Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill - Amendment 133, page 40, line 7

Mr. Cash argued for the necessity of his proposed amendment, asserting that it would streamline and simplify the process for removing individuals from the UK by limiting legal challenges to suspensive claims and appeals as permitted under this Act.

Mr. Davis agreed with Ms. Winterton's proposals, citing an example where a previous government used similar methods to address issues related to prisoner voting rights.

Ms. Cherry challenged the validity of Mr. Davis's argument, stating that it is based on a narrow view of sovereignty and highlighted evidence showing that most individuals arriving in small boats and seeking asylum have their claims granted.

Kinnock criticises the Bill for lacking credibility due to insufficient detention capacity, no EU returns agreement, and uncertain commitments from Rwanda. He calls for a more targeted approach involving cooperation with Europe and recruitment of cross-border units in NCA to combat people smugglers.

Cash interjected, asking if Labour Members would cease opposing the Bill further, suggesting they want to improve and enact it but no more. This implies that Labour's amendments are seen as a way to improve rather than oppose the Bill.

Seely questioned how many more people Kinnock wants coming to the country, highlighting that there have already been 480,000 asylum places granted since 2015 and agreements with international partners.

Hunt inquired if Labour supports a cap on numbers coming through safe and legal routes and how they would prioritise refugees. This suggests a need for clearer policies from Labour.

Johnson asked about the level of cap Labour supports and how they would manage those exceeding it, indicating a need for detailed policy proposals from Labour.

Shannon questioned if Labour will ensure that Afghans serving alongside British soldiers are processed and get asylum status, emphasising the importance of honouring commitments to those who served.

Howarth agreed with Kinnock that Labour's amendment refutes arguments about supporting open borders, showing support for the proposed amendments and criticism of Government policies.

Jenrick defended the Government's record on safe and legal routes, citing figures such as 45,000 people coming through family reunion visas, challenging Labour's criticism of not taking safe routes seriously.

Farris noted that a solution proposed by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change is similar to what appears in the Bill, questioning Labour's criticism of its approach.

Expresses concern about the lack of children’s rights impact assessment in the Bill. Highlights the issue of missing children under Government policy, indicating hundreds have gone missing and their whereabouts unknown.

Expresses concern that there is no children’s rights impact assessment in the Bill, highlighting the need to address the plight of children.

Supports Bob Seely's points and questions whether it is not right for children arriving in the country to be placed under local authority care immediately, stressing the need for proper safeguarding.

Ms. Lia Nici inquired about the French authorities' knowledge of individuals seeking asylum, suggesting concerns over their ability to track and manage these people effectively.

Mr. Wayne David questioned whether it is appropriate for former RAF camps to be used for migrant accommodation, reflecting concerns about the suitability and long-term impact of such measures.

Mr. John Hayes highlighted population growth due to both legal and illegal migration, raising concerns about sustainability in terms of housing and infrastructure.

Ms. Stella Creasy supported the need for clarity on safe and legal routes, emphasising that defining these terms accurately is crucial to the effectiveness of the proposed legislation.

Mr. Bob Seely inquired about how the proposed fifth safe and legal route would differ from existing non-country-specific routes, seeking clarification on its unique aspects.

She supports the creation of additional safe and legal routes to prevent illegal migration, arguing that it provides judges with a factual reason to refuse applications. She believes without such measures, the risk of more people making claims will increase.

He intervened by asking for indulgence and agreeing with Caroline Johnson's argument about providing judges with a factual reason to refuse applications, thus supporting her position on creating more safe and legal routes.

The Bill breaches the refugee convention and other international treaties. Clause 49 empowers the Home Secretary to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights, undermining judicial oversight. The amendment seeks either to remove clause 49 or ensure it complies with international human rights law.

Supports amendment 132, arguing it is necessary to control illegal immigration and protect legal migration processes. He cites the cost of housing asylum seekers as a reason for action. Emphasises the need to disapply certain sections of the Human Rights Act to prevent legal challenges from undermining legislation.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees with Mr. Clarke's point about hospitality and generosity, adds concern over the increase in legal migration leading to rapid population growth which undermines public services.

Ms Diana R. Johnson is concerned about the Bill's lack of evidence, impact assessments, and proper costing. She points out that children should not be included in any cap as it could undermine international child protection frameworks.

Mr Angus MacNeil questions whether the real test of the Bill is not about its impact assessment but rather newspaper headlines. He intervenes during Diana R. Johnson's speech.

Mr Danny Kruger supports the principle of safe and legal routes for refugees, but he is also in favour of a cap on total number of refugees received. He argues that unless there is certainty of detention and swift removal of illegal migrants, it will not deter them from attempting to enter illegally.

Ms Qureshi intervened by questioning why the UK signs up to international treaties if it is not going to adhere to them. She highlights the inconsistency between signing treaties and failing to implement or follow them, suggesting a lack of commitment.

Ms Creasy intervened by reminding that Winston Churchill played a key role in establishing the European Court of Human Rights to protect citizens from overbearing governments. She challenges the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, asking whether he wants the UK to leave the ECHR and compares such action with Belarus's withdrawal.

Critiques the Bill for its ineffective approach to stopping boat crossings, arguing it will not address genuine refugees or criminal gangs. Emphasises the moral outrage of blaming asylum seekers for government incompetence while using incendiary language that incites hatred. Advocates for safe and legal routes rather than uncontrolled borders.

Intervenes to claim the issue stems from left-wing-supporting lawyers, questioning who is in control of the country. Accuses the Government of being undermined by extremists.

Cites evidence from Dan O'Mahoney, stating smugglers encourage asylum seekers to discard identifying documents. Questions the Home Office's inability to distinguish genuine refugees without these documents.

Supports timely processing of asylum claims but criticises government statistics, highlighting an increase in backlog by 777%.

Highlights failure to resettle Afghanistan citizens under government schemes while thousands remain at risk, questioning effectiveness of current measures.

Questions accuracy of Government's claims regarding number of people seeking asylum in the UK, suggesting misinformation fuels fear.

Questions John Hayes' view on a Conservative Government's past legislation requiring virginity tests for women immigrants, which was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights.

Supports the Bill, emphasising the need to deal with illegal migration to maintain Britain's welcoming nature towards outsiders.

Challenges John Hayes' statistics and evidence on why asylum seekers discard their documents, suggesting it is due to traffickers' instructions. Asks for evidence from actual conversations with irregular route migrants.

The amendment aims to uphold legal obligations under the European convention on human rights and emphasises the moral obligation of wealthy nations like the UK to help refugees. It argues against carving out exceptions for certain categories of people regarding their human rights.

Farris argues that Amendments 131 and 132 are weak for legal and constitutional reasons. She emphasises that even without the Human Rights Act, the principle of non-refoulement would still protect individuals from persecution under customary international law. Farris also warns against undermining devolution settlements and the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Hayes suggests that leaving the convention altogether or having a 'notwithstanding clause' are options to consider, but he supports Farris's argument for respecting the will of Parliament through judicial interpretation.

Hobhouse interjects to remind that a failure to comply with interim measures can amount to a violation of article 34 of the convention.

Cherry interjects twice, first to clarify her earlier point on rule 39 and later to emphasise that a failure to comply with interim measures can amount to a violation of article 34.

Cash interjects multiple times to question Farris's expertise and challenge her views on the amendments, suggesting that she should look at the Home Secretary’s speech on interpretative matters.

Hoare adds to Hayes's list of options by proposing a fourth option, which is to ensure that the UK government meets its international obligations.

She emphasised the need to consider the human rights and protection of refugees, highlighting the lack of bureaucratic processes in emergency situations. She also criticised the Minister for the discrepancy between the number of people supposedly taken under schemes versus those still stranded.

He intervened to argue against Creasy's points, stating that they should deal in facts rather than anecdotes and highlighting the number of individuals taken under schemes since before the fall of Kabul.

He intervened to outline a strategy for tackling illegal immigration, including attacking it at source, dealing with issues in the channel, and creating a legislative framework.

He supported Creasy's point about comparing current situations to those faced by Churchill in 1950, arguing that the situation has evolved significantly since then.

He intervened to argue that the fundamental principles supporting initiatives established remain true today and would be supported by Churchill if he were here now.

Supports amendment 131 due to concerns that human rights legislation is being abused by those who wish to degrade the UK's ability to defend its borders. Argues for further safeguards in the Bill to ensure it works effectively.

This amendment offers a practical solution to the humanitarian crisis in the channel by creating a safe passage visa. It aims to prevent individuals from risking their lives on dangerous boat journeys, as it provides an alternative legal route for those already on their journey.

Supports amendments that aim to strengthen the Bill by closing potential legal loopholes. Emphasises the importance of robust action on illegal migration to protect public support for those in genuine need and argues against the misuse of the Human Rights Act.

Intervenes briefly to express support for Brereton's position and echoes his sentiments about the importance of closing legal loopholes. Emphasises the need to clarify that rule 39 orders from the European Court of Human Rights should not affect the removal of illegal economic migrants.

Ms. Cates supports the strengthening of the bill to ensure its effectiveness, arguing that illegal immigration is a serious issue affecting national security, economic stability, and sovereignty. She believes in upholding strong borders for a fair, safe, and cohesive nation, contrary to those advocating open borders based on compassion without acknowledging resource limitations. Ms. Cates aims to prevent spurious claims from undermining the bill’s objective of swift deportation of illegal immigrants.

The speaker argues that the proposed clauses violate human rights, fail to provide adequate support for vulnerable asylum seekers, and increase arbitrary detention without legal safeguards. She also highlights systemic abuse in immigration detention centres as evidence of poor management and profiteering by private companies. Additionally, she criticises the Bill's purpose of deterring asylum seekers through harsh measures, calling it immoral, cruel, and divisive.

Welcomes the Bill, expresses sympathy with amendments 131 to 134 and amendments 72-75. Argues against illegal immigration, highlighting the need for border control and legal migration systems. Supports the Rwanda policy as a deterrent to illegal entry and saving lives at sea. Criticises Labour's stance on border controls, stating that their record suggests they are opposed to all border controls. Emphasises public support for the Bill and the anger towards those entering illegally. Discusses opposition to hotel accommodation for illegal immigrants in his constituency, highlighting economic impacts. Advocates for prioritisation of refugees from conflict zones over individuals entering via small boats.

Supports the amendment. Criticises the Bill for its potential to violate international law and human rights conventions, and for stifling proper legislative scrutiny. Emphasises the need for safe routes for refugees seeking asylum in the UK, citing the example of Ukrainian refugees who have not resorted to dangerous methods to reach safety.

Ms Thewliss argues that the bill undermines human rights, suggesting that removing them from people who have suffered serious trauma is unacceptable. She highlights specific clauses like 37(7), 40(4)(a) and (b), and 50(3), arguing for tighter rules when returning people to unsafe countries and emphasising the importance of adequate support and services provided by foreign governments, particularly in medical care. She also criticises short claim periods as unrealistic and uncompassionate towards traumatised individuals, advocating for more lenient provisions to prevent difficulties in making claims.

[INTERVENTION] Mr Jenrick interjected to assert that the issue of setting a cap is for Parliament, disputing Ms Thewliss's claim.

Ms Qureshi strongly opposes the Bill, arguing it breaches human rights laws. She criticises the Government's use of derogatory terms like 'lefty lawyers' to dismiss opposition arguments. Ms Qureshi highlights the importance of abiding by international conventions and human rights treaties, questioning the legitimacy of undermining them through this legislation. She also disputes claims about mass immigration and points out that most recent asylum seekers have legitimate cases. Additionally, she warns against divisive language inciting violence towards refugees in hostels.

Opposes the Bill due to its failure to provide safe and legal routes for refugees, instead punishing those who are fleeing war and persecution. Advocates for new clauses 3, 4, and 6 to establish humanitarian travel schemes and safe passage pilot programmes.

Supports the Bill's aim but highlights concerns about its impact on victims of modern slavery. Emphasises the importance of addressing trafficking and exploitation in Northern Ireland, advocating for provisions to be extended to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

Foy criticises the hostile rhetoric employed by the Home Secretary and asserts that no migrant or refugee is responsible for the state's current issues. She endorses new clauses proposed to drastically improve the Bill, including one providing safe passage visas to those wishing to claim asylum in Britain. Foy argues against deterrence as a means of stopping small boat crossings, citing ongoing dangerous crossings despite previous legislation and policies.

Jenrick defends the Government's amendments which extend deployment powers for judges to manage fluctuating court demands and allow appeals under the Bill to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission instead of the upper tribunal when sensitive material is involved. He also rebuts claims about the inefficiency of handling immigration by citing a report from John Vine, who described it as 'not fit for purpose'.

Kinnock intervenes to ask the Minister to retract a claim about asylum backlogs made in December, which is now debunked by the UK Statistics Authority. He requests that the Home Office be legally required to consult local authorities before deciding on hotels for refugees under new clause 27.

McDonald criticises the timetabling and debate process, calling it an embarrassment. He laments that there has been no serious engagement with amendments tabled in consultation with respected organisations like the Law Society.

Cash withdraws his amendment after receiving assurances from the Minister. He proposes an alternative amendment to include specific types of claims such as protection, human rights, and slavery trafficking claims in clause 37.