Thursday 22nd October 2026
(1 day, 18 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 Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendments 124 and 125.
Amendment 76, in clause 23, page 22, line 6, leave out from “without” to end of line 7 and insert—
“them or their household becoming impoverished.
(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), a person or household is impoverished if its equivalised net income for the relevant financial year is less than 60% of median equivalised net household income for that financial year.”
This amendment would amend the provision relating to repayment of asylum support so that people would not be required to make payments if doing so would leave them, or their household, impoverished (defined as having an equivalised net income of less than 60% of the median).
Amendment 79, in clause 23, page 22, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must include provision to ensure that a person is not required to make payments in excess of the cost of the support provided to them while in receipt of asylum support.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual would not be liable to repay amounts above the actual cost of the support they received.
Government amendment 126.
Amendment 141, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) In deciding an application for entry clearance, leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom (including indefinite leave to remain), the Secretary of State may take into account any amount that a person has been required to pay under section 23 and has not paid.
(7B) Nothing in subsection (7A) applies to an amount which, by virtue of regulations made under section 23(4) in accordance with section 23(5), the person was not required to pay.”
This amendment would mean that any sums that a person has been required to repay towards asylum support and has not paid may be taken into account when deciding applications to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, including for settlement.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I appreciate all the discussion and debate we have had so far today. I will pick up my response to the various Opposition amendments, starting with amendment 141, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, which would allow outstanding liabilities to be considered in immigration applications, including for settlement. The Government are already considering the wider approach to settlement, as hon. Members will hopefully have seen from some of the media debate. That is currently undergoing a lot of discussion, so it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that work through this amendment. For those building a life in the UK, paying towards the cost of their asylum support will form part of their wider contribution to society. People with outstanding asylum support debt will be prevented from returning to the UK until that debt is repaid. It is our intention that those who receive support will be expected to make contributions when they are financially able to do so.
The detailed operation of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. As I have mentioned to hon. Members already today, we have committed to sharing draft regulations during the passage of the Bill, providing them with the opportunity to scrutinise the detail of the policy and how those provisions will operate in practice. That approach ensures appropriate parliamentary oversight, while retaining the flexibility needed to develop the scheme in the light of wider decisions on settlement policy. The draft regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will afford a further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny before they are made.
I will take this moment to respond to some of the questions that the hon. Member for Stockton West raised this morning. He asked whether the scheme would raise more money than it costs, which I think is an important challenge. The Government are determined to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. That is part of the principle of this, although the primary objective is fairness and sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. As I have said, details of the scheme are under development and will be published in draft regulations. We will look for as much transparency as possible, not just in the process but in how we can publish data in our regular asylum statistics.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned amendment 124, which is about the powers given to the Home Secretary for exemptions, and the circumstances in which they might be used. The amendment enables regulations to confer a discretion on the Secretary of State to waive, reduce or refund liabilities arising under the asylum support contribution scheme. As I mentioned this morning, that is commensurate with article 8 of the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, which gives the Secretary of State for the Home Department the same discretionary power to reduce, waive or refund part of that charge. The power will of course be at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and we anticipate that it will be used only in exceptional cases.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the amount payable and how the income threshold will be set. Hon. Members have raised the £10,000 figure, which is an indicative estimate of the standard contribution that may be required. The final flat-rate contribution will be set in secondary legislation. As we discussed this morning, it is intended to reflect average asylum support costs across the system, rather than the precise costs incurred in an individual case. That is how the figure was reached. The estimates will depend on the final design and implementation of the scheme, including collection mechanisms. We will continue to assess the expected costs and benefits as the scheme is developed. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement legally dependent on five-year forecasts, which may be subject to considerable uncertainty. I hope I have addressed the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
On Government amendment 124, the policy intention remains that those with the means to contribute towards the cost of the support they previously received should do so. However, there may be circumstances in which it would be fair and proportionate to depart from that general principle. The amendment provides flexibility to respond to such circumstances and supports the fair and effective administration of the scheme. The detailed circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment therefore complements the wider contribution scheme, while ensuring that it can operate fairly and proportionately in individual cases.
Government amendments 125 and 126 are technical amendments that deal with how the requirement to pay back a contribution towards asylum support operates if the recipient becomes bankrupt or enters another form of insolvency process. The amendments enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the effect of a person becoming insolvent on their liability to make payments. They also define when a person is to be treated as insolvent across the jurisdictions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That will allow the Government to set out in regulations that, where appropriate, liabilities under the scheme are not extinguished by bankruptcy or certain other insolvency processes.
In addition, the amendments provide a power for regulations to make consequential provision in relation to insolvency legislation where necessary. The amendments provide the flexibility needed to ensure that the asylum support scheme can operate effectively alongside existing insolvency frameworks across the United Kingdom. They make no changes to the safeguards that will be built into the scheme.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is very good to have you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. From the discussions we have had today, I think it is clear what a mess the proposals in clauses 23 and 24 are. If it is not an itemised recovery of costs, it is a refugee tax—worse, it has become clear that is only a poor refugee tax. As such, the philosophical basis for the proposals is broken.
The Government have set a terribly high bar for being excused, and they are not seeking any payment from successful refugees who have the means to support themselves while they wait for a decision. That is despite the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes likening the proposal to NHS surcharges for those on work visas, to which the Minister also referred. The Government have been clear that they are setting a flat charge rate, but they will not apply it to all asylum seekers. Why not? If one accepts the premise of the charge—I do not—would that not be fairer across the board? The Government propose to charge it only to those people who are destitute when they arrive here.
This will do much harm to these people’s ability to settle in the future. Why would the Government drive them into poverty for extended periods and cause that kind of problem? It seems unfair to impose this on people. The Government have introduced this in clause 23, while amendment 141, tabled by the Conservatives, tries to codify it further. In my view, any kind of refugee tax should not be an additional barrier to stability. These clauses are reckless, unfair, cruel and irrational. Without my amendments, they become even worse. I will seek to divide the Committee on them.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Siân Berry
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “18 at all times” and insert “21 at any time”.
This amendment would extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, leave out “all times” and insert “any time”.
This amendment would exempt from being required to make payments to the Secretary of State any persons who were, at any point, under 18 years of age during the time they received asylum support.
Amendment 78, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were over the age of retirement at the time they ceased to be an asylum seeker (within the meaning given by section 94 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999),
(ab) have received a positive conclusive grounds decision (within the meaning of Part 5 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022),
(ac) are a survivor of sexual or gender-based violence, or have been a victim of domestic abuse (within the meaning of Part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021)
(ad) are an individual who has been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence,”.
This amendment would add people over retirement age and victims of modern slavery, domestic abuse, or serious sexual or physical violence to the list of people who would be exempted from repaying any asylum support they received.
Amendment 82, in clause 23, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) were granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom following an appeal by the person against the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse a protection claim.”
This amendment would exempt from the requirement to make payments under Clause 23 anyone who is granted protection following a successful appeal.
Amendment 139, in clause 23, page 22, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove the exemption from making payments for asylum support received for people who received support before clause 23 comes fully into force.
Amendment 80, in clause 24, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must cancel the liability of any person to make payments required under section 23 when one of the following occurs—
(a) the person dies;
(b) the person receives a disability-related benefit and because of the disability is permanently unfit for work;
(c) the person reaches the age of 65; or
(d) the tenth anniversary of the date on which the person stopped receiving asylum support (as defined in section 23(2)).”
This amendment would set out circumstances in which the liability for making payments for asylum support received would cease to apply: the death of the person; the person turning 65; the person being permanently unfit for work; the tenth anniversary of the person stopping receiving asylum support.
Amendment 142, in clause 50, page 52, line 13, at end insert—
“(d) regulations under subsection (6)(c) of section 23.”
This amendment would make regulations exempting further categories of people from the requirement to contribute towards the cost of asylum support subject to the affirmative procedure, so that they cannot be made without the approval of both Houses.
Siân Berry
I have four amendments in this group, and I will speak as briefly as I can about each of them. They are in the spirit of trying to improve the clauses even though I oppose them in principle.
Amendment 77 seeks to strengthen the exemption on children and increase the age to 21. As the explanatory statement says, it would
“extend the exemption for repaying asylum support from any person who was under the age of 18 at all times they were in receipt of support to any person who was under the age of 21 at any time they were in receipt of support.”
It is welcome that the Government have already acknowledged that children should not be counted within this policy, including that parents should not have to pay £10,000 for any dependants who are children. However, there are two concerns that this amendment is seeking to address. First, on the face of the Bill, an individual has to be:
“under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”
That implies that if someone turns 18 the day before they are granted status, they would still be liable for the full payment of up to £10,000, which the Government have confirmed they want to charge at a flat rate. That seems particularly unfair, especially when one considers that applicants have no control over how long it will take for their application to be processed.
Additionally, the Bill does not reflect that when someone turns 18, they are still a young person just starting their adult life. Through measures announced elsewhere, such as the work and study protection framework, the Government have made it clear that they want people to be encouraged into study and work opportunities. It therefore seems both harsh and counterproductive to be giving a young person thousands of pounds of debt when they are taking their very first steps in building a new life in a new country. The change in amendment 77 would therefore better protect children and young people who have gone through the asylum system and allow them to have the best start at rebuilding their lives in the UK.
Amendment 78 adds further exemptions to those that the Government have outlined. The only exemption on the face of the Bill is currently for children who are under 18, although more amendments could be added through regulations. I am happy for amendment 78 to be a probing amendment, provided that the Government are prepared to give some clarity on further exemptions that they might be prepared to add.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Amendment 50 addresses the fact that, according to the clause, children will become indebted on their 18th birthday—we have heard an indicative amount of £10,000, but it might be more. Clearly, no child has contributed fiscally when they reach maturity to the benefits they have received from the state—be that benefits or education—but the clause is othering child refugees and seems wrong in principle and wrong in practice. I ask the Minister: does it apply to all child refugees who reach maturity while receiving asylum support? Does it apply to victims of trafficking, for example? This seems wholly wrong. As I say, if we want refugees to integrate, othering them in this way does no good whatsoever and simply fuels the frankly toxic debate in this country that refugees are somehow not part of our community. We need them to become part of our community. Othering them in this way does no good.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. This group is about who should be exempt from the duty to repay asylum support and when a debt should be cancelled. Five of the grouped amendments—four in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion and one tabled by the Liberal Democrats in the name of the hon. Member for Wimbledon—would widen the exemptions or write off the debt. The Opposition take the opposite view, unsurprisingly. The exemptions in clause 23 are already too wide, which is why I tabled amendments 139 and 142.
Clause 23(6)(b) exempts anyone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
That is not an exemption for support received before the law changes; it is an exemption for all the support that a person will ever receive before or after commencement. The Government tell us that about 97,500 people are receiving support and, as the Bill is drafted, every single one of them will be exempt for life. Between now and the commencement date, which the Government have not yet given us—with appeals taking over a year, the first charges under this clause may be many years away—how many people will be exempt under subsection (6)(b)? Why not exempt only the support received before commencement, so that people already in the system contribute to the support they receive once the law has changed? When do the Government intend to bring clause 23 fully into force and levy the first charges?
Clause 23(6)(c) will allow the Secretary of State to exempt “any other description” of a person by regulations. The explanatory notes tell us that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure. The Government’s reasoning is that exemptions do not disadvantage the people affected. They may not disadvantage the people exempted, but they certainly affect the taxpayer. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme without a debate in the House. Which further categories do the Government intend to exempt, and why do Ministers not think that Parliament should be able to approve those?
Amendment 139 would remove subsection (6)(b), which is the exemption for everyone who started to receive support before clause 23 is fully in force. As I said, that will exempt around 97,500 people for life for the support that they receive, as well as anyone who enters support before a commencement date that nobody has given us. The Opposition’s intention is simple: people already in the system should contribute for the support they receive once the scheme is in force.
Amendment 142 would make regulations creating further exemptions under subsection (6)(c) subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government say that the negative procedure is enough because exemptions do not disadvantage the people exempted. That may be the case, but it certainly is not the case for the taxpayer, who is burdened with the cost. A series of negative instruments could hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier.
Amendments 77 and 50 would exempt anyone who was under 21 or 18, respectively, at any time while they were supported, rather than those who were children throughout. That would mean that someone who arrived at 17 and was supported for years as an adult would pay nothing. We will oppose both those amendments.
Amendment 82 would exempt anyone granted leave after a successful appeal. Mr Featonby of the Refugee Council made the point for us. He said that
“the majority of people who will ever be in a position to even start to pay back that money are people who are going to go on to get protection.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 32, Q53.]
Exempting those who win on appeal would remove a large share of the people who could pay, and would reward the cases that took the longest.
Amendment 78 would add exemptions for people over retirement age, recognised victims of trafficking, survivors of sexual or gender-based violence and domestic abuse, and victims of torture, rape or serious violence. Those are sensitive cases, and the Government have said that victims of modern slavery will be exempt. The right way to decide those exemptions is in regulations that the House has seen and approved, not by negative instruments that can hollow out the scheme, as I mentioned earlier. Which categories will the Government exempt, and will draft exemption regulations be provided before Report?
Amendment 80, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, would require the Home Secretary to cancel a person’s liability upon death or permanent incapacity, when they reach 65, or 10 years after their support ended. There is a fair question underneath that. Student loans, which are the basis for the model that we proposed, are written off after a set period, but a 10-year write-off that starts when support ends would allow anyone to wait out the debt and simply not pay. The amendment is far too wide, and we will oppose it. Do the Government intend to have any write-off period at all, and if so what?
Finally, the Opposition will oppose amendments 77, 50, 78, 82 and 80. The clause already exempts everyone now in the system for life and allows further exemptions by negative instrument. Amendment 139 would close the first gap and amendment 142 would close the second. I will press amendment 139 to a Division.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I will speak briefly about two of the exemptions to requiring someone to make a payment for their asylum support. They have been referred to already; they are in clause 23(6)(a) and (b).
Subsection (6)(a) states a person is exempt for the purposes of this section if they
“were under 18 at all times at which they received asylum support”.
I accept that if someone was a child throughout the entire period they received asylum support, they would be fully exempt, but I think I disagree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion on an interpretation point. That is the problem with the Bill; it is badly drafted and unclear in places. If someone under the age of 18 was receiving asylum support, then turned 18 and sought it afterwards, they would not be exempt—of course not, because they also received asylum support as an adult—but one would assume that they would not be charged for the portion of time that they had received asylum support while under 18. The Minister needs to clarify that point, but giving clarity in Committee is not sufficient when it is unclear in the legislation. She would do better to clarify it in the legislation.
The second exemption I want to briefly refer to, as the shadow Minister has, is subsection (6)(b). It gives an exemption to someone who
“started to receive asylum support before the day on which this section comes fully into force”.
As a counterpoint to what I just said, I do not understand why, if someone received asylum support for a year—let us say; typically it is a lot longer—and day one was before this section came into force, but day two and 364 of the 365 days were after it came into force, they would be exempt from making contributions for their asylum support. They would receive the vast majority of that support after the legislation comes into force, so I would have thought it a fairly obvious pro rata exercise to say that they do not pay for the portion of time they spent receiving support before the law was in place— I take the point that we do not have retrospective law in this country—but they do thereafter.
It makes me wonder whether my understanding of the child-becoming-an-adult element is wrong. The Government need to be clear about whether a pro rata approach is being taken when a child becomes an adult. If so, why is that not being applied when someone starts receiving support before the Bill comes into play and continues to receive support after? I hope the Minister can give us some clarity.
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members across the Committee for tabling the amendments in this group and for the explanations that they have given. The Committee will forgive me if I once again stress that clause 23 establishes an important and fair principle of contribution and reciprocity: where someone has received asylum support at public expense and later has the means to contribute to help to maintain that system and the public consent for that system, it is reasonable that they should do so. That ensures that those who have a right to support still receive it, but that comes with responsibilities and expectations.
Joe Robertson
It sounds like the Minister is saying that when a child becomes an adult and is still receiving support, they will then be liable to pay for the support they received as a child and it is their choice whether to continue with their asylum application.
Anna Turley
Apologies for any misconception. A person will not have to pay for the support they received entirely as a child. I will make sure that I clarify the wording of that for the Committee’s understanding.
The Bill also includes a power to establish further exemptions through secondary legislation. That is the appropriate mechanism. It provides flexibility, allows clear definitions aligned with wider frameworks, such as in relation to debt, and enables the approach to be kept under review. The amendments do not establish consistently how eligibility would be evidenced, when liability should cease or how particular circumstances should interact with an individual’s current means. Those details are critical to protect the policy’s aims and mitigate against abuse, so such exemptions should not be in the Bill.
In relation to amendment 82, which suggests an exemption for those granted status on appeal, the policy in the Bill seeks a contribution from all recipients of asylum support, regardless of the outcome of their claim. I note the wider areas of interest of hon. Members in terms of those exemptions. We will consider everything discussed and heard in Committee when preparing the secondary legislation to which the Government have committed during the passage of the Bill.
I will respond to some of the issues raised in the discussion. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned targeting those who are destitute. I want to be clear: we are still providing support to those who need it most. The repayment begins only later, when individuals have the means for it. There are clear safeguards, such as income thresholds and exemptions, to protect the most vulnerable. There will also be a grace period after support finishes but before repayment is required to allow individuals time to establish themselves. Far from being punitive, the policy reflects a principle that when someone can contribute, they should.
The hon. Member also mentioned exemptions for vulnerable groups. Those exemptions are not in the Bill because that is the wrong place for them, but we will make those regulations. Hon. Members’ contributions and concerns have been heard and will form part of that discussion. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Amendments 139 and 142 concern the scope, enforcement and parliamentary oversight of the asylum support contribution scheme. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling them, but we cannot accept them. Amendment 139, which aims to allow liability to arise for support received before the scheme is fully commenced, goes against the principle of this legislation. The Government’s approach is deliberately prospective: liability should arise only once the detailed rules, notification arrangements and safeguards are in place. Applying the scheme retrospectively to earlier support would create uncertainty, move the goalposts and not provide people with sufficient clarity about the potential consequences of receiving support.
Joe Robertson
I take the point that the scheme should not be applied retrospectively, but let us take the example of student loans: students take out loans on terms that are then changed in the future. If UK students have to deal with that, why should it be any different for asylum provisions?
Anna Turley
That example is about changing the level of a loan that has been provided. I do not think we can expect people who may have fled war and persecution to come to this country on one understanding, only to have that changed while they are here. This is an entirely new system; it is not about changing the level of a loan or a return. It is important that we do it only going forward; trying to apply it retrospectively would be open to an extreme amount of legal challenge.
Amendment 142 would require any regulations that specify further exemptions under clause 23 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. We will reject the amendment, but again, with an emphasis on consensus, I say that I firmly believe in the principle of parliamentary debate and discussion, particularly on important regulations such as these. Although we are rejecting the amendment, I undertake to review the matter during the passage of the Bill, because such important exemptions need appropriate scrutiny, and these regulations will need the full scrutiny of Parliament. As I say, I am open-minded about considering that as the Bill progresses.
As we have already committed, the detailed scheme will be published in secondary legislation during the passage of the Bill, so I hope that will give hon. Members plenty to engage with during the process.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 23, page 22, line 13, at end insert—
“(7) This section may not be brought fully into force until the Secretary of State has published and laid before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations which the Secretary of State proposes to make under subsection (4), and
(b) an estimate, for each of the first five years after this section comes fully into force, of—
(i) the number of persons expected to be required to make payments under subsection (3),
(ii) the sums expected to be recovered, and
(iii) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its draft regulations for the asylum support repayment scheme, together with an estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run, before the scheme is brought into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 23 stand part.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 62—Asylum support payments: annual report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for each financial year beginning after section 23 comes fully into force, prepare and lay before Parliament a report on the exercise of the power in section 23(3).
(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out, for the financial year to which it relates—
(a) the number of persons required to make payments under section 23(3);
(b) the total sums required to be paid;
(c) the total sums recovered, including sums collected by HMRC under regulations made by virtue of section 24(4);
(d) the total sums written off or treated as irrecoverable;
(e) the number of persons exempt by virtue of section 23(6), by description of exemption; and
(f) the cost of administering the requirement to make payments and of collecting those payments.
(3) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament within six months of the end of the financial year to which it relates.”
This new clause would require the Government to report to Parliament each year on how many people have been charged for asylum support, how much has been charged, recovered and written off, how many people are exempt, and what the scheme costs to run.
Blake Stephenson
Clause 23 gives the Home Secretary a new power to require people who have received asylum support to pay towards its cost once they are able to do so. Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind it. The Opposition supports both clauses, so my questions are not about whether clause 23 is right in principle; they are about whether, as drafted, it will recover anything at all—and when.
Amendment 140 would mean that clause 23 could not be brought fully into force until the Government have published and laid the draft regulations and a five-year estimate of how many people will pay, how much will be recovered and what the scheme will cost to run. That is not an obstacle to the scheme—it is the minimum that Parliament needs in order to judge whether it will work effectively. Will the Minister commit to publishing the draft regulations and those estimates before the clause commences? If she does, I will not press the amendment to a vote.
Clause 23(1) applies the scheme to anyone who has received asylum support and is not exempt. Subsection (2) defines asylum support. Subsection (3) is the core power: the Secretary of State “may” require payments. Subsection (4) leaves everything else to regulations. Subsection (5) provides that no one can be required to pay if it would make them destitute. Subsection (6) exempts people who were children throughout, anyone who started receiving support before the clause comes fully into force, and anyone else the Secretary of State specifies in regulations.
Clause 24 is the machinery that sits behind clause 23. It sets out how the charge can reflect support given to dependants, allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect it, allows information to be shared with the Home Office for that purpose, and makes unpaid sums recoverable as a debt. Clause 23 is the principle, which we support; clause 24 is where we assess whether any money will actually be collected.
We agree with the principle, but the Government have not provided the detail that we expect. There is no amount detailed in the Bill. There is no threshold. There is no repayment period. There is no collection model. All of that is left to regulations that we are yet to see. If our new clause 37 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 was not developed enough for primary legislation in March 2025, I invite the Minister to explain what makes clause 23 in this Bill developed enough now.
The explanatory notes state that the power applies to those
“who have had their case concluded”;
but that condition is not in the clause. Can payments be required while a claim or appeal is outstanding from people with savings, for example, and how does that relate to the separate contributions mechanisms announced in November?
The Home Office says that the measure will ensure that refused asylum seekers
“take responsibility for the financial impact of their presence in this country”,
but a refused claimant who remains here unlawfully is not going to be paying through pay-as-you-earn. How much do the Government realistically expect to recover from refused claimants who stay? Why does the definition in clause 23(2) leave out section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—initial accommodation, including hotels—so that time spent there appears to be free of charge?
Subsection (4) allows regulations to provide for HMRC to collect amounts due. We believe that this is the correct model. It is how student loans are recovered—automatically, through the pay packet, once earnings pass a certain threshold. It is the model the Opposition proposed. However, subsection (4) is only an enabling power; it says that regulations “may” provide for HMRC collection. Under clause 50, those regulations will be subject only to the negative procedure, and the Government describe collection as a more technical and administrative matter. Has HMRC agreed to collect the charge? Will collection be through PAYE by default, as it is for student loans, and from what date will it happen?
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I will speak in favour of clauses 23 and 24 stand part. The clauses reflect an important principle at the heart of the Government’s approach to immigration. We must have a properly managed system that commands public confidence and treats people fairly, while ensuring that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. My South Norfolk constituents want a firm but fair immigration system. They want rules to be enforced, decisions to be made promptly and public money to be spent wisely. They also want a system that operates with humanity, upholds the law and does not allow people to exploit weaknesses in its administration. Those expectations are entirely reasonable. Indeed, they are complementary. Fairness and effective enforcement are not competing objectives; they are both essential to rebuilding trust in our immigration system.
That is why I welcome the principles behind clauses 23 and 24. They have established a framework through which the Government can require appropriate payments from certain people who have received asylum support, while providing protections for those who cannot afford to pay. That is a practical measure designed to ensure that, where someone has received support at public expense, their circumstances can be taken into account and a contribution can be sought where it is appropriate and affordable. That demonstrates that this Government are serious about responsible management of our asylum system. We are not simply talking about reform: we are putting in place the powers and mechanisms needed to make the system work better.
Clause 23 establishes the central power for the Secretary of State to require payments from people who have received asylum support.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
It strikes me that the point that the hon. Gentleman is making goes some way towards answering the point that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion was making regarding the financial circumstances in which asylum seekers may find themselves, and her suggestion that poor asylum seekers would perhaps be required to pay back while those who had wealth would not. If somebody does not have the means with which to pay, they will not be required to.
Ben Goldsborough
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As it says on the face of the Bill, deprivation has to be taken into account. Again, that reinforces the idea that the Government are putting forward a firm but fair immigration system.
Siân Berry
Does the hon. Member have any insight into the gap that I think the Minister left in the discussion on the last group, between claims that repayments will be affordable and what it says in the Bill, which is that it will only avoid destitution? Does the hon. Member agree that there is a gap between those two definitions?
Ben Goldsborough
What was really important in the Minister’s closing comments on that group was that this is obviously not something that is taken into account for our own constituents who have not sought asylum themselves. There is no definition of destitution versus poverty. What we need to do is have a fair system, not only for those that are seeking asylum, but for our constituents as well. We need to ensure we do not create this two-tier running that then undermines the confidence in the system that we need.
Subsection (2) makes it clear that provision covers support provided through several existing statutory routes, including sections 4, 95 and 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as well as accommodation in accommodation centres under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That is an important foundation for a coherent approach. Asylum support is delivered through different statutory arrangements, and the Government need a framework that can operate across those routes rather than leaving gaps in the system.
Subsection (3) provides the power to require payments, while subsection (4) allows regulation to establish how those payments will be calculated, when they will be required, the timeframes for payment and how individuals will be notified. I welcome that approach, because effective reform requires more than setting out a principle in legislation; it requires practical machinery to implement the principle consistently.
Taxpayers rightly expect public money to be managed responsibly across our public services. We have to make difficult decisions about how resources are allocated and ensure that money is used where it is needed most. The asylum system should be no exemption from that. Where someone has received support at public expense and is subsequently in a position to contribute towards those costs, it is reasonable for the Government to have the power to require an appropriate payment. That is not about penalising people for seeking asylum; it is about recognising that the public support comes with responsibilities where an individual has the means to meet them.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
At the danger of reiterating a point from earlier, does my hon. Friend agree that, not only does the contributory principle approach a sense of fairness, but it enables a dignifying process for asylum seekers to show that they actually belong—that they are part of something that we are all part of?
Ben Goldsborough
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As he rightly said earlier, as a former homelessness support worker, he has seen the difference it makes when people want to provide support and repay the UK for giving them refuge.
This is precisely the kind of practical reform that can help restore confidence in the immigration system. It demonstrates that the Government are prepared to address the detail of how the system operates, rather than relying on grand announcements that do little to resolve the underlying challenges.
One of the most important features of clause 23 is subsection (5), which states that a person cannot be required to make payments where those payments would render them destitute, as defined under section 95(3) of the 1999 Act. I strongly welcome that safeguard.
A responsible Government must be able to pursue appropriate payments, while recognising that there is a fundamental difference between someone who has the means to contribute and someone who does not. The purpose of the clauses is to establish a fair and workable payments system, not to create further hardship for those who are already unable to meet their basic needs. The protection against destitution ensures that the Government’s approach can be firm without being indiscriminate. It allows the system to take account of financial circumstances and to distinguish between those who can reasonably pay and those for whom a payment would put their basic welfare at risk. That is an important distinction.
I also recognise the practical value of allowing regulations to take account of a person’s financial means. Circumstances can change, and a system that is capable of recognising those changes is more likely to operate effectively.
I look forward to the Government setting out how the regulations will ensure that payment requirements are clear, proportionate and based on the relevant circumstances. That will help to ensure that the scheme delivers its intended benefits, while maintaining the safeguards Parliament has rightly included.
Subsection (6) sets out the exemptions from the payment requirement, which include people who were under 18 throughout the period in which they received asylum support and people who began receiving support before the relevant section comes into force. It also allows additional exemptions to be specified in regulations. I welcome those inclusions and exemptions as part of a balanced legislative framework.
The exemption for children is particularly important, and I know it will be important to my constituents as well. Children should not be expected to carry the financial obligations arising from support provided to them during their childhood. Their circumstances are different from those of adults and the legislation appropriately recognises that difference.
The provision for people who began receiving support before commencement also establishes a clear distinction between existing recipients and those who enter the system once the new arrangements take effect. That is important for a fair implementation of the policy.
Taken together, these provisions demonstrate that the Government are seeking to establish a system with clear expectations and appropriate protection. That is the right foundation for lasting reform.
Clause 24 builds on the framework established by clause 23, setting out further provisions relating to the calculation and collection of payments. The Government are right to provide a framework that can account for the circumstances in which support was provided, rather than assuming that every case is identical. That flexibility should help to ensure that payment requirements are based on relevant factors and that the scheme can be administered fairly.
Subsections (4) and (5) provide for HMRC to undertake preparatory work ahead of regulations that may give it the responsibility for collecting payments. I welcome the Government’s intention to establish a workable arrangement for collection. There is a strong practical case for making use of existing administrative expertise and infrastructure where doing so can help to deliver policy effectively.
Subsection (6) amends the UK Borders Act 2007 to permit HMRC information to be shared for the purposes of determining liability for payments and requiring them. Appropriate information sharing can support accurate assessments and effective administration. It can help to ensure that decisions are made on the basis of relevant information and that payment systems operate as intended. Of course, that information must be handled lawfully and securely; public confidence depends on people being able to trust public authorities to use information for legitimate purposes and in accordance with the law. Those safeguards are compatible with effective administration—indeed, they help to underpin it.
Finally, subsection (8) allows consequential regulations to be made in support of the operation of clauses 23 and 24. That is a necessary part of creating a coherent framework. Legislation of this kind needs to work alongside existing arrangements, and the Government must be able to make the consequential changes required to implement it effectively.
Mr Kohler
As we have heard, the Bill offers little detail on how the asylum support repayment system will work in practice, such as how repayments will be made, the exact amount that refugees will be expected to pay back, and how much refugees need to earn before they are required to make repayments. Can the Minister commit to a timeline for bringing forward those crucial details?
Requiring refugees to pay back their asylum support is likely to create barriers to integration, leaving refugees in debt at exactly the point where they should be focused on rebuilding their lives. How will the Home Office ensure that this proposal does not undermine wider Government objectives on improving social cohesion? The Red Cross questioned that in its evidence. How will the Home Office ensure that the asylum support repayment system does not leave refugees vulnerable to exploitation if they are struggling the repay their debt? Hon. Members raised questions on clause 23(5). As the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion said, affordability is very different from destitution—destitution is such a high bar. If people are trying to integrate into society and they cannot afford these repayments, what will happen? They will become vulnerable to loan sharks. That is the kind of problem they will face.
I would also like to focus on the consequences of non-repayment. If refugees are required to fully repay their debt before being eligible for settlement, that risks leaving the most vulnerable with prolonged insecure status. Can the Minister clarify that point? Will refugees who are unable to work through no fault of their own, for example due to medical conditions or care responsibilities, still be able to qualify for settlement? I would also like to hear an answer on that from the Minister.
Siân Berry
I have spoken quite a lot about my overall position on these clauses, but I would like to say a little more about the fact that clause 23 gives the Home Secretary the power to require these unfair payments from a minority of asylum seekers who are destitute when they arrive here. The Minister needs to consider the lack of safe routes and the extent to which people wanting to claim asylum here end up more destitute as they are exploited the entire way by the kind of organised criminals that are currently running the only routes into this country. We need to see much more detail than is on the face of the Bill about how the system will work.
I essentially wish to speak in support of amendment 140, tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire. He makes a good point. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary promised that Parliament would have the opportunity to see draft regulations, but we have not seen them yet. The Committee is being asked to assess and approve a system when we are not able to scrutinise the details. We deserve to see more of them now. They are not minor details. We have already spoken about the fact that £10,000 is the amount that the Government are talking about, but that is not on the face of the Bill, and neither is the payment threshold nor how much people will have to pay over that amount. All of that is information that we would need to assess the impact that this policy would have on individual refugees at the point they are trying to rebuild their lives, not just on the public purse, as the Opposition amendment seeks to set out.
Although the Government have indicated how they might recover those payments, the detail of the Bill does not cover everything. They say it will enable the Home Office to have its own cost recovery mechanism, supported by HMRC, which will apparently play its part. How will that work, how will it sit within other parts of the Government’s core protection system, and how much will it cost? That is especially important when weighed against the fact that the policy might bring in only limited amounts and may even reduce the overall tax take from this group. Without knowledge of the decisions about the system, the Government may be proposing something that costs the public purse large amounts in cash terms, let alone in its wider impacts. I think we need to see the Government’s analysis of all this.
It is also important to acknowledge that individuals claiming asylum have fled war and persecution and are not responsible for the overall cost of asylum support. That cost has grown, often as a result of policy decisions or failings of this Government and the previous one. Earlier, we discussed the difference in cost between nightly paid hotel accommodation and properly settled dispersal accommodation in genuine homes. The Government are not spending their money wisely at present, and I think Ministers are seeking to address that. Would tackling that not be more cost-effective than trying to recover money from close-to-destitute asylum seekers?
The Home Secretary has also said this policy is introducing a “contributory principle”. What she ignores, however, is that refugees do contribute, and have always done so, through working, paying taxes and contributing to their local communities. In fact, on wider impacts, the refugee tax is not introducing the idea that refugees should contribute. In my view, it is making it harder for them to do so, while also harming community cohesion and integration.
A policy that was truly focused on increasing refugee contributions could look at how barriers to employment can be removed, so that people can access work more easily, progress in a career and transfer their qualifications to this country. I have had casework on those matters, which are barriers to refugees contributing to society through their taxes and making the most of the skills they can bring here by accessing education and further training. That would all help the Government to address asylum support costs, but it would do so by supporting vulnerable refugees, not targeting them with this tax.
Has the Minister really addressed, in any of her comments today, the facts in the letter she wrote to us at the end of the oral evidence session, which admits fully that three in five of the people currently awaiting a decision are not claiming support? Why are those people not being asked to contribute in any way, if recovering the costs from people is the most important thing to the Government? Amendment 140 gets to the heart of that: what is the balance of payments?
Finally, I believe this policy is cruel. It seeks to deter people from coming to this country, and that is the key reason why it is so targeted at the most vulnerable refugees, and not at those who can pay their own way. However, will it actually work as a deterrent? In general, the Home Office already has evidence that punitive measures such as the refugee tax have little impact on where people choose to seek asylum. Furthermore, in the oral evidence session, when asked about this, the Refugee Council highlighted that people will be able to avoid these payments simply by not applying for asylum support while their application is being processed, a risk also recognised in the Home Office’s impact assessment. Although that may reduce asylum support costs, I do not think that such a result is the Government’s intention, as it will push more people seeking asylum into vulnerable situations in which they can be exploited further. Do the Government not think that policies from this and previous Governments have already done enough of that?
Anna Turley
I thank hon. Members for their amendments in this group, as well as for the discussion and interest they have shown in this provision, which we have debated at length today.
Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to require those who have received asylum support and accommodation, known as section 4 and section 95 support, to pay a contribution towards those costs. The clause contains an important safeguard: it requires the regulations to ensure that individuals are not required to pay when doing so would cause them to become destitute. That means that people will not be required to pay if it meant they could not meet their essential living needs or if it would place them at risk of homelessness.
The clause exempts children. Other exemptions will be set out in secondary legislation to ensure safeguards, thus protecting vulnerable groups. I look forward to working further with Members on that throughout the course of the Bill. Details of how the charge will be applied and how the system will operate will be set out in regulations and the Home Secretary has committed to sharing a draft of those regulations with Parliament.
The Bill is built on a balance of rights and responsibilities. This reform protects support for those who need it most, while reinforcing the principle that support should come with an expectation of contribution when that is affordable. When confidence in the asylum system is low, and with asylum support costing the taxpayer around £4 billion, it is right to take steps to reduce costs and ensure that those who can make a proportionate contribution do so. This policy achieves that.
The measure is not a tax on asylum seekers or refugees. It does not affect a person’s right to claim asylum nor their entitlement to receive support when it is needed. The clause reflects the broader principle that, alongside the rights and protections afforded to those seeking asylum, there are responsibilities that our constituents would expect one another to undertake: to contribute towards public costs where it is fair and reasonable to do so. This aids integration, helping to foster a shared sense of fairness, responsibility and belonging. It says to our constituents who contribute for their entitlement that no one should be entitled to a free pass.
Building on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, the measure is also about asking people to contribute for those who come after them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland mentioned the desire that he heard expressed by asylum seekers coming to this country that they want to pay and contribute. Many of them will want to enable the system to continue, so that other people fleeing war and persecution can benefit.
Clause 24 enables asylum support repayments to be recovered through the tax system. It provides a power for regulations to make provision for HMRC to collect repayments on behalf of the Secretary of State from individuals who are liable under clause 23. The clause also creates the statutory framework for information sharing between HMRC and the Home Office where that is necessary for the administration and collection of repayments.
Hon. Members asked whether HMRC will be responsible for collecting payments. We are ensuring a range of repayment mechanisms, including options that could make use of the tax system. Decisions on the final repayment model will be taken in due course, informed by our discussions. We will continue to work across Government to identify the most effective and proportionate response.
The powers we are introducing will help ensure that, should the Government decide to use the tax system as a collection mechanism, repayments can be administered effectively and efficiently. The clause therefore provides the legislative framework necessary to support recovery of asylum support costs through the tax system. I listened carefully to the points made by hon. Members and their detailed questions on the set-up of the scheme, its processes and the collection mechanisms. The Home Secretary has committed that information on those factors will be published during the process of the Bill. I undertake to ensure that hon. Members continue to get more information as the drafts are published.
Moving on to the amendments in this group, amendment 140 and new clause 62 concern transparency and reporting on the asylum support contribution system. The Government recognise the importance of scrutiny, but we cannot accept these provisions. On amendment 140, the Government have already committed to sharing draft regulations during the Bill’s passage, allowing Parliament to discuss the detailed operation of the scheme. Building on the conversation we had on the previous group, I will review whether exemptions will be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. I hope hon. Members will take that commitment.
The amendment would also make commencement of the scheme conditional on publishing five-year estimates of the number of people liable, sums recovered and administrative costs. Those will depend on the final design and operation of the scheme, and may be subject to considerable uncertainty. For example, the numbers of asylum claims in this country are coming down, so five-year estimates would not necessarily give us any degree of certainty. We will provide relevant analysis through the impact assessment, and are committed to providing data to support transparency on the effectiveness of the scheme as implemented. However, we do not consider it appropriate to make commencement dependent on such five-year forecasts.
Likewise, we do not think that a separate reporting scheme on liabilities, recoveries, write-offs, exemptions and administrative costs, as set out in new clause 62, should be prescribed in primary legislation. We will explore what appropriate information on the operation of the scheme can be incorporated into Government asylum statistics and reporting once the scheme is operational.
To conclude, the Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money.
Matt Vickers
The Home Office confirmed that it spent £22,000 on its “don’t rape women” guide for asylum seekers. Can the Minister confirm that clause 23 restricts the sums that are recoverable purely to accommodation and subsistence, rather than to the Home Office’s comms budget?
Anna Turley
I moved to my conclusion too quickly; forgive me, Mr Twigg. I still have a number of points to respond to—I thought we were getting an early escape.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and one that I wanted to cover, regarding asylum support. Section 98 support is temporary emergency accommodation, which is not within the scope of clause 23. Section 98 is the immediate emergency support, and asylum seekers then apply for section 95 support, which is what the clause addresses. He asks why that is not included, and I take his point. We are trying to move away from the kind of expensive and unsustainable emergency support that we saw explode under his party’s Administration. We have already saved more than £1 billion by closing hotels, so that will not be part of this measure. The asylum support that people apply for is what is covered by the clause.
The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire asked about repayment thresholds. As I said, the Bill establishes the principle and the key framework for the recovery of asylum costs; the detailed operation, including thresholds, will be set out in secondary legislation. That is a common and proportionate approach to drafting such legislation, for which operational detail may be adjusted over time. The policy intent is that repayment will begin only once an individual reaches a defined threshold for repayment, and that deductions will be set at a manageable rate, so that recovery remains proportionate and does not cause hardship or destitution. Any regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there will be clear safeguards.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked whether we expected to raise any money. The answer is yes. As I have mentioned, the asylum system represents a significant cost to the taxpayer of about £4 billion. The Government are determined to bring those costs down. The policy of recouping asylum support is a world first. It is about ensuring that those who benefit from this specific, targeted form of support contribute towards its cost, when they can. Our objective is fairness to everyone in this country, as well as sustainability, with any revenue generated reducing the burden on the public purse. It is about not just recovering costs, but contribution. Costs will be recouped over time from individuals who have moved into employment or otherwise have the means to contribute.
Anna Turley
I was going to mention work and study, but I will come back to that.
Siân Berry
My question is more about the revenue and its spending. We have heard from local authorities concerned that they might have higher costs as a result of the measures. Can the Minister give us any reassurance that the costs will not spill over into services that might be affected by some of the things in the impact assessment?
Anna Turley
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but I do not see that the implications will fall on local authorities. As I said, in the course of publishing regulations as a result of the passage of the Bill, we will explore the mechanisms for bringing the money in and for where it will go in the Exchequer. However, at this point I do not want to commit to any undertakings to local authorities. The measure is about ensuring that people contribute and pay their fair share.
The hon. Lady mentioned work—we share that commitment. We all want to see those who have come here fleeing persecution move as quickly as possible into work and into contributing to this country. That is why our new work and study routes will allow people to get off core protection, off dependency and as quickly as possible into the work and study routes that we will provide and encourage asylum seekers to use.
Mr Kohler
I wish to make two swift points about what the Minister has just said. First, does the tax system not allow people to contribute—is that not the whole point? When people are integrated, they contribute via the tax system. Othering refugees because they came to us as refugees strikes me as completely the wrong approach, and one that we do not apply to other forms of state help.
Secondly, I am no doubt being obtuse here, but can the Minister point me to the consequences for non-payment? I am still not clear on that.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman’s first point is not correct. We ask immigrants to pay a number of other things, including the health surcharge. Asylum seekers have the opportunity to contribute not just through taxes, but by making a significant contribution to these substantial costs. There are very few benefits that our constituents get and would not be expected to pay back in some form.
Mr Kohler
The Minister mentions the health surcharge, but it is different for somebody who comes to the country on a work visa and goes in with their eyes open about what the deal is, how they will be paid and how the market assesses costs to them. We are talking here about supporting people who are desperate and have come to us for help, and then saying, “Oh, by the way, you now owe us a vast amount of money.” What we should want is for them to contribute by integrating into society and paying their taxes.
Anna Turley
I think the hon. Gentleman completely misses the point about the principle of fairness. I invite him to come and talk to some of my constituents, who might feel differently from his. Some of them feel extremely aggrieved that a huge number of people create this £4 billion burden on the taxpayer. I invite Members to think about what we could do with that money. Of course, we want to fulfil our obligations to those who come here fleeing war and persecution, but we are giving them quite substantial support, and I do not think it unacceptable or inappropriate to ask them to contribute towards those costs when they are integrated, in work and earning enough to do so.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the scheme is transparent and deliverable, and provides value for money. As we have discussed, this debate is, at its heart, about fairness. What we are discussing here is the concept of individuals who have benefited from the sanctuary and generosity of this country and its taxpayers making a contribution to the support that they have received. This is not about punishing anyone; it is about those who received support having a stake in this country’s success, and contributing to those costs—and thereby to the sustainability of that support for others—when they are financially able to do so.
The right to receive support must come with responsibilities. It is right that we provide support to those fleeing war and persecution, and that those who receive our support make a fair and proportionate contribution when they can, putting back into the system that supported them, contributing themselves to such support for those who come after them, and ensuring that the consent of the British public, who pay for that support, remains. Our constituents would expect nothing less. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clauses 23 and 24 to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.