Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)
Thursday 22nd October 2026
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesImmigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 October 2026 - (22 Oct 2026)
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to bob to catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
Clause 22
Interpretation of Refugee Convention: “lawfully staying”
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I beg to move amendment 133, in clause 22, page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would omit the transitional provision for clause 22. Amendment 135 would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations, and that would mean that the transitional provision could also be included in the regulations rather than in the primary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 61—Removal of persons within Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention: disapplication of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998—
“(1) Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities) does not apply to a decision of the Secretary of State to remove from, or require to leave, the United Kingdom a person who is not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom by virtue of section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (as inserted by this Act).
(2) In proceedings relating to such a decision, a court or tribunal may not treat the decision as unlawful by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right.
(3) In this section ‘Convention right’ has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This new clause would mean that the Human Rights Act 1998 would not prevent the removal from the United Kingdom, where the Refugee Convention permits their return, of a refugee who is a danger to national security, or who has been convicted of a particularly serious crime and is a danger to the community.
Anna Turley
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. If the Committee will bear with me, I will set out some reminders of the purposes of the clause to which amendment 133 refers, to give some context to the discussion and debate that I look forward to this morning.
Clause 22 provides that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a “particularly serious crime” or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws and contribute positively to life in this country. The UK has a proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations. It is right that we help individuals from around the world who flee conflict and oppression, but the asylum system must be fair and effective so that we can better protect, support and focus our efforts on those in genuine need of protection. Those who break our laws and undermine our way of life do not deserve to have our support or indulgence any longer.
Those granted refugee or human rights protection status are provided with the rights and support necessary to rebuild their lives, to integrate into our communities, to support themselves and their families, and to contribute to the UK. That includes access to employment, education and, where appropriate, public funds. However, we are equally clear that those who commit serious crimes are not welcome. Those who can be deported will be deported, and those we are unable to remove will be denied the benefits of protection status. They cannot expect the same treatment as refugees who respect our laws. Through their serious offending, they have demonstrated conduct that justifies a different approach to the benefits and entitlements associated with protection status.
All those who claim asylum undergo a series of security checks against immigration and police databases, and they are screened to identify individuals who may have been involved in criminality, both inside and outside the UK, or are of national security interest. Under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, we have already acted to ensure that those guilty of the most serious crimes will not be welcomed here. We have expanded the definition of “particularly serious crime” so that any registered sex offender or any individual convicted of a schedule 3 sex offence can be denied protection status, alongside individuals who have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
This is a huge concern in rural constituencies like mine. There is no support any more for the immigration and asylum system. Will the Minister explain how she believes that these changes will assure people that there is a safeguard in place to make sure that those who are threats not only to individuals but to our nation will not be welcomed here?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and one that my constituents share with his. There is real concern that anyone who comes here and breaks our rules should not enjoy the benefits that we provide to those genuinely fleeing persecution who abide by the rules and standards we expect of them. No member of this Committee should be in any doubt about our intention to ensure that those who have committed serious offences are deported. We have deported more than 12,000 foreign national offenders, up 41% on the two years before we came into power. As I say, no one should be in any doubt about our determination.
The clause focuses particularly on those who have committed serious crimes but cannot currently be removed. Where removal is not possible, those individuals are already granted shorter, more restricted leave, with conditions attached, and are subject to regular review until they can be removed at the earliest opportunity. We are clear that we will continue to monitor and review these individuals until removal is possible. They cannot qualify for settlement, and their continued presence in the UK is permitted for only so long as the barrier persists.
We are determined that protection from removal, where required by international obligations, should not automatically confer the broader benefits associated with protection status. It is right that there is a clear distinction between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not—those who make the effort to integrate into the UK and those who do not.
Certain rights under the refugee convention are owed only to individuals who are “lawfully staying” in the UK. The Secretary of State’s policy is that refugees who have been excluded from the protections of the refugee convention under article 33(2) are not lawfully staying in the UK. Clause 22 puts that policy on a statutory footing for the first time, so that it must be applied by courts and tribunals. That will support efforts to distinguish between those who commit serious crimes and those who do not. I hope the Committee agrees that it cannot be the case that those who have committed those crimes against the public are automatically able to access the same benefits and entitlements as refugees who have respected and complied with our laws.
New clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, would enable the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. I look forward to hearing his argument for the new clause, but it is important to clarify that we would always seek to remove any foreign criminal convicted of a serious crime. My initial response is that simply disapplying the Human Rights Act 1998 does not address the point about international law or customary international law, and that any attempt to ignore those obligations would likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture or death. That would not comply with our obligations under the refugee convention, which we ourselves established, to ensure that we never again see the kinds of scenes we saw under Nazi Germany.
Ben Goldsborough
Is not one of the risks with the Opposition’s proposition that, by disapplying the European convention on human rights, we would have to strike a new deal with other nations every single time? That is the reason for the slow returns processes we currently have with countries that are not in the ECHR.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, in every experience I have ever had in this portfolio and others, international co-operation has been the solution, not the problem, whether it is driving down fraudulent asylum applications or dealing with those who break the rules when they are here.
Finally, Government amendment 133 will simply allow for transitional provisions to be included in the commencement regulations, rather than being on the face of the Bill.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
The current rules allow too many foreign national offenders to avoid deportation. That undermines public safety and confidence in our immigration system, so it is right that through the Bill we strive to balance the public interest against individual rights, and to ensure that the application of article 8 of the ECHR in deportation cases reflects that balance. The existing tests do not place enough weight on the public interest, especially on public safety and crime prevention. The tougher action that the Government propose is intended to ensure that the courts consistently prioritise public protection, which is welcome.
It is incomprehensible to most people how those who have been granted permission to live and work in the UK and then seriously break the law of the land do not then forfeit the rights that have been conferred on them. That view is heightened when people are part of organised crime gangs, have only recently arrived in the country or have arrived without permission and request asylum. We say that the UK is a tolerant country, but I see that tolerance fracturing as UK citizens see the rules of the country failing in the face of modern migration. We are not the only country experiencing this, and failing to address it will only ensure even greater civil unrest.
It is worth noting that, between 2016 and 2021, about 70% of successful appeals by foreign national offenders allowed them to stay solely on article 8 grounds. Other data shows that nearly 20,000 foreign offenders remain in Britain due to a clogged appeals system, with many winning cases based on human rights arguments. It is interesting to see an amendment propose incredibly tough, specific measures when, during their time in government, the Conservatives failed to implement any changes that would have prevented the disgraceful scenes that we see around the country today.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Even before these incredibly welcome tough new actions, we saw the deportation of foreign national offenders go up by 41% compared with under the last Government. Does that not demonstrate the abject failure of the last Administration to deal with the issue?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will come to that. Even within the existing rules, there was an opportunity for the previous Administration to take tougher action to prioritise this. Instead of using those rules, they looked at fanciful arrangements with other countries, with completely empty planes taking off. They wasted huge amounts of public money on schemes that were little more than a gimmick.
The stats that I mentioned—that 70% of appeals are successful, and that there are 20,000 foreign offenders in a clogged appeals system—do not demonstrate a system that is fair or working at full capacity, or indeed working as it should.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. It is right that our immigration and asylum system should, first and foremost, be fair to the population of the United Kingdom. Does she agree that, on the question of whether we can remove people who have committed serious crimes, it is also unfair to legitimate asylum seekers, who risk being tarred with the same brush, with their reasons for fleeing often serious and horrible situations in other countries coming under suspicion?
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Where people seek to game the system, it undermines it for those with legitimate claims. That is where we start to see a real breakdown of trust in the system, with everybody being put into the same category. In my view, that creates even greater civil unrest and the potential for pretty heinous actions to be taken by those in local communities. We have seen the situation around the country spiral in recent times, with very vulnerable individuals being targeted because of an improper and unfair narrative due to those who have sought to exploit weaknesses in a system that was left abjectly under-resourced under the previous Government.
The Minister and my hon. Friends have mentioned that around 70,000 people have been deported since July 2024, an increase of over 41%. It has probably gone up since I made these notes, because my next sentence says, “of these, 10,000 were foreign national offenders.” As we have heard, it has gone up to 12,000, and the increase is 41%, not the 36% that I noted. That is a remarkable achievement within the confines of a system that is straining at the seams, and it demonstrates this Government’s determination to try to fix a broken system and give that reassurance to the British public. It is worth reiterating that at every opportunity.
There are other signals that the Home Office is intent on providing that reassurance, as enforcement funding is rising. Immigration enforcement spending will increase from £681 million to £1.33 billion by the end of this Parliament. Staffing numbers will rise from 4,500 to 7,300. Those are not small measures, and they not only reassure the public but make the system work as it is supposed to. Although deportations have increased, there remains a substantial backlog, so new powers allowing immediate deportation after sentencing for most determinate sentence offenders will start to show a reduction in the coming months and years. There is also the added benefit that earlier removal will reduce pressure on prison capacity, which we all know is under great strain.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on that point, especially as she is caveating our relative success in removing foreign offenders by providing the wider context about criminality in this country. The vast majority of crime is committed by British citizens—indeed, British-born citizens. Sometimes that is lost in this debate.
Following on from that point, does my hon. Friend agree that foreign offenders are often synonymously conflated with violence against women and girls? There are certain elements in our politics that wish to leverage that narrative to demonise certain communities and to further their own political interests. Does she share my concerns about the politicians who do that, and does she agree that when it comes to people who commit violence against women and girls, the common theme is largely not one particular community or immigrant population, or indeed foreign offenders, but men?
Melanie Onn
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I agree that the commonality is men. I would also say that there is great fear in communities. Unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, there is already suspicion when there are new arrivals. There is work to be done to demonstrate the reality that, where there is criminal activity, this country has strong institutions in place that are prepared to set the record straight. There can often be unfounded rumours that lead to vigilante groups and the targeting of individuals—I have seen that happen in my constituency, and it is completely unacceptable.
When there is criminal activity, swift action should be taken to apprehend that individual and, whatever their background, they should be subject to the full force of UK law. They should be dealt with quickly, and where appropriate, if they are a foreign national offender or an asylum seeker, they should be deported as quickly as possible. Immediate deportation after sentencing would address the issue and comfort people in communities around the country. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and perhaps I have not given him enough comfort that we share entirely the same perspective. There is certainly more that can be done.
We have to do all we can to strengthen public confidence and to restore trust in our systems. We have to be honest about the scale of the issue, the backlogs and the delays. Removing people more reliably and quickly through improved co-operation with receiving countries, as the Minister mentioned, will go a significant way towards doing that.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I know I am a voice in the wilderness, but I wish Parliament would use these Committee sessions to try to improve legislation instead of collapsing into the pantomime of the Chamber. That is not a criticism of the hon. Lady by any means, or any of the contributions I have heard, but sometimes we fall into political discourse when we should be trying to improve things.
Melanie Onn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because this is his first appearance and we are now five days into the Committee. He will have no doubt looked at Hansard or listened to the recordings and seen that we have gone through the detail of this legislation line by line in previous sittings.
Mr Kohler
That was not an attack on the hon. Lady at all. I have been in the Chamber on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill Committee for the last few sittings, which is why I have not been here. I still think we should try to work together on improving legislation, but I am a voice in the wilderness, as I said—[Interruption.] Well, we do not; we turn it into a political debate where we just make points against the other side. We replicate Parliament. It should be more than that.
The UNHCR has been critical of this provision—this is not a political point; I am asking a question. I will read a paragraph from its critique as I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about it:
“The proposed provision conflates two distinct concepts within the Refugee Convention: whether a refugee falls within the exception to non-refoulement contained in Article 33(2), and whether that refugee is ‘lawfully staying’ in the territory of a Contracting State. While a finding within the meaning of Article 33(2) that a refugee constitutes a danger to national security or, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community may give rise to removal proceedings, it does not, in itself, determine whether they are lawfully staying for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Particularly where removal is not possible, including because of other applicable non-refoulement obligations under international human rights law, a refugee may remain authorised to stay in the UK under domestic law. At a minimum, such a person would remain ‘lawfully present’ in the UK for the purposes of the Refugee Convention. Accordingly, they would continue to be entitled to those rights and standards of treatment under the Refugee Convention that are contingent upon ‘lawful presence’ in the territory. Whether they also remain ‘lawfully staying’ is likely to depend on the nature of the leave granted and the extent to which it provides a sufficiently stable and durable basis for residence. UNHCR therefore encourages the Government to reconsider this provision.”
If a refugee is not lawfully staying under these provisions, but cannot be removed for other purposes, what is their status? Are they lawfully present or do they have no status whatsoever?
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. We support clause 22, and I rise in support of new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire. Both address the same question: what happens when someone claiming our protection is a danger to this country?
Clause 22 says that a person who falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention is
“not to be taken to be lawfully staying in the United Kingdom”.
That covers two categories: someone whom there are reasonable grounds to regard as a danger to our national security and someone convicted of a particularly serious crime who is a danger to the community. Those are, by definition, the most serious cases our asylum system deals with. The public will understand why such a person should lose the rights that depend on lawful stay, such as the right to work and access to public funds, but they will ask a far simpler question: why are they still here?
Clause 22 changes how we describe someone’s stay. It does not cancel their leave, make a deportation order or remove the human rights barriers to sending them home. In particular, article 3 of the European convention on human rights can still prevent removal, however grave the danger they pose, so the clause on its own does not give Ministers a clear route to removal.
New clause 61 addresses that gap. For decisions to remove or require to leave anyone covered by proposed new section 37A of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, it would disapply section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and prevent a court or tribunal from treating that decision as unlawful because it is incompatible with the convention right. It would apply only where the refugee convention already permits return. The measure is targeted squarely at the dangerous individuals identified by clause 22.
The Minister may say that the new clause would not change our obligations under the convention and that cases could still go to Strasbourg. That is true and is precisely why we believe this country should leave the ECHR.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member not agree that we are currently a proud member of the European Court of Human Rights and, with that membership, we have still managed to deport 12,000 foreign national offenders to other countries that are signed up to it? It is absolutely no barrier and, in fact, it helps us to fulfil our obligations. We are a proud nation of sanctuary in Wales and we are also going to have safe and legal routes for immigrants. Surely he agrees that being part of the European Court of Human Rights does not prevent us from deporting people.
Matt Vickers
If you believe that we are deporting everyone we should be deporting, and if you do not believe that the European convention on human rights has got in the way of us removing people, you start from a very different place from me. People I represent are very concerned about our immigration system. They are very concerned that the laws we are making in this place are not acting to control that immigration system. I think we start from very different perspectives.
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member makes a fair point. We have had lots of things to say about the past. It is that experience that has led us to the point where we believe that some of the human rights framework that is in place gets in the way of deportations. Clause 22 actually concedes that point. It says that these people should not be able to exercise some of those rights, but it does not remove them. New clause 61 is the step that actually solves that problem.
This system is not working. I would be celebrating if we were a bit further forwards than we are. Actually, 7,042 people arrived from Eritrea in the year to March—how many went back? Two. There were 4,490 who arrived from Afghanistan—how many went back? One. And 4,389 arrived from Eritrea—how many went back? Zero.
The system is not functioning. Progress is progress. We would welcome progress. The opportunity with this Bill is to make much further progress and remove the people who should be removed.
Melanie Onn
Perhaps the hon. Member might like to take the opportunity to correct the record. He mentioned Eritrea twice there.
The hon. Member says the system is not working. It plainly is. It could work better, but we are seeing big increases from the failure of his Government to manage to deport people under the current rules. By applying what rules we have and exercising them by putting additional resources behind them, as well as tightening up some of the deportation rules, we will see a marked improvement in the number of foreign criminals who have no right to be here being returned to their country.
Matt Vickers
We welcome deportations of people with no right to be here, but when we start going back through the records to see who arrived and who left without us even knowing, we have the Home Office scratching numbers together to work out who has gone. It is a positive that we can improve deportations, but in recent times, we have gone from the point where we said that somebody who arrives in this country illegally cannot claim citizenship—there was legislation in place—to a point where that has been unpicked by this Government. We sat through the debates on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 on that subject.
This is an opportunity to improve things. We are determined to get among it. We are determined to improve it. Whatever the deportations are, they need to be significantly higher for my constituents to be happy.
I will correct the record—7,042 arrivals from Eritrea, two were removed; 4,490 from Afghanistan, one was removed; 4,389 from Sudan, zero removed. That is not a satisfactory system. That is not working. This is the opportunity to improve that.
David Smith
Notwithstanding the abject failure of the last Government to manage our immigration system, there are many ways to skin a cat. The hon. Member mentioned Eritrean immigrants or asylum seekers and deportations. He may have noticed that the Government are looking to work with the Eritrean Government to say that there will be no access to visas to the UK for Eritreans unless that Government agree to take people back. There are many ways to address this.
Those on the Opposition Benches repeatedly mention the ECHR. We have had a long debate about the part of this Bill that addresses article 8 of the ECHR, which has been problematic, but does he ultimately want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Do he and his constituents care about article 2, the right to life; article 3, the prohibition of torture; article 4, the prohibition of slavery; article 7, no punishment without law; or article 9—something very close to my heart as the UK special envoy for freedom of religion and belief—the freedom of thought, conscience and religion? Is it not true that the Opposition’s approach is to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Matt Vickers
We are talking about people who pose a threat to our national security and are, categorically, a danger to our community. I think that the rights of the people in my community should trump the rights of people who pose a threat to our national security and are a danger to that community—[Interruption.] I will try to make a bit of progress, or we might be here for quite a while.
New clause 61 would remove the domestic legal barrier that too often leaves Ministers unable to act. It is a concrete step that the Committee could take today. If the Government reject that approach, what is the answer? Where removal is lawful, how quickly will it happen? Where return home is barred, will Ministers seek agreements with safe third countries? While the person remains here, what measures will manage the risk, and who is accountable for making sure that they work?
Government amendment 133 removes the transitional provision from clause 22. As introduced, the clause applies only to decisions made after it comes into force. The Minister’s explanatory statement says that amendment 135
“would provide for clause 22 to be commenced by regulations,”
which means that the transitional provision can be dealt with in those regulations rather than in the Bill. That means that the question of who this clause applies to and whether it reaches existing cases or only future decisions will be settled by Ministers, not by this Committee. I ask the Minister directly: will existing cases be reassessed, or will this apply only to future decisions? When will the regulations be published, and when will this clause actually take effect? Until Ministers commence clause 22, neither it nor new clause 61 can apply to a single person.
We also need to know who will decide that someone falls within article 33(2) of the refugee convention, what evidence will be required and how challenges will be handled. Those decisions must be robust, otherwise we risk years of litigation while the person concerned stays put.
We will support clause 22 because it tightens the position of these individuals, but our support should not be mistaken for confidence that it solves the problem. Declaring someone dangerous is not the same as protecting the public from them. New clause 61 confronts the gap between the two, and we will press it to a Division at the appropriate point. If Ministers will not support it, they must explain what they will do instead to keep this country safe.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their contributions. It has been a lively one this morning; I think colleagues have had their Weetabix, and I welcome that.
As I said in my introductory comments, clause 22 shows the Government’s determination that those who are excluded from the protections of the refugee convention because they have committed a particularly serious crime or who are a danger to the security of the UK cannot expect the same entitlements as refugees who comply with our laws. When an individual is released from prison, clause 22 will allow the Home Office greater distinction and flexibility to grant shorter periods of leave, restrict access to work or public funds, and impose additional requirements such as reporting and residence.
To pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Stockton West, some of the conditions could include restricted leave, a constant renewal of their status every six months, not being able to come back if they leave the country, no access to public funds, restrictions on work, being tagged and reporting requirements. Hopefully that gives him some indication of the steps those people will have to take. The clause will allow a greater distinction between those individuals and those who respect the values of this country and refrain from committing heinous crimes.
I will pick up on the challenge from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. I welcome him to his place on day four; I hope that he has had the chance to read—[Interruption.] I have good intentions. I genuinely hope that he has had the opportunity to read the transcript of our previous sessions, because they have been incredibly constructive. I have welcomed the challenge, the Divisions and the nature of discussion and debate we have had in this Committee.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about democracy in this country. The Government have a majority because that is what the British people voted for in 2024, but the importance of this Committee for us is to listen to challenges and criticisms. I hope Opposition colleagues will recognise that we may not always agree, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we listen and take things very seriously. There is a long process to go through on this Bill yet. There may well be more changes as we go. I hope he feels valued and respected within this Committee, because his presence is certainly welcome.
Catherine Fookes
I gently remind the hon. Member for Wimbledon that his party has abstained at every Division. What does that mean about their partaking in democracy? They cannot seem to choose a side.
Anna Turley
I appreciate that, but I will make some progress, because I want to maintain our focus and seriousness, showing the hon. Member for Wimbledon that we respect and will respond to his challenges. He asked about the status of people who are not “lawfully staying” and cannot be removed. At the moment, there is a vacuum and a free-for-all. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce clarity to the law. They will be a refugee who is present but not lawfully staying, as clarified in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also, rightly, mentioned the challenge from the UNHCR that this clause conflates two issues: article 33(2) and “lawfully staying”. We are confident that our interpretation is compatible with the refugee convention. The convention refers to a variety of attachments that a refugee may have to the UK. Where a refugee commits a particularly serious crime, we are satisfied that they have forfeited the lawfully staying attachment, even if states have reached similar interpretations in their own provisions of entitlements under EU law.
I turn to new clause 61, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. The new clause concerns enabling the removal of refugees who pose a danger to national security, or who have been convicted of a particularly serious crime and pose a danger to the community. Article 33(2) of the refugee convention allows this sort of refugee to be removed, notwithstanding the convention’s usual protection against refoulement. Removal, however, may still be prevented by the UK’s wider international obligations. The hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to address that issue. In practical terms, new clause 61 would disapply the Human Rights Act, including articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR, thereby enabling the Secretary of State to remove any person who falls within the ambit of the proposal under clause 22 of this Bill, and prevent a UK court from treating any such removal decision as unlawful.
The trouble with new clause 61 is that disapplying the Human Rights Act domestically does not disapply our international obligations, nor does it remove the jurisdiction of the ECHR, address interim measures issued by that court, or remove other relevant international obligations, including under customary international law or the prohibition on refoulement set out by the UN convention against torture. Conservative colleagues may reach for the easy response of, “Leave the ECHR.” We have had interesting discussions throughout Committee on that. Although I completely understand the emotion and desire to ensure that those who commit crimes in this country are not protected by human rights courts, it is important to understand how we got here and the situation into which the ECHR was born.
As the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), powerfully put it in a debate last week, a previous member of the Conservative party, Sir Winston Churchill, was the first champion of the convention, which upheld basic human rights following his experience of standing up to the tyranny of the Nazis during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, and in the face of that, the European convention of human rights defines what we mean by “never again”.
The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in one’s own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. Those principles remain essential. The only two countries that have chosen to stay out of the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. By leaving the ECHR, we throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
That said, the current situation is not perfect. Many of our constituents are concerned that their human rights are being violated by individuals in this country, and we know there has been over-interpretation. Through the Bill, we are seeking to correct the problem. Last year, the Home Secretary committed to overseeing reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age. She committed to make the ECHR work for everyday people and ensure that the human rights of individuals who have been wronged are upheld above the rights of those who choose to commit unspeakable crimes.
This Government intend to stand with the principles of Churchill. This Government will continue to build a fair and controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. The issue is not the existence of the convention but the way in which it has been applied over time. That is partly what the Bill seeks to address. We do not fix it by walking away and leaving the UK isolated—by throwing away our global moral and ethical leadership. We sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended.
That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chişinău declaration in May, which creates a solid basis for reform. That gave us a really good opportunity to go further in terms of removals and deportations. It was a shared view on maintaining public confidence. That is really important—this is about ensuring that the EHCR operates as it was intended.
Ben Goldsborough
That gets to the crux of the issue that we are trying to combat within the Bill. The issue itself is not necessarily the principles behind the ECHR; it is the over-interpretation—the juridification—of the law. What we are seeking to do through the Bill, which my constituents greatly welcome, is rein in the courts and make them understand that Parliament sets the rules of the game. We will ensure that they are firm but fair for all residents, as well as for those stuck on waiting lists who need swift action.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the crux of the Bill: ensuring that we define matters for courts so that we do not see the free-for-all of over-interpretation that we have seen before.
I see this as a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants and foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protect our individual rights and freedom.
Matt Vickers
The Minister talked about Winston Churchill. Does she think that Winston Churchill would have desired legislation that allows people who are categorically a threat to our national security, or a danger to the community, to stay in this country?
Anna Turley
I would put that back to the hon. Gentleman and ask whether he thinks that Winston Churchill would have desired the British state to seek to remove people to places where they will face almost certain death, torture and war.
Matt Vickers
The clause relates to people who are too dangerous to lawfully stay in the country. It is not giving us a perspective by which to remove those people. Those people are a danger to our community—you are saying that they are a danger to our community and a threat to our national security—yet we are not going far enough to remove them. It undermines the entire clause.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that there have been several uses of the words “you” and “your” this morning. This is not about me.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the clause. We have taken plenty of action on deporting people, and we are pursuing plenty of other provisions. The clause sets out that people who we cannot deport should not have the same rights and entitlements as people who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution and abide by our rules and laws—we are making a very clear distinction. Although I am questioning it now, I am sure that his intent would not be to create a situation whereby this country removes people to places where they face death. I will leave it there in the hope that he will not pursue new clause 61.
Anna Turley
I will be generous and give way again, but then we have to move on.
Matt Vickers
This new clause sets out that we would remove people under the mechanism only where doing so complied with the refugee convention. It is there in black and white: we are complying with our obligations under the convention on refugees.
Anna Turley
The hon Gentleman’s new clause appears to override those protections and would very likely result in people being removed to places where they face torture, inhuman treatment or even death. That is very clearly the consequence of his new clause, whether he intends it or not.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. Is there a point to be made about retaining our responsibilities in relation to the ECHR? Critically, international co-operation will enable us to deport more easily people who have no right to be here.
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is what we seek to do. We seek to show leadership, just as Winston Churchill did in Europe after the second world war, by working with our partners—all 46 members of the ECHR. This year, they agreed a declaration to give us a stronger platform to drive change through the courts, improve our outcomes in removals and deportations, and have a shared view of how that can be applied in the modern world.
Matt Vickers
Disapplying the Human Rights Act is about disapplying our domestic legislation—our domestic barriers. That is entirely compliant with the international refugee convention. This is not about international barriers; it is about our domestic barrier, the Human Rights Act.
Anna Turley
That Act is the interpretation of these principles in our domestic law, so it is the same outcome.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate this morning. Clause 22 ensures that our protection system remains fair, and preserves our commitment to providing sanctuary and the benefits of the refugee convention to those who genuinely need them. At the same time, it recognises that those who commit serious crimes should not be entitled to the same benefits and privileges as those who respect our laws. We are rightly obliged not to send them back to face death or torture, but that does not mean that we should give them the package of support and entitlement that other decent law-abiding refugees get. In so doing, the clause delivers a clearer, fairer and more meaningful distinction between those who deserve our protection and those who have fundamentally abused it.
Amendment 133 agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Power to require payments from recipients of asylum support
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made.
(3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant.
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
Siân Berry
It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments.
The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention.
The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
That absolutely applies to refugees.
Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.
Catherine Fookes
I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from in relation to local authorities, but does she agree that clauses 23 and 24 exclude certain groups of people, including under-18s and those whom the payments would make destitute?
Siân Berry
One of my amendments would raise the level for repayments beyond mere destitution, which is wise in the circumstances, given some of the feedback we have received from support services, charities and local authorities.
The clause will also entrench inequality among refugees. Not all refugees applying for asylum in this country require support; some have managed to flee the circumstances that led to their needing asylum with some resources. In her letter responding to questions in the oral sessions, the Minister confirmed that
“around two in every five people awaiting an initial decision on their claim were in Home Office provided accommodation”.
She also said that some of them may have received accommodation in the past, but that figure is not a high proportion of refugees. The clause therefore targets the most vulnerable—those without the means to support themselves—in an already vulnerable population. The clause will apply only to those who use Home Office accommodation, but, given the randomness of the circumstances in which people become refugees, many come with skills from previous employment—jobs that have been torn away from them—and would be able to support themselves if they were simply allowed to work, as I propose in my new clause 24, which we will debate later.
I believe the whole clause needs to go, but I have also tabled targeted amendments with constructive measures to mitigate its impact. Amendment 81 would reduce payments if the Home Office’s decisions are delayed. At the moment, the main driver of cost in asylum support is delayed decision making, and sometimes poor-quality initial decisions leading to appeals. The Bill reflects neither that nor the detrimental impact that delayed decisions can have on people’s ability to find employment and thus make repayments. The amendment would require that, once someone has been awaiting a decision for longer than six months, or 180 days, the charge intended to be levied against them—the refugee tax—would decrease by 20% for every further 30 days that passed.
Amendment 81 is only fair, given that, according to the Home Secretary, the aim of part 4 of the Bill is partly to tackle the cost of asylum support. The Home Secretary must recognise that the drivers of those costs are delays in decision making and poor decisions. How long it takes to process a claim is not up to the individual, and delayed decisions will have a detrimental impact on their ability to find employment, integrate and make repayments. In some professions, continued practice is a condition of continued recognition in that role, so delays could have disruptive consequences on people’s ability to earn. The reduction in payments that the amendment proposes would also reflect those kinds of impacts.
Ben Goldsborough
One really important aspect of the Bill is the focus on avoiding destitution. This is not about asking people to pay a never-ending tax or preventing them from living and working in the UK. When they can afford to, they can pay back to the state. I would just like the hon. Lady to bear that in mind, because the system we are proposing is fair but firm.
Siân Berry
I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The evidence we have heard about the impact on people’s ability to integrate and on community cohesion has been clear. Amendment 81 in particular would be a good measure because it would incentivise the Home Office to reduce those costs and make decisions on time. It would also mean that people kept in the system for longer than necessary are not unfairly penalised for overly long decisions. That is the focus of the amendment. If the asylum claim took longer than six months because of the actions of the applicant, this would not apply—the amendment covers that as well.
On my amendment 76, as mentioned earlier, if the Government decide to go ahead with the payments, they cannot guard against destitution with their requirement. Poverty ought to be the defining measure. That would allay a lot of the fears of local authorities, which are nevertheless obliged to deal with the consequences of people being in poverty. It would also save money, reduce those impacts and be much clearer about what would happen. People are fearful that the word “destitution” is a very low bar. As defined in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, someone is destitute if they do
“not have adequate accommodation or any means of obtaining it”,
or if they have
“adequate accommodation or the means of obtaining it, but cannot meet his other essential living needs.”
The Government’s definition of “essential living needs”, as set out in the Asylum Support Regulations 2000, is extremely minimal. As the Bill is drafted, individuals or families could be required to pay this charge, regardless of whether they are deemed to be in poverty, or even deep material poverty, if we are to use those definitions.
Ben Goldsborough
The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. She said that if we changed definitions, it would save the state money. Could she elaborate on that and give evidence that that is the case?
Siân Berry
The evidence I have comes from local authorities that have given evidence to the Committee and are very worried that their obligations will be extended by this Bill. People will be driven into poverty by the Home Office taking this money away from the overall system in the local area. It would be useful if the Home Office told us where the money will be spent in order to alleviate that. I am not sure that the Bill sets out where the repayments are going to go, but the implication is that they will go to the Home Office, not to local authorities.
Amendment 76 would change the provision related to the repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them or their household impoverished. It also defines impoverishment as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median—a fairly normal definition of poverty that is also the Government’s own definition for whether a household is low income.
Clearly, it is the Government’s intention to provide safeguards to ensure that people are not made destitute. This amendment would strengthen that safeguard on the face of the Bill so that people who fled war and have been granted protection are not plunged into deeper poverty, just as they are starting the process of rebuilding their lives and integrating into communities.
Finally, my amendment 79 is fairly pragmatic. It sets out that payments may not exceed the actual cost of supporting an individual. Currently, there is no link in the Bill between the level of the charge and the cost of support provided to someone. I would like to hear what the Government’s intentions are in setting out those charges. There is a broad power in the Bill and it would come through regulations. However, we need reassurance that no one could face a charge higher than the cost of the actual support they have received.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that clause 23 creates a power
“that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 13 July 2026; c. 678.]
The implication is clearly that this should not exceed the cost of being supported. Government amendment 124 would allow the Home Secretary to reduce the payments owed. It would be useful to hear more detail from the Minister about the criteria for applying the power to reduce the payments and about the cases in which they would expect the amounts people owed to be reduced. If the Government plan on reducing them, in line with the amendment, would they consider putting that on the face of the Bill?
Mr Brash
I fear that there may be some issues with the numbers that the hon. Lady has just given. One of the commitments that this Government have made on dispersal accommodation is to disperse more fairly across the country. As a result of the private contracts signed by the previous Conservative Government, areas of low housing cost were targeted in my Hartlepool constituency. This Government, as I understand it, are looking to do that much more fairly to reduce the burden on deprived communities such as mine. As a result, dispersal accommodation costs will probably go up.
Siân Berry
That is an entirely fair point. There has been a focus on the lowest-possible-cost accommodation, and it is only right that people can stay closer to where they may have a connection and all the other considerations.
It is important that those figures are just the current average. Overall, given the gravity of the impacts and the concerns from local authorities and many of my constituents about the problems, I want to see answers from the Minister on the amendments that would mitigate the impacts. I will be pressing my amendments to a vote if I do not hear good answers, and I will be opposing clause 23.
Melanie Onn
On the point about contributions, it is worth reflecting on this country’s tradition of collective contributory institutions. Whether it is the welfare system, the NHS, education or pensions, we recognise that we all pay something in so that we can all benefit. Some pay less and some pay more, and some people use those institutions a lot and some use them very rarely, but we accept the balance and the level of fairness in the system. Provided we get our bins collected and we can see a doctor and so on, we are all generally fairly satisfied. When people are feeling a great financial squeeze—it is fair to say many across the country are—and they see examples of others not participating in that agreed settlement, which is our social contract with the state after all, it starts to breed discontent. We should have measures in place to ensure where people have received from the state, they give something back when they are able.
Those who arrive on a work visa are already required to pay reapplication fees every few years for them and their family, which can amount of a significant sum, and to pay annual NHS surcharges. The question is why those on work visas who are aiding this country in shortage occupations have to pay that while others are not required to contribute anything. Should they be granted asylum and are able to work and participate in general life, they should recognise the contribution that enables them to live a settled life in this country. Why should one group be required to pay something and another group not?
Ben Goldsborough
In my South Norfolk constituency, I have the Norfolk and Norwich University hospital trust, which has a huge number of people contributing to our society and making sure the NHS in my area is performing some of the best cancer services available. It is an issue that they are paying the NHS surcharge. It would surely be unfair to continue down a line of thinking where there are two tiers in our immigration system.
Melanie Onn
My hon. Friend makes a valid point that we should seek to avoid multiple tiers of different systems applying to people in those circumstances wherever we can. He is also right to recognise the contributions that people make to this country.
Siân Berry
I take the hon. Lady’s point that people who have claimed asylum should be regarded as akin to those here on work visas. However, does she understand the points in my amendments about how different groups of asylum seekers are being treated differently? People who needed accommodation due to poverty will be asked to pay back, while those who did not need accommodation, due to not being in poverty, are not. That distinction, which sets different asylum seeker groups against each other, is unhelpful.
Melanie Onn
I recognise the point the hon. Lady is making. However, as I pointed out in my opening statement, some people pay more and benefit more already. We have an accepted system that there is a general balance between those who pay higher rates of tax and others who pay lower rates, and between those in receipt of more NHS care and support, and others who rarely need it. We must recognise that we will not be able to get everything exactly right or accurate for every subsection of society.
Melanie Onn
Does the hon. Gentleman want to intervene on my broad, non-specific contribution?
Melanie Onn
That is a slightly different argument. I was trying to explain how we have a broad group of existing British citizens who pay, contribute and get some benefit. It is the same for asylum seekers: those who benefit should contribute at a later stage when they are able. That is a fair and reasonable point.
Siân Berry
For clarity, if this is akin to those on work visas, why are the Government proposing that only those asylum seekers who were here in poverty should pay back those contributions? Why not have a more redistributive approach and also charge the most well-off people seeking asylum, or make it more progressive?
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I feel uncomfortable about dropping the shoulder like this, but you are asking about what the Government should be doing, yet there is a Minister in the room—who will hopefully provide more detail.
Melanie Onn
Did I say “you”? Apologies, I am normally very good at avoiding that, Mrs Barker.
When Ministers and the Government look at the payment and repayment schedules further down the line, they will have the opportunity to look at that point in greater detail and see whether flexibility is required. But the anticipation is that people who are here and were given the opportunity to settle and start their life again—as we have seen with so many people who have come to this country in asylum circumstances and have gone on to do great things—will be able to make the contribution as it is set out.
David Smith
Not to do my hon. Friend’s work for her, but the hon. Member for Wimbledon asked why anyone else in receipt of benefits should not make a contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction? By definition, if someone coming here to seek asylum has not contributed to the wider economy—and if we can guarantee that historically—that differentiates them from someone who is already here and most likely did, in most cases, make a contribution, through work or otherwise, to the benefits that they receive? As I have already mentioned, before my time in Parliament I ran a homelessness charity, and we often had asylum seekers in our accommodation—which is literally behind where we are sitting right now, in Southwark—who were desperate to make contributions. They repeatedly told us—they made it very clear—that they wanted to make a financial contribution to the country that had given them sanctuary.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am going to come to that, because making sure that what is and will be expected of people is clear and up front, without any ambiguity, will help those applying to understand the expectations that will be conveyed upon them. That will also give some reassurance to the UK public that this country is not seen as a soft touch. It might help to reset some negative views about how migrants who arrive here to claim asylum are, in some way, only here to milk the system and get all they can, or that they only want to take, take, take, and are not prepared to give, give, give. My hon. Friend’s example proves the exact opposite: people claiming asylum want to contribute.
Melanie Onn
I will not, because I am on my final sentence.
Rather than having a negative perception of those asylum seekers, this could help the public to understand that they are making a contribution—that they are willing to make a contribution. Then we will see a settlement that is deemed to be acceptable and that hopefully contributes to a much more cohesive society.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I will try to be as efficient as I can, given the time.
As we have heard, clause 23 gives a new power to the Home Secretary that requires people to pay towards the cost of any asylum support they have received, once they are able to do so. In contrast to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion—Members will not be surprised to hear this—this does not make me uncomfortable. I reject the notion that it is a refugee tax; I think that is just scaremongering Green campaign nonsense. [Interruption.] I said I was going to be efficient, so I will not take an intervention. Our constituents pay considerable amounts of taxation, and we are spending incredible sums on the asylum support system. It is entirely reasonable, and fair to the British taxpayer, that people who have received support should contribute to that cost.
This group contains three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion about how much people should pay, three Government amendments about waivers and insolvency, and amendment 141, which I tabled, about what happens when people do not pay; Members will not be surprised to hear that we will be opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Together, they give the Minister an opportunity to tell the Committee something that the Bill does not: what the scheme will actually charge and how it will operate.
Mr Kohler
Just to correct the record, I did not say that there is no point in scrutiny; I said that we need scrutiny. What we do not need is politicking, where you each stand up and say how wonderful you are and your position will not move. We need to move on as a Parliament. I know that none of you likes that, but that is what we should be doing.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Member has proved my point: if you turn up to scrutiny meetings and make your point, sometimes the Government listen. They did so by taking on one of my earlier amendments. Turning up and contributing is helpful.
David Smith
I am delighted to hear the Opposition spokesman say that this is not a refugee tax. Does he agree, as we approach other issues in the Bill and elsewhere, that redistributions of funding and contributions in other areas are not always a tax?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is not a refugee tax.
On 18 March 2025, Labour Members voted down that new clause 37. The then Minister told that Committee that it was not sufficiently developed to be put into primary legislation. Interestingly, we heard the same criticism from witnesses about clause 23 of this Bill, and even the Government’s own impact assessment rates the impact of these measures as “uncertain”. I ask the Minister what amount and what income threshold the Government intend to set. The Home Office has spoken of £10,000; will that be a flat rate per adult, and over what period? How will the threshold be set so that the charge does not deter people from taking work or declaring their earnings—a risk that the Government’s own impact assessment identified?
Amendment 76 would prevent any payment that would leave a person or household with below 60% of median household income. Clause 23(5) already provides that no one will be required to pay if it would make them “destitute”. Amendment 76 would go far beyond destitution: with a 60% median test, very few people who had been supported by taxpayers would ever pay anything; it would turn into a repayment scheme in name only.
Amendment 81 would cut the amount owed by 20% for every 30 days beyond six months that the Home Office took to decide a claim. I understand the point being made—delays cost money and are not the claimant’s fault—but it is the taxpayer who has paid for those months, and the answer to delays is making faster decisions, not giving a discount. What is the current average time to an initial decision, and what is the Government’s target?
Amendment 79 would cap repayments at the cost of the support received. I would be surprised if the Government intend anything else. Will the Minister confirm that nobody will be asked to repay more than the support they receive, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion? If so, the amendment is unnecessary.
Government amendment 124 will enable repayments to be reduced, waived or refunded, including by giving the Secretary of State discretion. Amendments 125 and 126 deal with insolvency. The supplementary memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says that the powers will be subject to the negative procedure because they can only benefit individuals. The Opposition will not oppose the measures, but the use of a discretion to waive, exercised on a case by case basis and never reported, is how schemes like this quietly stop working. What criteria will govern waivers? Will the number and value of waivers be published each year? Will a person be able to clear the debt by making themselves bankrupt?
The Committee is entitled to know whether the scheme will ever recover meaningful sums. Migration Observatory expects that unless the threshold is set significantly below the minimum wage, the number of people earning enough to reach it will be relatively small. That is set against the enormous cost to the British taxpayer. Around 97,500 asylum seekers receive taxpayer-funded support, costing the taxpayer roughly £4 billion in 2024-25. Simple division of that figure suggests that the costs are close to £40,000 a year per person supported. A £10,000 contribution, if it were ever collected, would recover only a small proportion of the initial cost.
During the Committee’s oral evidence session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West asked the Minister what measurable difference the Bill will make, she said:
“I do not want to put a specific figure on it.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 72, Q127.]
Can she do so now? How many people do the Government expect to pay? How much will be recovered each year, and over what period? How much will it cost to build and run the system? Given that the Government do not have a good history of running systems, can she assure us that the scheme will raise more money than it costs?
Amendment 141, tabled in my name, would ensure that where an individual has been required to repay asylum support costs, any unpaid amount can be considered when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement. That would give the scheme more weight by providing that the debt will influence settlement decisions until it is paid off. If amendment 141 is not made, the consequence of not paying will depend on earned settlement rules that have not been laid before Parliament. Will the Government support the amendment?
The Opposition oppose amendments 81, 76 and 79, but not Government amendments 124 to 126. As I mentioned, the principle of clause 23 was originally in a Conservative proposition, so of course we support it, but our concern is that a repayment scheme with discretionary waivers and no consequences for non-payment will be ineffective. We look for assurance from the Minister on that. I will be pressing amendment 141 to a Division.
Anna Turley
I thank Members for their important contributions to this debate on asylum costs and the mechanism the Government are creating to recover some of them. As we heard from my hon. Friends, fairness is at the heart of this debate. We are discussing the concept that individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers should contribute towards the support that they received. That is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who have received support having a stake in the success of this country and contributing to the cost of that support, and thereby to the sustainability of giving it to others, once they are financially able.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. Each year, the taxpayer funds £4 billion of asylum costs. While it is right that we support those fleeing war and persecution, it is also right that those who have received that support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can. The measures will ensure that they put back into the system that supported them and contribute towards the provision of that support to others, as well as ensuring that others who are paying for that support consent to doing so.
We have heard examples of our constituents contributing to many different forms of collective support, including through national insurance, and through tax to fund access to healthcare. Contribution is an important principle of the social contract in this country. For that reason, the Bill introduces a new power, under which asylum seekers will pay back a portion of the cost of their support when they are financially able to do so. It will be possible to recover those costs through tax receipts, benefit payments and/or as a debt to the Home Office. That mirrors the way in which the Department for Work and Pensions deducts from universal credit where people have child support payments due, owe money for hardship payments, or have unpaid bills or tax.
Amendments 81, 76 and 79, which were tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, seek to prescribe in the Bill how and when asylum support contributions should be calculated and reduced. The Government cannot accept the amendments because they would be too complex to enable effective delivery of the policy and would move us away from the policy intent of a fair and proportionate contribution towards the costs of support once a person is financially able to pay.
Clause 23 establishes an important principle that, where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute, it is fair that they do so. Of course, any contribution must remain affordable and not push a person into destitution. Clause 23(5) already requires regulations to include provisions to ensure that nobody pays where it would leave them destitute. Further details of this important safeguard will be set out in the regulations that we have committed to sharing during the passage of the Bill.
Anna Turley
I have a huge pile of responses to the points the hon. Lady made, and there are some important clarifications I want to make. If I do not answer her questions sufficiently, I will be happy to take an intervention.
I want to pick up the hon. Lady’s point about destitution and poverty. I think it is right to set the provision at this level, and I do not think it is appropriate to define poverty in the statute book. Given I have wards in my constituency where as many as 60% of children are growing up in poverty, as per the definition that the hon. Lady set out—I am sure the same is true for the constituencies of other Members present—I am afraid I cannot accept an amendment that says that people in my area can be below that poverty line but asylum seekers cannot. All my constituents have obligations to pay that are contributing to the challenges that they face, and I do not think it is appropriate to safeguard one group and not another, as much as we all have a desire—an absolute commitment—to reduce poverty, particularly child poverty, in this country.
The hon. Lady also raised the matter of whether the Bill breaches article 25 of the declaration of human rights. We are absolutely confident that it meets our international obligations, including under the refugee convention. We believe it is compatible with both the letter and the spirit of our international obligations, while maintaining a sustainable system for the future.
The convention does not anywhere require states to provide indefinite support, free of charge and irrespective of an individual’s circumstances. What it does require is that people fleeing persecution be given protection and access to support, which we are doing. Asylum seekers receive a comprehensive package of taxpayer-funded accommodation support, which is very different from the state support provided to destitute British nationals. Nothing in the refugee convention prevents us from requiring asylum seekers to make a contribution, when they can, towards the system that they benefit from. Protecting refugees and ensuring fairness to taxpayers are not mutually exclusive—we can and will do both.
The hon. Lady also asked how we got to the figure. The figure is an indicative amount. The exact figure will be set out in regulations. I want to reiterate that we have committed to publishing the regulations during the course of the Bill’s passage, and I undertake to do that as soon as possible. I am sure that colleagues will understand that it requires a lot of complex engagement with the Treasury and others. We want to make sure that we have got this absolutely right and that we do not fall foul of the situation Opposition Members found themselves in when they tried to introduce this Bill—the workings out had not been done.
The hon. Lady asked why anyone should pay more than the cost of the support they received. This policy is intended to generate a contribution towards the overall cost of asylum support, not to be an itemised recovery of the precise costs incurred by an individual. That would be extremely difficult—nigh on impossible—and it would undermine the ability for us to raise any money through the measure. The flat rate will be calculated by reference to average support costs and the average time spent in asylum accommodation. A flat rate is clearer and more feasible to administer, while payments will remain linked to affordability.
The hon. Lady also asked about the Home Secretary’s power to make exemptions. I want to flag that it is very similar to an existing power that the Home Secretary has that is covered by the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015. It is really important to maintain the ability to make exemptions in extreme and unusual circumstances.
I want to pick up the point about forcing people into destitution. That will not be the case. Payments will apply only where someone has the means to pay. Safeguards will ensure that no one is pushed into destitution. Payments will be linked to income and affordability thresholds. Deduction rates and exemptions will be designed to protect those without the means to contribute. As I said, further guidance will be set out throughout the course of this Bill’s passage. Could a person be penalised where a payment could cause destitution? No. Clause 23 requires regulations to contain provisions that ensure that a person is not required to pay where doing so would cause destitution, as we have already flagged.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jade Botterill.)