← Back to House of Commons Debates
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill - Lords amendments 4G, 5B, 6B, 7B, 7C, 8B, 8C, 10B, 11B, 13B, 20B, 24B, 25B, 26B, and 53B-D
20 April 2022
Lead MP
Tom Pursglove
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Benefits & Welfare
Other Contributors: 23
At a Glance
Tom Pursglove raised concerns about immigration and social security co-ordination (eu withdrawal) bill - lords amendments 4g, 5b, 6b, 7b, 7c, 8b, 8c, 10b, 11b, 13b, 20b, 24b, 25b, 26b, and 53b-d in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
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
Moves to disagree with Lords amendment 4G. Proposes disagreement with multiple Lords amendments due to concerns about financial privilege and the need for brief interventions during debate.
Nadia Whittome
Lab
Nottingham East
Questions the legality of the Government's actions under international law, specifically regarding asylum seekers arriving in irregular ways.
Clive Lewis
Lab
Norwich South
Presses the Minister for clarity on how UK legislation complies with the 1951 UN refugee convention and whether there is a risk of breaking international law.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Asks for details on safe and legal routes to asylum, including from Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Questions the effectiveness of moving people to Rwanda in disrupting human trafficking networks and seeks clarity on safe routes for Kurdish asylum seekers.
Brighton Kemptown
Raises concerns about the treatment of Kurds in Turkey and highlights the dangers faced by Kurdish asylum seekers attempting to reach the UK through irregular routes.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Banff and Buchan
Questions why proposals like Lords amendment 10B pose a danger, suggesting that proper safeguards are necessary but should not be overly restrictive.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Proposes support for tough measures against people trafficking while advocating for greater availability of safe and legal routes, particularly through family reunion schemes.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Supports the Government's position on Lords amendments 7B and 7C, emphasising that they avoid preferential treatment for asylum seekers.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Questions the impact of constant reviews on asylum seekers' stability, suggesting that a minimum period should be established to provide some certainty.
Margaret Ferrier
Ind
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
Raises concerns about arbitrary deadlines for victims of trafficking to declare themselves as such, suggesting that this further victimizes them.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Questions the evidence supporting the effectiveness of the proposed policy and highlights concerns about its potential counterproductivity.
Steve Brine
Con
Winchester
Inquires about the Rwanda partnership scheme, its funding, and how it interacts with LGBTQ individuals seeking asylum.
Bob Neill
Con
Hornchurch and Upminster
Suggests investing in the current system as a more effective alternative to the Rwanda scheme, highlighting the cost implications of the latter.
Jacob Young
Lab
Richmond Park
Asks about evidence supporting the policy from countries like Australia that have implemented similar offshoring measures.
David Davis
Con
Goole and Pocklington
Raises concerns about incentivizing groups to cross the channel if they are identified as protected under any new policy, using the example of families.
Stephen Kinnock
Lab
Aberafan Maesteg
The bill fails to address challenges and instead exacerbates them. The Rwanda plan is costly, unworkable, and undermines Britain's values. Amendments seek to ensure fair treatment of asylum seekers, maintain family unity, provide value for money, and adhere to the 1951 UN refugee convention.
Jacob Young
Con
Nuneaton
Asked a brief interjection questioning Labour's stance on supporting the Rwanda plan, seeking clarity on their position.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Cited experience of local authorities indicating that many refugee children are immediately placed in care systems due to the inability of UK families to support them, suggesting the Government's approach may be justified.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Argued that confirmed victims of modern-day slavery need more stable support post-referral mechanism, citing Justice and Care's victim navigator study showing 89% engagement in police investigations with minimum period support. He highlighted mental health issues caused by unstable support periods.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Glasgow North West
Supported Lords amendments 5B, 13B and 15 on the grounds that they align with international obligations and protect asylum seekers from criminalisation. He criticised the Bill for failing to meet refugee convention standards.
Andrew Mitchell
Con
Sutton Coldfield
Emphasised need for staff augmentation, improved relationship with France, safe and legal routes for asylum seekers, and a new international convention to update the 1951 refugee convention. He questioned practicality of Rwanda scheme.
Sally-Ann Hart questioned the necessity of Lords amendment 7, which concerns asylum seekers' ability to work after six months. She asked whether measures in the Bill and partnerships like UK-Rwanda would mean no asylum seekers remain in limbo after six months.
Tom Pursglove
Con
Corby
Tom Pursglove argued that the Government’s approach, as detailed in the Bill, is based on a moral imperative to address challenges. He stated that this was the only credible plan and urged Members to support it.
▸
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.