Immigration Bill - Not specified in the provided transcript

Asked if the Home Secretary would give way.

Intervened to state that the time given for leave to remain impacts the ability to prosecute human traffickers.

Asked if the Home Secretary would give way.

Called out the Conservative Party, possibly indicating opposition to the bill or amendment being debated.

Expressed concern over the lack of opportunity for the House to hold the Government accountable on the legislation. Questioned whether the Home Secretary could invite additional debate or discussion.

Reprimanded Neil Coyle for heckling during proceedings and set a time limit of four minutes, which would be reduced to three minutes later.

He argues that the bill breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, creates a two-tiered approach to asylum claims leading to human suffering and inefficiency, increases costs to taxpayers, and undermines the global protection system. He also cites the incompetence of the government in processing asylum applications which has led to a backlog of cases and increased taxpayer costs.

He suggests that there could be no possible objection to an interpretation clause in the Bill that ensures all provisions follow refugee case law and the Refugee Convention.

Responds by saying they are not about stopping individuals from achieving what they want to do but rather preventing abuse of safe routes, particularly by adults using the child route.

Reminds that after Labour's 10-year tenure in power there was a backlog of nearly 500,000 asylum cases and 120,000 were put into the controlled archive due to inability to trace them.

Points out that one problem has been the ability for people to bring extra evidence after an initial decision leading to court cases being different from the initial ones, and highlights concerns about modern slavery aspects of the Bill.

Agrees with his right hon. Friend's point on this issue but asks if there have been any indications where offshore processing places might be located for asylum applicants to be processed.

Asks whether the purpose of Second Reading is not to discuss and move towards Committee stage, rather than voting against a Bill that would stop a broken system.

Responds by reminding the House about the Dubs amendment and clarifies that those children were already in safe European countries. He also highlights that the UK has more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children than any other country in Europe.

Supports the need to differentiate between refugees and economic migrants. Emphasises the importance of international cooperation against people trafficking. Concerned about the practical challenges of processing asylum claims outside the UK but agrees with the aim of tackling illegal entry. Requests reassurance on timing and reasonable grounds for identifying modern slavery victims.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees that stopping people from getting into boats is the most compassionate approach to help them, implying support for stricter immigration controls.

[INTERVENTION] Raises concern that modern slavery provisions could be drawn too tightly, suggesting opposition to strict criminalisation of illegal entry for asylum seekers.

Mr. McDonald argues that Clause 37 criminalises asylum seekers, splits families, forces them into destitution and legal limbo, offshores them, and undermines international conventions protecting refugees. He highlights issues with the Home Office's handling of asylum cases, advocating for an independent body to manage such decisions.

Intervened twice to question democratic oversight and suggest that the treatment is like in any other European country.

Agrees with Mr. McDonald, emphasising the adverse impact on LGBT+ asylum seekers and the need for better protection measures.

Welcomes the Home Secretary’s commitment to a firm but fair immigration system, highlighting concerns about small boat crossings in the English Channel. She emphasises the need for practical and sustainable ways to tackle illegal crossings without compromising safety. Caroline also discusses support for asylum seekers through safe and legal routes, mentioning the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme. However, she expresses concern over current backlogs in processing and the challenge of finding appropriate accommodation for those who may have travelled through a safe third country.

Argues that the Bill is counterproductive as it could attract more people into the UK asylum system and drive them towards criminal gangs. She points out a 27% drop in initial decisions made between 2015 and before the pandemic, despite a stable number of applications. Yvette raises concerns about safe legal routes being cut, including the resettlement scheme and the Dubs scheme for unaccompanied children. Additionally, she expresses worry over plans for offshore processing as they have proven ineffective elsewhere.

Supports the Bill as it provides a vehicle for dealing with complex and difficult immigration issues. Believes that the UK should have control over its priorities, including determining when to accept economic migrants based on labour market conditions. Concerned about illegal boat arrivals in Kent and Sussex and welcomes efforts by the Government to address this issue. Calls for improved efficiency in handling asylum cases to reduce backlogs.

Critiques the Bill as flawed and undermining humanitarian obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers. Points out that the UK receives fewer asylum applications compared to other European countries like France. Argues that chronic underfunding by the Government has led to a backlog of cases, with over 60,000 people waiting for an initial decision in March 2021. Concerned about Clause 37, which breaches Article 31 of the refugee convention and makes journeys more dangerous for refugees.

Supports the Bill as a comprehensive reform needed to address a dysfunctional asylum system. Argues that access to the UK's asylum system should be based on genuine need, not ability to pay for people smugglers. Expresses concern about criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable individuals and welcomes measures aimed at disrupting these gangs. Emphasises the importance of tackling organised crime linked to illegal immigration and human trafficking.

Categorically rejects the Bill, arguing it undermines the refugee convention and international protection system. Criticises delays in asylum processing and increase in overturned decisions. States the bill will cause harm to vulnerable individuals seeking refuge and cites examples of increased asylum seeker delays under current policies.

Supports the Bill, emphasising its role in addressing illegal immigration and protecting victims of crime. Argues for tougher sentences on people smugglers and foreign national offenders, while maintaining support for vulnerable refugees through legal routes.

Critiques the Bill's stance on criminalizing asylum seekers and its impact on international refugee support. Highlights the need for humane treatment of refugees, citing poor living conditions in camps and within the UK.

Supports measures within the Bill to control immigration. Argues that high levels of migration have strained public services and cultural identity, necessitating stricter controls on illegal entry and deportation for those with no right to remain.

Critiques the Bill as politically motivated hate speech that stirs fear, resentment, and division. Argues it will make life more difficult for refugees fleeing conflict, climate change, and persecution, violating international law and weakening community resilience overseas.

He argues that reducing support from 45 days to 30 days for confirmed victims is problematic as it leaves them without adequate assistance. He also criticises clause 53 for maintaining discretionary leave and failing to address the issue of low proportion of victims receiving leave to remain in the UK.

[INTERVENTION]: He suggests that Mr. Duncan Smith is not naive and acknowledges the risk of modern-day slavery being used to game the system.

She criticises the powers in the Bill that would allow offshore camps for detaining refugees, citing examples of human rights violations. She also expresses concern over the expansion of 'no recourse to public funds' regime which subjects more people to destitution.

She highlights the risks associated with the small boats crisis, including national security concerns and exploitation by criminal gangs. She emphasises the need for strong borders to deter illegal migration.

Critiques the Bill as harmful, contrary to expert evidence, and damaging to international relations. Highlights the Home Office's failure in managing asylum seekers, with rising wait times for decisions despite increased staff numbers. Argues that cutting aid and military personnel undermines global Britain’s reach and influence.

Supports organisations aiding asylum seekers, criticises the Bill for undermining international obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. Stresses the Home Office’s failure to address the backlog and poor management of cases, resulting in long wait times for decision-making.

Argues that the Bill fails to provide safe legal routes while treating asylum seekers harshly. Criticises the reduction in resettlement numbers and highlights the failure to address comprehensive sickness insurance issues for EU citizens seeking permanent residence.

Argues that illegal entries have increased significantly, creating a backlog. Supports the use of scientific age assessment techniques for asylum seekers to ensure children's welfare. Highlights the need to fix nationality law anomalies, such as providing citizenship to children whose fathers are not legally married to their mothers at birth.

Critiques the Bill for punishing genuine refugees and reducing safe routes. Argues that determining a person’s eligibility based on arrival mode is against international law. Cites Amnesty International's concerns over criminalising irregular arrivals.

Describes the Bill as an assault on human rights. Highlights its expansion of the hostile environment and criminalisation of asylum seekers. Critiques the proposed tier system for claiming asylum, which affects refugees' right to make claims. Emphasises the potential criminalisation of life-saving organisations like RNLI.

Supports the amendment due to the increase in illegal entries despite pandemic restrictions. Advocates for legal entry and criticises claims about persecution from continental Europe as unfounded. Proposes an amendment to address nationality issues of Chagos islanders' descendants.

Supports measures to stop human trafficking and dangerous sea crossings. Criticises the current asylum system for being discriminatory towards vulnerable groups who face significant barriers in making perilous journeys.

Condemns the biometric ID card system as humiliating and discriminatory. Highlights personal stories of asylum seekers in Glasgow who have faced hardships, advocating for a more welcoming and supportive approach to refugees.

Argues that the bill is necessary to control borders, deter illegal immigration, and remove individuals who do not have a legitimate right to be in the UK. Emphasises public support for measures against illegal entry and smuggling networks.

The amendment aims to restore justice and order in the chaotic asylum system by enforcing legal migration. It addresses public concerns about illegal immigration, which has been on the rise with 16,000 illegal entrants last year, including 8,500 via boats. The Bill seeks to curb gaming of the asylum process and protect genuine asylum seekers.

Intervened to suggest that reducing the debate to 'everyone who claims asylum must have a legitimate claim' oversimplifies the issue and does not help in achieving just law.

Expressed concerns about criminalising Uyghurs, Syrians fleeing war crimes, or persecuted Christians with an offence that could result in prison for up to four years and stripping them of family reunion rights.

Agreed that the Government's approach does not change maritime law, allowing rescue organisations to continue saving lives at sea.

Opposes the Bill, arguing it violates international law and places refugees at risk. Emphasises that the bill is insensitive, rushed, and undermines the UK's reputation internationally.

Supports the Bill by referencing historical examples of refugees being welcomed in the past. Criticises those who claim asylum via illegal means, arguing they are not genuine.

Argues that the Bill is a continuation of failed attempts to fix an already broken system. Condemns plans for offshore processing and highlights inefficiencies in current asylum processes.

He argues that Stoke-on-Trent is overburdened by housing asylum seekers, with one in every 250 people now being an asylum seeker. He criticises local authorities not participating in dispersal schemes and expresses support for measures like removing asylum seekers to safe third countries, increasing penalties for illegal entry, and enabling quicker deportation of foreign criminals.

He argues that strict immigration policies are xenophobic populism exploiting people’s fears. He highlights the importance of migrants in NHS staffing and disputes claims about increased demand for health services, benefits use, and crime rates among immigrants. He calls for political leadership that acknowledges concerns while promoting human dignity, including giving asylum seekers the right to work and establishing safe passage routes.

Jack Brereton argued that his constituents are frustrated with illegal border crossings and the profiteering of criminal people traffickers. He highlighted the increasing pressures on Stoke-on-Trent’s local services due to an influx of asylum seekers, noting that other regions have failed to step up their support for refugees despite the opportunities available. He criticised the Labour party's approach towards national foreign offenders in the UK, asserting that Stoke-on-Trent will not allow such individuals entry into its community.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy criticised the Home Secretary for a failed immigration system, arguing that the Bill does nothing to create safe routes for refugees or address bureaucratic hurdles. She emphasised that asylum seekers should be able to claim in their intended destination under international law and highlighted how discriminatory the plans are towards those fleeing persecution through unsafe means.

Expresses concerns over the Bill's impact on asylum seekers, noting that it exacerbates their vulnerability. Cites examples of groups like Uyghurs, Rohingya and Tigrayan people who will be hardest hit. Criticises clauses 16 to 20 for requiring excessive evidence by a specific date, clause 24 for expediting appeals against the UN refugee convention, and overall raises concerns about the Home Secretary's broader powers. Argues that the Bill undermines Britain’s reputation as a refuge for persecuted individuals.

Supports the Bill, arguing it addresses three key problems: boat and truck crossings to make asylum claims, speculative further claims clogging up systems, and cherry-picking of asylum claim destinations. Emphasises the need for quicker assessment systems with better legal advice access and greater availability of medical assessments. Defends Government's use of 'compassion' in the Bill.

Critiques the Bill as a hostile environment policy, particularly citing its impact on irregular arrivals by boat or lorry. Highlights that it reduces rights for those who arrive irregularly and places them in temporary isolated camps, treating them differently from direct arrivals. Also mentions criminalisation measures and reduced aid to countries facing refugee crises.

The speaker argues that while there are millions of people who need help, it is not feasible to accommodate everyone. He supports focusing on helping those most vulnerable through a new system that discourages illegal entry and encourages genuine asylum seekers.

The speaker highlights that the current asylum system is in disarray with a backlog of over 33,000 people waiting more than 12 months for an initial decision. The Bill does nothing to address this and will make life harder for vulnerable refugees by creating no commitment to reopen safe routes or resettlement for family reunion.

The speaker criticises Labour’s legacy on immigration, pointing out that since 1997 net entry into Britain has increased from between 10,000 to 20,000 a year to between 200,000 and 300,000. He argues the Bill will help protect the poorest, weakest and most vulnerable.

The speaker asserts that the Bill is anti-refugee to its core and lacks basic humanity. She argues it will enable blocking visas for overseas visitors, remove asylum seekers while their claims are pending, and create a two-tier system regardless of need, criminalising those seeking protection.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed and treats asylum seekers as criminals rather than victims of war, persecution, and trauma. It fails to address the Government’s backlog in processing asylum applications and will worsen wait times for applicants.

Supports clauses that create penalties for facilitating illegal immigration. Believes these measures are necessary to combat the exploitation of hopeful immigrants by criminal gangs and emphasises the importance of prosecuting those involved in trafficking.

Argues that the Bill is hostile to Scotland’s identity as a nation and criticises its impact on refugee protection, access to justice, and international relationships. Emphasises the need for independence from such divisive legislation.