Immigration and Asylum Bill

The speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, but no specific arguments or details are provided in this excerpt.

Chris Murray questioned the absence of mandatory reconsideration in the Bill, suggesting that it would make the appeals system more swift. He also highlighted historical systems without such mechanisms and their inefficiencies.

Creasy questioned the quality of initial Home Office decisions, given that 40% of appeals are overturned. She argued that focusing on improving initial decision-making would be more beneficial for value and decency in refugee treatment.

White supported the agreements made through partnership working with European partners, emphasising a unity of purpose among countries to tighten their borders and prevent system abuse.

Cummins called for an immediate seven-minute time limit on speeches, indicating a procedural stance rather than a specific argument against or in favour of the clause.

Critiques small boat crossings statistics, voluntary removal rates, low deportation figures to non-European countries due to ECHR claims. Argues for no safe and legal routes until illegal immigration is eliminated.

Intervenes asking whether UK's membership in ECHR affects deportation to specific countries mentioned by Chris Philp. No full speech provided.

Asks if rising asylum claims act as a magnet for others, suggesting an amnesty-like situation exists. No full speech provided.

Questions the root causes of global refugee crises and suggests international efforts to address them instead of focusing solely on domestic measures. Asks if fencing borders is a solution.

Notes that the opposition's record on net migration and questions Chris Philp’s credibility to lecture about immigration issues. No full speech provided.

Agrees with concerns over human rights claims and suggests a need for balance where one's rights do not always trump others. No full speech provided.

Argues against removing human rights protections, citing historical context and the importance of the European Court in upholding these rights. Emphasises the protection provided by these rights to millions around the world and highlights Winston Churchill's intentions behind protecting citizens from government overreach.

Intervened to support Clive Lewis, noting that governments of all political persuasions have acknowledged the importance of having a human rights court to hold them accountable. Suggests discussing the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland as an example of why these protections are necessary.

Asked Clive Lewis a question but no specific argument was provided in the given text.

Critiques the Home Secretary's assertion that legislation aims to remove the burden of asylum seekers from British people, emphasising historical examples where immigrants have positively contributed. Cites past immigration legislations such as the Immigration Act 2014 which led to the Windrush scandal, highlighting the negative impact on individuals and families. Argues for reconsideration of the current Bill due to concerns raised by legal bodies about its fairness and cruelty.

Mr. Wilkinson expressed opposition to the shadow Home Secretary's stance on human rights, arguing that they are essential for all and not just for asylum seekers. He criticised the Bill as failing to address the root causes of irregular migration due to Brexit and instead creating more bureaucracy and costs. He highlighted data showing Britain was fifth in European countries receiving asylum applications, questioning the rationale behind the Bill's premise. Wilkinson also pointed out issues with accommodation costs and poor Home Office decision-making leading to a backlog. Additionally, he criticised punitive measures proposed by the Bill as undermining integration and increasing taxpayer burdens.

[INTERVENTION]: Mr. Lewis challenged Max Wilkinson to list absolute human rights, suggesting that infringing on the rights of perpetrators should be prioritised over those who are innocent.

Mr. McMahon argues that there is a need for a fairer distribution of asylum seekers around the country to win public support. He highlights the housing pressures faced by towns such as Oldham due to an influx of asylum seekers and the long-term impact on children living in temporary accommodation. He also calls for a quicker resolution to cases like Shabir Ahmed, a convicted child rapist whose release has retraumatised victims.

Mr Chris Murray commends the work being done in northern France and welcomes the new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty, which resets the relationship with French authorities to tackle small boats. He emphasises the scale and complexity of operations by the French Government.

Mr Andrew Slaughter focuses on clauses 1-16 which create a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases, known as the independent immigration appeals authority. He questions whether this body will fix current system issues and be truly independent from the Home Office due to operational challenges and control mechanisms.

I support the amendment introduced by the Secretary of State to allow offences like Shabir Ahmed’s to be classed as so serious that offenders lose protections under the Immigration Act 1971. This is necessary for the deportation of vile sex offenders and grooming gang leaders, such as Ahmed, who was convicted of serial rape and exploitation in Rochdale. I welcome this measure to strengthen public interest.

This Bill is ineffective, performative and cruel. It reduces the quality of decision-making by creating a new appeals body despite 40% of decisions being successfully appealed. The provision requiring asylum seekers to repay the cost of their accommodation is both cruel and unnecessary. Allowing asylum seekers the right to work would help them integrate and cover costs without needing repayment. This Government’s measures are performative, costly, and counterproductive.

The Bill fails to adequately combat modern slavery despite its mention in the long title. One-fifth of cotton garments worldwide are linked to forced labour, and the UK risks becoming a dumping ground for prohibited goods. The bill offers weak words rather than concrete action against slave-produced goods from countries like China. The government should work cross-party to improve the Bill's stance on modern slavery.

Campaigning on modern slavery for over 20 years, Tom Collins fears that focusing too heavily on illegal immigration may conflict with tackling modern slavery. The bill risks diminishing consideration of cases involving victims who do not disclose their status immediately or those involved in criminal activity due to trauma. There's a risk that changing law will not improve operational decisions, which need fixing at the system level rather than through legislation.

The Bill does not address real problems in the UK asylum system, creates confusion and complexity, undermines rights under international order including those of innocent children, and includes excessive use of Henry VIII powers. It avoids addressing poor Home Office decision-making, limited safe routes, and demonising individuals while shifting away from long-held principles of needs-based protection.

Argues that the UK's social contract is fragile and needs careful narrative to ensure public confidence. Points out statistics showing misuse of Article 8 by illegal immigrants and those who breach visa conditions. Worries about undermining the balance of immigration rules leading to greater frustrations and exploitation.

Highlights a rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the UK, citing vigilantism and misinformation. Criticises government's approach as ineffective against far-right movements and argues that the Bill does not address real issues within the asylum system.

Supports control at the border, swift decisions in claims processing, fairness through contribution from those granted protection, and fair review of refugee status. Advocates for honesty about costs and legal routes to protect against people smugglers.

Critiques current asylum system failures under Labour Government, supporting stricter deportation measures, citing a specific case of an illegal immigrant and Article 8 rights abuse. Calls for leaving ECHR and repealing Human Rights Act to fully control borders.

Claims the Bill is a betrayal of the British people, not Labour values. Criticises the failure to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and suggests that doing so would be necessary to control illegal immigration.

Supports reforming the appeals process but criticises contracts with private providers for asylum support, which are costly and damaging. Highlights the need for refugees who go on to earn a lot to contribute back what they received from this country.

Supports reasoned amendment tabled in name of hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, rejects division, emphasises the need to treat refugees with human rights and compassion. Criticises provisions that harm children's well-being, force payments from financially vulnerable refugees, and prevent long-term integration.

Supports the bill as it addresses key concerns of his constituents regarding asylum seekers. He notes that the system was broken, lacked control and was costly to taxpayers. The small boat crossings are down by 12% compared with the equivalent period in 2024; initial decisions are at the highest level on record; and removals of people without a legal right to remain in this country are increasing.

Critiques the rhetoric against refugees as promoting racism. He argues that the bill does not address the root causes of migration and instead focuses on hostility towards asylum seekers, which he sees as a violation of human rights.

Supports the bill for its fair approach to asylum seekers by ensuring that those with sufficient means contribute financially. The new capped routes for genuine refugees being introduced alongside the Bill are important as they restore confidence in the system.

Raises concerns about the Home Office's high error rate in decision making, suggesting that improving this could reduce appeal numbers. Questions why the Government is introducing new reforms without clear evidence of their effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis. Criticises the proposed lay adjudicator system, citing Denmark and Australia as examples where such systems failed. Argues that the reforms may shift rather than reduce the backlog and questions the rationale behind these measures.

[INTERVENTION]: Emphasises the importance of certainty in reforms, suggesting that there should be a clear basis for believing that new reforms will improve the system rather than making it worse.

Highlights concerns about the Bill's potential to worsen the current asylum system and increase costs for taxpayers. Points out that much of the backlog is due to poor decision-making by the Home Office, and argues that improving initial decisions would be more cost-effective than introducing a new complex system. Criticises the proposed core protection visa as an unnecessary expense and raises issues about overseas domestic workers being exploited.

Argues that the Bill's logic on citizenship provisions is flawed, suggesting it creates a second class of citizens with fewer rights. Raises concerns about the Home Office’s approach to difficult cases and the disproportionate use of deprivation appeals against certain groups. Criticises punitive measures such as the £10,000 shelter fee for asylum seekers and warns about contraventions of human rights law.

McDonnell argues against the Bill's approach to trafficking victims, stating that it undermines the established process for identifying and assisting such individuals. He cites his constituency’s experience with unaccompanied children being trafficked into cannabis farms and young women involved in prostitution with drug dependencies. The Bill introduces a time limit which could make it harder for traumatised people to claim asylum as trafficking victims, going against previous cross-party efforts.

Witherden recognises the need for immigration reform but criticises specific measures in the Bill. He highlights that it would make it harder for families to claim rights of a child who is British or has lived here for seven years, affecting around 11,700 people according to government estimates. Witherden expresses concerns about separating loved ones and moving away from international law obligations.

Smith supports the Bill's introduction of financial contributions by asylum seekers towards the costs of the system, ensuring they do not fall into destitution. He cites an example of a young Sudanese refugee who wanted to contribute as soon as possible. Smith emphasises the need for fair and just immigration control while highlighting previous waves of immigration that have been beneficial.

Prinsley speaks about community sponsorship, welcoming refugees into communities rather than placing them in designated sites. He highlights the success of the Homes for Ukraine programme and emphasises that communities need clear guidance and support to continue their compassionate efforts.

Vickers argues that illegal migration undermines confidence in the UK's immigration system and places a burden on communities, public services, and finances. He criticises the Bill for not addressing the issue of illegal migrants obtaining citizenship or settlement rights.

Norris acknowledges the progress made but argues that further reform is necessary to address issues of capacity and public trust. He defends the proposed Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, emphasising its importance in enhancing system efficiency and independence.

Morton raises concerns about the sudden rise in planning applications for houses in multiple occupation, questioning whether placing asylum seekers into HMOs is a viable solution to immigration challenges.

Myer interjected but did not provide specific arguments or position.

Phillips requested to speak but her full contribution is not provided in the given text.