Nick Timothy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2025 · Southport Attack · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister’s denial in August that Rudakubana was being investigated for offences under the Terrorism Act 2006 did not protect the trial, because we found out the facts anyway when Rudakubana was charged in October. The same disclosure did not cause other trials, such as that of the Parsons Green tube bomber, to fail. I am not talking about the detail of Prevent referrals, which the Home Secretary has mentioned in answers to similar questions, but about the information that was disclosed in October. If a jury knew that before the trial, why could the Prime Minister not have told the country the truth in August?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Community Engagement Principles and Extremism Definition · Hansard source

  More

  I will have a go at getting an answer from the Minister, even if he did not answer the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). Yesterday, the Department confirmed in answer to a freedom of information request that there is internal Government correspondence about the Muslim Council of Britain that it refuses to publish. Can the Minister overturn that decision, publish the papers and confirm that there have been no discussions and no correspondence within Whitehall proposing re-engagement with the MCB?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Many residents of West Suffolk who live in new build homes put up with management companies that fail to do the basic things expected of them, from sorting out roads and planting trees to maintaining shared spaces. They often pass the buck to the developers, who pass it back again. What plans have the Government to get to grips with these cowboy companies?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Family Visas: Income Requirement · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 16 Jan 2025 · Responsible Gambling · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will not be surprised to hear me raise the issue of the disproportionality of affordability checks on those betting on racing, and the reform of the betting levy. I am grateful for the positive tone taken so far, and the constructive engagement from her and the Secretary of State. Talks between the gambling industry and the racing industry about the betting levy continue, but I think ultimately Ministers will be required to make a decision. We need the betting levy to be increased overall, and applied to races held overseas that people are betting on here. We think there will be not just a fiscal forecast but a mini-Budget in March. Can those industries start working with the Treasury now to make sure that there are plans to reform the betting levy in the Finance Bill?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Health and Social Care: Winter Update · Hansard source

  More

  Research shows that ambulance response times in Haverhill in my constituency are twice those in Cambridge. We would like a new, co-located and purpose-built blue-light facility; the police and the ambulance service could use it to serve the town effectively, and it would hopefully save money. May I invite a Minister from the Department to come to Haverhill to meet me, the East of England ambulance service, Suffolk police and local councillors to discuss those plans?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the differences of opinion expressed during these weeks in Committee, we all believe that the rights of workers are essential. In that spirit, I hope that Members across the political divide can see the merit in what I am proposing today. The labour abuse that the new clause seeks to address is the use of substitution clauses to flout labour laws and fuel the employment of illegal workers. Transparency is essential to guarantee fairness and justice in the labour market, and the unlawful labour of undocumented migrants and others who might be paid less than the minimum wage or be given no legal protections is obviously not good for the workers themselves, for our society, for taxpayers, or for anyone who wants a law-abiding society. It is my understanding that Ministers will be consulting on employment status, and that they are considering moving to a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed as part of their work in the gig economy. That is obviously worth doing, but the new clause addresses a narrower issue that is clearly causing significant abuse and exploitation right now. I want us to take the opportunity to act swiftly and decisively. There are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including 120,000 official riders—and many more non-official riders—at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country. For years now we have heard stories of the rampant abuse and fraud committed under the auspices of these companies. In late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber car journeys, according to Transport for London. In addition to Uber and Deliveroo, Amazon and Just Eat have been caught up in accusations of related labour market abuses. Some of these examples have related to the legal loopholes created by substitution clauses. With its substitution clauses, Amazon tells couriers that it is their “responsibility to pay your substitute…at any rate you agree with them”, and “you must ensure that any substitute…has the right to work in the UK”. It is a dereliction of duty on the part of these big employers to pass the responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to their workers. They clearly have an interest in maintaining the status quo where undocumented migrants are taking the lowest fees in the delivery apps. Data from the Rodeo app shows the impact of this abuse on riders’ order fees. Just Eat riders saw their fees drop by 14.4%, from £6.53 in 2021 to £5.59 in 2023. There was a 3.4% drop for Uber Eats order fees during the same period, and Deliveroo has blocked its order fee data from being published. Although those numbers are not adjusted for inflation, it is clear to see how pay and conditions have worsened for riders. By undercutting domestic workers and exploiting those with no legal right to be here, companies are privatising profits and socialising costs. Promises from the companies to introduce tougher security checks have not made this problem go away, and nobody should be above the law. Action is sometimes taken by the authorities, but progress has been too slow. In 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that Uber drivers are employees and entitled to statutory rights. As a result, VAT was added to Uber journeys that year, but Uber accounts are still being used for journeys by unauthorised drivers, despite a temporary licence removal in London. In 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Deliveroo drivers are independent freelancers, not employees entitled to certain labour rights. My argument is that we cannot wait for judges to act; it is our job as parliamentarians to legislate when there are clear abuses of power and clear social problems caused by behaviour that the law currently allows. The evidence of a serious crisis in our labour market is there and growing. The Home Office found that two in five delivery riders stopped during random checks in April 2023 were working illegally. That same month, 60 riders at Uber Eats, Deliveroo and Just Eat were arrested in London for immigration offences, including working illegally and holding false documentation. Insurance companies have also encountered problems with unauthorised riders involved in motor and personal injury cases. This is happening because undocumented migrants are renting rider accounts for between £70 and £100 per week. In some instances profiles have been bought for fees as high as £5,000. The i P aper found that over 100,000 people were in Facebook groups in which identities have been traded over the past three years. One group gained around 28,000 members in less than 18 months. This is clearly a significant problem. There is plenty of evidence that this is acting as a magnet for illegal migrants, and obviously it has an incredibly negative effect on the illegal migrants themselves. The Observer has reported that 30 migrants, mostly from Brazil, had been working for Uber Eats and Deliveroo while living in caravans in central Bristol. Working for less than the minimum wage, they were unable to rent a proper home. The Home Office raided the encampment in October. The undocumented migrants who find themselves in these situations are being exploited for profit by some of the country’s biggest and richest companies. People working legally have reported problems to the police and the Home Office, but this has helped to fuel tensions as riders compete for orders. It sometimes even leads to violent clashes between those working legally and those working illegally in places such as Brighton and London, including physical beatings and damage to some riders’ bikes. It is shameful that riders who are working legally and following the rules are being intimidated for reporting on illegal working. They should not be punished for helping to tackle a problem that Parliament itself has been negligent in failing to address. A spokesman for the App Drivers & Couriers Union—we like to listen to unions in this Committee—has said publicly “there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything.” For example, undocumented workers have been found to commit sexual harassment and violence against women, but they cannot be tracked by the authorities because they have been using other riders’ accounts. Riders are getting away with very serious crimes. We have been aware of this problem for a number of years now, and it has been growing. In May 2024, it was reported that a delivery driver forced his way into a young woman’s home where he sexually assaulted her. Last June, ITV reported on a woman being sexually assaulted by a Deliveroo rider who lured her out of her home by claiming to be lost. ITV has found further examples of inappropriate texting, verbal abuse, indecent exposure and even rape involving Uber Eats and Deliveroo drivers. A freedom of information request discovered that, between 2020 and 2023, 12 cases of sexual harassment in the west midlands and seven cases of indecent exposure in Devon and Cornwall involved delivery riders. Sadly, most of the forces did not record this data, so they were unable to give the researchers a national picture. I appreciate that the new clause will not solve the problem completely, but it can surely act as an important part of the solution in helping the police to catch criminals by creating a documentary chain for them to investigate and by stopping these criminals from hiding behind anonymity. I will now talk about the practicalities of enacting the new clause, which proposes the abolition of substitution clauses from workers’ contracts outright. Amazon, Uber, Deliveroo and the rest would have to do their due diligence just like any other company, and ensure that all their riders are who they say they are and have the right to work in this country. Introducing such a change would reduce labour abuse, protect our communities, and deliver a fairer system. It also fits within the internal logic of the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his constructive reply. If he is willing to have further conversations with me about what solutions we might be able to bring to bear on this problem, I will be happy to withdraw the new clause now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 13 Rates of statutory maternity pay, etc “(1) In regulation 6 of the Statutory Maternity Pay (General) Regulations 1986 (prescribed rate of statutory maternity pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’. (2) In the Statutory Paternity Pay and Statutory Adoption Pay (Weekly Rates) Regulations 2002— (a) in regulation 2(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory paternity pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’; and (b) in regulation 3(a) (weekly rate of payment of statutory adoption pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’. (3) In regulation 40(1)(a) of the Statutory Shared Parental Pay (General) Regulations 2014 (weekly rate of payment of statutory shared parental pay) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’. (4) In regulation 20(1)(a) of the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 (weekly rate of payment) for ‘£184.03’ substitute ‘£368.06’.”— (Steve Darling.) This new clause sets out rates of Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Paternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay, Statutory Shared Parental Pay and Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Government amendment 190 is about the powers in section 37 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which relate to the voluntary provision of a device for an enforcement officer to access. If there is not agreement, I am not sure what arises. The Minister just said that the proposal is about dealing with a situation whereby a negotiation between the fair work agency and the company has not led to a resolution. What happens if there is not agreement?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Government amendment 190 seeks to amend the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 by extending the powers conferred by section 37 of that Act to enforcement officers for the purposes of part 5 of this Bill. Section 37 of the 2022 Act allows the authorities to extract information shared on electronic devices for the purposes, among other things, of criminal investigations. I have some familiarity with these issues from my time working with the police, security and intelligence agencies and other public bodies with investigatory responsibilities when I worked in the Home Office between 2010 and 2015. Then, we were confronted with the danger that changing technology meant that the ability of these important public agencies to access the communications data necessary for their work was diminishing. That was because the nature of the way we communicate was changing from conventional phone calls and written material to internet-based communication. That obviously included methods such as messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal but also messaging within other apps like Facebook or even within online gaming systems.

• 14 Jan 2025 · UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly worried that investors will be watching this statement and wondering what planet the Chancellor is on. She just said that she is investing in transport infrastructure, but she is actually cutting transport capital budgets. She has previously said that she wants only one Budget a year, and the March statement is billed only as a fiscal forecast. Can she rule out any new tax rises or departmental spending cuts in the March statement, or will the fiscal forecast become an emergency Budget?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Drones: High-security Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  Apart from the serious security concerns that this activity raises, it shows that prisons bring resource pressures for local police forces. In West Suffolk, where Highpoint prison is due to grow significantly in the years ahead, the police have asked me to ask the Minister to ensure they receive additional funding to reflect that pressure. Will he do so?

• 13 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Home Secretary confirm that none of her Ministers or officials engages with or is in touch with the Muslim Council of Britain, and that there is no correspondence between No. 10, the Home Office and other Departments about restoring ties with the organisation?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  The issue here is spending. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the Labour manifesto said that a Labour Government would increase spending by £9.5 billion a year, and the Treasury Red Book is increasing that to £76 billion? Is that not the issue?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to add my support in principle for the idea of a single labour market regulator. I have written about that in the past in different ways and can claim a small amount of credit for the commissioning of the Taylor review into the gig economy when I was working in 10 Downing Street. These issues are very important to me. Hopefully that will reassure the Minister and Labour Members of my cross-party credentials when that might be necessary. We can all think of ways in which different kinds of labour market exploitation—non-payment of the national minimum wage or living wage; breaches of terms and conditions, health and safety or holiday rights; and illegal working, among many other examples—can be difficult to address if the laws are tough but the enforcement is poor. Those on both sides of the Committee can agree on that. I want to add to the questions that have already been raised. I think the Minister said that the idea is that no additional powers will be granted and that this is just a consolidation. My understanding is that the fair work agency will not be a single monolithic agency; it is more about different strands of work being brought under a single leadership. If that is the case, presumably the different agencies that exist will do so until this legal change comes into effect. Presumably, the powers of the officers in each of those agencies differ in certain ways. Will that remain the case under the one body, or will there be interoperability and transfer of officers within the different sections under the single regulator? Or is the idea that the officers across those different entities will all assume the maximum powers that exist at the moment so that they can operate across all the different responsibilities of the new agency? I think that would still mean a net increase in powers across those people. What work has been done in the Department to give us an idea of the numbers we are talking about? If the Minister could answer that and then write to us with some more detail and statistics, I would be grateful.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I shared several hours twice weekly with the hon. Gentleman when we served on the Employment Rights Bill Committee. His creativity in defending the indefensible was admirable in that Committee, as it is today. On top of the things I have already listed, measures in the Bill before us will make things yet worse, including the compulsion to follow the national curriculum, which is about to be weakened by the review by Becky Francis, and the removal of freedom on pay and conditions. The Education Secretary has today failed to explain how she will meet the commitments she made to avoid cutting pay for some teachers. In addition, Ministers are granting themselves unspecified powers to direct academies in future; I think we know what that might mean. The Bill, and the other changes introduced by this Government, are a deliberate act of ideological vandalism. Standards will fall as a result, children will suffer, and the legacy of the Education Secretary will be the provision of a case study in what does not work in education.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I declare my interest as a former director of the New Schools Network. As such, I have worked with many great free school and academy leaders. I am enormously proud of the huge improvements in English schools over the last 14 years. In primary schools, English children are the best readers in the west. The PISA rankings show that we are: 11th in the world for maths, up from 27th under Labour; 13th in science, up from 16th under Labour; and 13th in reading, up from 25th under Labour. In response to various debates and questions, the Education Secretary has made it clear that she does not really like these statistics, but the same story is told by the “progress in international reading literacy” study and the “trends in international mathematics and science” study. It is a shame that Ministers cannot bring themselves to celebrate this success story, or even to congratulate the leader of the best school in the country, Katharine Birbalsingh of the Michaela community school. Facts are very inconvenient when Ministers are so ideological about education. The magic formula behind this success is one championed by Tony Blair, David Laws and all of us on the Conservative Benches today. The formula is freedom, accountability and evidence of what works. Through this Bill and other measures, the Government are unfortunately taking a sledgehammer to each of these principles. New free schools have been cancelled, the trust capacity fund has gone, and funds for schools that are planning to academise have been taken away. And this Bill is about to reverse academy freedoms, restore the powers of council bureaucrats and replace innovation with ideological uniformity. The clarity of Ofsted accountability has been ruined. Standard attainment tests in primary schools are in danger, and with them school accountability and progress data will go. On the evidence base, this Government are anti-data, anti-facts and, indeed, anti-evidence, as we have heard during the debate. There have been attacks on synthetic phonics, maths mastery, a knowledge-rich curriculum, teacher-led instruction and traditional academic subjects. We have heard some Members explicitly reject the concept of academies and demand state-run schools. There is a denial of the scientific evidence behind what has worked. From the neurological knowledge we now have about how children learn, to the work of E. D. Hirsch on cultural literacy, and the confirmation that higher-level skills are dependent on the automatic mastery of lower-level activity, the Bill is based not on what works, but on what we know does not work.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I invite the hon. Lady to look at the studies that compare English schools with those in other countries, internationally and within the United Kingdom. The PISA statistics show that the most disadvantaged students in England have the same outcomes as average pupils in Wales, but the Government seem to be basing their policies on the Welsh system. I invite her to look at the evidence, even if Ministers will not.

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I share my right hon. Friend’s admiration for the speech given by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It was incredibly powerful and I hope Members on the Labour Front Bench listened closely to what she said, even if they are not listening to me right now—they are looking at their phones. The Government have made a deliberate decision to dismantle everything that has worked.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most shocking details in respect of the rape gangs is the evidence of collusion and corruption among police officers, social workers and local councillors. Will the Home Secretary commit today to establishing a unit in the National Crime Agency dedicated to investigating not only untried perpetrators but the police officers, social workers and local councillors who were complicit in these disgusting crimes?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following the Christmas day attack on Finnish sea cables, what assessment has the Defence Secretary made of the threat to British interconnectors? Which individual Minister is ultimately responsible for their security?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Immigration and Nationality Statistics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way and I appreciate that she has been given a hospital pass by the immigration Minister, who really ought to be the person here, but last time she was, she did not give a very good account of herself, and has been avoiding writing letters or giving any of the numbers that the Opposition have been asking for. The statement—which was obviously pre-prepared, and I understand how these things work—does not address any of the questions that I raised in my speech. It is not true that we are world leaders in the collection of statistics that relate to immigration. Anyway, the questions related not to overall levels of net migration from particular countries and so on, but to things such as the nationality and immigration status of criminals and imprisoned criminals, or people living in social housing or in receipt of benefits. We do not have any information on that, and if we are compared to some European countries such as Denmark or the Netherlands, a study from which shows that the average asylum migrant costs something like £400,000 net over their lifetimes, we are nowhere. Can the Minister give us a quick answer on that?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Immigration and Nationality Statistics · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree that most people crossing the channel are not really seeking refuge, because they are coming from a safe country: France. They are seeking their economic betterment, which may be legitimate from their perspective, but is not necessarily in our interests as a country. I must be honest: my party played its part in this policy failure. I say “policy failure” because, at times—certainly when I worked in the Home Office and, I think, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was in the Home Office—there was a genuine attempt to get the numbers down. Indeed, back in those years, the numbers fell, but ultimately we failed, thanks to free movement rules, a loss of wider political support for our work across Government, and a failure to reform the higher and further education system, public services and the wider economy, so as to get off the addiction to more and more migration. Brexit should have changed all that. It was a clear vote not only to reclaim our sovereignty, but to reduce and control immigration, but the points-based system that followed, with its hugely liberal rules, was always bound to increase the numbers dramatically. For that, my party will need to show sincere contrition and, if we are ever to win again, demonstrate to the public that we truly get it and have a plan to cut immigration drastically. To inform the policy choices we face and help us to understand what we must do with the millions of newcomers who have started new lives here in the past 25 years or so, we also need much better data. Low-paid immigrants bring costs that are not adequately considered by Government impact assessments. They need housing, drive on roads, use transport, have health needs, take school places, claim benefits and eventually receive the state pension, which was recently valued by an actuary at £250,000 per person. Most immigrants and their dependants will, over their lifetimes, be net recipients of public funds. However, the British state does not even try to calculate the net fiscal costs and benefits of different profiles of migrant. We get fragments of information from, say, the census, or prison statistics. We know that 72% of Somalis here, for example, live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. We know that one in 50 Albanians here are in prison, and that nationalities such as Iraqis, Jamaicans and Somalis are disproportionately likely to be criminals. We know from now-discontinued income tax data that some nationalities, such as Bangladeshis, receive more in child benefit and tax credits than they pay in income tax and national insurance. That does not even include the costs of education, housing, healthcare, pensions, and other effects on infrastructure and services. Some European countries have started to do the necessary work. In Denmark, for example, official figures show that Danes and Europeans are net contributors, but migrants and their descendants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey are net recipients throughout their whole lives, including when they are working. I have asked various Ministers in oral and written questions whether the Government will commission work to establish the true cost of immigration broken down by profile of migrant. The answer that comes back more often than not is that that has not been done before. However, that is not a reason not to do it now. My first question to the Minister is: if it is not to be done, why not? Can she give us a justification? I have asked similar questions on specific aspects of policy. The Department for Work and Pensions told me in a letter that “we are investigating the feasibility of developing and publishing statistics on the immigration status of non-UK/Irish” nationals, or “customers”, as it bizarrely calls foreign benefits claimants. My second question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the DWP about that? When will that work be completed? Will the data be broken down by nationality, visa route and type of benefit? We know bits of information on social housing from the census, as I said, but that is not good enough. Only yesterday, a grotesque online video was published by Westminster city council promoting social housing in Arabic, Bengali, Spanish and French, which, given the rules around no recourse to public funds, I found somewhat surprising. My third question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that? Can we get annual data on social housing occupation by nationality, visa and asylum status?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Immigration and Nationality Statistics · Hansard source

  More

  I endorse that entirely and pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) for the excellent work he has done. He was the first Member of this House to talk about what he calls the “data desert” when it comes to immigration. On criminal justice policy, the Justice Secretary very recently refused to answer in the Chamber when I asked if the Government would publish the nationality, visa and asylum status of all imprisoned offenders. My fourth question is: why did she refuse to do that? Why can the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice not come together to publish that data? There are many other areas of policy, but I want to turn to the Home Office in particular. The Home Secretary told the House of Commons in July that the Rwanda policy had cost the taxpayer £700 million by the time Labour had come to power and that by ending the retrospective element of the duty to remove in the Illegal Migration Act 2023, she would save the public £7 billion over 10 years. Those numbers were clearly preposterous, and Home Office officials got in touch with me to express their concern about the things she said on the Floor of the House. The National Audit Office had said in March that the Rwanda scheme’s total cost was only £290 million, which included a £50 million payment made between its study and the general election. To be fair, the NAO costs did not include some things, such as the cost of detaining migrants. However, those costs would have had to have been met without the Rwanda scheme anyway, and it is difficult to understand what might justify a £410 million difference between what the NAO said and what the Home Secretary said on the Floor of the House of Commons. In a letter to the shadow Home Secretary copied to me, the Home Office permanent secretary gave a breakdown—if it can be called a breakdown—of the costs behind the £700 million claim that ludicrously lumped together £278 million under the title “Other fixed costs” with very little description of what that means. My fifth question is: can the Minister tell us specifically what those costs are? Will she hand over all the relevant data to the Office for Statistics Regulation? Can she commit to placing in the Library a detailed set of accounts to justify that number? In a separate letter to me, the permanent secretary justified the discrepancy by claiming that the NAO report had not included some “expected” Home Office costs. That makes no sense because “expected” implies costs that had not been incurred in March when the NAO report was published, but the Home Office now says that those costs were incurred between 2022-23 and June in 2024-25. In his letter to me, Sir Matthew said: “Further detail is contained within the impact assessment that accompanied the retrospection statutory instrument that was laid before Parliament.” But again, the impact assessment models costs in the future, not the past, so I have a sixth question. When the Home Secretary said that the £700 million had already been spent in July, why was her permanent secretary talking about prospective costs in August? Why did he refer to an impact assessment based on future costs, not costs already incurred? On my seventh question, when the immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), debated this issue with me in Westminster Hall in September, she promised to write to me to explain those discrepancies. Why did she not do so? Can the Minister tell us why the Home Secretary still has not replied to my letter of 21 September, despite written answers on 22 October and 25 November promising to do so as soon as possible? Finally, I have asked Ministers in the Home Office and the Foreign Office about the secretive deal to bring Sri Lankan asylum seekers from Diego Garcia to Britan, even though the Government are under no obligation to do so. Home Office officials are worried that among those migrants are criminals and even child abusers. The Home Office said: “Migrants with criminal convictions, charges, or subject to ongoing investigations were not in scope for that relocation.” However, in a written answer to me, the immigration Minister refused to say whether the Government had sought or obtained the necessary information from the Sri Lankan Government. On 14 November, the Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), answered my question, saying that the Government “does not have any information about Sri Lankan migrants’ criminality that pre-dates their arrival on British Indian Ocean Territory.” On 9 December, the immigration Minister answered another of my questions and said: “The local UK police force in the area where the migrants have been located have been informed of their arrival in the UK.” That does not sound very reassuring, and there are clear discrepancies between what the Home Office and Foreign Office have said. The fact that the police have had to be notified about the arrival of those migrants would be very alarming to people who live in those areas, if the public actually knew where those migrants are. For my eighth and final question, can the Minister confirm that the Government have no idea about the criminal records of those migrants dating to their time in Sri Lanka? What on earth are the Government doing importing migrants, for whom we have no legal responsibility, into this country in such secrecy when there are concerns about them inside the Home Office, and without undertaking every conceivable security check?