Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Disapplying the Human Rights Act is about disapplying our domestic legislation—our domestic barriers. That is entirely compliant with the international refugee convention. This is not about international barriers; it is about our domestic barrier, the Human Rights Act.
The Home Office confirmed that it spent £22,000 on its “don’t rape women” guide for asylum seekers. Can the Minister confirm that clause 23 restricts the sums that are recoverable purely to accommodation and subsistence, rather than to the Home Office’s comms budget?
A number of constituents recently contacted me about a pilot scheme to fit air filters in classrooms, which they tell me has shown considerable health benefits to pupils and students—it could also perhaps relieve school budgets of the cost of supply teachers. Will the Leader of the House find time either for a debate or for an Education Minister to come to the House to give the Government’s position?
Last week, Liberal Democrat-run Hertfordshire county council moved to become a county of sanctuary, essentially making it the council’s policy to welcome illegal asylum seekers. This is an out-of-touch policy that was not in the Liberal Democrat manifesto, and there has been no consultation with Hertfordshire residents. Will the Leader of the House offer some guidance on whether the Government think that such initiatives are an appropriate use of council resources?
It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in this Black History Month debate. I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done across parties and across this House. She has been a champion for all communities but has particularly raised issues for people in the black community, such as knife crime, single parents, and stop and search in classrooms. She did all those things as a Back Bencher, reaching across the divide and caring about the community, regardless of who they were or where they were from. It felt as if she was just trying to represent all her constituents and raise the issues that mattered to them. Everyone across this House can connect with that. We in this House come from very different backgrounds and places, <span id="1321" class="column-number" data-column-number="1321"></span>but there are Members of Parliament from every party who put their constituents and communities and the issues that matter to them first. The Minister is one of those, so I pay tribute to her and thank her for that. Every October we celebrate Black History Month, and this year marks its 39th year in the UK. It was a tradition started in 1987 by a Ghanaian activist who believed that black Britons deserved to have their history told, taught and celebrated. Black history is, of course, British history. Madam Deputy Speaker, please act surprised when you hear that my speech is very similar to the Minister’s. This will probably be a rare moment when we are in agreement and saying very similar things. The theme of Black History Month this year is “Honouring Our Communities”. It focuses on recognising the everyday contributions of black people across Britain. For me, this is a moment for important reflection. I came to this country with basically nothing and knowing no one, and the first community that opened their hearts and their doors to me were my friends in the West Indian Caribbean community in west London. They welcomed me and taught me what it was to be British. They brought me into their community groups and their church groups. They even allowed my mum to come to some of the events. I certainly knew about jerk chicken before I got to the House of Commons. I pay special tribute to the Acton Vale estate community, and to Grace and Chaney. Grace became one of my closest friends, and Chaney is her daughter, who I mentored and is now incredibly successful. They taught me what it was to be British and to care about the community. Grace was one of the first people who said, “You should think about being a Member of Parliament.” I had never thought about that before. I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan); she knows the Acton Vale estate. It was a transformative moment for me to feel that anyone could come to this country and be British and part of British society. We could have British values and be proud to be British—it did not matter where we came from. I learned that hope and that care for our community from my friends, and I am here today as a result. They probably unleashed more than they bargained for, but they were the first to encourage me— they probably deeply regret that now, but that is where it started. They showed me the very best of this country. I also pay tribute to the other local groups that I worked with, and to Bishara and Adam Matan, who have done tremendous work at the Anti-Tribalism Movement, which helped to tackle tribalism in the Somalian community in west London.
I see the hon. Member for Ealing Southall nodding, because they are well known across west London for the incredible work they have done for years with all the communities and local mosques. They taught me so much about celebrating all the different communities, and I pay tribute to them today. Black history in Britain has always been community history. When the Windrush arrived in 1948, the men and women on board did not just come to work; they built churches and social clubs that welcomed people when Britain often did not.
The Christmas holiday arrives! That was my summons to the Chamber, but the debate started earlier than I anticipated. Old age comes to us at many levels, and having to put an alarm on our phone is one of them. Happy Christmas to everyone. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) for her intervention. This is about the community. All of us have wonderful constituents who represent our communities and raise their concerns. Those community leaders have enlightened us and allowed us to speak with knowledge, and I pay tribute to all of them today.
I will indeed. I organised the first Somalian community day on the South Acton estate, though we then had to change the name to the wider “South Acton community day”, to be inclusive. That is wonderful, and I congratulate the new mayor. As a fun fact, I used to ride the 207 bus from Acton all the way to Southall and back—for anyone who has not been to Ealing, it is a fun journey. Like the Minister, I started as a councillor. It was a wonderful way of meeting the community and understanding it from the grassroots up. I will never forget that, and I believe it makes us better parliamentarians when we have had that experience on the ground. In 1963, Bristol’s black community, led by young people like Paul Stephenson, refused to accept a bus company’s ban on black workers. Their boycott helped to pave the way for Britain’s first race relations laws. Today, black people continue to play a key role in communities across our country, helping to bring people together. One of the reasons why black history is British history is that our black communities show that we can be an integrated, cohesive and multiracial Britain. We can celebrate the same values and be proud of who we are together.<span id="1323" class="column-number" data-column-number="1323"></span> There will be black Britons who play a vital role in all our constituencies, offices and community groups. I pay special tribute to a family in my constituency, Rotimi, Marylene and Naomi Isaiah, for being my right hand in everything in Beaconsfield. I could not do my job without their incredible community support, and I thank them for everything they have done; I am sure that all Members across the Chamber could pay similar tributes. They do so much to support and encourage me personally in my work as a Member of Parliament. I was going to have them here today, but it will have to be next time. Turning to my work on women and equalities, I also want to recognise Nimco Ali, a survivor of female genital mutilation who has done so much to highlight that vital issue, to try to make sure that no other girls experience what she did. This year, the aim of Black History Month is to look beyond famous people and reflect on the contributions of everyday black Britons, but given that this is the first time I have spoken at the Dispatch Box in Black History Month, it feels only right that I should recognise someone famous—just one person, but a genuine role model for black female Britons. In 1987, the very same year that Black History Month began here, a young woman from Paddington walked into the House of Commons as Britain’s first black female MP. Today, she is the Mother of the House. When she arrived, there were only 41 women in the entire Commons. She was told in a hundred ways that she did not belong. She stayed anyway. For nearly four decades, she has represented the people of Hackney, championed black children in London schools and chaired the West Indian and sickle cell disease parliamentary groups. She has faced more abuse than almost any politician of her generation—and she has never stopped turning up. We do not have to share her politics to recognise what her presence meant. For millions of black Britons, especially black girls, she was proof that the doors of power could open and that someone who looked like them could walk through. Black history is not one month; it is being forged every day by people who see themselves first as proud Britons—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who I am very proud to have leading my party, for leading the way and opening opportunities for us all. It is British history that they, including those across this House, are writing, and it is a privilege to recognise all of them today.
A constituent got in touch with me last week to point out that farmers are often the ones who are left to deal with fly-tipping, but I note in the Government’s response on Tuesday that <span id="1266" class="column-number" data-column-number="1266"></span>insurance is one option that could be available. What progress is the Minister making in talking to insurance companies about making fly-tipping part of a routine farm policy that farmers could take out against this scourge?
This week in London, the British Argentine Chamber of Commerce is promoting investment opportunities in Argentina, at a time when companies linked to the Falklands Sea Lion project are being pursued by Argentina with sanctions and criminal proceedings. Could we urgently have a statement from the relevant Trade Minister on what the British Government are doing to protect legitimate British businesses operating in the Falkland Islands?
<Question HRSContentId="{FB48AD5A-924C-4E84-8B27-2933569A1D31}">6. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{3F160B16-B553-4ADD-AB83-ECFAFF6263BB}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK–EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on the farming sector.</QuestionText> </Question>
CropLife UK warns that the heedless rush to align with the EU could cost British farming £810 million. That is £810 million off bottom lines, which are already very marginal. Further, it could also hit production in this country, so we cannot export what we are not even growing. What assessment is the Government making of CropLife UK’s report that says this EU alignment could be dangerous for farming?
One of the great sports in this place is who has the best constituency. Well, <em>National Geographic</em> magazine’s verdict is in and the only place in the UK to get a mention in its “Best Places in the World to Travel to in 2027” is Dumfries and Galloway. This news is absolutely delightful. VisitScotland has already picked up on it and promoted it on its website. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how I can get VisitBritain, which is financed from this place, to follow suit?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b). Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they “were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”. I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.<span id="347" class="column-number" data-column-number="347"></span> The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter. It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.
It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.
I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others said yesterday, in this week of the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, let us never forget its victims, including 116 children, and its terrible cost to their families and their community. On a far happier note, the House will shortly come together in celebration of the Clerk on his retirement, but let me pay a personal tribute to Tom now for his unfailing genius, sense of service and courtesy to the House, and the assistance he has given us all as Members over 30 years. As a jobbing trumpeter, coming very much from the opposite end of the quality spectrum, I can testify that Tom is a superb jazz pianist. Like any great jazzer, he has a remarkable ability to improvise under pressure while never losing sight of the underlying material—as in the gig, so at the Table. That is no small achievement with 650 would-be Miles Davises all playing in different keys.
Some are more in tune than others, Mr Speaker. Among Tom’s heroes is Art Tatum, who was famous for taking a familiar tune and turning it into something almost unrecognisable. Tom has often performed the reverse feat with Members’ legislative amendments: taking something almost unrecognisable and turning it into something more familiar.<span id="1289" class="column-number" data-column-number="1289"></span> Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will forgive another toot from me on my constituency trumpet. This week has seen the publication of a brilliantly positive new report by Policy Exchange on our new engineering university in Hereford, NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. Among other things, the report highlights that, thanks to the university’s accelerated degrees, it offers at least 20% better value for money for students than elsewhere. For local students, it is almost half the cost of an equivalent chartered engineering degree anywhere else. The report goes further—I think this is a matter of general interest to the House—by identifying 57 suitable towns and cities across the UK, including Hartlepool, Grimsby, Barnsley, Burnley and Scunthorpe in the north alone, in which the model could be rolled out across the country. I would be delighted to discuss with colleagues how we could do so with any areas and constituencies that may be interested. I end, if I may, on a more serious note. In May 2024, Lord Walney’s report, “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”, made more than 40 recommendations to tackle political intimidation and disruptive extremism. More than two years into their term of office, this Government have yet to respond fully; indeed, Ministers abolished Lord Walney’s position last year. When they did so, they promised that his report would continue to shape the Government’s approach to political violence, yet they rejected key recommendations in passing the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including stronger powers to prevent particularly harmful marches. They did that despite very strong appeals from Jewish community groups facing the present rising tide of antisemitism—groups that are still more concerned, be it said, after the Green party’s appalling resolution that Zionism is racism. The threat is clear, and I know that this is an issue of particular concern to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us. Ninety-six per cent of Members of Parliament responding to the Speaker’s Conference in 2025 reported harassment, intimidation or abuse. It is a matter of public record that, last September, arson destroyed the constituency office of one of our colleagues, and that another and their son received death threats. Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, of course, but so is the right of every person to live free from intimidation, and the right of every elected representative and their staff to be able to serve without intimidation, abuse or coercion. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to publish a full, recommendation-by-recommendation, response to Lord Walney’s report, and will he arrange a debate in Government time on that response so that the House can collectively scrutinise what the Government are doing and propose to do to meet these dreadful threats?
In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?
Mr Speaker, may I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Helen Haines, who is a close personal friend of our mutual friend, Speaker Milton Dick? I am in touch with Milton for progress on her condition, and our thoughts and prayers are with her and her family. Mr Speaker, I know how important it is to you that Ministers are scrutinised properly by this House, so I am sure that you will join in my disappointment at learning that the Home Secretary’s diary office claim that there is not a single moment between now and Christmas when the Home Secretary can come in front of the Home Affairs Committee. If that is the case, then since her appointment in October 2025, she will have appeared only twice in the period up to the end of the year. The Liaison Committee wrote to the Leader of the House about this matter and I know that he has responded to those comments, but will he use his good office to sit <span id="1295" class="column-number" data-column-number="1295"></span>down with the Home Secretary’s diary secretary to see whether he can find a space for her to come and see the Home Affairs Committee? We will be very flexible—we can find a time and date that suits her—but we would really like to see her before Christmas, and I hope that the Leader of the House can help us facilitate that.
<Question HRSContentId="{6DD44E48-4F83-41BB-AC63-FA07CFD982AA}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{E1329B1D-C8F9-4D31-8A4C-079F1F1A9DDA}">What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement on the farming sector.</QuestionText> </Question>
England has become a world leader in gene editing and precision breeding. That has increased crop yields and eradicated diseases, and it helps to protect domestic, and potentially global, food security. But much of this technology is banned in the European Union, and dynamic alignment will mean that we cannot use it. What representations has the Minister made to the Cabinet Office and to Ministers in negotiations with the European Union to ensure that gene editing and our world-leading technologies are protected?
I support the decision to stand alongside our allies in Saudi Arabia, but additional deployment requires sufficient resourcing. Will the Minister confirm that despite the former Secretary of State, now the Chancellor, saying in his resignation letter that the Ministry of Defence needs 3% by 2030, the MOD spokesman’s comments yesterday state that that commitment will not be met by that date?
On Saturday afternoon, Bridlington Town FC will take on Curzon Ashton in the FA trophy first round proper—the first time the club has reached that stage of the competition in 22 years. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Brid all the very best on Saturday afternoon in the FA trophy, and can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of sports clubs and local communities?
<Question HRSContentId="{2D771F9F-8443-4522-8501-957C766DF88A}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{48000886-5ECC-476C-B254-D393A089C03A}">What assessment the commissioners have made of the adequacy of the places of worship renewal fund in supporting churches in suburban areas.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Houthis in Yemen were largely quiet for four years, but Yemen is one of those disastrous areas where humanitarian aid is desperately needed. Now that the Houthis have come <span id="1286" class="column-number" data-column-number="1286"></span>out and attacked at the behest of Iran, what action are the Government taking to build a coalition of forces to defeat the Houthis—not contain them but actually defeat them—so that the threat that they pose to the region is minimised or eradicated? The reality is that Iran is ordering their position in order to disrupt the shipping lanes of the world.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business. Clearly, apart from Monday, Backbench business will be coming up in the Chamber only after we come back from the recess. If we are granted time on Thursday 12 November, we will have Select Committee statements from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Defence Committee, followed by a debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a debate on the Nolan principles, which many people have asked for. In Westminster Hall on Tuesday 27 October, there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as intangible cultural heritage. On Thursday 29 October, there will be a debate on mandatory safeguarded 24/7 helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom. On Tuesday 3 November, there will be a debate on the findings of the Milburn review. When we come back after the recess, on Tuesday 10 November, there will be a debate on antisocial behaviour. I remind Members that because the House will be sitting Monday hours on that day, that debate will start at 11.30 am and not 9.30 am as usual. May I gently nudge the Leader of the House? We are still awaiting the extra Labour member of the Backbench Business Committee. One of the Government members is on long-term deployment in our forces, and another colleague had a terrible accident and therefore is on crutches and finds it difficult to get the meetings, so we have challenges making sure we are quorate to consider the business. The situation in Nepal continues to be catastrophic. Often, when there is a disaster such as flooding, everyone says, “We must do something,” and then nothing else happens. I pay tribute to Benji and Nic Gould, two boys aged 11 and nine, who at the HarroWall climbing centre climbed the equivalent of going to Everest base camp and raised £3,500 for charity. I think we should congratulate them—I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in doing so—and also say that we need to continue to our work to assist the great people of Nepal.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time. As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member <span id="330" class="column-number" data-column-number="330"></span>for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost. This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax. On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and <span id="331" class="column-number" data-column-number="331"></span>even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified? Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only. Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target? Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary. Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt? The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost. During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:<span id="332" class="column-number" data-column-number="332"></span> “I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”<span id="vol_col72" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="72" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="82E087C4-25BB-4C3D-990A-8A5D4FF18394"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]</span> Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs? Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment? The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in <span id="345" class="column-number" data-column-number="345"></span>the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142. Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who “started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”. That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges? Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those? Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force. Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.<span id="346" class="column-number" data-column-number="346"></span> Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that “the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”<span id="vol_col32" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="32" data-volume-number="" data-external-id="F9A2407E-FB16-4303-8961-AA10A2673FFF"><em>––</em>[<em>Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, </em>15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]</span> Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest. Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report? Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what? Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert— “(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament— (a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and (b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of— (i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3), (ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and (iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.” <em>This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.</em>
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when. Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote. Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected. We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now. The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those “who have had their case concluded”; but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November? The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers “take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,<span id="352" class="column-number" data-column-number="352"></span> but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge? Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
<Question HRSContentId="{9B563076-DC7A-4723-AC00-39FE0DA65B4A}">7. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{8A931F45-3BBA-4CC6-BEAF-53CD293908C3}">What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the <span id="1279" class="column-number" data-column-number="1279"></span>pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.</QuestionText> </Question>
The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?
After 18 months of dither and delay, and cuts to the farming budget, Labour’s shambolic SFI scheme closed within hours, leaving farmers unable to access funding to protect and restore nature. We now know, through freedom of information requests, that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs knew the scheme could collapse within hours, yet the Government pressed ahead regardless. Now, environmental charities, including the Rivers Trust, are warning that that will undermine nature recovery. Does the Secretary of State recognise that by failing the custodians of our countryside, she is failing nature too?
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I held a similar one earlier this year on 4 February, in which I raised issues regarding Royal Mail, particularly with respect to the WV15 and WV16 postcodes in my constituency, where people are waiting for two, three and sometimes four weeks to receive mail. Does she agree that that situation is completely unacceptable and must change, because my constituents, like many other people, feel that they really do not matter to Royal Mail?
The Minister said in reply to the shadow Secretary of State that the delay in the decision on Jackdaw was fiscally neutral because, in essence, the investment was made at risk.
The Minister shakes his head, but he said that there was no cost from the delay. Does he accept that the delay in a decision on Rosebank comes at a cost, both in terms of investment and in terms of taxpayer revenue? If so, will he set out what that cost is, in revenue, ahead of the Budget?