← Back to House of Commons Debates
Immigration and Border Security Bill - Clause 1
13 March 2023
Lead MP
Suella Braverman
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Migrants & BordersLocal Government
Other Contributors: 81
At a Glance
Suella Braverman raised concerns about immigration and border security bill - clause 1 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The Secretary of State for the Home Department proposes to amend the Human Rights Act by introducing the Immigration and Border Security Bill. The aim is to address illegal migration via small boats across the Channel, which she considers a national security issue with significant financial burdens on local authorities and taxpayers. She asserts that public opinion overwhelmingly supports her measures, despite claims of xenophobia.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
He raises a point of order about the Home Secretary's statement indicating the Bill may not be compatible with human rights laws, arguing that such an assertion undermines trust in the Government and suggests the legislation is likely to be deemed unlawful by courts.
Intervenes to question whether the public actually supports detaining vulnerable groups like children and pregnant women, expressing doubts about such measures being popular or effective.
Catherine West
Lab
Hornsey and Friern Barnet
Questions if there is enough provision for vulnerable children within the proposals, indicating concern over welfare support for minors who may be affected by the legislation.
Agrees with the Home Secretary's stance and criticises Labour MPs who campaign against the removal of foreign national offenders, implying they are more sympathetic to criminals than public safety.
Andrea Leadsom
Con
South Northamptonshire
Supports the Home Secretary's position, stating that illegal migration has grown exponentially and requires tough measures to curb it.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Questions whether persecuted individuals seeking asylum will still be eligible for entry under the proposed legislation, expressing concern over international freedom of religion or belief issues.
Asks if the Home Secretary is concerned about criminal gangs profiting from illegal migration and possibly being linked to other serious crimes.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Inquires whether Rwanda, a country cited as safe for returns by the Home Office, is indeed safe for LGBTQ+ individuals given its anti-discrimination laws.
Richard Graham
Con
Gloucester
Defends the Bill and criticises Opposition MPs who he believes are trying to disrupt its implementation, while pointing out the diversity in his constituency as evidence of community support for immigration control.
West Tyrone
Raises a point of order to correct what she considers misleading statements made by Richard Graham, arguing they are unhelpful and potentially harmful in the context of the debate.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Questions how many people deemed inadmissible by the Bill will actually be returned to their countries of origin or safe third countries, expressing doubt about its effectiveness.
Theresa May
Con
Witham
Clarifies that despite the Home Secretary's assertions, asylum seekers will still be screened by UK authorities before any decision is made regarding their claims or returns to Rwanda.
Hayes and Harlington
Asked questions about British people, especially children, in the human trafficking system referrals. Questioned if the Home Secretary has a returns agreement with France or any other European country to accommodate tens of thousands of expected arrivals.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
Moved an amendment to decline the Second Reading due to lack of effective measures against people smugglers, indefinite accommodation issues, and undermining international cooperation. Criticised backlog in asylum cases.
Asked Yvette Cooper about previous statements regarding racism undertones in immigration law. Suggested that the government was addressing issues while Labour failed to do so previously.
Theresa May
Reform
Newark
Acknowledged Yvette Cooper's comments but pointed out historical backlog under previous Labour governments and the current government’s efforts in addressing these issues.
Clapham and Brixton Hill
Expressed annoyance at Government Members talking about past failures of Labour governments while ignoring their own, questioned the potential breach of Refugee Convention if the Bill passes.
Alex Sobel
Lab Co-op
Leeds Central and Headingley
Cited the UK's role in initiating the 1951 refugee convention, expressed concern about breaching international law if the Bill passes.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
Questioned legal advice on the compatibility of provisions in the Bill with European Convention on Human Rights, highlighted placeholder clause 49's potential to undermine convention obligations.
Expressed concern over clause 49 seeking to legislate against ECHR interim orders and its implications for the UK’s global standing.
Paul Holmes
Con
Hamble Valley
Pressed Yvette Cooper for concrete proposals from Labour instead of opposition, suggested that the only way to stop boats is by detaining and deporting individuals as per Government plans.
Asked about strengthening clause 49 to ensure a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to remove unlawful migrants.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Suggested that processing asylum applications faster would lead to more arrivals and criticised Labour's lack of plan, endorsing the Government’s plan for detaining and deporting.
Asked about specific regions in France from which people seek refuge in the UK.
Expressed concern over lack of pre-legislative consultation with Children’s Commissioner.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Suggested that votes for the Bill were in good faith, expecting amendments to address women and children's protection as it progresses through Parliament.
Theresa May
Con
Walton
Warns against the assumption that the Bill will solve illegal migration, citing historical routes migrants have taken. Emphasises the importance of distinguishing between people smuggling and human trafficking, questioning the Government's evidence linking modern slavery legislation to small boat crossings. Expresses concerns over closing legal asylum routes, potentially denying refuge to persecuted individuals, like a young woman fleeing Iran. Criticises the policy impact on victims of modern slavery and its potential to undermine international reputation.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Opposes the bill due to its unfair treatment of refugees, especially children. Argues it violates international human rights treaties and undermines Scotland's devolved protections. Raises concerns about safe legal routes and capping entry. Emphasises financial costs and humanitarian impacts.
Suggests need for greater definition of safe and legal routes in the Bill, as well as safeguards for vulnerable children. Points out that not everyone crossing the channel is a genuine asylum seeker.
Questions SNP's stance on taking displaced people globally and asks about funding implications, specifically for central Glasgow.
Defends Scotland’s role in supporting refugees and criticises Conservative Members for associating with neo-fascist groups like Patriotic Alternative.
Robert Buckland
Con
South Swindon
Expressed concern over clause 3, which he sees as a power rather than a duty. He suggested that it is a holding mechanism for future decisions and proposed to amend or ditch this clause during Committee stage discussions. Criticised ineffective authoritarianism in dealing with unaccompanied children, families, and women.
Stephen Hammond
Con
Wimbledon
During an intervention, suggested that defining criteria for 'compelling' evidence in clause 29 might reassure MPs about the protection of sex trafficked young women under the Modern Slavery Act.
Diana R. Johnson
Lab
Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham
Argues that despite strong views, there is consensus on stopping people crossing in unsafe boats. Criticises lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and impact assessments for the Bill. States need to support refugees fleeing persecution while putting this into context by highlighting that countries like Turkey take a lion's share of refugees. Calls for tackling asylum backlog, detailed policy-driven solutions rather than headline-grabbing announcements. Raises concerns over the Bill’s adherence to international obligations and practical issues regarding unaccompanied children, detention, victims of trafficking.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Stresses that borders define citizenship and responsibilities. Criticises illegal immigration as a result of gaming the asylum system by economic migrants, enabled by law firms and interest groups. Cites statistics showing 85,000 people entered Britain illegally since 2018 with costs to taxpayers. Supports tough action on illegal immigration based on public opinion polls.
Raises concern over verbal abuse and assaults against asylum seekers in Knowsley and elsewhere, describing it as shameful. Criticises the Government for bringing forward a Bill known to not work, categorising Conservative MPs as either deluded or cynical.
Matt Warman
Con
Boston and Skegness
Mr. Warman argues that supporting the Bill is a compassionate move to address public concerns about immigration, especially in towns like Skegness where residents are overwhelmed by migration. He asserts that the Government's actions align with the views of moderate British people and prevent extremists from gaining influence. Mr. Warman also highlights the need for safe routes and provisions for trafficked individuals while stressing the necessity of stopping profiteering.
Khalid Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham, Perry Barr
Mr. Mahmood criticises the Bill's alignment with British values and international law, arguing it undermines human rights and civil liberties. He points out that women who have been trafficked and young children will receive no support under the legislation, making it problematic for vulnerable groups.
Bob Neill
Con
Bromley and Chislehurst
Mr. Neill supports the Bill due to its safeguards but recognises the need for legal dialogue with international conventions and treaties. He emphasises that legislation alone is insufficient; operational improvements in asylum and immigration systems are necessary for success.
Apsana Begum
Lab
Poplar and Limehouse
Ms. Begum describes the Bill as abhorrent, unlawful, and harmful to refugees, breaching fundamental human rights. She highlights that it forces migrants into risky situations by removing safe legal routes and exacerbates divisions in communities.
Tom Randall
Con
Gedling
Mr Randall takes a hawkish stance on immigration, advocating for strict limits on arrivals. He cites the deep concern among constituents about small boat migration and emphasises that Albania's role as a top country for such arrivals does not align with its status regarding major international issues requiring asylum claims. Mr Randall points out that the current system is overburdened by increasing asylum claims since 2014, which he believes negatively impacts those already in the system awaiting decisions. He argues against granting asylum to individuals who cross illegally and utilise smugglers as part of their process. In conclusion, Mr Randall supports a robust approach to tackling this issue, urging MPs to vote in favour of measures to stop illegal migration.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Mr Carmichael criticises the Bill for its lack of compassion and adherence to international law. He disputes claims made by Mr Randall regarding the characterisation of those crossing the channel, highlighting that 7,177 individuals were children last year. Mr Carmichael raises concerns over the legality of the Bill in terms of domestic legislation and international obligations. He also mentions fears about undermining world-leading modern-day slavery laws and stresses that the legislation will not achieve its deterrent effect as intended. Mr Carmichael warns of potential consequences for those entitled to asylum, stating they may be denied protection leading to serious risks or death.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Mr Duncan Smith supports efforts by the Government to restrict small boat arrivals, emphasising their dangerous nature. He highlights that while modern-day slavery is a key focus in tackling illegal immigration, the figures indicate it affects only 6% of small boat arrivals. Mr Duncan Smith cautions against conflating human trafficking and people smuggling, noting that most claims are domestic rather than international. He suggests careful consideration to avoid damaging the effectiveness of measures aimed at prosecuting smugglers while protecting genuine victims of trafficking. Mr Duncan Smith urges the Government to be cautious in how they approach modern-day slavery legislation.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
Mr Efford calls for a more measured tone in the debate, noting that no one on the Opposition Benches wants small boat crossings to continue or illegal immigrants to remain in the UK. He criticises the Bill's approach as ineffective and warns against undermining international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr Efford argues that leaving this convention would hamper agreements with European countries for safe returns of failed refugee claimants and impede cooperation in matters like extradition and crime data exchange. In conclusion, he proposes creating safer routes for legitimate asylum seekers and improving systems to handle backlogs and trafficking criminals rather than adopting the Bill.
Vicky Ford
Con
South Suffolk
Supports the Bill's Second Reading but raises concerns about ODA funding diversion and the necessity of closing dangerous routes. Emphasises that asylum capacity is not unlimited and prioritisation should focus on vulnerable groups.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Highlights potential breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Criticises clauses undermining human rights universality and sets conditions for UK compliance with interim measures from Strasbourg Court.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
Defends the Bill's necessity, suggesting it will require amendments in Committee or on Report to ensure effective implementation. Argues that the UK is compliant with international law regarding refugee conventions.
Ian Byrne
Lab
Liverpool West Derby
Rejects the Bill, arguing it fails to protect victims from trafficking and expands the hostile environment. Criticises clause 2 for making asylum claims inadmissible for those arriving via small boats.
Scott Benton
Con
Blackpool South
Welcomes measures outlined in the Bill to tackle illegal immigration, arguing that asylum policy has been chaotic and costly. Highlights frustration among his constituents due to public services being overwhelmed by those entering illegally. Criticises people arriving via small boats as economic migrants rather than genuine asylum seekers. Supports full enactment of the Rwanda plan despite potential judicial challenges.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
Contrasts current public service issues with immigration, blaming Conservative policies for 13 years. Cites examples of famous refugees who would have been treated differently under the Bill, emphasising their humanity and potential contributions to society. Argues that the Home Secretary's proposal amounts to a de facto ban on seeking asylum legally and criticises the policy for potentially harming legitimate asylum seekers.
Sara Britcliffe
Con
Hyndburn and Haslingden
Supports measures to stop channel crossings, arguing that it is a humanitarian policy option. Criticises people smugglers and highlights the impact on her constituency, which supports one of the highest numbers of asylum seekers in Lancashire. Emphasises the need for fair distribution across the UK and supports the Home Secretary’s legislation.
Claudia Webbe
Lab
Leicester East
Expresses concern over the Bill's incompatibility with international law and human rights obligations. Criticises the Home Secretary for disregarding such obligations, citing examples of potential harm to refugees and unaccompanied children under the proposed legislation. Argues that the Bill allows discriminatory practices against certain groups and sets a dangerous precedent regarding legal challenges.
Sally-Ann Hart
DUP
South Antrim
Sally-Ann Hart argues that illegal immigration undermines fairness and security, advocating for the Prime Minister's plan to address this issue. She emphasises the need to dismantle criminal gangs involved in people trafficking and highlights the lack of a Labour Party solution.
Andrew Gwynne
Ind
Gorton and Denton
Andrew Gwynne criticises the tone of the debate, dismissing claims that his party supports open borders. He argues for a fair asylum system and questions the effectiveness of measures proposed by the Government.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
Kieran Mullan supports the policy, arguing that an asylum system should not be based on one's ability to make a journey. He raises concerns about public opinion and the fairness of resources allocated towards refugees.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth
Stuart McDonald argues that the Bill dehumanises asylum seekers, disregarding human rights and international law. He highlights issues with detention policies and protections for vulnerable individuals.
Clapham and Brixton Hill
Ms Ribeiro-Addy criticises the Government for politicising vulnerable individuals in an attempt to appease right-wing groups. She argues that most asylum seekers are legitimate and highlights the inefficiency of current policies which delay their applications unnecessarily. She proposes establishing safe and legal routes for entry, advocating for processing centres near France to expedite legitimate entries without compromising international law.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Mr Leigh supports the Bill while highlighting practical challenges. He mentions a case of a young girl needing asylum and agrees on safe routes. However, he argues that there's an endless demand for entry due to global pressures, suggesting offshoring or pushback as solutions given current system inefficiencies.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Mr Robinson expresses support for addressing illegal migration but criticises the Bill's incompatibility with European human rights law. He supports dealing with unmanaged immigration but opposes a political culture war approach and will work to change aspects of the Bill.
Marco Longhi
Con
Dudley South
Mr Longhi supports the Bill, arguing that it aims to deter people from undertaking perilous journeys across the channel. He mentions that an overwhelming majority of his constituents support this measure and cites examples where individuals come from safe countries like Albania, illustrating his point.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Mr Blomfield criticises the Bill for criminalising refugees and failing to address the root causes of migration. He argues that it is not designed to work but to create an illusion of action, damaging democratic politics and opening opportunities for far-right narratives.
Ben Spencer
Con
Runnymede and Weybridge
Mr Spencer supports the Bill, arguing that it aims to protect vulnerable asylum seekers from criminal gangs. He highlights successful schemes such as Syrian resettlement and the Afghan scheme while criticising illegal immigration and its financial burden on taxpayers.
Caroline Lucas
Green
Brighton Pavilion
Ms Lucas opposes the Bill, describing it as immoral and cruel. She argues that it breaks international law and human rights, and highlights the lack of safe routes for asylum seekers. She cites examples of individuals whose family reunification is obstructed by bureaucratic hurdles.
Gareth Bacon
Con
Orpington
Supports the Bill as it seeks to break the current model of criminal smuggling gangs by removing incentives for illegal immigration through dangerous channel crossings. Highlights that Labour has failed to provide a clear alternative policy and criticises them for offering only slogans without solutions.
Critiques the Bill as inhumane and unjust, stating it criminalises asylum seekers and undermines humanitarian traditions. Calls for more safe routes for resettlement and improving existing family reunion schemes instead of penalising those fleeing persecution.
Interjected to remind the speaker not to address other Members directly, without offering a position on the Bill.
Defends the need for legislation due to the social and financial consequences of illegal immigration. Argues that an annual cap on legal routes is reasonable and necessary for capacity management, criticising opposition for ignoring these issues.
Condemns rhetoric used by the Home Secretary as dehumanising and demonising migrants. Advocates opening safe legal routes to address the problem of small boats, criticises the Bill for making it illegal to claim asylum, and suggests processing applications faster can reduce costs.
Jane Stevenson
Con
Wolverhampton North East
Supports the Bill, arguing that it addresses resource limitations and a global migration crisis. Criticises Opposition Members for not acknowledging practical constraints. Argues for prioritising vulnerable individuals over physically fit migrants.
Ian Lavery
Lab
Blyth and Ashington
Strongly opposes the Bill, criticising it as an act of shame. Expresses outrage at rhetoric suggesting hotels are full of refugees and emphasises the moral imperative to support desperate people.
Siobhan Baillie
Con
Gloucestershire
Supports the Bill, highlighting public expectations for action on illegal migration and safety concerns. Emphasises the need for safe and legal routes alongside the Bill.
Andy McDonald
Lab
Middlesbrough and Thornaby East
Strongly opposes the Bill, accusing it of dehumanising refugees and denying them basic human rights. Criticises the Government for playing a culture war by scapegoating migrants.
Jack Brereton
Con
Stoke-on-Trent North
The Bill aims to reduce the number of illegal entries into the UK, alleviate pressure on local services in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, and ensure fairness for legal migrants. He supports measures that crack down on people smugglers and address accommodation pressures.
Sarah Owen
Lab
Luton North
The debate lacks compassion and logic. The Bill is based on fear rather than addressing the root causes of illegal migration, such as poor leadership and a lack of international negotiations. It ignores positive narratives about successful refugees in Britain and receives criticism from faith communities and charities for being immoral and inept.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Supports the principle of a cap on asylum seekers and consultation with local authorities to determine capacity. He highlights the need for early and swift decision-making but also calls for clarification in the Bill regarding interaction with existing legislation, such as the Children Act 2004, and suggests introducing an asylum visa system for control over arrivals.
Zarah Sultana
Lab
Coventry South
Critiques the Bill as a scapegoating mechanism that diverts attention from real issues such as poverty and inequality. Argues it is about fear-mongering, scapegoating refugees for societal problems, and breaking international law.
Emphasises that the Bill aims to tackle people smuggling gangs responsible for deaths in the channel and clear backlogs of genuine refugee claims. Supports measures aimed at reducing processing times and addressing accommodation pressures on public services.
Paula Barker
Lab
Liverpool Wavertree
The Government's approach is flawed, failing to address the root causes of migration and neglecting humanitarian concerns. The Bill does not tackle criminal gangs or assist victims of modern slavery, nor does it offer solutions for returns agreements. Barker argues that the Bill is a desperate attempt by a failing government to distract from other issues.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberafan Maesteg
Kinnock criticises the Government's rhetoric on border security, highlighting a significant increase in asylum backlog since 2010. He argues that the Bill will not stop small boat crossings and could exacerbate the issue by increasing the asylum backlog and costs for accommodation. Kinnock also questions the feasibility of returning asylum seekers to Rwanda or elsewhere without formal agreements.
Robert Jenrick
Reform
Newark
The MP stresses the need for breaking the people-smuggling model by handling sensitive issues with care but not creating incentives that encourage false claims or splitting families. He highlights the increase in modern slavery referrals from detentions, indicating a need to reform and defend this framework.
Khalid Mahmood
Lab
Birmingham, Perry Barr
Interjected during Robert Jenrick's speech, questioning the Minister about specific aspects of the Bill or proposed policy. The intervention suggests an opposing view but does not provide a full argument.
Government Response
The Home Secretary defends the Bill, emphasising that it aims to stop illegal migration which poses significant burdens on public services and finances. She points out that most arrivals are adult males rather than vulnerable groups and stresses the need for tough measures despite criticisms.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.