Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill - Lords amendments 4G, 5B, 6B, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 10B, 11B, 13B, 20B, 24B, 25B, 26B, and 53B-D

Questions the legality of the Government's actions under international law, specifically regarding asylum seekers arriving in irregular ways.

Presses the Minister for clarity on how UK legislation complies with the 1951 UN refugee convention and whether there is a risk of breaking international law.

Asks for details on safe and legal routes to asylum, including from Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

Questions the effectiveness of moving people to Rwanda in disrupting human trafficking networks and seeks clarity on safe routes for Kurdish asylum seekers.

Raises concerns about the treatment of Kurds in Turkey and highlights the dangers faced by Kurdish asylum seekers attempting to reach the UK through irregular routes.

Questions why proposals like Lords amendment 10B pose a danger, suggesting that proper safeguards are necessary but should not be overly restrictive.

Proposes support for tough measures against people trafficking while advocating for greater availability of safe and legal routes, particularly through family reunion schemes.

Supports the Government's position on Lords amendments 7B and 7C, emphasising that they avoid preferential treatment for asylum seekers.

Questions the impact of constant reviews on asylum seekers' stability, suggesting that a minimum period should be established to provide some certainty.

Raises concerns about arbitrary deadlines for victims of trafficking to declare themselves as such, suggesting that this further victimizes them.

Questions the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the proposed policy and highlights concerns about its potential counterproductivity.

Inquires about the Rwanda partnership scheme, its funding, and how it interacts with LGBTQ individuals seeking asylum.

Suggests investing in the current system as a more effective alternative to the Rwanda scheme, highlighting the cost implications of the latter.

Asks about evidence supporting the policy from countries like Australia that have implemented similar offshoring measures.

Raises concerns about incentivizing groups to cross the channel if they are identified as protected under any new policy, using the example of families.

The bill fails to address challenges and instead exacerbates them. The Rwanda plan is costly, unworkable, and undermines Britain's values. Amendments seek to ensure fair treatment of asylum seekers, maintain family unity, provide value for money, and adhere to the 1951 UN refugee convention.

Asked a brief interjection questioning Labour's stance on supporting the Rwanda plan, seeking clarity on their position.

Cited experience of local authorities indicating that many refugee children are immediately placed in care systems due to the inability of UK families to support them, suggesting the Government's approach may be justified.

Argued that confirmed victims of modern-day slavery need more stable support post-referral mechanism, citing Justice and Care's victim navigator study showing 89% engagement in police investigations with minimum period support. He highlighted mental health issues caused by unstable support periods.

Supported Lords amendments 5B, 13B and 15 on the grounds that they align with international obligations and protect asylum seekers from criminalisation. He criticised the Bill for failing to meet refugee convention standards.

Emphasised need for staff augmentation, improved relationship with France, safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, and a new international convention to update the 1951 refugee convention. He questioned practicality of Rwanda scheme.

Sally-Ann Hart questioned the necessity of Lords amendment 7, which concerns asylum seekers' ability to work after six months. She asked whether measures in the Bill and partnerships like UK-Rwanda would mean no asylum seekers remain in limbo after six months.

Tom Pursglove argued that the Government’s approach, as detailed in the Bill, is based on a moral imperative to address challenges. He stated that this was the only credible plan and urged Members to support it.