I oppose this amendment. While long-term planning is valuable, it risks diverting resources from immediate needs. We need to focus on practical solutions today rather than theoretical frameworks.

This amendment is crucial for the long-term well-being of refugees and victims of trafficking. It ensures that resources are allocated systematically, reducing the burden on local authorities who must often deal with sudden influxes.

The amendment aligns well with our Liberal Democrat policy of supporting vulnerable groups. It emphasises the importance of education and integration, which are critical for building resilient communities.

Mr. Kinnock criticises the Home Secretary and Prime Minister for their handling of asylum seekers, emphasising that proposed amendments aim to protect vulnerable individuals and uphold international law.

Mr. Hayes argues for the deterrent effect of offshore processing based on Australian experiences, suggesting that challenging traffickers' claims could reduce arrivals.

Mr. Loughton calls for a focus on discussing Lords amendments rather than broader criticisms of the bill's intent.

Mr. Neill raises concerns about the implications of incorporating international conventions into UK law through this amendment, questioning its appropriateness and potential impact.

She argued that victims of modern slavery who enter the UK illegally should still receive support under the Modern Slavery Act. Theresa May cited a scenario where a young woman is trafficked into prostitution and later escapes, facing no support if the Bill remains as it is. She warned that such a policy would hinder police efforts to prosecute perpetrators.

While starting her speech, Diana R. Johnson agreed with the Minister on the role of the House of Lords as a revising Chamber but was cut off by the Deputy Speaker before she could continue her argument.

The speaker is against the Bill and in favour of Lords amendment 1. He argues that the Bill contradicts the Government's manifesto pledge to grant asylum, enforce unlimited detention at the Home Secretary’s whim, threaten removals to Rwanda, and even harm children and trafficking victims. Stuart supports the amendments for compliance with international law, respect for rule of law, protection against mass and indeterminate detention, safeguarding pregnant women, accompanied and unaccompanied children from lengthy detention, protecting LGBT individuals from harmful removals, removing victims of trafficking from the Bill's reach, preventing Home Office hotel detentions where children go missing, stopping Home Office from removing children before age assessment challenge, strengthening safeguards for challenging removal decisions through judicial review, supporting safe routes, processing asylum claims from children and people not removed within six months to avoid indefinite limbo.

Intervened to question the Minister about Lords amendment 1, pointing out that it is necessary for putting right the situation where the Government has not been able to certify the Bill as compatible with international human rights obligations.

Intervened to argue that Lords amendment 1 is not the appropriate place or means for incorporating a range of international obligations into law. He suggests it should be done through other legislative processes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn agrees with Mr. Loughton's stance that the Government should adhere to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and not withdraw from it, thus weakening protection for children.

Mr. Edward Leigh supports dispersing migrants rather than concentrating them in one place, highlighting resource constraints in assessing and accommodating child claimants properly.

Mr Hayes intervenes to argue that Lords amendments, which allow for further legal challenges, create more delays and hinder the system's effectiveness. He suggests these amendments undermine the Bill’s principles and exacerbate existing problems.

Mr Paul Bristow questions how inaction regarding undocumented individuals landing on shores weekly would speed up the Home Office system, indicating support for stronger action against illegal immigration.

Mr. Hayes intervenes in Ms. Farris' speech, agreeing with her argument against the Lords amendments that seek to undermine the principle and practice of the Bill. He extends her support for legal migration routes to include a suggestion that these routes need to be capped to prevent population growth from placing unbearable pressure on public services.

He opposes the bill, arguing it breaches international obligations, misrepresents the UK's refugee situation as an emergency, and does not address the underlying issues efficiently. He emphasises the humanitarian impact on asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery, highlighting instances of backlog in processing and poor treatment.

Intervened to argue that the situation is indeed an emergency based on the number of illegal crossings, cost to accommodate asylum seekers in hotels (£6 million per day), and the perception among constituents.

Intervened to agree with Tim Farron, stating that the Bill will lead to increased misery for refugees, higher costs for taxpayers, and chaos in an already strained system.

Supports the policy objective of stopping cross-channel human trafficking but expresses concern over operational effectiveness. Emphasises the need for a comprehensive asylum visa system to control refugee interactions with global policies. Argues that local authorities should have detention powers to protect unaccompanied minors from traffickers at arrival points, citing examples from Heathrow airport. Raises concerns about regulatory standards and potential judicial reviews under existing obligations like the Modern Slavery Act and Children Act.

Opposes the clause, citing concerns over reverting to past practices of detaining unaccompanied children. Argues that 96% of these children receive refugee status, indicating a need for protection. Worries about the mental health impact and potential detention in inadequate facilities as a result of proposed changes. Supports Lords amendments aimed at preventing such practices, emphasising the importance of local authority care expertise to support traumatised minors.

Supports amendments to protect vulnerable pregnant women and prevent retrospective laws. Argues that less than 1% of illegal migrants in the UK are pregnant, and the bill does not create a perverse incentive for exploitation by traffickers.

Critiques the Bill as harmful to international conventions on human rights and asylum. Calls for adherence to international law and humanitarian principles, expressing concern over Britain's detachment from these agreements. Emphasises the need for addressing root causes of migration such as war and environmental degradation rather than focusing solely on border security.

The amendments aim to strengthen age verification and protect under-18s from exploitation. However, concerns about an uncapped number of safe and legal routes leading to a rapid cap being met suggest that such routes should be carefully managed. The current situation lacks adequate scrutiny time but remains urgent due to uncontrolled mass migration impacts. Opposition moralising is frustrating when not backed by practical solutions.

[INTERVENTION] - While brief, John Hayes intervened to support Tom Hunt's stance on the need for robust measures against illegal migration and age verification.

He argues that creating a hostile environment for refugees and asylum seekers is counterproductive, citing the Government's opposition to Lords amendment 1 as evidence of their disregard for international human rights law. He criticises the lack of time given for debate on amendments and the contempt shown towards the House of Lords.

[INTERVENTION]: He argues against Mr. Grady's stance, stating that when the Government becomes decisive in tackling issues like the backlog of cases, Opposition Members accuse them of rushing through decisions without proper deliberation.

[SPEECH]: Roger Gale's position is not detailed in the provided text, but his comment suggests he is continuing with the debate indicating a continued support for Government measures.