Nationality and Borders Bill - Clause 60 - Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking

Endorses the motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, emphasising that it is a matter of extreme national interest and reflecting the strong sentiment of constituents across the country.

Supports the motion to disagree with the Lords amendments, referencing Lord Clarke’s and Lord Heseltine’s support for the Bill. Advocates for better European co-operation and proposes a Marshall plan to address root causes of migration.

Agrees that the Bill should go through, emphasising moral obligations regarding deaths in the Channel. Supports Lord Randall’s amendment on modern slavery, highlighting the Government's previous promises to address issues raised by this amendment.

Concerned about the protection of refugees and victims of persecution. Questions whether the Bill adequately safeguards those fleeing for humanitarian reasons.

Critiques the other place's attempts to prevent breaking international law. Challenges the effectiveness of deterrence measures outlined in the Bill, citing Home Office impact assessments and children’s charities' concerns.

Raises specific concern for a constituent subjected to modern slavery who fears repercussions if returned to Albania, questioning the protection mechanisms in place under the Bill.

Questions those proposing uncapped safe and legal routes regarding their impact on public services and community cohesion. Highlights potential consequences if such routes are made widely available.

Acknowledges the need for age-appropriate care but raises concerns about current detention standards, suggesting that these should be updated to align with children’s home safeguarding rules.

Argues that the Bill could discourage victims from giving evidence against traffickers, potentially reducing prosecutions. Suggests that current regulations may not provide adequate protection for those cooperating with law enforcement.

Requests further clarification regarding the treatment of unaccompanied children and the adequacy of detention centre standards, questioning whether they meet necessary safeguarding requirements.

Intervenes to challenge the effectiveness of safe third country removal as a deterrent, pointing out that Labour's previous government used this principle in their immigration policy. She also argues that a returns deal with mainland Europe is unworkable due to practical difficulties in getting European countries to accept removals.

Intervenes to argue that the Dublin regulation did not work effectively, noting that only 1.5% of requests for deportation were granted when the UK was part of it.

Intervenes to claim that the increase in small boat crossings is due to the Government closing loopholes for lorry crossings, rather than issues related to the Dublin regulation.

Asks for intervention time but does not provide a specific argument in this excerpt.

The MP acknowledges that her position will do for now and defends the mental health of children, arguing against dangerous journeys across the channel. She supports legal and safe routes instead.

Intervenes to argue that the best thing for children's mental health is preventing dangerous journeys, supporting the Bill and its clauses as they will ensure fewer such journeys.

Intervenes to correct previous statistics, emphasising that over 70% of foreign national offenders and small boat arrivals use modern slavery legislation to delay removal. He challenges Eleanor Laing to address this issue.

Intervenes sceptically, suggesting that Labour might quietly adopt the Bill if they come to power due to its effectiveness in addressing illegal immigration.

Questions the root causes of people fleeing wars and seeking asylum, suggesting that the Bill does not address these broader issues.

Reiterates support for giving the Rwanda plan a chance, arguing it could be effective despite Labour's fears.

Argues that illegal immigrants on small boats are taking capacity from local authorities needed to house people in Pakistan, urging support for legal routes.

Challenges Stephen Kinnock to account for asylum seekers in his constituency and suggests he should advocate for bringing more people.

Critiques the Minister's stance on blocking Afghans due to capacity issues caused by small boat arrivals, advocating for safe routes.

Critiques Stephen Kinnock's speech as not providing new information and suggests it was merely a lengthy conversation.

Opposes the Bill, emphasising that it contradicts international law and human rights protections. Supports Lords amendments for judicial oversight, refugee protection, child detention limits, trafficking victim support, LGBT protections, and a long-term strategy to address forced migration.

Supports the Bill's purpose of maintaining border security and fairness. Argues that the amendments are unnecessary as they do not address the urgent need to control illegal immigration, and criticises opposition for ignoring public sentiment.

Criticises the Government's approach to migration management as politically motivated and ineffective. Argues against the detention of children and expresses concern over the lack of safe and legal routes for asylum seekers.

Supports the Government's stance on managing migration but criticises the process and outcomes of previous legislation. Advocates for a derogation from international conventions to enhance deterrence against illegal immigration.

Supports Lords amendment 1B for protection under international conventions. Criticises the Government's lack of respect for international law and human rights, urging a global response to asylum seekers rather than an ineffective and harsh approach.

Supports Lords amendment 56B to maintain modern slavery protections, disappointed in the rejection of child protection amendments, and supports Lords amendments on safe routes and combating people smugglers.

Critiques the government's attitude towards asylum seekers as hostile and rejects the idea that rejecting Lords amendments would establish a fair asylum system. Supports Lords amendment 23B to prevent removal of LGBTQ individuals, and Lords amendments 102B and archbishop’s proposals for long-term strategy.

Opposes the Bill entirely but supports all Lords amendments before us, particularly amendment 1B on human rights conventions. Supports Lords amendment 102B for safe and legal routes and highlights the need to tackle the asylum system backlog.

She supports Lords amendments that would mitigate some of the worst harms of the legislation, such as placing a statutory duty on the Government to provide safe and legal routes for refugees. She also supports restrictions on detaining refugee children indefinitely.

He argues that assurances given so far on the detention of children are insufficient, and there is a need for legislation to prevent children from being detained in detention centres. He emphasises the long-term mental health implications and damage caused by detaining children.

He defends the Government's plan, stating that it is necessary to secure borders and stop illegal immigration. He criticises Labour for their perceived lack of a credible alternative and suggests that they do not have the determination to address the issue.