Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025-05-12

The Minister for Border Security and Asylum introduced a new clause that amends the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to extend obligations currently placed on employers to cover other working arrangements such as worker's contracts, sub-contracting agreements, and online matching services. This amendment aims at making it clear that individuals engaging in these types of work arrangements are also subject to the same restrictions as those employed directly by employers.

Argues for the necessity of new clauses to combat illegal immigration, emphasising the importance of strategic planning by Border Security Commander and stringent qualification periods for indefinite leave to remain. Cites examples such as sea crossings and benefits misuse to illustrate need for stricter border security measures.

Opposes the new clauses, citing human rights concerns and criticises proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain qualifications. Emphasises the impact of social protection on vulnerable migrants and highlights the importance of upholding international legal standards.

Raises concerns about revocation clauses, particularly in terms of their potential to revoke indefinite leave to remain based on income levels and social protection usage. Questions the fairness and effectiveness of such measures, advocating for a more compassionate approach.

Supports new clauses aimed at enhancing border security and reducing illegal immigration, emphasising the importance of strategic priorities outlined in the bill. Cites specific examples such as age assessments and revocation criteria to illustrate the need for robust legislation.

Endorses stricter immigration policies, highlighting the importance of protecting UK interests through measures that address illegal entry, benefits misuse, and age assessments. Criticises opposition to such measures as being out of touch with public sentiment.

Raises concerns about the impact of proposed changes on vulnerable individuals, particularly those seeking asylum or protection. Emphasises the importance of adhering to international law and human rights standards in immigration policy.

Proposes amendments to the Immigration Rules, including restrictions on spousal visas and social protection benefits. Emphasises self-sufficiency requirements for migrants, aiming to reduce reliance on public funds.

Critiques proposed amendments as overly harsh, suggesting they will disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals and fail to address root issues of migration. Proposes alternative safe and legal routes for refugees seeking international protection.

The hon. Member inquired about border security in Northern Ireland, specifically regarding illegal immigration from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and subsequent entry into the UK. He questioned the extent of discussions between the Garda Síochána, PSNI, and other security forces to address this issue effectively.

The Minister assured the hon. Member that close collaboration exists between the border security force in the UK, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), and the Garda Síochána to monitor potential threats within the Common Travel Area. She emphasised ongoing efforts to address concerns about illegal immigration pathways.

The hon. Member acknowledged that part of the issue with the asylum system stems from a backlog created by previous administrations, which extended processing times as a deterrent but instead resulted in delays and increased costs for taxpayers.

The Minister confirmed her hon. Friend's point, noting that the current Government inherited an asylum system that had largely ceased functioning due to restrictive laws from the previous administration. This led to tens of thousands of individuals being left in limbo with no resolution to their cases, resulting in significant financial burdens on public funds.

Called on immediate detention and deportation of individuals crossing the channel, questioning whether they should be treated as potential threats or even terrorists.

Responded to Lee Anderson's comments, stating that treating every case individually is essential. She emphasised that while humanity must be shown towards genuine asylum seekers, the government recognises some individuals may use the system for economic reasons or exploitation.

Asked if the process allowing asylum seekers to work after three months could promote integration and reduce hotel bills. He highlighted that such measures would enable people to contribute more quickly to their communities.

Emphasised the desperation of refugees who undertake dangerous journeys, suggesting a need for global efforts to address the root causes of forced migration and improve conditions in war-torn or abusive regions.

Argued that some people claim asylum for economic reasons, implying that the system is being exploited. He supported the need to address this issue effectively.

Asked about opportunities for those persecuted due to their faith to seek asylum in the UK. The Minister assured him that changes would not impinge on existing criteria for determining protection needs under the refugee convention, including religious persecution.

The MP questions whether the judiciary's interpretation of exceptional circumstances undermines the clarity needed in refugee status denial cases. He suggests defining these terms more clearly to ensure no ambiguity.

The Liberal Democrat MP expresses surprise at Reform UK MPs' absence during an important debate and makes a humorous remark about their campaigning efforts.

The Conservative Member critiques the Government's handling of small boat crossings, citing statistics showing a significant increase in illegal cross-channel entries since the previous year. He argues that young men entering through this route are not victims but criminals.

The Liberal Democrat MP disputes the Conservative view, stating that many of those crossing are refugees fleeing dangerous conditions in Eritrea. He criticises the approach as not based on evidence.

The MP questions why the Government has not adopted age verification systems for asylum seekers to ensure accurate assessments, pointing out that such methods are used by other European countries.

Mike Tapp intervenes to accuse Chris Philp of misleading the House, pointing out that more people have crossed the channel under the current government than on Labour's watch. He also notes that 35,000 people crossed since the election.

Dame Angela Eagle asks Chris Philp to comment on why he plans to vote against the Bill given it provides counter-terrorism style powers. She highlights that security services support these measures.

Jo White questions whether Chris Philp can address comments made by his colleagues about immigration being too high and the system being broken.

Iqbal Mohamed asks for a refund of £700 million spent on the Rwanda scheme, noting that it saw only four volunteers removed. He criticises the money allocation as wasteful.

Phil Brickell interrupts to ask Chris Philp about specific measures they are proposing in relation to indefinite leave to remain and annual immigration caps.

Supports the idea of implementing a cap for asylum seekers and refugees, suggesting councils should determine capacity. Argues it is practical and ensures democratic accountability.

Questions the right hon. Member about child protection issues, criticising the interpretation of ECHR articles that allow foreign offenders to remain in the UK.

Challenges Chris Philp's stance on child protection, citing testimony from the Children’s Commissioner about child abuse cases involving migrants and asylum seekers.

Welcomes the intention to repeal parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 but criticises punitive measures in the Bill. Emphasises the need for a compassionate, rights-based approach and calls for quarterly statistics on deaths in the asylum system.

Supports new clauses aimed at addressing perilous channel crossings and dismantling of safe and legal routes under the previous Government. Calls for a focus on restoring rights to seek asylum, opening up safe routes, and resolving the backlog in the system.

There are hideous stories about sub-Saharan African women being injected with such high levels of contraceptive as to make them permanently infertile because they were raped on their way here. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.

The lack of safe routes is a direct cause of the current crisis. New clause 27 would widen family reunion rules, so that unaccompanied child refugees could be joined by their closest relatives. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.

The Government should not disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration functions, as this could lead to deprivation of human rights for another group tomorrow. The Opposition’s new clause on safe routes is unsustainable; it is necessary to make lawful claims easier.

Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget because they could instead support themselves. It would help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if asylum seekers were seen to be paying their way.

Chris Murray agrees with Stella Creasy and pushes for a review of the national referral mechanism to tackle modern slavery issues.

Mr Will Forster supports parts of the Bill aimed at tackling people smuggling but criticises the ban on asylum seekers working while awaiting decisions. He proposes new clause 21, which would allow asylum seekers to work after three months and encourages safe and legal routes for immigration.

Ms Olivia Blake welcomes the repeal of previous Government legislation and supports new clauses that aim to publish statistics on deaths in the asylum system, report on working rights, and ensure citizenship rights for children born in the UK despite their parents' immigration status.

Mr Murray argued against the Bill's purpose to stop small boat crossings in the Channel by claiming that deterrence alone will not work because demand for crossing is inelastic. He suggested tackling supply instead, proposing measures such as making it harder to organise crossings and seizing smugglers' phones.

Ms Denyer expressed disappointment that the Government had not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. She proposed amendments to restore judicial oversight of detention decisions and to scrap parts of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that penalise people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork.

Immigration is not the crisis but rather how we treat people; irregular migration accounts for a small fraction of total immigration, while regular migration has soared under the current government. Criticises exploitative business models in immigration detention and proposes new clause 37 to address citizenship issues for children born or raised in the UK.

Supports safe routes for asylum seekers, criticises the government's approach as creating a monopoly for gangs involved in illegal crossings, expresses concern about agencies and support organisations being put at risk by new clauses. Urges empathy towards refugees.

Welcomes powers given to Border Command to pursue and prosecute gang members responsible for small boat disasters; supports enhanced illegal working checks and increased penalties for employers of illegal workers, emphasising the need to secure borders and deter illegal immigration.

Criticises the government's failure to control illegal immigration, supports new clause 14 aimed at deterring gang activity; emphasises the cancellation of the Rwanda scheme as a mistake and calls for more effective deterrents.

Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and asylum system in record numbers. Last year was the deadliest ever with at least 82 deaths including 14 children, though actual figures may be higher. There have been deaths in asylum accommodation too. People die by suicide, from infectious diseases or unknown causes due to poor living conditions. Home Office keeps no official records of these deaths. My new clause calls for truth and transparency, urging the Government to act on this urgent humanitarian crisis.

Supporting my right hon. Friend's new clause 39 which aims to avoid worst abuses in courts system by giving precedence to non-refoulement arrangements but not allowing European convention on human rights and its interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond these provisions. We need to be tough on those who abuse our hospitality.

New clause 14 would prevent foreign nationals convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK. Successive Governments have failed to toughen up the regime due to activist judges, undermining their efforts. I agree with my hon. Friend's point.

Supporting the Bill as it gives law enforcement bodies the necessary tools and resources to intervene earlier and act faster against criminal smuggling gangs. The new offences targeting boat parts suppliers can lead up to 14 years in prison, while electronic devices seizure helps gather evidence.

Ministers promised action on illegal working and foreign sex offenders but failed to deliver. The Government is refusing to support new clause 11 which would address these issues effectively. They are also whipping their MPs against disapplying the Human Rights Act.

Platt supports the Bill, stating it is a step towards building an immigration system that balances firmness with fairness. She highlights actions taken by the Government since the general election, such as processing over 24,000 people without legal right to remain and arresting more than 600 individuals for illegal working practices. Platt also mentions local issues in Leigh where Serco's acquisition of properties is causing housing strain.

Franklin supports new clause 21, allowing asylum seekers to work after three months. She cites the example of Mohi, a young woman who was unable to work despite having nursing experience and living in a hotel for over a year. The clause aims to allow individuals like Mohi to contribute economically and rebuild their lives.

Taylor agrees with Franklin's support for new clause 21, noting that the move is popular with the public and would benefit critical workers among asylum seekers.

Hayes emphasises the importance of securing borders as a basic necessity for national security and pride. He highlights new powers on seizing electronic devices, protecting life at sea, and tougher action against foreign national sex offenders.

Slade supports the Liberal Democrats' new clauses 24 and 33. She discusses the need for international partnerships to combat human trafficking, citing the example of a young man from Cameroon who was refused the ability to work after claiming asylum.

The MP argues against increasing the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. They claim this would cause professionals such as police officers, research scientists, and nurses to leave the UK due to inability to sponsor their spouses under the proposed new threshold of £38,000. The current threshold at £29,000 ensures families can stay together.

Adam emphasises the need for a fair and compassionate immigration system that does not blame immigrants for societal issues such as pollution or economic stagnation. He supports new clause 27 to ensure proper age assessments for victims of human trafficking, calling on members to support this amendment.

Voaden advocates for safe and legal routes for asylum seekers and quick assessment of their claims. She supports new clause 21 which would allow asylum seekers to work, aiding in integration and economic contribution. She cites evidence that refugees make a positive fiscal impact after five years.

Mohamed criticises the lack of clear humane strategy for safe legal routes within the Bill, supporting new clause 3 to require the Government to publish such a strategy. He highlights deaths and risks faced by asylum seekers crossing dangerous channels.

Barclay questions the Minister's stance on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that it allows serious criminals to remain in the UK despite government commitments. He emphasises a need for stronger measures against sex offenders seeking asylum.

Philp argues that provisions to deny refugee status to sexual offenders will be ineffective if they merely switch to claiming under article 3 of the ECHR. He suggests disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters, a stance countered by the Minister.

Ribeiro-Addy campaigns against financial barriers for families seeking citizenship and requests consultation with organisations like Citizens UK to address these issues. She welcomes the Minister's willingness to meet but urges further concrete actions.

Proposed new clauses related to immigration appeals, particularly serious crimes for refugees, and changes in the rank of authorising officers for searches and seizures.

Called for a strategy on developing safe and managed routes for people seeking asylum in the UK. The motion was negatived with 90 Ayes and 318 Noes.

Proposed clauses to disapply the Human Rights Act, cap the number of annual non-visitor visa entrants, and remove restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment. All proposals were negatived by voting.

Called for a statement changing the rules to allow asylum applicants to take up employment after three months without a decision. The motion was negatived with 87 Ayes and 404 Noes.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Bill restores order to an asylum system that was left in chaos by the Conservatives. It puts an end to the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that they bequeathed us. It repeals in full the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and it repeals most of the unworkable Illegal Migration Act 2023, which trapped asylum seekers in limbo as asylum backlogs soared and the taxpayer picked up a spiralling bill. This Government are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us, and the Bill before the House will help us to succeed. It will assist in securing our borders by dealing with the soaring backlogs. It gives counter-terror style powers to law enforcement agencies, equipping them to go after the people-smuggling gangs that are making millions of pounds out of exploiting people’s misery. The Bill introduces new powers to seize electronic devices and disrupt the activities of people smugglers; new offences against gangs selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel; new powers on serious crime prevention orders to target individuals involved in organised immigration crime; a new law to protect lives at sea by making it an offence to endanger another life during small boat crossings; a new statutory footing for the Border Security Commander; and new and improved data sharing between Government agencies, such as HMRC and DVLA, and law enforcement to detect organised immigration crime. The Bill introduces a statutory timeline for appeals decisions and a major modernisation of the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. It ensures that those who commit certain sexual offences will be denied protection under the refugee convention, and contains a long-overdue extension of the right-to-work checks for casual and temporary workers in the gig economy.

The Opposition will vote against the Bill as it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders.