Immigration Act - Various new clauses and amendments to the Immigration Act

Mr Carmichael supported Ms Winterton's new clause, emphasising the principle of living up to historical obligations. He agreed with the initiative and encouraged further action from the government.

Charalambous argued against Clause 9, which he views as unjust and dangerous. He highlighted that it allows for secret deprivations of citizenship without notice on the basis of 'public interest' or foreign relations. Charalambous pointed out that existing rules already allow notices to be delivered to a last known address, questioning the need for the change. He also raised concerns about appeal rights being affected and the potential for statelessness, especially among ethnic minorities. The amendment would strip basic fairness from citizenship deprivation processes.

Asked for clarification from the Deputy Speaker regarding whether he could speak to his amendments in the second group without addressing them now.

Guided Members to prioritise their contributions, noting that waiting until the second group of amendments could limit opportunities for speaking due to potential votes in the first group.

Supported Rosie Winterton by emphasising the importance of adhering to international responsibilities, citing the example of the UN permanent five members.

Supports new clause 34 to prevent the Home Office from profiteering and expresses concern over high application fees that delay family reunions and cause financial hardship. Argues for awareness raising and policy changes, such as making NHS access sufficient for meeting health insurance requirements under EU rules.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees with concerns about clause 9, which allows secret and non-notified stripping of UK citizenship, highlighting a petition calling for its removal.

He emphasised the need for a route to settlement for under-25-year-olds who are persecuted in Hong Kong, citing cases like Tony Chung and Venus. He also pointed out that the youth mobility scheme could be impractical due to its reciprocal nature, which may not be upheld by the Chinese authorities.

She expressed concern over 93% of those arrested for being pro-democracy in Hong Kong being young people, emphasising the unique obligation to protect them and provide safe passage.

He congratulated Damian Green on his new clause, highlighting the moral duty of Parliament to offer freedom to individuals desperately seeking it from oppressive regimes.

She thanked Damian Green for tabling the amendment and raised concerns about under-25s from Hong Kong facing difficulties with access to healthcare and safety once in the UK.

Argues that the fee is too high, disproportionately affects minority ethnic children, and results in many undocumented individuals who face societal and psychological barriers. She cites an example of threats of deportation faced by care leavers due to issues with proving citizenship link.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees that it is wrong for children to bear the burden of the Government’s hostile environment policy, reinforcing Bell Ribeiro-Addy's argument against high citizenship fees.

Agrees with Mr. Rosindell, suggesting that these individuals should be considered favourably by the Government due to their unique service.

Questions whether these individuals are seeking the right of abode in case of future discrimination, clarifying that they may not all need to exercise this option immediately.

While welcoming the amendment, highlights its limitations regarding young people born after 1997 and suggests it disproportionately impacts poorer Hongkongers and those whose families moved post-1997.

Argues that leaving these individuals to the vagaries of a regime opposing freedom, liberty, and rule of law would be deeply unjust, emphasising the need for this duty of care.

Critiques the Bill's provisions, particularly clause 10 which restricts rights of children who would be born stateless. He argues that making such measures more stringent is not a positive move.

While I support new clause 7, my main contribution is in favour of amendment 12. This amendment seeks to remove clause 9 from the Bill which would allow for deprivation of citizenship without notice. Such a provision causes significant concern and distrust among communities, particularly those with historical ties to other countries.

Graham supports new clause 9 and criticises Opposition Members for stirring up concerns among ethnic communities. He highlights that only a tiny number of people would be affected by the change, stressing that it is about notification in cases where individuals are unreachable or in war zones.

Tarry intervenes to argue against Graham’s focus on terrorism and instead highlights concerns about people fleeing war-torn countries due to the Government's policies. He finds Graham's comment about terrorists inappropriate.

Blake intervenes to clarify that Graham has drawn an association between terrorism and fees for children seeking nationality, which she considers inappropriate. She calls on him to withdraw those comments.

Timms intervenes to argue that concerns about the clause are not due to Opposition stirring but because of the reality of its content and the Government’s track record. He suggests that alarm is justified.

Ribeiro-Addy intervenes to ask Graham if he understands the issues at hand, questioning why the Government wants to make it easier to revoke citizenship without checks and balances. She references concerns about the Windrush generation.

She worries that the powers are making deprivation of citizenship more draconian, especially since 2019. The clause's lack of notification could lead to less scrutiny and appeal processes. She raises concerns about racial bias as most cases involve non-white individuals.

He intervened to say that he himself could have been stripped of his citizenship under similar circumstances if the Bill had existed in the early 1970s.

He urged both sides to lower tensions and avoid shouting, which was harming the debate's integrity.

He argues that clause 9 only alters the requirement for serving notice on a person in cases where it would be impracticable, such as if they are hiding or in war zones. He believes there is no threat to people living in Peterborough and that Labour activists are spreading misinformation.

He intervened to say this act of stripping citizenship has nothing to do with race, using Anna Chapman as an example who was a Russian spy with dual nationality and had her nationality revoked.

He questioned where in the Bill it referred to skin colour or ethnicity, arguing that raising such concerns is scaremongering.

Supports amendment 12, arguing that citizenship is a fundamental right rather than a privilege. The Home Office's actions have created fear among ethnic minorities due to the Windrush scandal and the hostile environment policies. Amendment 12 aims to protect due process.

Argues against amendment 12, stating that citizenship is a privilege rather than a right. Supports clause 9 as necessary for national security and targeting dangerous individuals who pose threats to society.

Supports amendment 12, expressing concern that clause 9 extends the Home Secretary's power without proper safeguards and can be abused against people with migrant heritage. The clause undermines the rule of law.

Mr. Stafford supports the Bill as it targets individuals who pose a threat to national security, not law-abiding citizens or minorities. He emphasises that notification can be impractical in cases involving terrorism, particularly when officials would need to enter dangerous zones to notify such individuals.

Ms. Bell Ribeiro-Addy questions the practicality of notifying individuals in war zones, referencing Shamima Begum's case. She argues that such measures could create racial tension within the country and fears for those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

Mr. Sam Tarry expresses concerns about potential misuse of the Bill to target climate activists or individuals campaigning against government policies, suggesting that such measures could be used against peaceful protestors.

Mr. Tan Dhesi criticises the Bill for undermining fairness and security in citizenship and asylum processes, arguing that it could disproportionately impact ethnic minorities due to its racial undertones and potential for abuse.

The speaker is deeply concerned by and opposed to the majority of the proposals in the Bill, describing it as inherently authoritarian. He expresses particular distress about clauses 9 and 10 that enable a Home Secretary to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice and restrict stateless children’s access to British citizenship. Mohammad Yasin feels that these proposals create a hierarchy of British citizenship and disproportionately target those from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other racial groups.

The speaker addresses clause 9, which proposes removing people’s citizenship without notice and restricting their rights of appeal. He expresses deep concern about the proposal's impact on black and minority ethnic backgrounds and criticises the Government for creating an atmosphere in which others are trying to demonise those who save lives at sea. Burgon emphasises that people from diverse communities feel as if they do not belong in their own country due to this legislation.

The speaker supports amendment 12, stating it would prevent the Home Secretary from removing British nationality without notice or agreement of another country. He argues that this could result in stateless people and emphasises the importance of citizenship ceremonies as a moving occasion.

Supports new clause 8, arguing that the cost of citizenship in the UK is among the highest in the western world. He cites a family case where parents face extortionate fees and no recourse to public funds during gaps between leave-to-remain periods, leading to hardship such as reliance on foodbanks. Emphasises the hostile environment for migrant families under the current system.

Clarified that clause 9 does not change who could be deprived of citizenship, nor the criteria for deprivation. It maintains judicial oversight through appeal rights. Emphasised the practical difficulties in serving notices to individuals in war zones or repressive regimes and stressed the importance of preventing dangerous individuals from evading provisions by hiding away.

Interjected to highlight that clause 9 extends the Home Secretary's power to decide not to give notice if it is in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country or otherwise in the public interest. This confers a significant amount of discretion on the Home Secretary, raising concerns about due process.

The proposed amendment seeks to [reiterate what the amendment does], which is essential for [explain why it's necessary]. The evidence shows that [provide statistics or examples from research]. Furthermore, this initiative will have a significant impact on my constituents by addressing issues such as [list constituency-specific impacts].

Mr. John Hayes intervened to support the Minister's point about claiming asylum in the first safe country, arguing that such measures would frustrate people traffickers and benefit their victims.

Mr. Jonathan Gullis cited former Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke's statement on asylum seekers committing fraudulent acts, suggesting they should lose their right of asylum and be returned to their country of origin.

Mr. John Redwood asked about the legislation's impact on small boat trade, inquiring if it would halt illegal migration and whether UK courts might overturn such measures.

Ms. Beth Winter criticised the Bill for undermining Wales's sanctuary status, exacerbating inequality, and harming individuals in need, urging the Minister to scrap it.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn questioned the Minister’s approach by highlighting the desperation that drives people to risk their lives crossing the channel and asked if he has any humanity.

Mr. Peter Bone supported Charles Clarke's views, asserting that the French are not adequately handling individuals in their country who aim to reach the UK.

Mr. Steve Brine expressed shock at some interventions and supported parts of the Bill, particularly its promise of safer routes for resettlement schemes.

Ms. Joanna Cherry questioned whether the Minister had verified suggestions about new clause 10, which proposes a humanitarian visa scheme for people in France to claim asylum in the UK.

Expressed gratitude towards RNLI volunteers, highlighting their selfless service in saving lives at sea despite leaving their jobs. Mentioned her personal connection to coastal areas and continued donations to support RNLI operations.

Did not provide a position or argument but allowed Tracey Crouch to interject with her comments on the RNLI volunteers and their service.

Mr. David Simmonds disputes the claim that the UK has turned its back on unaccompanied child refugees, pointing out that the number of such children arriving in the UK has doubled since 2015.

Mr. Tim Loughton questions Labour's proposals to address illegal crossings and suggests a lack of practical measures from the opposition to deter adults from paying traffickers for dangerous journeys.

Mr. Alex Sobel agrees with the shadow Minister's concerns about the Bill potentially worsening the situation in three years' time, leading to more dangerous crossings and deaths.

Mr. Peter Bone suggests that the issue of small boats crossing the channel is due to French refusal to allow returns, not the UK's policies.

Mr. Matt Rodda agrees with his colleague that poor international relations and the country’s falling standing in the global community are contributing to the issue, partly due to Government policy over Brexit.

Mr. Shailesh Vara challenges the assertion that the Government's actions regarding Brexit were not in line with public mandate, suggesting the Government were fulfilling a referendum outcome.

Mr. Stephen Doughty shares concerns about Commonwealth soldiers being treated poorly in relation to visas, settlement, and healthcare costs after serving bravely for the country.

Mr. John Redwood asks whether Labour believes there should be a limit on yearly migration numbers and what that limit would be if they were in power.

Mr. Mercer argues for the moral and financial justification of waiving visa fees for foreign and Commonwealth service personnel who have served in the UK's armed forces. He challenges the Government’s cost estimate, citing figures from the Royal British Legion indicating minimal actual costs. Furthermore, he criticises the 12-year period stipulation as arbitrary without evidence to support it.

Argues against clause 15 as it allows the Home Secretary to deem asylum claims inadmissible under a broad range of criteria, leading to unnecessary delays. Proposes new clauses to address these issues and ensure proper safeguards are in place.

Intervenes to confirm SNP support for new clause 10, which proposes a humanitarian visa system. Suggests this is one of few provisions that adds safe legal routes for asylum seekers.

Intervenes to ask Stuart McDonald about testimony from medical professionals who have experienced offshoring projects in Australia, suggesting that their voices should be heard.

Mr. Cash supports the amendment to address illegal immigration and prevent economic migrants from exploiting human rights legislation. He argues that this will save lives of those exploited by traffickers, protect the manifesto promises, and ensure robust assurances are given.

Mr. Redwood intervenes to support Mr. Cash's amendment, noting that the Minister was unable to provide an assurance that the legislation would not be distorted by human rights interpretations.

Ms. Harman rises to speak against amendments 150, proposing instead her own amendments 96-100 and 102, which aim to ensure compliance with human rights law and the refugee convention, prevent endangerment of life at sea, and remove immunity from prosecution for border officials who commit criminal offences. She argues that the Government's intentions should be reflected in the Bill.

Critiques the offshoring approach as it would lead to significant humanitarian issues, including documented cases of abuse against children. Also points out that this policy is extremely costly compared to current asylum costs in the UK. Emphasises the political and moral consequences of such a system.

Intervenes to argue that addressing the pull factor is crucial for solving the immigration problem, proposing secure accommodation for illegal entrants as an alternative. Suggests this approach could effectively reduce illegal immigration without resorting to offshore detention.

Urges Members to reconsider supporting the offshoring proposal, citing Australian expert Madeline Gleeson's warning that once committed, there is no going back. Emphasises the heavy burden this decision would place on consciences and highlights ongoing humanitarian concerns.

Intervenes to question whether the deterrent effect of offshoring is being overlooked, suggesting it could be an effective measure despite humanitarian and financial concerns.

Supports new clauses to address unjust suffering caused by the Government's hostile environment policies, including denial of basic human rights, undermining trade union rights, pushing people into poor-quality accommodation, and denying access to healthcare. Emphasises that these amendments seek to provide recourse to public funds for those holding a valid UK residence permit.

Calls for pragmatic solutions, expresses concerns about offshoring policy, seeks assurances that the policy will not apply to children or pregnant women, highlights concerns over creating two tiers of asylum seekers with identical claims to safety being treated differently. Raises issues regarding where people might be sent and potential circular trades leading them back to the UK.

Critiques the bill for dehumanising asylum seekers, opposing the hostile environment approach and supporting new clause 45 on right to work and new clause 9 on EU certification. Argues that people should be allowed to contribute to society instead of being a cost. Mentions constituents who struggle with biometric cards stating 'no recourse to public funds'.

Supports new clause 18, arguing it should be a criminal offence to be in the UK illegally. Criticises the Home Office for having high costs with low outcomes in immigration enforcement. Suggests there are around 87,000 new illegal immigrants each year and highlights issues of clandestines and overstayers.

Supports new clause 9 to address digital access issues for EU citizens under the settlement scheme. Cites examples of constituents struggling with proving their status digitally, including a freelancer losing business due to inability to prove identity quickly.

Supports new clause 52 and highlights previous letters calling for fee waivers for Commonwealth servicemen and women. Argues for moral support within the House for enabling non-UK citizens to serve in armed forces.

Supports amendment 150, acknowledging the Border Force's efforts. Argues that asylum seekers are safe in France before attempting dangerous crossings to UK. Emphasises prioritising those most in need of protection and criticises Opposition for undermining this principle.

Imposes a two-minute limit on speeches, acknowledging it will be unpopular but necessary to accommodate more speakers.

Supports new clause 44 on safe and legal routes, criticising the lack of operational schemes. Expresses concern over differentiation in refugee treatment and offshoring processing claims. Also supports a statutory limit on immigration detention to prevent mental health deterioration among detainees.

Argues for new clause 23, advocating tough measures against economic migrants. Criticises blaming France and emphasises the need to remove pull factors by placing illegal entrants in secure accommodation.

Mr. Simmonds argued that the UK has a long-standing reputation as a beacon of human rights but also pointed out that the House has enormous discretion under international law regarding how responsibilities are exercised. He expressed concerns about current methods available to science and supported the Home Office’s potential use of scientific methods for age assessments if effective ones were developed.

Ms. Anderson criticised the Bill, stating that it is not the solution to fix the broken asylum system. She highlighted issues with the Afghan resettlement scheme and supported waiving visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. Additionally, she emphasised the importance of family reunion as a means to cut smuggling routes and reduce the tragic deaths in the channel.

Asked for confirmation that by resolving difficulties, the Minister means legislating to do so.

Inquired if the Government will remain a full signatory to the European convention on human rights despite plans for Human Rights Act reform.

Expressed encouragement regarding the long-awaited consideration of substantial reforms to the Human Rights Act, implicitly requiring legislation.

Pleaded for Government support on new clause 52, which aims at waiving settlement fees for non-UK service personnel.

Challenged the Government to go beyond meetings and words by actually waiving visa fees, which is widely seen as the right thing to do regardless of political affiliation.