Planning Bill - Clause 2

The proposed clause seeks to enhance efficiency in planning by removing unnecessary red tape. It proposes changes that will ensure local authorities can respond more swiftly to development applications, thereby promoting growth and job creation.

Carmichael questioned whether the proposed amendments would act as a pull factor for asylum seekers, implying that people might come to the UK because of the possibility of working rights. He expressed skepticism about this being a valid argument.

Creasy interjected to ask the Minister for clarification or further explanation, suggesting that she supports the new clauses and seeks more information.

Criticised the proposed amendment, questioning why asylum seekers are not allowed to work despite successful claims. Raised concerns about undermining the rule of law.

Asked for clarity on what safe and legal routes are available for asylum seekers, particularly young people in conflict zones like Sudan. Highlighted the need for a clear answer from the Government.

Cited UNHCR's statement that there is no asylum visa or queue for the UK, questioning whether the Government's position aligns with international organisations. Highlighted discrepancies in the Minister’s statements.

Defended the Government's stance, clarifying that there is no direct mechanism for refugees to approach UNHCR with a request to seek asylum in the UK. Emphasised existing arrangements between the UK and UNHCR.

Asked about the situation of children under 18 with inadequate documentation in Sudan, raising concerns over their ability to travel safely and receive proper determination.

Highlighted the community sponsorship arrangement introduced by Theresa May, suggesting it as a positive model to expand in future for welcoming refugees.

Welcomed Government amendment 174 on limitations to removal of children but raised concerns about potential changes via regulations and sought clarity on parliamentary procedures for these changes.

Expressed worry that focusing too much on people smugglers could harm vulnerable children, suggesting it retraumatises them. Questioned whether the Government's focus was misplaced.

Agreed with the Minister’s compassionate view on children but questioned if it is safe for them to be in care of French authorities rather than boarding boats, and sought clarity on how the Bill would help.

Asked whether pregnant women arriving in the UK should be exempt from provisions for removal. Raised concerns about retraumatisation of vulnerable individuals.

Sought assurance that draft regulations would be seen before the Bill’s passage, expressing concern over lack of transparency in proposed changes.

Raised concerns about trafficking victims and their protection under current laws versus what would be allowed by the Bill, expressing confusion over why such amendments were being proposed.

Questioned whether Government amendment 95 was inadvertent, expressing concerns about its implications for individuals seeking protection from trafficking.

Expressed gratitude to the Government for facilitating a robust dialogue on these matters. Highlighted the importance of such discussions in addressing immigration issues effectively.

Questioned why the Home Secretary was reluctant to provide evidence to Joint Committee on Human Rights. Raised concerns about potential breaches of international law under the proposed new clause 26.

Asked her right hon. Friend about Greater Manchester police's urgent update regarding Programme Challenger, highlighting a significant drop in positive first stage decisions for potential victims from around 95% to 18%, expressing concern over access to immediate support.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Rose to speak but no specific contribution is provided in the given text.

Kinnock criticises the government's failure to stop dangerous channel crossings, citing examples of ineffective policies and highlighting that under Labour’s plan, asylum seekers will be processed efficiently in safe countries. He emphasises the need for international cooperation and solutions.

Qureshi raises concerns about the cost of the Rwanda scheme, noting that it involves taking people back from Rwanda as well.

Loughton argues there was a deterrent effect when the Rwanda scheme was announced, although it has not yet started. He suggests if implemented, it would have an impact on reducing channel crossings.

Johnson questions the government's stance on detaining vulnerable groups such as unaccompanied children, families with children, and pregnant women.

Creasy criticises the government for attempting to remove licensing laws from houses of multiple occupancy used by asylum seekers, thus preventing local authorities from refusing licenses and ensuring safety standards.

Hunt inquires about Labour's policy on caps for safe and legal routes, as well as their stance on deporting individuals who failed to gain asylum but entered illegally.

Cash argues that France would not agree to return proposals, questioning the effectiveness of such an approach and highlighting France's perceived lack of association with persecution or irreversible harm.

The amendment proposes that all local authorities must allocate a minimum of 10% of their healthcare budget to mental health services. This is necessary due to the rising demand and inadequate resources currently available.

While supporting improved mental health services, this amendment lacks flexibility for local authorities. Each region faces unique challenges that require tailored solutions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Duncan Smith highlights the importance of distinguishing between human trafficking and people smuggling. He emphasises that a majority of potential victims are exploited in the UK, not those arriving by boat. He argues that clause 21 and Government amendment 95 may discourage victims from coming forward to give evidence against their traffickers due to fears of deportation and being sent back to their abusers.

Carmichael interjects, suggesting that dealing with such complex amendments in this manner illustrates the inadequacy of the current process. He implies that the complexity undermines clarity and effectiveness.

Ms. Thewliss opposes the bill for its human rights violations and lack of evidence supporting the government's claims. She mentions specific clauses that threaten to return trafficked individuals to their exploiters, strip away legal routes for asylum seekers, and undermine international protections. She calls for an impact assessment, criticises the Home Office for deferring to non-scientific age assessments, and emphasises the importance of upholding child welfare standards.

Ms. Nici interjects to highlight concerns over safeguarding issues when age assessments are inaccurate, citing an example of a 24-year-old posing as a minor for benefits.

Mr. Hayes interjects to support the use of testing methods that European countries routinely employ to establish whether individuals are minors, arguing for a standard approach.

Argues that Government amendment 95 undermines support for victims and makes it harder to prosecute traffickers by assuming victims need not be present in the UK. Cites evidence from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe stating there is little abuse of the national referral mechanism but significant delays, which are within government control.

[INTERVENTION]: Emphasises that Government amendment 95's assumption of immediate deportation discourages victims from giving evidence, thereby posing a threat to identifying and prosecuting traffickers.

She expressed concern about the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill, highlighting potential costs up to £9 billion over three years. She opposed new clause 26 on interim relief as it breaches international obligations and damages UK's reputation in tackling irregular migration. Diana Johnson also raised concerns about the unlimited detention of pregnant women and removal of essential safeguards for children and accompanied minors, calling for amendments to uphold existing protections.

[INTERVENTION]: Congratulated Diana Johnson on her amendments and work with the Select Committee. Agreed that the Bill risks UK’s reputation as a safe haven for those fleeing persecution, emphasising the need to maintain this reputation.

Argues that demonising refugees does not address the cost of living crisis and questions the effectiveness of the Bill in tackling the small boats issue. She criticises the lack of measures targeting traffickers, the disregard for international law and cooperation, and the insufficient care for children arriving by boat.

Indicated dissent during Stella Creasy's speech. No further details provided in the given text.

Supports safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, emphasises need to balance tough measures with open approach towards genuine refugees. Stresses importance of timely implementation and consultation on schemes with local authorities and refugee organisations. Highlights concern over child detention policies and calls for clear differentiation between children and adults in detention terms. Cites specific examples from the Children Act 1989 regarding child detention limits. Intervenes to emphasise clarity on responsibilities under the Children Act.

Raises concerns over treatment of pregnant women asylum seekers, proposing new clauses to exempt them from removals and ensure independent reviews on health impacts. Cites real-life example of Najma Ahmadi and other cases highlighting dangers faced by pregnant refugees during their journey. Criticises government for lack of safe routes for those fleeing persecution in countries like Afghanistan. Emphasises the poor healthcare conditions in immigration detention centres.

Mr. Bryant expresses deep dislike for the Bill, criticising it as a commodification of vulnerable people's lives through dangerous crossings and failure in international diplomacy. He questions the premise of deterrence and highlights concerns over its interaction with modern slavery legislation and undermining efforts to combat trafficking. Mr. Bryant also objects to the Bill asking Ministers to breach international commitments, fearing long-term harm to Britain’s reputation.

Defends legal immigration controls as a matter of justice and necessity, citing public opinion polls that show support for stronger border measures. He argues against those who oppose the bill due to delusions or devious intentions, highlighting the need for scientific age assessments to prevent economic migrants from gaming asylum rules.

Calls out the Government's deflecting blame and argues that Labour’s approach is rooted in justice and fairness. She criticises the language used by ministers, suggesting it undermines public trust without addressing real issues effectively.

Supports the Bill's premise to reduce risks and costs associated with small boats. Advocates for safe and legal routes while closing illegal ones. Concerned about safeguarding children who may be exploited by traffickers, supporting strict rules on deprivation of liberty for minors. Seeks clear timescales for handling disputed cases.

Proposes new clause 1 to allow detained individuals to work after six months. Argues against current restrictions on asylum seekers' employment, highlighting economic and humanitarian benefits of allowing them to contribute. Points out that job shortages and labour needs could be addressed by lifting these restrictions.

Farris supports new clauses 22, 19, and 23 to 25 as they address issues of identification documents, mobile phones, and age verification which are crucial for distinguishing genuine asylum seekers from economic migrants. She cites evidence that most small boat arrivals lack identification documents and mobile phones, indicating the need for stricter measures.

Blake argues against new clauses 22, 19, and 23 to 25, stating that they will harm vulnerable individuals such as pregnant women and children. She criticises the Government’s approach for being motivated by electoral considerations rather than genuine concern for refugees.

Mr Grady criticises the Government's amendments for failing to address the reality of refugee migration and undermining previous legislation on human trafficking. He argues that such measures will harm victims of modern slavery and suggests that constituents prefer a system welcoming refugees, allowing them to work and contribute positively to society.

Mr. Kruger supports new clauses 22 and 17, emphasising the need to clarify domestic remedies for suspensive claims against removals while maintaining respect for constitutional documents such as the Human Rights Act 1998.

Praised the Minister for his engagement throughout the process, stating it has been a model of how good scrutiny can improve legislation.

Asked if the Minister was aware that other SNP Members had put their names in for this debate when it was originally scheduled, questioning changes to timing.

Asked the Minister a question about SNP member participation and requested an intervention.

Suggested that amendment 95 should not be moved as it is against what the House favours, potentially leading to its removal in the House of Lords.

Acknowledged an error made earlier and thanked the Minister for his work on the bill.

Alison Thewliss raised a point of order, questioning whether voting for the Illegal Migration Bill might break several human rights conventions. She expressed concern that MPs were potentially breaching legal and ethical obligations by supporting such legislation.

Nigel Evans responded to Alison Thewliss, confirming that the House had proceeded according to proper procedures. He did not address the substance of her concerns regarding human rights conventions.

Peter Grant inquired whether there had been any contact from the Leader of the House about future intentions to ensure adequate time for consideration of major bills before rushing them through Parliament.

Nigel Evans responded again, stating that he had not been in touch with Mr Speaker and no one had contacted him regarding future legislative processes.