Immigration and Asylum Bill (Third sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

I hope the hon. Gentleman has seen the revised impact assessment, which now has a green flag.

Let me set out some of the reporting avenues that are already in the Bill. At the end of each financial year, the authority must produce an annual report on the exercise of its functions and any other information as directed by the Secretary of State. The chief inspector of UK Border Agency will also produce a report once a year, and at other times if requested by the Secretary of State. The chief executive of the authority has a statutory duty to respond to that report and to send that response to the Secretary of State, who must lay it before Parliament alongside the report. The chief executive may also lay written representations on matters they consider to be of importance through the Secretary of State. There is a wide range of provisions in the Bill to ensure proper accountability to Parliament.

Let me pick up the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stockton West about the costs of the IIAA. Detailed plans are currently being developed, and full costs and affordability will be developed through the business case; I undertake to keep Parliament completely updated throughout the process. As I say, we will be developing that, and I will make sure that Parliament is able to scrutinise it in the fullness of time, but in terms of operational capacity and productivity, we should not be pre-empting this. A report prior to commencement is not appropriate; it is for the IIAA, once established, to undertake its reporting duties.

Amendment 87 seeks to narrow the scope of the public interest considerations to those that concern just effective immigration control and the “prompt removal” of those with no right to remain in the United Kingdom. While I have some sympathy with the objectives of the amendment, I am afraid that it cannot be accepted because it is far too narrow in its definition. The authority is an independent body—we have established that very clearly in the Bill—and one crucial part of the immigration and asylum system, not just an extended branch of immigration enforcement. The public interest spans the entire spectrum, and could include things that are not included in the amendment, such as public safety, operational impact and value for money. We do not want to lose those other factors by limiting the definition to effective immigration control and removal. It is important that we keep the scope broad.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

It is important to consider this—and this is why we must reject the Opposition’s approach—in the same way that we consider the police. We must ensure that the public interest covers a wide range of things; if we said it only concerned crime, we would end up in a situation where our police were not protecting individuals or running an effective constabulary in their area and were, in effect, letting down the rest of the country. Does the Minister agree?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a really good comparison with the police. The police are to some extent accountable to the Home Secretary, but she does not get involved in operational decision making. Our approach to the IIAA is similar: it is vital that we ensure that we have the wider public interest at the heart of it, because it will be a key part of the country’s nationality, immigration and asylum process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

The process mirrors the existing first-tier tribunal, which reviews errors of law, so it is important to clarify that this remains the same and retains the same definition. It is only on errors of law that a process can be appealed; this does not narrow that process any further.

Amendment 85 takes a very different approach. It would prevent decisions of the authority from being appealed to the upper tribunal at all. I am afraid we do not consider that acceptable. We do not believe that the authority’s decisions should be entirely prevented from onward appeal. That goes too far in the other direction and denies the right of justice where there has been an error of law.

Removing the statutory right of appeal could potentially open us up to even more litigation, as appeals where there has been an error of law would end up going straight to that process without this important safety valve. The authority will make important first-instance decisions, and it is right that there should be a means of correcting a decision when an authority has made, as we have said, an error of law.

[Ben Goldsborough]

One of the main arguments that the Opposition spokesperson put forward was that the system would be too slow under the Bill. However, one key thing that was not mentioned was clause 9(4), which gives the Secretary of State the ability to expedite individual cases. Is it not the case that the Bill as drafted protects the individual’s legal right while also making sure that, when there are grotesque crimes against this country, we can expedite to give people the certainty they need that the system is fair and swift?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The hon. Member for Stockton West suggests that any unsuccessful appellant could appeal to the upper tribunal and that it will just create another tier, but that is not the case. An appeal may be brought only on a point of law and permission must be granted first, so those safeguards are in place. Permission acts as an appropriate filter so that only cases raising an arguable legal error can proceed. The upper tribunal’s role is not to rehear the appeal simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. It is important to determine whether the law was applied correctly.

Another point about an error of law has been flagged, and I would like to clarify what that means. An error of law is a mistake about the law or its application, rather than a simple disagreement with the outcome or an administrative error. It may arise, for example, where the wrong legal test has been applied, relevant matters have not been considered, the process has been unfair or the reasons given are legally inadequate. The purpose of the review and appeal framework is to ensure that those legal errors can be identified and corrected. It is important that we allow the process to be clear, legally fair and balanced so that, where there is an error of law, that can be referred onwards.

Taken together, the provisions in the Bill strike the right balance. They support the finality and efficient disposal of cases while ensuring that errors can be corrected through clear and appropriate routes. The Government cannot accept these amendments, and I invite the hon. Members not to press them.

Question proposed, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I agree about the growth in the backlog, but as I said earlier, the analysis is pretty clear that that growth comes from an increase in refusals as well as the increasing speed with which the Home Office is making decisions. To me, those two things go together. The increase in refusals is likely to represent an increase in mistaken refusals—refusals that should not have happened. We cannot get away with just looking at the proportions here, either. We have to recognise that this will result in a number of people being treated as badly as they possibly can be by a country in which they are trying to seek asylum, having already had to leave the country in which they would much prefer to stay due to human rights considerations that are not properly taken into account at the initial decision stage in 44% of cases.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Siân Berry]

I have very nearly finished, so I will press on. At its heart, the IIAA fundamentally represents another ill-thought-through Government proposal to create a truncated legal process. It is part of the previous Prime Minister’s misconceived attempts to pander to the disturbing ideas of Reform UK and its even more unsettling offshoot, Restore Britain. We saw from Reform UK’s proposals yesterday that only standing up for asylum rights will do in the face of its politics, and that the far right of politics will never be happy with anything other than the total removal of asylum rights.

Meanwhile, measures like those in clause 1 of this Bill will prove impractical, expensive and ineffective in addressing the backlog, and they will hurt the most vulnerable people in the world. These proposals must be dropped, if not today then well before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I will vote against clause 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I will speak to amendment 66, about the appointments process to the IIAA, and amendment 67, about the legal qualifications and experience of adjudicators.

Under the Bill, the chair of the IIAA will be a Home Office appointee. The chair will decide the IIAA’s chief executive, who will then appoint adjudicators. By contrast, I believe that the leadership and decision-making roles in the IIAA should be decided by the Judicial Appointments Commission, the body that appoints judges. That would plainly and simply ensure independence from the Government and Parliament, which the Bill does not currently guarantee. We cannot risk leaving policies like this under the day-to-day political control of anyone in Government. Every safeguard must therefore be in place to make sure that this or any future Secretary of State cannot direct the outcome, prioritisation or disposal of these cases. My amendment 66 would fix that and make appointments to the IIAA the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers or their appointees.

I will expand on some key points. According to the Bill, all members of IIAA, senior and junior, will be appointed either directly by the Home Secretary or by someone appointed by them. The chair of the IIAA, for example, will be appointed directly by the Home Secretary, and adjudicators will be appointed by the chief executive, who is given their role by the chair. The Home Office’s fingerprints will therefore be all over the membership of the IIAA, from top to bottom. As has been consistently clear, this Bill drags asylum appeals closer to the Home Office, risking the independence and fairness of appeals in a serious way. By contrast, tribunal judges, who currently hear asylum appeals, are appointed by the Judicial Appointments Commission, which is independent, with no direct input from Ministers.

Evidence has consistently shown over many years that Home Office officials face significant and sometimes inappropriate pressure to make decisions, including asylum decisions, in accordance with political goals. The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that that was the case as part of Operation Bridora in 2022, which was a Home Office strategy designed to speed up the processing of Albanian asylum claims. The chief inspector concluded that Ministers imposed an arbitrary and secret target on Home Office officials for only 2% of Albanian claims to be successful. In addition, in a report from the chief inspector this year, it was found that the Home Office was prioritising the quantity of decisions over their quality.

The Home Office’s institutional history is anathema to the independence and fairness that is needed. The ties between the IIAA and Home Office could impose political pressure on the IIAA to operate in accordance with Home Office preferences rather than law and facts. If Ministers are sincere about creating a truly independent appeals body, the safeguards to ensure independence should be robust and tried and tested. My amendment would make all appointments the responsibility of the Judicial Appointments Commission, not Ministers.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns about independence from the Government and other bodies, but many bodies across Government are involved in complex cases, such as in criminal law. For example, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is appointed by the MOJ to look into miscarriages of justice. Are we honestly saying that the IIAA would not have those same safeguards, in this case from the Home Secretary rather than the Lord Chancellor? Within the Bill, we are introducing a process that maintains independence while keeping accountability to Parliament, which will be vital in securing our constituents’ trust in a fair and transparent process for our immigration system.

[Siân Berry]

The hon. Member is right that, sometimes, appointments of supposedly independent commissioners are made—I had experience of that recently in relation to equalities—but there is often a political element to the appointment and the direction they seem to take. We must always appreciate that and guard against it. Taking the appointments one step away from the Home Office may not completely remove the possibility of that, but the Judicial Appointments Commission is a robust body doing a similar job already and should have this role. That is what my amendment seeks to introduce. The Judicial Appointments Commission has two decades of experience in appointing independent judges, and I think it is the body best able to ensure the independence of candidates for adjudicators.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

rose—

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

rose—

[Anna Turley]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, then to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk.

[Anna Turley]

It is important that we maintain flexibility, as I said. The Bill provides distinct mechanisms for very broad categories of cases and for exceptional individual cases. We should retain that flexibility, so I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on limiting the approach of the Home Secretary in the Bill. Particularly, this is also about case-specific assessment. We want to allow the Home Secretary the opportunity to look at case-specific assessments, rather than being too defined.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Does the Minister agree that the problem with amendment 90 is that if we expedite everything, we expedite nothing? Having the clause as drafted—making this a precise move taken by the Secretary of State—ensures that those cases that our constituents know need to be expedited, will be. The broadbrush approach proposed by the Opposition would fail that completely.

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend puts that perfectly, succinctly and clearly. I appreciate him saying that. This Government are absolutely clear that foreign national offenders with no right to remain should be removed as swiftly as the law allows. I have every anticipation—the Home Secretary has been clear—that in restoring order and control, they are exactly the kind of cohort that we have in mind. It is important, however, that clause 8 provides the appropriate mechanism for setting those time periods for groups of cases, clause 9 allows for individual cases to be expedited, and we continue to allow the Secretary of State to have that flexibility to respond to the public interest, rather than narrowing the measure to one specific cohort in the Bill.

Amendment 37 agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 90, in clause 9, page 7, line 21, at end insert—

“(7) The IIAA must expedite any appeal brought by a person who—

(a) is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) or (6) of the Immigration Act 1971, and

(b) has been convicted of an offence in the United Kingdom or elsewhere,

and subsection (3) applies in relation to such an appeal as if the Secretary of State had made an expedition request.”—(Blake Stephenson.)

This amendment would require the IIAA to expedite appeals brought by foreign criminals liable to deportation rather than leaving expedition to a discretionary request by the Home Secretary.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Basically, anyone who is a British citizen will be eligible to become a sponsor, I believe. Forgive me, I did not want to mislead her by getting the wrong answer, but yes, I was right: individuals with specified status in the UK, including British citizens, settled persons and those with certain other lawful residence will be able to make a sponsor human rights claim. They will need to establish a genuine family life claim—we will talk about that in more detail in the following clauses—and show that refusal would disproportionately interfere with their article 8 rights. As I said, the reforms do not create a new migration route or entitlement; they simply ensure that human rights claims for those who are settled British citizens, settled persons and those with residence here are raised and considered through the correct process.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling amendment 94. It would enable the Home Office to designate a place only when a sponsor human rights claim can be made via statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. The Bill does not require the definition of a designated place to be the subject of regulations, as there are currently no plans to specify the geographical place from where such claims can be made. The focus of article 8 is on whether the individual in the UK making a sponsorship claim has a strong enough claim, not where the family is based. That is because a UK-based sponsor will be expected to make their claim through a paid-for online application. We will use the immigration rules to specify the procedures that applicants must follow to make a sponsor human rights claim. That will allow us to go into the necessary level of technical detail, while retaining flexibility to make changes as we implement the new application process.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

What is interesting about the subsections that the Minister has gone through is that one of the huge problems we face is the judicialisation of British law, where we see interpretation because the law has been too loose. Will she explain how the steps that we are taking will rein those powers back into the sovereignty of Parliament, so that we have more control and can represent our constituents on the issues that they care about the most?

[Anna Turley]

My hon. Friend gets to the exact heart of what we are doing with this legislation. Through the build-up of the legal framework, we have been guilty of over-interpreting Strasbourg law. By codifying what we are doing, through this Bill, we are ensuring that we are not going over and above that but are simply complying with our international obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

That is an important point. I will be delighted to provide more evidence as we go through due process. We must make sure that they are proportionate and do not push people into poverty, but it is important that we are charging people a fee where they are bringing family members to this country under article 8. For the reasons I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.

Amendment 112 would require the Home Office to carry out safeguarding checks on individuals who make a sponsor human rights claim and that any information uncovered in these checks is considered when the Home Office determines that claim. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for raising the importance of safeguarding vulnerable migrants, particularly children and victims of domestic abuse, in this amendment. It is a really important issue and one that will be fully considered in the design and implementation of the application process for sponsor human rights claims. As clause 17 simply paves the way for changing how an entry clearance application relying on article 8 family life can be made, we do not believe this level of detail is required in the primary legislation.

The immigration rules already contain safeguards to protect children coming to the UK to join family members who could put them at risk of harm. However, we will fully consider if additional safeguarding requirements are necessary as we develop the procedural requirements for sponsor human rights claims in the immigration rules, because an important point is made through amendment 112. This is a safeguarding proposal that we would support in principle when the application process is designed. I hope that hon. Members are reassured that our support for the principle is on the record through this Committee.

[Ben Goldsborough]

I would be keen to hear the Minister expand on the issue of safeguarding particularly for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. Can she expand on the action the Government will be taking to protect people from that heinous crime?

[Anna Turley]

Absolutely. We will of course come on to talk about modern slavery and so on later in the Bill. Protection for vulnerable people is at the heart of what this Bill is about.

Where a UK-based sponsor is young or vulnerable and unable to complete an application, they can give permission to someone else to enter their details, but for those who are vulnerable overseas, existing safeguarding measures are already in place to identify any indicators of coercion, exploitation or trafficking. We will of course consider how these measures can be further strengthened to enhance the identification and management of risk, but our approach ensures that vulnerable individuals are protected while maintaining the integrity of the system, through ensuring the rights of UK-based sponsors are the focus of entry clearance decisions that engage article 8.

We feel that a blanket rule to prevent individuals who have been convicted of these criminal behaviours would not be compatible with the EHCR, which necessitates an individualised assessment, but we are keen to make sure that safeguarding requirements are done through the immigration rules to protect anyone at risk of domestic abuse from their sponsor.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, we in the Conservative party believe that he is spot on. That is the right way to proceed to halt this merry-go-round of tweaking—

[Ben Goldsborough]

I know that the Opposition place a lot of emphasis on the Lord Wolfson report on leaving the ECHR entirely, but that report states that doing so would terminate part 3 of the UK-EU trade co-operation agreement that was secured by the hon. Gentleman’s party, meaning that we would leave Eurojust, Europol and fast-track expedition frameworks. All that puts us at risk of not being able to manage the immigration system in the fair and transparent way that our constituents want. Does he not agree?

[Blake Stephenson]

Funnily enough, I do not agree with the hon. Member—shock horror. Lord Wolfson produced an extremely extensive piece of legal advice, running to some 180 pages, which the hon. Member has, I am sure, read from front to back. There are absolutely no legal impediments to us leaving the ECHR, and to do so would resolve the issues before us in the Bill. Some of the matters that he has raised are political rather than legal, in the sense that they can be negotiated politically. The important thing is that we are fair to the British people and that we have an immigration system that they can have confidence in, and we can deliver that only by departing from the ECHR. I do not want to go down rabbit warrens on all the reasons why it is a fantastic policy, but no doubt the hon. Member will ask further questions as we proceed.

The one time Parliament tried to disapply the convention in this area—hon. Members will love to hear the word “Rwanda”, I am sure—was in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The provision never took effect and was repealed by the Labour Government in 2025. Government and Parliament must be willing to take steps that require the courts to decide convention cases differently. That is the direction in which the evidence we heard points this Bill Committee.

If the Government will not change the framework and merely ask the courts to “have regard”, part 2 will at best deliver what the Government’s own impact assessment predicts: refusals that do not become removals. Why have the Government not considered giving the courts a direction that they cannot set aside—an exclusive code, for example, or disapplication of the Human Rights Act in this context? If they have considered that but have not moved forward with it, can the Minister explain why it was rejected?

The unfortunate reality for the Bill is that the Government are falling into the same trap as previous Governments: legislation that is well meaning—even well drafted—and designed to circumvent the constraints of the ECHR. The courts will inevitably default to the same positions that they always have, allowing people who have no right to be in this country to stay for longer in the meantime. If, or more likely when, this Bill fails to genuinely empower the Government to deal with the extensive grounds for resisting removal that the various articles of the convention create, will the Minister and other Labour Members finally join us in accepting that the issue here is not how carefully the legislation is drafted but the ECHR itself, and that we cannot have a meaningful conversation about restoring control over our immigration system without taking steps to leave the ECHR?

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Blake Stephenson]

I am going to close, because I think I have spoken enough and time is pressing on.

Clause 17 creates a new statutory claim for sponsors, and new rights of appeal, which will become the main route for refugee families. It exempts those claims from the safe country filter. Its detail is left to rules that we have not seen, and it commences by reference to provisions that are not yet in force or that the Bill would repeal. Amendment 84, which would have left out the clause, has not been selected, so the Committee will instead decide the matter by voting on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. For the reasons I have mentioned in this speech, which has gone on far too long, the Opposition will vote against it.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

The Minister also spoke about the importance of effective deterrence in dealing with the problems in our immigration system. Does the Minister not agree that leaving a convention that too often and too easily allows foreign criminals and those with no rights to be here to stay, regardless of any deterrent the Government introduce, is a much more effective form of deterrence? Tweaking legislation to try to circumvent the ways that the ECHR renders the UK powerless to solve these problems and hoping that they stick is not an effective deterrence plan. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Blake Stephenson]

I was just about to close, but I will gladly give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Too generous.

[Ben Goldsborough]

As the hon. Member very kindly name-checked my speech yesterday, I need to thank him first of all. He says there is no issue of “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” when leaving the ECHR, but there is an issue concerning our colleagues and friends on the island of Ireland. What would be the result of leaving the ECHR when it comes to the Good Friday agreement? There is no question about it: Lord Wolfson may say that there may or may not be an issue with that, but the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has noted that there would be an issue, and we have the history as well. Anything that comes back with this idea that, “Well, Australia and New Zealand don’t operate within these systems,” does not take into account the history of the island of Ireland.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was correct to say that I was far too generous in taking it; I should have just closed my speech.

The hon. Member for South Norfolk clearly recognises that the Opposition commissioned Lord Wolfson to conduct a very serious legal analysis of the benefits or otherwise of leaving the ECHR, which he has done. I go back to the comment I made earlier about how there are no legal barriers to us departing the ECHR. There is no risk to the Union and there is no risk to the Good Friday agreement in a legal sense. It will, of course, result in a political discussion, and that will be had at the appropriate time, but the political questions that will arise are not insurmountable.

I will now close. The Opposition support the aim of clause 18 and will not oppose it standing part of the Bill. We support Government amendments 44 and 45, but a definition that is qualified by “normally” applied through a duty only to “have regard to”, with the excluded factors let back in by clause 18(6), is a definition that the courts can step around. I will seek to press amendments 98 and 99 to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for his perspective. He must appreciate through his constituency casework, as I do, the general principle that article 8 claims need to be assessed on an individual basis. The Bill tries to codify and generalise things in ways that reduce the ability for anyone making decisions to look at the genuine family lives of those making the claims. Bad decisions can result from people misunderstanding different cultures, from unconscious biases and from all kinds of things like that. It is really important that we do not try to prescribe family life under state definitions. I will come on to talk more about that and about the toxic rhetoric and the awful anecdotes, such as the examples we have heard from Ministers, which increase the toxicity of the debate. We can do much better than this Bill to reduce that.

Clause 18 would replace the reality of family relationships with statutory presumptions. Families today come in many forms. We have single-parent households, blended families, grandparents raising children, and parents who do not live under the same roof through circumstance rather than choice. A family does not stop being a family because it fails a cohabitation test. I will always stand up against people trying to define what a normal family is. The Government’s stated objective is to confine family life “normally” to the core cohabiting family unit. A parent who does not live with their child must prove that the relationship is genuine and be judged on how often and how recently they have had contact, even where work, shared care or the immigration system itself has kept them apart.

[Ben Goldsborough]

If we followed the hon. Lady’s line of thinking, my concern is that we would leave section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 completely unamended, which would mean that there is no clarity—not just for the state and our constituents, but for those going into the system who may be seeking refuge. Is there not also a moral case? If we leave this be, we will end up in a muddle, which will mean that backlogs continue to grow, people do not get the surety of an answer and the immigration and asylum system will not have the confidence of the public.

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for making those points, but as we spoke about on Second Reading and in earlier debates on this topic, the muddle lies in the bad initial decision making in the Home Office. If it is not clear what kind of evidence people need to establish family life, it should be dealt with through better processes, better information and more support for legal representation. Codifying it, as is done in the Bill, is not the right way to deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry]

I thank the hon. Member for trying, but he is talking to a person who cannot read the universal declaration of human rights without welling up, and I will never give up making arguments of this sort.

Previous legislation on these matters, to which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred, followed on directly from the infamous 2011 party conference speech of the then Home Secretary—now Baroness May of Maidenhead. She repeated false claims from newspapers that judges had permitted a man to escape deportation because he had a pet cat—something she says she did not make up. In reality, neither of the judges’ decisions in the case was based on the man having a pet, and the second and final decision was not based on any human rights consideration at all. It was straightforwardly based on a failure by the Home Office to apply its own policy.

Amnesty International gave us more information in its written evidence:

“This—together with the readiness of many political commentators to cherry pick often minor or irrelevant facts that are mentioned in tribunal or court judgments and present these as if the main or sole reason for a decision that may have little or nothing to do with them—continues to underpin criticism of Article 8 in immigration-related decision-making. That criticism is plainly misinformed, often careless and, in some cases, on its face, clearly ill-intended—including out of dogmatic hostility to the ECHR and other political motivations.”

On Second Reading of the Bill, the current Home Secretary summarised an unnamed case. She said:

“In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 675.]

[Ben Goldsborough]

I thank the hon. Lady, who is being very generous with her time. It is important for us to hammer home that, through the Bill, we are passing legislation for all eventualities. I wish that everyone coming here was squeaky clean and had the best intentions in the world, but we have to pass legislation that takes those with bad motivations into account. Will she respond to that?

[Siân Berry]

Yes, I will respond to that shortly with some data.

To return to the anecdote from the current Home Secretary, Amnesty again corrects the record:

“A key error in this summary is the statement that the relevant relationship had only begun after a deportation order had been served. That is not correct. The judge’s decision makes clear that it began significantly before the order. Of especial relevance was that the notice that such an order might be made was served in December 2019, but no order was then made for more than four years. By the time it was made in January 2024, the relationship had developed over a relatively lengthy period.”

The Home Secretary mentioned the criminal conviction. Amnesty also corrects that information. It says that he was jailed for four months for a relatively minor offence, and was now

“working lawfully and supporting himself.”

It also says:

“There was no suggestion of any risk of reoffending. His partner, who had no connection and had never been to Albania, was working and providing daily support to her sister and mother. Whatever may have been the position in 2019 was clearly not the position in 2024; and the relevant facts were clearly not adequately presented in what had been reported or at Second Reading.”

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Seventh sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

New clause 67 would treat any conviction under the National Security Act 2023, which includes espionage, sabotage and foreign interference, as a particularly serious crime. Those offenders fall within article 33(2) of the refugee convention. Will the Government support new clauses 66 and 67? If not, will the Minister confirm whether the Government believe that there is a case for a person convicted of forcing someone into marriage relying on family life to stay in the country? How many foreign national offenders liable to national deportation are living in the community today?

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I completely understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument and the good intentions behind it. We do not want those who seek to harm our nation or our citizens to have leave to remain. However, my concern regarding the Opposition amendments, which have been tabled with those good intentions, is that they come with such a prescriptive list. Over time, different crimes and offences will evolve that we want to include, so is there not a fear that such a prescriptive list will not protect us in the long term, as opposed to leaving the Bill with a slightly wider scope, as was intended?

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, does the Minister not think that putting in reference to the word “deemed”, through reference to the 1971 Act in subsection (4)(a), is wrong in principle? Is it not wrong in principle for such decisions and elevated thresholds to be applied purely on the basis of the Home Secretary’s subjective decision on whether deportation is conducive to the public good? In theory, that could be applied for any reason the Home Secretary has in mind in future. Is that not dangerous for civil liberties?

[Ben Goldsborough]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Siân Berry]

I am asking the Minister these questions, so it would be marvellous if we could wait to see how she answers them.

Thirdly, does that approach not allow the Home Secretary to unilaterally stack the deck against an appellant in an appeal, on an arbitrary basis? Does that take away from the objective seriousness of the offence that they have committed? Does the approach therefore impermissibly limit the ability of the appellate body to decide an article 8 ECHR claim on its merits, as is required under the Human Rights Act 1998?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

We are saying that the Bill puts in place choices based on how long someone has been sentenced. We are saying that if someone is sentenced to more than four years, they should not be eligible. If someone commits specific offences, such as sexual offences against a child, they should not be able to rely on the exceptions. That is exactly where we are at.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Would the hon. Gentleman’s amendment not have the unintended consequence of creating a ranking system? Many of my constituents are concerned about the extremely high-level crimes that the Opposition rightly note, but an individual may commit a series of low-level crimes. This ranking proposal may have the unintended consequence of that not being considered and the individual getting let off the hook.

[Matt Vickers]

The other provisions in the Bill make the case that people can be sent down, depending on the harshness of the sentence. We are saying that if it is over four years, or if someone commits a sexual act against a child or a terrorist act, there will be no ifs or buts, and those exceptions will not apply. There will still be space under the other provisions of the Bill to take action.

An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile convicted of assaulting three teenage boys was delayed over claims that it would breach his human rights. People look at such cases and wonder whose side the system is on. On Second Reading, the Government cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here.

Last year, I tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to stop the Human Rights Act 1998 being used to frustrate deportations. The Government voted it down, 14 votes to two. Today, we are asking for far less: simply that they do not make the current law weaker.

The Government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments would make it the rule. An immigration system must rest on public consent. Every time a serious offender stays because the law gave them one more argument, that consent wears thinner. Lose it, and the system loses legitimacy. Every member of the Committee has constituents who have lost faith that the system is on their side. They are not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise; they are asking for their safety and that of their children to come first. This group of amendments does exactly that, and I commend them to the Committee.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Ninth sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Tenth sitting)

Ben Goldsborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd October 2026 Public Bill Committees

The Opposition support clauses 23 and 24 stand part. The principle is right, and HMRC collection is the right model—as I said, it is the one we proposed. As drafted, however, the power may never be used, and nobody has told us what rate will apply. It exempts everyone in the system now, with the real sanction left to laws that have not been laid. Amendment 140 and new clause 62 would let Parliament see the scheme before it starts and judge it once it is running. I will decide whether to press amendment 140 to vote after listening to the Minister’s answers.

[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.