Full name of the bill being debated - New Clause 27 - Accommodation: Duty to Consult

The amendment seeks to replace 'must' with 'may', allowing more flexibility in consultation processes regarding accommodation. Alison emphasises the importance of adapting consultation methods based on local needs and circumstances.

Intervened to argue that the Bill's denial of help to people diagnosed with HIV/AIDS contradicts UK’s commitment to ending new HIV transmissions by 2030 and its role as a co-founder in global efforts against HIV/AIDS.

Expressed dissent during interventions, highlighting that without amendment 186, clause 2 would effectively shut down the whole UK asylum system.

Concerned about the impact of the Bill on the Modern Slavery Act. Argued that the Bill undermines efforts to support victims and catch traffickers, citing legal incompatibilities and practical challenges.

Agreed with Theresa May that people may stop giving evidence to the police due to fears of deportation, undermining efforts to catch traffickers.

Cited a letter from Home Office-funded modern slavery support services indicating that the Bill makes it impossible for them to provide crucial support and help catch traffickers.

Kinnock criticises the Bill for being rushed through Committee and lacking credible measures to stop small boat crossings. He cites the cost of £3 billion annually and the failure to publish impact assessments as undermining democratic scrutiny. Proposes new clauses requiring detailed reports on asylum backlog clearance, regular consultation with local authorities regarding accommodation provision, and safeguards against indefinite detention of potential victims of trafficking.

Hunt notes that quiet diplomacy is insufficient for resolving the asylum seeker problem. He suggests that the Prime Minister's relationship with France may not be enough to address the issue.

May corrects Kinnock on the timeline of UK's relations with France, suggesting a shorter timeframe for deterioration in those relationships compared to what Kinnock stated.

The speaker emphasises the importance of protecting the modern slavery clauses in the Bill, proposes specifying a threshold of false claims before commencing these clauses, calls for evidence on their impact, suggests exempting UK exploited victims from disapplication and highlights the need for a swift assessment system. He also raises concerns about the potential misuse of the system by those making false claims.

The MP agrees with Iain Duncan Smith's points and suggests that a shorter average assessment period would prevent individuals from using the system to stay in the country longer.

She supports Iain Duncan Smith’s position on the lack of an evidence base for this aspect of the Bill and suggests that a new anti-slavery commissioner should be appointed to provide proper evidence.

Supports the concerns raised by Apsana Begum regarding accommodation for children. Calls on the Minister to provide clarity and justification for clause 16, which allows removal of a child from local authority care.

Proposes an amendment asking the Minister to seek an opinion from the Venice Commission on whether the Bill complies with the European convention on human rights. Argues that such a consultation would provide fuller and more expansive commentary than existing consultations, without hindering the legislative process.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall highlights that the Bill fails to address the root causes of migration, such as a lack of safe and legal routes for people fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries. She argues against removing unaccompanied children from access to support services and emphasises the importance of international cooperation to combat human trafficking effectively. Florence Eshalomi also calls upon the Government to reconsider its approach and adopt more compassionate policies that protect vulnerable individuals rather than criminalizing them.

Argues that the Bill should include an exception for 'compelling circumstances' to grant citizenship applications, similar to those already existing for entry clearances. Highlights cases where individuals entering as babies may face lifelong exclusion from UK citizenship despite later meeting requirements.

Expresses skepticism about the Government's commitment to safe and legal routes for migration. Criticises the Bill as electioneering rather than a practical solution to migration issues. Raises concerns about detention of children, arguing it is unnecessary and contradicts past policies.

Mr Jenrick acknowledges a serious situation with an increase in unaccompanied minors coming into the country and emphasises the need for appropriate accommodation for those who may not be minors after age assessment. He suggests that the Bill seeks to address this issue.

Mr Timms argues against the proposed clause, stating that it is unconscionable for children to know they will be removed from the country on their 18th birthday. He questions the ethics of such a policy.

Ms Creasy challenges the Minister’s statement about incarcerating minors and calls for clarity on safeguarding responsibilities. She asks Mr Jenrick to support new clause 18, which would ensure parity in welfare responsibilities for all public agencies dealing with children.

Concerned about unintended consequences of the Bill that could lead to judicial reviews and compensation for public bodies. Highlights conflict with other legislation such as the Children Act 1989 and Modern Slavery Act 2015. Emphasises need for clear sight on how duties will be discharged and suggests extending resettlement schemes used in refugee accommodation to new asylum system.

Raises concern about treatment of unaccompanied and accompanied children, noting local authorities' inability to undertake safeguarding role without clear involvement of Home Office. Suggests new clause 18 would clarify responsibilities for welfare.

Supports amendment to make it clear that rule 39 interim measure orders should not be taken into account by UK domestic courts when considering deportation or removal of individuals.

Clarifies purpose of 'notwithstanding' provision is to allow policy to proceed while negotiations are ongoing, preventing interim orders from immediately grounding flights or stopping policies.

Mr McDonnell argued that detaining children in bleak, prison-like conditions is cruel and detrimental to their mental health. He cited examples of children suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and even suicides within the detention centres. He also highlighted a poem written by a child during his visit which expressed longing for freedom outside the gates.

Mr Carmichael intervened to emphasise that detaining children alongside adults who are deemed necessary for detention is inhumane. He shared his experience of witnessing such conditions at Dungavel.

Mr Gullis supports amendments 135 and 136. He argues that blocking returns to UK is crucial for offshoring policy success and restricts hotels' use, which undermines local sectors in Stoke-on-Trent. He also criticises the interference of foreign dignitaries and judges on UK legislation.

Asked Mr Gullis to clarify his stance on European Court judgments that protect British citizens from oppressive Governments. This intervention implied a critique of Mr Gullis's view that foreign bodies should not interfere in UK legislation.

The Bill is an affront to human rights treaties and contrary to Welsh Government's wishes. New clause 29 would ensure that measures under the Bill are consistent with Wales being a sanctuary nation, and requires Senedd Cymru approval for guidance publication. Concerns about clause 12 include summary deportation of minors and indefinite detention in poor conditions.

He proposes amendments to introduce scientific age assessments for asylum seekers to ensure that those who are truly under 18 can access support while identifying those falsely claiming youth. He argues this will help restore justice in the system and prevent exploitation by people smugglers. Additionally, he supports measures to strengthen deportation processes to swiftly remove individuals without legal right to remain.

Ms Creasy criticises the Bill for its failure to address illegal activities like visa overstay and human trafficking. She argues against the Home Office's use of 'safe and legal routes', citing examples where individuals fleeing danger could not access such routes. Additionally, she emphasises the need for better safeguarding measures for children in hotels.

Mr Gullis interjects to question Ms Creasy’s campaign activities and disputes her argument about safe routes, suggesting that smuggling via small boats is not a viable or safe option compared to legal means. He points out discrepancies in statistics on missing children, asserting they left voluntarily.

Mr Jenrick intervenes to agree that everyone wants children to be safe and not engage in dangerous crossings. He suggests focusing on safe legal routes rather than encouraging people smugglers.

Supports the amendment, citing significant constituent concern over illegal immigration. He raises issues of fairness and public service strain due to undocumented immigrants jumping housing queues and accessing services before locals.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees with the need for safeguarding but questions whether all alleged minors should mix with UK residents until age verification is guaranteed.

[INTERVENTION] Acknowledges the need for local authorities to ensure education for statutory school-aged children and supports amending legislation to clarify positions regarding child asylum seekers.

[INTERVENTION] Asks Ben Bradley whether he will support a new clause requiring the Home Office to consult with local authorities before making accommodation arrangements for asylum seekers.

Critiques framing the debate as 'them vs. us' and highlights specific issues regarding the common travel area between Ireland and Northern Ireland, raising concerns over legal jeopardy for individuals crossing borders and tourism impacts.

Supports amendments and new clauses to protect refugees, criticises Government's handling of asylum seekers, emphasises the need for safe routes and support from local authorities.

Speaks to amendments 121-127 and amendment 1 in support of detailed legal scrutiny. Criticises Minister's lack of response to Opposition points, emphasising the importance of line-by-line scrutiny.

Supports the need for court oversight and bicameral scrutiny but recognises the need for careful law-making due to rushed legislation in the House.

Responded to guidance on time limits given by Speaker.

Raises concerns about the lack of proper scrutiny opportunities due to rushed legislation, stressing the importance of thorough prelegislative scrutiny.

Supports new clause 22, which would enshrine Home Secretary’s accountability in law, requiring regular reporting on asylum backlog resolution. Welcomes new clause 27 to legally mandate consultation with local authorities before establishing accommodation for asylum seekers. Criticises the government's inefficiency and increasing reliance on hotel accommodation for asylum seekers.

Highlights that while Liberal Democrats aim to solve issues, they oppose the bill due to inefficiencies in Home Office operations. Criticises government's reduction of aid spend and lack of commitment to climate change commitments. Emphasises concerns over reopening Campsfield House detention centre and the humanitarian impact on individuals detained there.

Ms Diana R. Johnson supports her amendments, which aim to protect refugee children from mandatory removal when they turn 18. She cites examples of Sudanese girls and Albanian boys who would be at risk under the current Bill provisions. She also raises concerns about the Home Office's capacity for safeguarding children and proposes independent reviews and guardianships.

Loughton raises concerns about the unintended consequences for vulnerable children entering illegally, arguing that these amendments would ensure unaccompanied minors are not penalised for actions beyond their control. He also highlights the importance of safeguarding measures to prevent adultification and detention of children inappropriately.

Graham interjects to confirm that Loughton's reassurance about safe and legal routes was satisfactory, indicating support for the proposed amendments aimed at protecting vulnerable children entering the UK without their consent.

Buckland supports focusing on safeguarding rather than detention language. He agrees with Loughton that identifying genuine cases requiring protection under the Children Act is crucial, highlighting the importance of child welfare prioritisation.

The MP opposes the Bill, stating it treats asylum seekers with cruelty. He argues that clause 11 undermines court jurisdiction and welfare laws by allowing the Home Secretary to detain children based on her own conclusions. The MP also points out that the Bill fails to address human trafficking and may criminalise victims of such crimes, pushing more asylum seekers into the informal economy where they face exploitation.

Grady criticises amendments such as amendment 136 for being impractical and increasing costs. He emphasises that asylum seekers should have the right to work, which would enable them to contribute economically and integrate into communities more effectively. Grady also highlights issues with clause 2 regarding its potential violation of human rights and lack of practicality in implementation.

Ms Winter opposes clauses that create a duty to remove and powers to make asylum claims inadmissible. She highlights concerns over detention, child welfare, and the impact on refugees' rights under international law.

Intervened to support Ms Winter's position, citing contributions of asylum seekers in the NHS and damaging effects on Britain’s reputation as a safe haven.

Intervened to criticise the behaviour of Back Benchers during Ms Winter's speech, but did not elaborate on his stance towards the bill or amendment.

Supports clauses 30 to 36 regarding citizenship and expresses concern over deprivation of British citizenship for children born in Britain due to actions of their parents. He also critiques the detention clauses, stating they are designed to prevent people from being released on bail.

The MP raises concerns about the lack of a Government impact assessment for the bill, questioning its transparency and calling for it to be published immediately. She emphasises her support for Parliament having access to such documents to scrutinise the Government's policies effectively.

The MP clarifies that it is not within the Chair’s purview but rather the responsibility of the Government to decide whether or not to publish impact assessments. He states that he will call on the Minister who has heard the hon. Lady's concerns.

Argued for a coherent and robust scheme to remove individuals who entered the UK illegally, including unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. Emphasised that large numbers of minors are coming to the UK at the behest of human traffickers and need to be deterred. Noted the number of unaccompanied minors has quadrupled since 2019. Supported breaking the cycle of illegal migration through robust measures while respecting children's rights.

As the Chair of proceedings, Roger Gale maintains order in the debate and guides MPs to focus on the amendments rather than general discussions.

She criticises the Minister for misrepresenting her position and failing to address points raised by opposition members, calling the debate a farce due to lack of government responsiveness.

She repeatedly seeks for the Minister to give way and questions the evidence behind the claims made by the Government regarding the abuse of the system, indicating a lack of solid evidence.

He interjects to suggest that while raising concerns about figures is important, it should be done carefully without disregarding the real issues of trafficking. He asks the Government to reconsider their stance before voting.

She argues that the Minister has not presented any evidence or impact assessment for the legislation and criticises the vote as baseless. She also highlights a lack of engagement with legal analysis by the Government.

He supports Alison Thewliss's amendment 189, suggesting that it should exempt Afghan asylum seekers and criticises arbitrary decisions without considering individual cases. He also mentions a specific example of Sabir Zazai being awarded an OBE.

She points out the lack of safe routes for Afghan refugees despite promises made in 2021, calling it a disgrace.