've got an amendment today that proposes incredibly tough new specific measures when, during their time in government, they failed to implement any changes that would have prevented some of the scenes disgraceful scenes that we see around the country today.
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

No.
11:42
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
-
-
It's absolutely right. And I think that there is something, isn't there, wherever there is a system and individuals seek to gain that system, that it does undermine it for those legitimate individuals. And that's where we start to see a real breakdown in the trust of the system, and then everybody being put into the same category. And that creates even greater civil unrest, in my view, and the potential for pretty heinous actions being taken by those in local communities. And we have seen those spiralling around the country in recent times, with very vulnerable individuals being targeted because of an improper and unfair narrative, because of those who have sought to exploit weaknesses in the system that has been left abjectly under-resourced under the previous government.

And I just would like to and I know the minister has mentioned it, my colleagues have mentioned it, but since July 2024, there have been around 70,000 people deported in their entirety. That's an increase of over 41%. It's probably gone up, actually, since I made these notes, because my next sentence says, of these, 10,000 were foreign national offenders. But as we've heard, that's gone up to 12,000, not the 36% that I have noted, but 41%. So a remarkable achievement, actually, within the confines of a system that is straining at the seams and really is a recognition of the determination of this government to try and fix what is a broken system and give that reassurance to the British public.

 And I do think that it is worth reiterating that at every opportunity, there is also other there are other signals that the Home Office is intent on providing that reassurance that 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 4500 to 7300. You know, these are not small measures to try and not only give reassurance to the public, but to actually make the system work as it is supposed to. While deportations have increased, there does remain a substantial backlog.

 So new powers allowing the immediate deportation after sentencing for most determinate sentence offenders will start to show us a reduction in the coming months and years. There is also an added benefit that earlier removal will reduce pressure on prison capacity, which we all know is under great strain, and I would like to just make a point that foreign offenders only make up around 12% of the prison population. Just while we are discussing this, I am concerned about the narrative of over demonisation of individuals, but as my hon. Friend just mentioned. So about 12% of the overall prison population, which isn't nothing, but it certainly isn't a majority.

 So it shouldn't be perceived that all prisoners are foreign, nor that all foreigners are criminals, because plainly that is not the case. But we do have to do that. I'm happy to give way.
11:45
11:46
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
-
-
I understand the point that he is making, and I agree that the commonality there is men. I would also say that there is a great fear in communities, because when there are new arrivals into areas, unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, there is already a suspicion . And I think that there is there is work that can be done to demonstrate the reality of the activities where, you know, either if there are criminal activities undertaken or if there are no criminal activities undertaken, that we have got in place, strong institutions in this country that are prepared to set the record straight, because very often there can be unfounded rumours, and that leads to targeting of individuals and and vigilante groups, which I have seen happening in my own constituency, which is completely unacceptable, and that where there are criminal activities undertaken, that there is then swift action taken to apprehend that individual and that that individual, you know, whatever their background, are subject to the full force of UK law that that is dealt with quickly and that where appropriate, if it is a foreign national offender, if it is an asylum seeker, that they are deported as quickly as possible, which is why that immediate deportation post sentencing, I think, would seek to then address and comfort some people in communities around this country.

 I do take his point, and I feel like perhaps I have not given him enough, enough comfort that we share entirely the same perspective. But I think that there is certainly more that can be done. I do think that we have to do all that we can to strengthen public confidence and restore trust in our systems. I think that we have to be honest about the scale of the issue on those backlogs and those delays. I think that removing people more reliably and quickly, with improved cooperation as the as the minister mentioned, with receiving countries, will go some significant way to doing that.
11:49
11:49
11:50
Paul Kohler Portrait Paul Kohler
-
-
I thank the honourable lady for intervention. This was not an attack on the honourable lady at all. I have been in the chamber on another committee stage on the troubles Bill or the the last few sessions. That's why I've not been here. I still think we should try and work together on improving legislation. Anyway, it's a voice in the wilderness, as I said, well, we don't. We. We turn into political debates where we just make points against the other side. We we replicate Parliament. It should be more than that. Anyway, I would like to ask a question.

 This is not a political point. This is asking a question. The UNHCR have been critical of this provision. I'd like to read a paragraph from their critique, as I'd like to hear what the honourable on the Minister has to say on this point. So the UNHCR says the proposed. The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention . Whether refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contain article 332, and whether that refugee is lawfully staying in the territory of the contracting state. While a finding within the meaning of article 332 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 purpose 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. A refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK. Under domestic law, the minimum. Such a person would remain lawfully present in the UK for the purposes of 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 are 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.

And on that basis, the UNHCR therefore encourages the government to consider the provision. So can I ask the Minister if they are 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? Thank you.
11:52
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Shadow Minister.
11:52
11:52
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
-
-
Under your chairmanship, Miss 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 gored to 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, two of the Refugee Convention is not to be treated as 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 or someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community.

 These are, by definition, the more 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 three of the European Convention on Human Rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose.

 So this clause on its own does not give ministers a clear route to removal. That is the gap that new clause 61 addresses for decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by a new section 37 a it would disapply section 61 of the Human Rights Act and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it's incompatible with the convention. Right. And it would apply only where the Refugee Convention itself already permits return. It's targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals. Clause 22 identifies. The minister may say that this does not change our obligations under the convention, and that cases could still go to Strasbourg.

 That is true, and it's precisely why we believe this country should leave the Echr. But new clause 61.
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:56
11:57
11:58
12:00
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
-
-
Actually, just to go back to who it is that we're talking about, we're talking about people who pose a threat to our national security. We're talking about people who categorically are a danger to our community. I think the right of the people in my community should trump the rights of those people who pose a threat to our national security and a danger to that community, I'm going to try and make a little bit of progress. We might be here for quite a while. New clause 61 removes the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves ministers unable to act.

 It's a concrete step the committee can 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? And while the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk and who is accountable for making sure they work? I turn to Government Amendment 133, which removes the transitional position provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applied only to decisions made after it came into force. The minister's explanatory statement says that amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, so the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill.

 That means the question of who this clause applies to, whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by ministers, not by this committee. So I asked 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? And 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 332 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 support for that clause 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 will seek to 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.
12:02
12:02
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Barker, and I'd like to thank members for their contributions to this debate. I think it's been a lively one this morning. I think colleagues have had their Weetabix and I welcome that. So, 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. And just to pick up the challenge from the honourable member from Stockton West, some of those conditions could include, as I said, restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months. If they leave this country, they cannot come back. They will have no access to public funds. There could be restrictions on work, they could be tagged and there will be reporting conditions.

So hopefully that will give him some indication of some of these steps that these people will be under. Excuse me. It will allow a greater distinction between such individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes. I just want to pick up the challenge of the honourable member from Wimbledon, who I welcome to his place on day four. I hope he's had the chance to. I hope he's had the chance to read. With good intention. I genuinely do hope he's had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because actually they have been incredibly constructive.

 I've really welcomed the challenge, the divisions, the votes that we've had and the the nature of discussion and debate that we've had in this committee. So of course I'll give.
12:04
12:04
12:05
12:05
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I'm going to make some progress, because I do want to maintain our focus and our seriousness and, and show the honourable gentleman that we do respect and respond to the the questions that he, he, he and the challenges he raises to our legislation. He asked about what is the status of people who are not lawfully staying and cannot be removed. And essentially that is the purpose of what we're putting on the face of the bill is, at the moment there is a sort of a vacuum and a free for all. This is about putting clarity on the face of the law.

 So they will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying. And that is clarified in, in, in the face of the bill. He also quite rightly mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR. I think I understand this conflates two issues or that it can take it conflates two issues, potentially 33, subsection two, and lawfully staying. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the Refugee Convention. The convention itself refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK, where refugee commits a particularly serious crime. We are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment.

 EU member states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law. So I turn now to the amendment. New clause 61, tabled by the Honourable Member for Mid Bedfordshire. This 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 332 of the Refugee Convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention's usual protection against Refoulement. I don't know if I've ever pronounced that right. Refoulement Refoulement. However, removal may still be prevented by the UK's wider obligations.

 International obligations. This is the issue the honourable gentleman's amendment seeks to address. In practical terms. New clause 61 would apply the Human Rights Act, including articles two and three, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22, and prevent a UK court from treating any 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 to address interim measures or address measures, 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.

 I you know, I hear the the honourable members reaching for the. While the easy response to that is leave the EC. And I think we've had an interesting discussion, not just this morning, but throughout this Committee on that. And while I completely understand the emotion and the desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, I think it's really important to understand how we got here in the situation into which the Echr was born. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship helpfully put it in a debate last week.

 A previous member of the opposition party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of a convention which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to tyranny in the form of the Nazis during the Second World War, some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of this, a European Court of Human Rights defines what we mean by never again. The Echr includes freedom of assembly, freedom to fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state.

 That is what the Nazis did. And this is where the comes from. And these two principles remain essential. And I think it's important to to think as well in the context of the the only other two countries who've chosen to stay out are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the Echr, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecutions, and we will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators. Now, that said, this is not to say the current situation is perfect, and I do understand many of our constituents are concerned that if they feel their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country.

 But that's why the problem is, I think, what we're seeking to correct in this bill, we know there has been over interpretation. The Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the Echr into the modern age, to make the Echr work for everyday people , and to ensure that human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to speak, who choose to commit unspeakable crimes. This government intends to stand with the principles of Churchill. This government will continue to build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse.

 But so the issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. And that's part of what this bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away, 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 OECD adopted the final political declaration in May, which creates a solid, solid basis for reform. And I think just to just to highlight to honourable members, you know, this is that was giving us a really potentially good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations.

 It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. And I think it's really important that this is about making sure the Echr operates as it was intended. I will indeed.
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:12
12:13
12:14
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

The.
12:14
12:14
12:14
12:15
12:15
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Minister.
12:15
12:16
12:17
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Many thanks. I was working and it's a pleasure to have you back in the chair. I hope my voice holds out. I'm going to speak at some length on these amendments I. This is the first time in this committee we've reached the section about charging refugees for the support they've received, so I just wanted to add some points. First of all, on the overall discomfort I have with these proposals as a whole. I think requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they've secured the right to stay is completely wrong. And it is right that many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are calling this a refugee tax because it is a tax for having successfully claimed asylum and I think breaks our commitments under the convention.

 The proposals do not guard against destitution, and so I believe that they also breach article one of my favorite article, article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This talks about how everyone has a right to a standard of living, adequate to the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, household and medical care, and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of an unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. This absolutely applies to refugees and from local authorities.

We have heard that these requirements will push more families into poverty and place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level where duties towards children will remain. And I'm not certain that the government has properly considered these impacts. I will give way.
12:19
12:19
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

I thank the honourable lady for the intervention. One of my amendments does, in fact, seek to bring the the level of repayment up beyond mere destitution. And I think that is a wise thing to do in the circumstances of some of the feedback that we've had from support services, charities and local authorities. I also want to mention how I think it will entrench inequality between refugees, because not all people who are refugees and applying for asylum in this country do currently require support. Some are managed to flee the circumstances that lead them to need asylum with some resources.

 In the letter that we had in response to questions in the oral sessions to the minister, she confirmed that around two in every five people who are claiming asylum were awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation. It does say some of them may have received some accommodation in the past, but that is not a high proportion of refugees, so we are targeting with this part of the bill people who are the most vulnerable amongst this already vulnerable population, people who do not have the means to support themselves. The Bill says that the clause will apply to those who own only those who use Home Office accommodation, but I think that that many of these would would have the ability to support themselves to to actually many of these people would have the ability to support themselves too.

 Given the randomness of the circumstances in which you become a refugee, because they come with skills, they come with previous jobs that have been torn away from them. If they were simply allowed to, to work as my new clause 24, which is for later debate, proposes. So I believe that the whole section of this bill needs to go. But as a constructive measure, I have also targeted amendments to mitigate the impact of these measures within this clause. So starting with amendment 81, which leaves the section, this would reduce payments if there are delayed decisions from the Home Office and the main driver for I think the cost of asylum support at the moment are delays in making decisions and sometimes poor quality initial decisions, driving appeals.

 The Bill does not reflect this cause or the detrimental impact that delayed decisions may have on someone's ability to find employment, and so be in a position to make repayments. So this amendment would mean that once someone has been waiting longer than six months, 180 days for a decision for every further 30 days that passes, the level of the charge intended to be levied against them in the refugee tax would reduce by 20%. And I think because the aim of part four of the bill is in part, according to the Home Secretary, to help tackle the cost of asylum support and because the Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of these costs are delays in making decisions and poor decisions, it is only fair to introduce this amendment.

 It is not up to the individual how long it takes to process their claim, and the delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on someone's ability to find employment and integrate, and thus be in a position to make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in in that role, and there may be very disruptive consequences to delays as well and people's ability to earn this payment, this reduction in payments as a result of that would reflect those kinds of impacts to.
12:23
12:23
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Give way. I will.
12:23
12:24
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Sean. Sean Murray.
12:24
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

I'm afraid I cannot agree with the honourable gentleman on that. I think the the evidence we've heard on its impact on the ability to to integrate the impact on community cohesion has been has been really clear. And I think this amendment in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivize the Home Office to reduce those costs, to make decisions on time. And it would mean that people kept in the system for longer than is needed are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of of this amendment 81. And I think if the asylum claim took longer than six months due to the actions of the applicant, this would not apply.

And the amendment covers that as well. Moving on to the next moment in this group, which is 76 from from me, I as I mentioned briefly earlier, I think the government cannot just guard against destitution with its requirement if it decides to go ahead with payments. I think poverty ought to be the defining measure. This would allow a lot of the fears of local authorities, who are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty, and I think would also would save, would save money, would reduce those impacts and just be be much clearer as to what would happen.

 People are very, very fearful that the word destitution is a very, very low bar. It's defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. And in this context, someone is destitute if they don't have adequate accommodation or the means of attaining it, or if they have adequate accommodation but cannot meet other essential living needs. The government's definition of essential living needs, as also set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal as it's currently drafted. Individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty or even in deep material poverty.

 If we use those definitions. So I.
12:26
12:26
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Shadow.
12:26
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

The evidence I have is it comes from local authorities who've who've given evidence to the committee who are very, very worried that that their obligations will be extended by this, by this bill because people will be driven into poverty by the taking of this money away from the overall system in the local area, by the Home Office. The Home Office would like to tell us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate this. That would be that would be useful to know. I'm not sure the bill really sets out where the repayments are going to be going to go, but I think the implication is they will go to the Home Office and not to local authorities.

 Going back to the amendment, it would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be able to not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. And it also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median. This is a fairly normal definition of poverty, and it is the government's own definition for whether a household is low income. So clearly it's not the government's intention to provide. Clearly, it is the government's intention to provide safeguards to ensure people are not made destitute, and this amendment would strengthen this safeguard on the face of the bill so that people who fled war and been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities.

 And then finally, in this section, I'm proposing amendment 79, which I think is fairly pragmatic and says that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. So there's currently within the bill, no link between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. And I would like to hear from the government what their intentions are in setting out these charges. There's a broad power in the bill and it would come through regulations, but I think we do need to have some reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they've received .

During the second reading debate on the bill, the Home Secretary said clause 23 creates a power that requires those who have received taxpayer funded support to pay back a portion when they can. The implication there is clearly that this should not exceed what they were
12:29
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Doing some rough.
12:30
12:30
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

At the.
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:33
12:33
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

As on the amendment .
12:33
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Paper,
12:33
12:33
Melanie Onn Portrait Melanie Onn
-
-
Amendment be made. Melanie, on. Thank you very much, Mr. Barker. A pleasure to serve under your Chairship today on this point about contributions, I do think that it's worth reflecting that there is a tradition in this country of collective contributory institutions, whether it's the welfare system, NHS education, pensions. We recognise that we all pay something in so that we can all benefit some less, some pay more. Some people use those institutions a lot and some very, very rarely. But we do accept that it is the balance that that is the accepted level of fairness in the system.

 And provided, you know, we get our bins collected and you can see a doctor and so on, we are all generally fairly satisfied. But when people, especially when they are feeling a great financial squeeze, which I think it's fair to say across the country, people are and they start to see examples of people not participating in that agreed settlement, which is our social contract, after all, with the state, then it does start to breed discontent, and we should have in place measures that ensure where people have received from the state they can, when they are able, in a position to give something back.

 We already see that those who arrive on a work visa are required to pay reapplication fees every few years for them and their family members. It can amount to a significant sum and annual NHS surcharges. So there is a question then why those on work visas who are aiding this country in those shortage occupations have to pay that, while others are not required to contribute anything? Should they be granted asylum and are able then to work, participate in, you know, general life, that they recognize that there has been a contribution to enabling them to live a settled life in this country.

 So why should one group be required .
12:35
12:35
12:36
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

There is two tiers .
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
12:37
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Is is unhelpful.
12:37
12:38
12:38
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Poverty, we .
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
12:39
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Asylum the .
12:39
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Charge as well,
12:39
12:40
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Did I say I.
12:40
12:41
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

To .
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:41
12:42
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Contribution to .
12:42
12:43
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

And .
12:43
12:43
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:44
12:45
12:45
12:45
12:45
12:45
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

See this .
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:46
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Should be doing.
12:46
12:46
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Is helpful.
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Goes far beyond.
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:49
12:50
12:50
12:50
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:52
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

To .
12:52
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

A division.
12:52
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Thank you, chair.
12:52
12:53
12:53
12:54
12:54
12:54
12:54
None Portrait Speaker 8
-

It is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain. affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23, subsection five, already requires regulations to include. provisions to ensure that nobody pays where this would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the. regulations which we have committed to sharing during the bill's passage. I just want to respond to some of that. I've got a huge pile of responses to the honourable lady's points here, some important clarifications I want to make. And if I don't answer her question sufficiently, I'll be very happy to take her response.

 But I just wanted to pick up her point about. destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set it at this level. I don't think it is appropriate to define on the on the statute book that when when I have rewards in my constituency and I'm sure other members have here where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that she sets out, I'm afraid I can't accept an amendment which says that people in my area can be below that poverty line, but asylum seekers cannot. All of my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it's appropriate to safeguard one group and not another much as we all have a desire, an absolute commitment to reduce poverty, in particular child poverty in this country.

So I just wanted to respond to that. She also raised about whether this breaches article 25. I think it was a of the article on human rights. We're absolutely confident that this meets our international obligations, including under the Refugee Convention. We believe it's compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a. sustainable system for the future. The convention does not require anywhere states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual's circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution are 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 to the to the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the Refugee. Convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a. contribution towards the system that they. They benefit from when they can. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive. We can and will do both. The honourable lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations and I know we have committed, and I want to reiterate this to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill, and I undertake to do that as soon as as possible.

I'm sure colleagues will understand. This requires a lot of complex engagement with with Treasury and others to. We want to make sure that we've got this absolutely right and not fall foul of the situation. The honourable members opposite found themselves when they tried to put this bill forward. Before that, the work, the workings out, hadn't been done. The honourable lady asked why anyone should pay more for the for the support than they received. This policy is a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not an itemized. recovery of the precise cost incurred by an individual.

 It would be. extremely difficult, impossible and would would undermine our ability. This measure to actually raise any money. If we had to have an itemized recovery, exactly the cost that every individual had, the flat rate would 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. Our payments will remain linked to affordability. I think. She also asked about the Home Secretary's power to make exemptions. I just wanted to flag as well that this is this is actually very similar to the an existing power for the Home Secretary that is covered by the Immigration Health Surcharge Order.

We have that on the face of the bill and that legislation as well. And it's just really important to maintain that ability for exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances. I just wanted to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. This will not be the case. Payments will only apply 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. And as I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this bill.

 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. I just wanted to, before I move on to the amendment in .
12:59
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Clause 81, I wonder .
12:59
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Whether it .
12:59
12:59
12:59
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

Is .
12:59
13:00
None Portrait Speaker 7
-

The .
13:00
None Portrait Speaker 10
-

Ayes .
13:00
14:00
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

My response to various opposition amendments and starting with amendment 141 in the name of His Majesty. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we've had so far today, so I'm going to pick back up opposition. This would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including settlement. The government is already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hopefully colleagues will have seen from some of the media discussion and debate. This is currently undergoing quite a lot of discussion, and so it wouldn't be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, making that contribution will form part of their wider contribution to society, and 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. We've already committed to sharing draft regulations, as I've mentioned to colleagues already today during the passage of the bill, providing members with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how these provisions will operate. In practice. This approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight whilst retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy.

 These draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made, and I might just take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the honourable gentleman opposite raised in the session this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The government is determined to bring the costs down to the taxpayer. That's part of the principle of this objective. The primary objective in this is fairness and sustainability. With any revenue generated, reducing the burden on the public purse.

 As I've 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 of this, but how we can publish data in our regular asylum asylum statistics as well going forward. The honourable gentleman raised amendment one, two, four, I believe. Just check it's in this group. Yes. Forgive me. Raised amendment 124 about the powers it gives to the Home Secretary for exemptions, at what circumstances it might be used, and so on. 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 earlier this morning, this is commensurate with section eight of the Immigration Health Surcharge Order, which provides the Secretary of State for the Home Department with the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. This power will, of course, be at the discretion of the Secretary of State. We anticipate it will only be used in exceptional cases. The honourable gentleman asked about the amount and the income threshold, how that will be set, as colleagues have raised the £10,000 figure, that is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required.

The final flat rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation and is intended to reflect the average asylum support costs, which is how that figure has been got to across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. As we've already discussed this morning, the estimates will depend on the final design and the implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We'll continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed, but we don't consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty.

 So hopefully I've addressed the issues the honourable gentleman has raised. Moving to Government Amendment 124. This enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities under the Asylum Support Contribution Scheme. As I've just mentioned, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances where 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 regulation and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme whilst ensuring it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases. Government amendments one, two, five and one, two, six are technical amendments that deal with how the requirements payback 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. It also defines when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

 This 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 purposes. In addition, the amendment provides a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure the Asylum Support Scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. It makes no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.

 I beg to move the amendments standing in my name. Many thanks.
14:05
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Mr. Drake. I'm very good to have you in the chair this afternoon. To sum up, I think from the discussions we've had today, it's very clear what a mess the proposals in these clauses are. If it is not an itemized recovery of costs, then it is a refugee tax. And worse, it's become clear that it's only a poor refugee tax. And as such, the philosophical basis for this I think is broken. The government set a terribly high bar for being excused , and it is not seeking any payment. Nevertheless, from successful refugees who have had the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision.

 This is despite the honourable member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening this proposal to the NHS surcharges which are charged to those on work visas, to which the minister also referred the government has been clear it is setting a flat charge rate, which is something that it's not going to apply, though, to all asylum seekers. Why not? Would that not be fairer across the board? If you accept the premise of this, this charge which which I don't you're the government is proposing only to charge it to those people who are destitute when they arrive here, and it is planning to do in the future much harm to these people's ability to settle.

 Why would it drive these people into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? I also wanted to comment on the question of why and how this is going to affect people's ability to achieve settlement in the future. Again, this seems to be something unfair to impose on people . The government. Has put this forward in clause 24 and amendment 141 in this group from the opposition tries to codify this, but in my view, the any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. So in summary, I think these clauses are reckless, unfair and cruel and irrational.

And without my amendments, they do become even worse. And I will be seeking to divide on my amendment.
14:08
14:08
14:09
14:10
14:10
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Are I.
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

To the contrary? No.
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

No.
14:11
14:11
14:11
14:11
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Melanie on Jo.
14:11
14:11
14:11
14:12
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Thanks, chair, I have. Four amendments in this group, and I'll speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are each in the spirit of trying to improve these clauses, even though I oppose them in principle, amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. In doing this, I'm looking to. The actual wording of the amendment extends the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who is 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, and it's welcome that the government has already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependents who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. Firstly, on the face of the bill, an individual has to be 18 at all times. They were in receipt of support. This implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full up to £10,000 payment, which the government has confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate.

 This 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 also 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 has made clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities, so it seems both harsh and counterproductive, therefore, 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.

 This 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. Moving on to amendment 78, this adds further exemptions to those that the government has outlined. The only exemption on the face of the bill is currently for children who are under 18, but more amendments could be added via regulations. I am happy for this to be a probing amendment, provided the government is prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions. It might be prepared to add.

 I will give some examples and and points in support of the exemptions that I've laid out. So. So last year, the Labour government launched the freedom from violence and abuse across government strategy, setting up a coordinated, coordinated effort at tackling violence against women and girls. And if tackling vawg is therefore genuinely a responsibility of every department, immigration legislation cannot be designed as though the consequences of abuse are irrelevant to what is going on here. So this exemption is based on the government's own strategy and its own comments, for example, that financial insecurity should never force a survivor back to an abusive partner.

Clause 23 genuinely risks doing exactly that by imposing a new government debt, right at the point where a refugee survivor is trying to establish a safe and independent life. And then currently, on the face of the bill, there's there's nothing about when a person who is liable for payments may stop being liable, or indeed, what would happen to their debt after they have died. The implication from statements from the government has been that people could be liable for well beyond 20 years. And as set out these these barriers, these payments would therefore present a long term barrier to stability.

 If that carries on, it doesn't seem right to have this as a burden over people's heads for their whole life. So I think that that at least some, if not all the circumstances covered in the amendment will be in the regulations that will set out the detail for how the charge would work, and that the government will confirm that they will make these kinds of changes. Moving on to amendment 82, which says that there will be no charge if it is granted on appeal. The Refugee Council has has argued for this amendment, and I work with their support, and they tell me that asylum support costs are in part driven by people being kept in asylum support for far longer than is necessary, and they blame this as I would actually as well on poor quality decision making.

So what this amendment seeks to do is incentivise improved quality of decision making by exempting the requirement to make payments for everyone who is granted protection. Following a successful appeal. The Refugee Council has also estimated that over this financial year, the Home Office will provide between 974 million and 1.2 billion in Home Office support to people who had their initial decision rejected, but will then be granted status on appeal. And this is a cost that could largely be avoided if the Home Office got decisions right the first time, meaning people would not remain in the asylum system receiving asylum support and instead could work and start the process of rebuilding their lives.

 As I've already raised in other amendments and other comments, it must be the top priority for the Home Office to get decisions right the first time. And this would allow people who've got a protection claim to start rebuilding their lives, getting jobs, finding their own housing and allow the Home Office to focus on processing people who do not have a claim, and speeding up the removals of those people where it's possible to do so. It would be very useful to hear what plans the Home Office has for improving the quality of decision making, and whether it would accept this kind of incentive.

 I also have amendment 80 in this list, and I'm just going to outline it if I can find it. Yes. Here we are. Yeah. This is also about cancelling the liability when things happen. And therefore I think I may have finished my outlines of my amendment.
14:18
14:18
14:18
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Number 50.
14:18
14:18
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Okay. Yes.
14:18
14:20
14:20
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
-
-
Pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five amendments, four in the name of the member for Brighton Pavilion and one from the Liberal Democrats, would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The opposition takes the opposite view. Unsurprisingly, the exemptions in the clause are already too wide, which is why I've tabled amendments 139 and 142, subsection six. B exempts anyone who started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force.

 This is not an exemption for support received before the law changes. It's an exemption for the person for all the support they'd ever received before or after commencement. The government tells us that around 97,500 people are receiving support, and on the face of the bill, every single one of them would be exempt for life. So is everyone who enters support between now and the commencement date. Sorry, let me start again. So is everyone who enters support between now and a commencement date. The government has not yet given given to 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 six 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? And when does the government intend to bring the clause fully into force and levy the first charges? Section six C allows the Secretary of State to exempt any other description of person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us the victims of modern slavery would be exempt under clause 50. Those regulations are 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 in a series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories does the government intend to exempt? And why don't ministers think Parliament should be able to approve them in future? Turning to amendments 139 142, amendment 139 would remove subsection six B the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before the clause is fully in force. And as I've said, that exempts around 97,500 people for support they receive for life, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date.

 Nobody has given us our attention. Our intention on these benches 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 six, subject to the affirmative procedure. The government says negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may indeed be the case, but it certainly isn't for the taxpayer who burdens the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Turning to amendment 77 and 50, these would exempt anyone who is under 21 or under 18 at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout.

 This would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both of those amendments. Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal, Mr. Fenby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. 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. Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay and reward. The cases that took longest.

 Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognise victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. These are sensitive cases and the government has said victims of modern slavery will be exempt. But the right way to decide them is in regulations. The House has seen and approved, and not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. So which categories will the government exempt and will draft exemption regulations be provided before report amendment 80 and the member, or in the name of the member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person's liability on death, permanent incapacity reaching 65 or 10 years after their support ended.

 There is a fair question underneath it student loans. The model base we proposed are written off after a set period, but a ten year write off, starting when support ends, would allow anyone who simply did not pay to wait the debt out. This is far too wide and we will oppose it. Does the government intend any write off period at all and if so, what? So finally, chair, the opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 72 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 the second, and I will seek to press 139 to a division. Thank you.
14:25
Joe Robertson Portrait Joe Robertson
-
-
Thank you, Mr. Twigg. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I wish to speak very briefly on two of these exemptions. That is an exemption to require someone to make a payment for their asylum support. There are two exemptions have been referred to already. They are, and I'm referring to clause 23, six A and B, so a person is exempt for the purposes of this section. If they were under eight A were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support. Now, I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt.

 I think I disagree with the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, but really it's on an interpretation point, I think. And again, it's a problem with this bill that it's very badly drafted in places and very unclear that if someone were both under the age of 18, then became 18 and were seeking asylum support afterwards, they wouldn't be exempt. Of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult, but one would assume they wouldn't be charged for a portion of time. They received asylum support while under 18. So, as I say, I disagree with the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, but really on interpretation point, and I think the Minister needs to clarify.

 But of course, the Minister clarifying here in committee is not really sufficient. When it's not clear in the legislation then that she'd do better to clarify that in the legislation. The second exemption I wish to briefly refer to which my hon. Friend the Shadow Minister has done is six B, 236 B an exemption for someone who started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force. I don't quite understand, and this is now a counterpoint to what I've just said. I don't understand why if someone received asylum support, let's say for a year, I mean, typically it's a lot longer than that.

 But for a year, day one was before this section came into force. Day two and the 364 of the 365 days were after this came into force, why they'd be exempt from making contribution for their asylum support. The vast majority of that support they receive is after this legislation comes into force. I would have thought it would be a fairly obvious pro-rata exercise. So the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place. And I take the point that you don't have retrospective law in this country. They don't pay for their support and they do thereafter.

 And it does make me wonder that my understanding of the child becoming an adult element, perhaps I'm wrong about that. I think the government needs to be clear whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult, and if so, why that is not being applied when someone starts receiving support before this bill comes into place, but continues to receive support after it comes into place, I hope the minister can give us some clarity.
14:29
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

Thank you very much. And again, I'd like to thank colleagues, honourable members, across the committee benches for this group of amendments and for the explanations that they have given today. I'm sure the committee will forgive me if I once again stress the clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity that where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. This ensures that those who have the right, a right to support are still receive it, but there are responsibilities and expectations that come with that 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80.

 Broaden who is exempt from contributing towards their asylum support costs and specify when an existing liability must be cancelled. The government recognises the concerns behind these amendments, including the impacts on children, older people, victims of modern slavery or abuse, and those permanently unable to work. And I think it's important to let honourable members know that obviously we've had this discussion today. Views are noted on the record. We have. As I've said, we will be publishing the exemptions during the course of this bill process, and I look forward to further discussion with honourable members on that, because I think the honourable gentleman did have a counsel of despair this morning that what's the point of this committee?

 And I'd like to reassure him that things are listened to, absorbed. And although not everything will be in primary legislation, the things that are said and heard in this committee do play an important role in further development of secondary legislation and guidance and other things as well. So I'd like to reassure him that. I'd also just like to clarify, there has obviously been a lot of discussion around the support for children. The bill already protects those who have received support entirely as children in clause 23, subsection six, a broadening that exemption to include support received in adulthood goes further than is necessary.

 But in terms of just further clarification about the sort of sense of time spent in childhood, there will be a time between turning 18 and becoming liable for this charge, so that there is time for the individual to decide this again. This will be further discussed in the regulations, so I look forward to setting out more detail for honourable members to to discuss that. I think this is important that we are this is, again, part of the the regulations that we will discuss rather than on the in primary legislation.
14:32
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

Will the.
14:32
14:32
14:32
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

I apologise if I given any misconception. No, all the support that's been received entirely as a child will they will not have to pay for. But I just need to I'll make sure that I clarify in wording for all the committee for that for the understanding of that the bill also. Oh, sorry. The bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. As I've said, this is the appropriate mechanism providing flexibility, allowing clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks such as in relation to debt and enabling the approach to be kept under review.

 The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility will be evidenced, when liability should cease, or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual's current means. These details are critical to protect the policy's aims and mitigate against abuse, so these exemptions should not be on the face of the bill. I should add, in relation to the suggest exemption for those granted status on repeal amendment 80. This policy seeks the contribution from all recipients of asylum receipt of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest are honourable members in terms of those exemptions.

As I said, we will consider everything that's been discussed in this committee and heard when preparing the secondary regulations that the government has committed to during the passage of the bill, and I might just respond at that point to some of the issues that have been raised so far in the discussion. The honourable Lady for Brighton Pavilion mentioned about targeting those who are destitute. I want to be really clear we're still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment only begins later when individuals have the means to do so, and there are clear safeguards such as income thresholds and exemptions to protect the most vulnerable.

 There will also be a grace period. Excuse me. After support finishes before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, this policy reflects a principle that when you can contribute, you should. She also mentioned the exemptions of vulnerable groups. As I've said, you know, they're not on the face of the bill because it's the wrong place for them. But we will be making those regulations. And as I said this, their contributions and concerns have been heard and will will form part of that discussion. So for those for those reasons that I've outlined, I respectfully ask the honourable members not to press their amendments on amendments one, three, nine and 142.

 These concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the Asylum Support Contribution Scheme, and I thank the honourable member for tabling them. We cannot accept them because amendment 139, which allows aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this 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 would not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.

 Amendment . Of course.
14:35
14:35
None Portrait Speaker 1
-

That is a principle of changing level of of loan, provided I think it's we can't expect people who may have set out to fleeing war and persecution coming to this country under one expectation to have that changed while they are here. This has to be a. There's this is an entirely new system. This is not about changing levels of loan or a return. This is an entirely new process. I think it's important that we only do it going forward. I think it would be open to extreme amounts of legal challenge to try and apply this retrospectively.

 Amendment 142 would require any regulations which specify further exemptions to clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Now we're we're going to reject this amendment, but I again, in the on the emphasis on consensus, I'm always one minded to be very. You know, I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly in terms of important regulations like this. So I would like to although we're going to reject the opposition's amendments, I would like to undertake to consider this further, because I do think that appropriate. We need appropriate scrutiny for important exemptions like this.

 So I'm going to undertake to. Members, I will review this during the course of this bill because I think these are important, important regulations which will need the full scrutiny of the government. We were rejecting them at this point, but as I said, I'm open minded to consider this as we go forward in the bill. The detail, when the detailed scheme is published, which it will be in secondary legislation that will be during the passage of the bill. We've already committed to that, so I hope that will give the honourable members plenty to engage with as well during that process.

 And on that basis, I ask the honourable member for His Majesty's Opposition not to press those amendments.
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Aye.
14:38
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

The contrary. No.
14:38
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

No no division.
14:38
None Portrait Speaker 3
-

Lock the doors.
14:38
14:38
14:39
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

So we asked about 50.
14:39
14:39
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

I wish to push.
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
Blake Stephenson Portrait Blake Stephenson
-
-
Thank you very much, Mr. Twigg. I beg to move amendment 140 in my name, and I'll speak to clauses 23 and 24 stand part and to New Clause 62. As we've heard earlier in the debate, clause 23 gives the Home Secretary new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they're able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The opposition supports both clauses. My questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle. They're about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all.

And when amendment 140 would mean clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the government has 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 Parliament needs 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 this amendment. Subsection one applies the clause to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt.

 Subsection two defines asylum support. Subsection three is the core power. The Secretary of State may require payments. Subsection four leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection five provides that no one can be required to pay if they would make them destitute. As we heard earlier today, subsection six exempts people who are children throughout. Anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. As I said, clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect, can reflect support given to dependants.

 Allows HMRC to collect. It allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. So 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 that the government but. But what the government has put in front of us, you know, does not provide the detail that we expect. There is no amount on the face of the bill. There's no threshold, there is no repayment period. There's no collection model. All of it's left to regulations that we're yet to see.

 If New clause 37 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, and invite the minister to explain what makes 20 clause 23 in this bill developed enough. Now the power applies to those who have had their case concluded. However, 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 this relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says the measure will ensure refused asylum seekers, quote, 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 Paye. How much does the government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay, and why does the definition in subsection two leave out section 98 initial accommodation, including hotels, so that time spent there appears to be free of charge on HMRC's collection? So subsection four allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe this is the correct model and this how student loans are recovered automatically through the pay packet once earnings pass a certain threshold. It's the model actually that the opposition proposed.

 But subsection four is only an enabling power. It says regulations may provide for HMRC collection. Those regulations under clause 50 will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the government describes the collection as a more technical and administrative matter. So has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PA by default? As for student loans and from what date? Subsection five, which comes into force on Royal Assent, let's HMRC prepare in advance what preparatory work and expenditure is planned and what will the cost of HMRC collection be? Subsection six extends the information Sharing gateway in section 40 of the UK Borders Act 2007, and that is necessary if the Home Office is to know who has passed the threshold.

 But what safeguards will apply, and will the gateway also be used to trace people who've left the UK or whose whereabouts are unknown? At subsections 1 to 3, allow the charge to reflect whether a person received support for dependants. Supporting a family costs more than supporting a single adult, so it is right that the regulations can take that into account, but the power is permissive. Will a family pay more than a single adult? Is the charge per household or per adult and or per adult? And will the adult dependent each be liable in their own right and on unpaid sums?

 Section seven makes an unpaid amount recoverable as a debt due to the Secretary of State. On its own, that means little civil debt. Recovery against people on low incomes is slow and expensive at the sanction that will actually make people pay is the one the government has described outside the bill, with the library noting that under the urban settlement proposals, having no government debt is a mandatory requirement for settle settlement and that anyone who leaves the UK will have to make their payments if they want to return. So those are the consequences that give clause 23 its teeth, and yet they are not in this bill.

 They depend on immigration rules and policy that can be changed without primary legislation. Will the Minister confirm why the settlement and re-entry consequence are not on the face of the Bill, and when will the settlement rules be laid? The Home Secretary has promised earned settlement rules that bar settlement for anyone with unpaid government debt. But as at the end of September, the only settlement change actually laid was the English language requirement, and the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on the 15th of September that the policy would be settled later this year. Until those rules exist, an unpaid repayment has no consequence beyond a civil debt.

 When will they be laid? At my amendment, 141, debated in an earlier group , would put that sanction on the face of the bill on safeguards, compatibility and clause 19. We accept the destitution safeguard in subsection five, but the government must explain how it fits with its settlement policy. Could someone protected from paying by subsection five nevertheless be refused settlement for not paying? Finally, you'll be pleased to hear Parliament needs to know whether the scheme works effectively. New clause 62, which the Committee will reach later, would require an annual report of how many people were required to pay, how much was charged, how much was recovered, how much was written off, how many were exempt and on what grounds, and what the scheme costs to run.

 Reporting to Parliament is common sense to support oversight. Will the government commit to publishing the information required for Parliament to audit the scheme properly? Chair, the opposition supports clause 23 and 24 . Standing part. The principle is right HMRC collection is the right model. Indeed, as I said, it's the one we proposed. But as drafted, this is a power that may never be used at a rate nobody has told us, exempting everyone now in the system with the real sanction left to rules that have not been laid, amendment 140 and New clause 62 would let Parliament see the scheme before it starts and judge it once it is running.

 I look forward to the Minister's answers to my questions before deciding whether to press amendment 140 to a vote. Thank you, Chair.
14:49
14:49
Ben Goldsborough Portrait Ben Goldsborough
-
-
It's an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I speak in favour of clause 23 and 24 standing part of the bill. These clauses reflect an important principle at the heart of the government's approach to immigration. We must have a system that is properly managed, that commands public confidence and treats people fairly, whilst ensuring taxpayers money is used responsibly. My constituents in South Norfolk 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. This is a practical measure designed to ensure that where someone has received support at a public expense, their circumstances can be taken into account and a contribution can be sought where it is appropriate and affordable.

 It demonstrates that this government is serious about responsible management of our asylum system. We are not simply talking about reform. We are putting it in place. 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. Of course.
14:51
14:51
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

And an extra.
14:51
14:51
14:52
Ben Goldsborough Portrait Ben Goldsborough
-
-
I thank the honourable lady for intervening. I thought what was really important with the wind up comments from my hon. Friend the minister, when she was talking, was obviously this is not something that's taken into account for her own constituents who haven't sought asylum themselves. There is no definition of destitution versus poverty. And what we need to do is have a fair system, not only for those that are seeking asylum, but also for our constituents as well, that we don't create this two tier running, which then undermines the confidence in the system which we need.

 As I was saying, subsection two makes it clear that provision covers support provided through several existing statutory routes, including sections four, 95 and 95 A of the Immigration 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 needs a framework that can operate across those routes rather than leave gaps in the system. Subsection three then provides the power to require payments, whilst subsection four 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, it 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.

 This is not about penalising people for seeking asylum, it's about recognising that the public support comes responsibilities where an individual has the means to meet them.
14:54
14:54
Ben Goldsborough Portrait Ben Goldsborough
-
-
I thank the honourable friend for that intervention because, as he rightly said in his last contribution in the last section, as a former homelessness support worker, you have he has seen the difference. It is made when those want to provide support and repay back to 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 is prepared to address the detail of how system operates, rather than relying on grand announcements that do little to resolve the underlying challenges. While the most important features of clause 23 is subsection five, which requires the regulations to ensure that a person cannot require be required to make a payments where they would render them destitute, as defined under section 953 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, 1999.

 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 these clauses is to establish a fair and workable payment system, not to create further hardship for those who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The protection against destitution ensures the government's approach can be firm without being indiscriminate. It allows the system to take account of financial circumstances and distinguish between those who can reasonably pay for those whom a payment would put the 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 recognizing 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 ensure that the scheme delivers its intended benefits whilst maintaining the safeguards Parliament has rightly included. Subsection six sets out the exemptions from the payment requirement. Those include people who are under 18 throughout the period in which they receive asylum support.

 People who began receiving support before the relevant section comes into force. It also allows additional exemptions to be specified in regulations. I welcome these inclusions and these exemptions as part of a balanced legislative framework. The exemption for children is particularly important. I know it will be to my constituents as well, because 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 this policy. Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that government is 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 is right to provide a framework that can account for the circumstances in which support was provided, rather than assume that every case is identical. That flexibility should help ensure that payments requirement payment requirements are based on relevant factors and that the scheme can be administered fairly.

 Subsections four and five 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 Preparatory work ahead of. regulations that may give it the responsibility for collecting payments. I welcome the government's intention to establish a workable arrangements for collection. There is a strong practical case for making use of existing administrative. expertise and.
14:58
14:58
Ben Goldsborough Portrait Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Where it can help deliver policy . Subsection six 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 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 underpin it. Finally, subsection eight allows consequential regulations to be made in support of 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. Taken together, these clauses are an example of a government taking practical steps to improve the administration of the asylum system. For too long, public. confidence in immigration has been undermined by a sense of. System has not always worked as it should.

 Rebuilding that confidence requires a government willing to address the details, how to. How support is provided, how public money is managed, how obligations are enforced, and how rules are applied fairly. Labour's approach must be about delivering these outcomes, not simply just talking about them. I welcome the government's approach to these clauses and I support the principle that underpins them. I look forward to seeing the regulations translate that principle into effective and proportionate. system that delivers for.
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
None Portrait Speaker 4
-

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, that they could never, that they could never be entitled to without . contributing and building on the points my honourable friend raised in his contribution. It's also about asking those to contribute for those who come after them. My other honourable friend mentioned desire that he'd had expressed by some asylum seekers coming to this country that they wanted to pay and contribute. Many of them would be wanting to enable the system to.

 continue so that other people fleeing war and. persecution are able to continue to. It. The 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 this is necessary for the administration and. collection of repayments. Honourable 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'll continue to work across government to identify the most effective and.
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Scheme is.
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:15
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

And .
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

For non-payment?
15:20
15:20
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Pay back in some .
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:23
None Portrait Speaker 5
-

Member .
15:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

To withdraw their .
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Catherine .
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:23
15:24
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

The Bill.
15:24
15:24
15:24
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Catherine .
15:24
15:25
15:25
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Clause .
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

Contrary no.
15:26
15:26
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Sian .
15:26
15:26
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Catherine .
15:26
15:26
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

Paul .
15:26
15:26
15:27
None Portrait Speaker 6
-

No division.
15:27
15:27
None Portrait Speaker 2
-

I Catherine .
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:28
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page