Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Thursday 15th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[Joe Robertson]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am speaking a little earlier than I had expected—I misunderstood the shadow Minister. I thought he was just getting started, but it turns out that he considers his speech on the long side. Just for the record, I do not.

I am going to address the wider issue of whether the Bill, the clause and this set of amendments really do address the issue that the Minister, and indeed the entire Government, want them to. Their intention, as I understand it—I do not think this is controversial, at least given what the Government say they want to do—is to reduce the number of claims, to ensure that claims are genuine and to create efficiencies in the system. Of course, we all have those aims. I think that the Government have made a genuine attempt with the Bill, but as far as I can see, it will fail substantially.

Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Joe Robertson and Blake Stephenson

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson]

I am going to start using the words “appeals authority”, because “IIAA” is doing my head in.

Clause 8 lets the Home Secretary set time periods for the appeals authority decisions, with extensions where compliance is not practicable or not in the interests of justice. The Opposition supports statutory deadlines; 67-week waits for an appeal are, frankly, indefensible.

Amendment 89, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, is a probing amendment. It would require the first regulation setting time periods to be made within six months of the appeals authority being established, and require the appeals authority’s annual report to say how often a deadline was extended. A power to set deadlines is, of course, not a deadline. What periods do the Government intend, and when will the first regulations be made? Extensions “in the interests of justice” could become routine. How often do the Government expect them, and will extension rates be published? There is also a puzzle in here: schedule 1 repeals the 24-week statutory timeframes in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 before they have even come into force, and I would like to know from the Minister why that is the case. Why are out-of-country appeals, including deportation appeals after certification, excluded? What happens if the appeals authority simply misses a deadline? Is there any consequence beyond a line in an annual report?

Amendment 83 would broaden the list of those the Home Secretary must consult before setting time periods to include people with protection status, those with lived experience of the asylum system and legal practitioners, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. Consultations of course have their place, but this list would turn every set of regulations into a lengthy exercise and delay the very deadlines we need, so we intend to oppose that amendment.

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

I should probably have directed my intervention to the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. The point she was making is that decisions done too speedily are against the interests of justice and fairness. The argument the shadow Minister is making—a far more powerful one from my point of view—is that delays make the system unfair. Of course, that is the system we currently have, which is why I support the position that he has taken in support of the Government.

[Blake Stephenson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those very kind words about how powerful my arguments are. I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion will respond to that when she has the opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Joe Robertson and Blake Stephenson

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

2. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

The Government are supporting Northern Ireland through the four city deals, the local innovation partnerships fund, an enhanced investment zone and greater economic stability. Economic activity in Northern Ireland increased by 2.9% over the year to quarter 3, and it has the lowest unemployment in the UK.

Support for Pensioners

Debate between Joe Robertson and Blake Stephenson

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to the importance of certainty and stability when it comes to pensions, so that people can plan for their futures, regardless of their age. For the Government to pull the rug out from under the feet of vulnerable pensioners with little or no notice at all is absolutely shameful.

Gary has seen the Government that he voted for with hope and optimism for a better life snatch away the lifeline he relied on. If he is on the old basic state pension, he will have seen 86.5% of his triple lock-backed increase snatched back. Indeed, he could well find that it will take until 2027-28 for his income to reach the level that he might have expected to see this winter.

Gary is not alone, because although this Government talk about millionaire pensioners being able to cope, for many of the 9.2 million pensioners losing their winter fuel payment, that really was vital support. The average pensioner, far from being the millionaire fat cat that the Government would like us all to imagine, earns just over £22,000 per year—similar to the income of a worker on the living wage. The level at which the threshold to keep winter fuel payments was set for a single pensioner means that someone could be bringing in less than £1,000 per month and now be one of the “millionaire pensioners” on whose shoulders the Government have chosen to balance the books.

Age UK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty or just above the poverty line, including 1.1 million pensioners with a disability, will lose their winter fuel payment. I have heard so many stories from constituents in Mid Bedfordshire about the impact that that will have on them—stories of people who have had to make the stark choice between heating and eating this winter. I heard from a constituent who now cannot shower, who cooks a hot meal just once a week, and who can turn on their heating only when it is “unbearably freezing”. One constituent told me of the struggles to keep their 92-year-old father warm. Their father has dementia, and he keeps worrying about the bills.

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

My hon. Friend mentions dementia. Nearly 1 million pensioners in this country are living with dementia. Two weeks ago, NHS England published its priorities, and dementia had been removed, as had the target for diagnosing it. Does he agree that that is a huge concern, not only for those living with dementia, but for the millions of family members and friends who support them?

[Blake Stephenson]

I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately for people living with dementia and their families, and he makes a very important point. It is another shameful decision by this Government not to support the most vulnerable in our society, and people should be shocked by it.

Another constituent told me that they have stopped using their cooker and that they now find it difficult even to dry their washing. This Government promised that they would be on the side of pensioners. However, as a constituent recently summed it up for me, they feel

“terribly let down by the Government”.

They are right to feel like that. This Government have let my constituents—indeed, all our pensioners—down. They have balanced the books on the backs of people earning less than £1,000 per month. Even if someone is still eligible for winter fuel payments, they will get them only if they have signed up for pension credit.

The arbitrary barrier of the pension credit threshold will mean that many of our poorest pensioners—Age UK estimates that around 1 million people have weekly incomes of less than £50 above the poverty line—will not receive their winter fuel payment this winter. Potentially hundreds of thousands of even poorer pensioners will miss out on vital support, because the Government expect them to answer over 200 questions—two hundred questions—to access the help they need.

Perhaps I am being unfair.