YouSaid · the spoken record
Siân Berry
Lines from Political Thinking with Nick Robinson have been withdrawn from this page while we check who is speaking. See the correction.
On the record 2025–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Siân Berry. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“While we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, I think it is very important that the Secretary of State retains an overarching duty to ensure that children receive support in line with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. This would help ensure national accountability for the protection and recovery of child victims of trafficking and not leave it to the piecemeal provisions of local authorities. Maintaining this duty would also ensure that the Secretary of State remains responsible for ensuring that local authorities are adequately resourced, as my next amendment would require.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group tells us that there is evidence for already ongoing issues with meeting the thresholds required to secure additional support, including for mental health needs. The recovery needs assessment process is highly bureaucratic—individuals are often discharged from support despite having significant unmet needs. If a similar approach is applied to decisions relating to the recovery and reflection period, there is a substantial risk that individuals will be discharged from support while still experiencing high levels of unmet need, exposing them to an increased risk of re-exploitation. In amendment 72, I have asked for assistance to apply to children.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the moment, an MSVCC provider completes a needs assessment and submits it to the Home Office for approval. The Home Office then reviews the assessment and either agrees or disagrees with both the assessment itself and the level of support recommended. It is concerning that this decision maker power, that ultimately rests with the Home Office, will be given directly to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be even further removed from the care, safeguarding and day-to-day insight available to frontline service providers, and could issue blanket rules or directives in situations of strained resources, for example, that would even more arbitrarily remove support from survivors.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would therefore be harmful for the Secretary of State, who is removed from this direct engagement, to override such assessments without having had contact with the individual or a comparable understanding of their circumstances. Allowing decision makers who are distant from a survivor’s situation to disregard professional assessments risks undermining survivor-centred support and could result in people being discharged from support with outstanding high needs. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has presented further evidence to us on these points, around subsection (3). It says that it “reflects the operational reality of how the MSVCC contract already functions in assessing survivors' needs.” It therefore makes worse what is already bad.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Support for the survivors of modern slavery is currently delivered through Government-funded contracts such as the modern slavery victim care contract in England and Wales, and equivalent arrangements across the devolved Administrations. Specialist organisations and trained support workers provide this support directly to survivors and are responsible for carrying out detailed assessments of need. The assessments should be informed by the professional expertise of frontline practitioners and crucially by survivors’ own views and experiences. I believe that support workers and survivors are best placed to identify an individual’s needs, because they are in direct and ongoing contact with the person concerned.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Penalising people for such difficulties fails to take account of the realities of trauma and recovery and, again, creates detriment from a known feature of abuse. Additionally, while we agree that safeguarding and supporting children should be the responsibility of local authorities, they do need to receive adequate resources in order to discharge those duties appropriately and in the best interests of the child. Local authorities do not currently receive any funding to offer specialist support to children affected by trafficking and exploitation, and my amendments to this clause therefore seek both to reduce the harms being caused by it and to boost the support that can be offered to survivors. Amendment 70 would remove subsection (3) and take away the Secretary of State’s power to override professional assessments.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is my view and that of a wide range of refugee and modern slavery organisations that clause 43, particularly subsection (3), is incompatible with article 12 of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which puts a duty on state parties to afford support to survivors of modern slavery in receipt of a reasonable grounds decision. The removal of the duty to provide support will put adults, children and young people at risk of destitution, homelessness and further harm, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses. We know that trauma can manifest in a wide range of ways and may significantly affect an individual’s ability to engage consistently with support services or comply with procedural requirements.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My concern is that subsection (3) provides the Home Secretary with a broad, unqualified power to disagree with the assessments that the Minister has just mentioned. Amendment 71 seems to provide a perfectly reasonable set of safeguards against breaching those international obligations. Will the Minister look at providing more detail about the criteria that the Home Secretary would use in future regulation to reassure us?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 123, in clause 43, page 45, line 15, leave out “properly”.— (Anna Turley.) This amendment leaves out an unnecessary word from the inserted subsection (5ZA). Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 Content of slavery and human trafficking statements Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 120, in clause 43, page 45, line 9, after “support” insert “of a particular kind”. This amendment and amendments 121 and 122 clarify that where assistance or support of a particular kind would have been available from elsewhere had it not been for the victim’s conduct it is only assistance or support of that particular kind that the Secretary of State will no longer be under a duty to provide. Amendment 121, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, leave out first “the”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 120. Amendment 122, in clause 43, page 45, line 10, after “support” insert “of that kind”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 120.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I add my support—for a change in this Committee—to the broad approach taken in this part of the Bill. I realise that the Bill’s scope is narrow, but have the Minister or the Home Secretary had any discussions with colleagues in the Cabinet and other Departments about using these quite creative new reporting requirements—which cover the supply chain and require reasons to be given for not doing things—as a template for use in other areas, such as environmental pollution or other human rights issues? Will the Minister commit the Home Office to taking the learnings from implementing this to other Departments?”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If this is done properly it will be self-financing, but have the Government any plans to put more detail behind it before the Bill finally becomes law? This seems to me to be a very crucial part of any new powers.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Very briefly, although I think this is a good clause because it allows for fines and payments to be made, I want to echo a question asked of us in written evidence by Dame Sara Thornton, the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Although she describes the clause as a “game changer”, she highlights evidence that there is widespread non-compliance with the current reporting requirements: she provides data showing 194 instances across 160 companies over the past six years. She says that the legislation is “silent on who will enforce these requirements”. At the moment, the clause simply calls this the “enforcement authority” in lowercase letters—it is not yet an official body. It is incredibly important that the issue is resolved properly and that the enforcement body has the teeth, resources and ability to enforce the rules.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to raise a few alarm bells in terms of what I feel about this measure, and I hope the Minister can answer me clearly. My misgivings arise partly because the Minister talked about basing the need for the new clause on a single case example; partly because it has been introduced into the Bill at a late stage in our considerations; and partly because it will come into force immediately on Royal Assent. It appears to be a rush, and I am not convinced that it will not have equalities impacts or overlap with the lessons we should have learned from the Windrush scandal. If the Minister can give some more assurance that this has been looked at carefully and not rushed into on the basis of a single case, I would be glad to hear it.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Government Members will not have received these briefings, as the organisation working on this campaign, Freedom United, decided that it was only worth asking me and the two Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee. That is really sad. We have received nearly 700 emails from people and member groups who are really worried about this. They ask us to guarantee that survivors of modern slavery are believed and supported, not penalised for their trauma. I urge the Government to listen to the victims’ voices that we have heard, listen to the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and think again about clause 36.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The VAWG strategy, “Freedom from violence and abuse”, which was published in December 2025, acknowledges that victims are “more likely to struggle to engage with support due to trauma and negative previous experiences with services.” It says: “We also recognise how immigration status can affect victims of VAWG and that many migrant and asylum-seeking victims will not come forward to report abuse out of fear about their future.” How does the Bill fulfil the pledges in that Government strategy? Importantly, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association said in its written evidence that clause 36 is “inverting the trauma-informed approach that Article 13 of the European Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings” requires.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should also listen to the people who are actually facing immigration enforcement, as those victims matter too, and the clause harms victims of trafficking and exploitation more widely. The Gatwick detainees self-advocacy group says: “When people arrive, like with any serious trouble people have, people are exhausted. They can’t go into these things straight away—they don’t trust the home office or the police. It is really hard to talk about these things because you don’t know what it might bring you—it might bring you trouble as well.” In recent years, the Government have made good progress on violence against women and girls and on modern slavery, but clause 36 is completely contrary to very recent Government promises to believe and support survivors.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are deeply concerned that these changes will make it even harder for survivors to be believed and get the support they need simply because they were not able to come forward sooner.” Via the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, we also have evidence from Sosa Henkoma, a survivor of child criminal exploitation. He said: “I was eleven years old when I was first exploited by a gang. I didn’t know I was a victim—I was a child. When I was twelve, I tried to tell social services what was happening, I was called a fantasist.” The Bill will create the conditions for more children like Sosa to be treated like fantasists. Clause 36 is not trauma informed, and will cause incredible harm.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mistrust of authorities compounds this, and traffickers exploit legal knowledge as a scare tactic and threaten victims with this information. Threats to survivors or their families and emotional ties to traffickers create powerful barriers to speaking out. It takes time for someone to feel safe enough to disclose their experience.” A spokesperson for No One Above, which represents survivors linked to Mohammed al-Fayed, said: “For many survivors of Mohamed Al Fayed, it has taken years or even decades to speak about what happened to them. The fact that somebody did not disclose their exploitation at the time does not make their experience less real. Survivors can face fear, shame, trauma and enormous power imbalances, while the institutions around them may completely fail to recognise what is happening.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s briefing to us, she quoted participants in her recent summit, which had representatives from 15 lived experience advisory panels. They said: “Trauma affects memory, behaviour and disclosure. Trauma shapes communication, memory and presentation of information. It leads to inconsistencies, gaps in memory, delayed disclosure, or confused details. These are typical trauma responses, not signs of dishonesty. Disclosure happens once trust and safety are established, which takes time: ‘becoming safe’ is different from ‘feeling safe.’ Fear of authorities and consequences, fear of deportation, imprisonment, or loss of support can lead to delay and inconsistency when recounting experiences.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She says: “That is an immigration-control rationale, not a victim-identification rationale.” Can the Government really justify mixing up these motivations at such detriment to the wider population of victims beyond the tiny number of examples of abuse that they have talked about? I think this is a very important objection that we have received from many groups. The clause will apply to all victims of trafficking and exploitation, including children and UK nationals. It will include doubting young women who have been sexually exploited, children involved in county lines, and older people and disabled people who are cuckooed in their homes. Survivors across the board are calling for the clause to be removed.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In written evidence that we received from Professor Parosha Chandran via Unseen UK, she says that the overall approach of adding all these reasons to doubt to the legislation is legally wrong. She says: “It creates a statutory adverse inference from precisely the features that frequently arise in trafficking and modern slavery cases: delayed disclosure, partial disclosure, inconsistent accounts, inaccurate accounts, gaps in memory, fear, shame, mistrust of authorities…and inability to recognise oneself as a victim.” The Bill’s explanatory notes give this away. Professor Chandran says: “They reveal that Clause 36 is intended to close what the Government characterises as opportunities for immigration misuse”, based on poor data, as we have just seen.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The director general of the Office for Statistics Regulation has, in contrast, sent a reprimand letter to the Home Office expressing concerns around its claims that people are gaming the modern slavery system. He said the office does not have any evidence to confirm those claims and reprimanded the previous Home Secretary for failing to back up public statements with evidence. There is a lack of further background in relation to how long since their arrival people were removed. It does not offer a breakdown of the other reasons why someone may not have been removed, so even the data that the Minister is quoting at us is not reliable. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner also points out the vital issue that people cannot self-refer.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said: “Of the flights that did not go ahead in 2025 after 3 pm, that is less than 1% of the number of potential victims of modern slavery whom we identified in the UK last year.” –– [ Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 6.] We were also told that in 2025, 180 referrals were made after 3 pm on the day before an arranged return. That is all there were; these are really small numbers. We also heard that in the national referral mechanism as a whole, only six potential victims were disqualified on bad faith grounds, and only 224 in total were disqualified on any ground, public order or bad faith combined, which is again under 1% of all referrals.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Home Office has said these factors will not apply where there is a “good reason”, and Ministers lean heavily on that in the human rights memorandum and say that decision makers must “assess all evidence fairly” and exercise “powers reasonably”. However, Ministers have yet to define for us what a “good reason” is. The clause introduces vagueness and an automatic duty to doubt victims into law, while the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already has clauses that would enable further questions and deadlines to be put to victims where credibility is genuinely in doubt. Treating all survivors this way—mandating detrimental treatment for any late claim—is a massively traumatic response to a tiny issue by any measure. There is no evidence of widespread misuse. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner told us that in oral evidence.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is utterly opposed to the clause being included in the Bill and has brought many victims’ voices into the evidence we have received. Clause 36 requires those deciding whether an individual should receive modern slavery support to regard the following factors as damaging to a person’s credibility: delays in making a modern slavery claim; delays in providing relevant information; significant inaccuracies, inconsistencies or omissions in the information provided; inconsistencies between a modern slavery claim and other protection, human rights or civil or criminal proceedings; and striking similarities between one person’s claim and another person’s claim or related legal proceedings.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, language used by the then Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, when launching the Immigration White Paper”. It was referring there to the “island of strangers” speech. The BMA also said: “the Government and others since, has contributed to racist and xenophobic narratives…This hostile climate has real consequences. International healthcare workers, including doctors and nurses, have reported rising racist abuse and discrimination, both in workplaces and in the wider community. A recent RCN survey showed a 55% increase in racist incidents experienced by nursing staff in the last three years. The real figures are likely to be much higher”. That is the background to the Bill and I absolutely believe that clause 36 needs to be removed.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I rise to oppose clause 36. I believe that the roots of the plan lie in the previous Prime Minister’s Administration, and the fact that the clause will affect and harm so many victims and survivors of modern slavery in the face of so few actual cases reflects and results from the awfulness of the rhetoric around migration in recent years, on which the Government have joined in. The British Medical Association made that point in its written evidence to the Committee. It said: “We are also concerned by the rise in anti-migrant rhetoric in the UK. Public debate on immigration and asylum has too often relied on misinformation, alarmist language and unfair scapegoating of migrant communities. Sections of the media and some politicians have played a significant role in shaping and amplifying this hostile framing.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a useful debate, because the Minister’s points are speaking to the operational nature of this. I hope she will go away and reflect on the wider harm that will be caused by adding this to all victims, in response to what is an operational decision. She is very much relying on that, rather than on our obligations under human rights law and the nature of why late referrals may occur in those circumstances.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister repeatedly refers to “individuals” making the claim, but people cannot self-refer to the national referral mechanism. A professional is making the judgment that they may be a victim. Will the Minister acknowledge that? These claims of abuse hinge on the belief that individuals are making claims, but they are not.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 37 is very risky in its potential to do harm. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association suggested in evidence that if clause 37 is retained, a further short 30-day period of support should be provided, to avoid the cliff edge. No amendment to that effect has been tabled. Does the Minister really intend for people to receive literally nothing after a negative decision, risking homelessness, destitution and re-exploitation? She should bear in mind not the six people disqualified on bad faith grounds, or the small number of people whose cases start while they are under removal plans, but the huge number of potential survivors this will affect right across the country.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those indicators suggested the need for appropriate support to prevent the individual’s situation from deteriorating, whether or not they met the threshold for identification as trafficked at the point of referral. Additionally, instructing decision makers to decide at any point in the recovery and reflection period means that survivors may be expected to provide far too much relevant information about their case far too quickly after being rescued or escaping a situation of exploitation. Those decisions may be rushed; there may be political or administrative pressure on decision makers to rush processes so that decisions are made more quickly and support can be withdrawn. The overturning data is very instructive on that point. I agree that the quality of decisions matters more than speed.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given the complexity of many cases and the evidential requirements often associated with conclusive grounds decisions—including the need for medical or mental health assessment reports—many individuals may find it difficult to obtain and submit the necessary evidence within such a short timeframe. I believe that there will also be wider impacts on survivors and society—particularly an increase in homelessness, which the Prime Minister is committed to reducing. Clause 37 could result in survivors being exited from support on the same day that they receive a negative decision, which would clearly put them at a heightened risk of destitution and homelessness. A negative decision notwithstanding, anyone in the national referral mechanism was referred by a first responder who identified trafficking indicators.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I also oppose clause 37. Under that clause, survivors who receive a negative decision could be immediately removed from support, which could expose them to destitution, homelessness and an increased risk of further harm and exploitation. Allowing competent authorities to make and serve conclusive grounds decisions during the recovery and reflection period could have a devastating impact on survivors’ wellbeing and recovery. This approach may reduce the amount and quality of evidence available to inform decision making, because survivors may not have sufficient time to understand the process, build trust with support providers or access legal advice.”
House of Commons27 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3A), ‘protection claim’ has the same meaning as in section 82(2)(a) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.” This amendment would reduce the level of payments required from a person by 20% for every 30 days longer than six months that passed before a decision was made on the person’s asylum claim.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 23, page 21, line 33, at end insert— “(3A) Subject to subsection (3B), where the Secretary of State did not make a decision on a person’s protection claim within 180 days of the making of the protection claim, any sums to be paid by the person under subsection (3) must be reduced by 20% for every period of 30 days that elapsed before a decision on the person’s protection claim was made. (3B) Subsection 3A does not apply where a decision on the protection claim was not made within 180 days of the claim being made due to the actions of the applicant.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Local authorities have told us that the requirements will push more families into poverty and will place a greater strain on family support services, advice services, crisis response services and housing services at the local authority level, for which duties towards children will remain. I am not certain that the Government have properly considered the impacts.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The proposals do not guard against destitution, so I believe that they also breach article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights—my favourite article—which states: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” That absolutely applies to refugees.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is pleasure to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I hope my voice holds out, as I will speak at some length on these amendments. The Committee has reached the part about charging refugees for the support that they receive, so I want to make some points about my overall discomfort with these proposals. Requiring retrospective payments from refugees after they have secured the right to stay is completely wrong. Many organisations, including the Refugee Council, are rightly calling the proposal a refugee tax, because it is a tax for successfully claiming asylum, and it breaks our commitments under the convention.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗