← Back to House of Commons Debates
Nationality and Borders Bill - Clause 8
20 July 2021
Lead MP
Alberto Costa
Debate Type
Bill Debate
Tags
Foreign Affairs
Other Contributors: 80
At a Glance
Alberto Costa raised concerns about nationality and borders bill - clause 8 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
I welcome the measures outlined in this Bill, particularly those that aim to amend nationality law. The journey to become a British citizen is often perceived as too expensive or complicated. Clause 8 introduces a requirement for applicants to show sustained connection to the UK rather than proving physical presence five years before application. This change simplifies the process and reduces reliance on costly legal advice. Additionally, clauses 1-4 aim to remove anomalies in British Overseas Territories Citizenship laws, benefiting those from qualifying territories such as the Falkland Islands. Clause 7 introduces a new discretionary registration route for adults who have faced historical unfairness or exceptional circumstances. I urge the Government to reduce the high cost of citizenship applications and make it more accessible.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow Cheapside
I oppose this Bill due to its negative impact on asylum seekers. The legal routes issue is critical; if these are closed, individuals may choose illegal means to seek sanctuary in the UK. Legal representation and challenging poor decisions are crucial for refugees’ safety. Concerns over accommodation, including military barracks, harm mental health and contradict public health experts' views. There have been serious errors of judgment and deaths in immigration detention centres. Following Australia’s model raises concerns about sexual abuse and remoteness leading to healthcare issues.
Damian Collins
Con
Tunbridge Wells
Collins argues that illegal entry via small boats is dangerous, with deaths and drownings occurring. He highlights the increase in such crossings from 8,500 to over 8,000 people this year, including a record of 430 in one day. The amendment seeks to deter such life-threatening journeys by making it illegal for unauthorised entry into UK waters and increasing penalties for illegal entry.
Stella Creasy
Lab Co-op
Walthamstow
Creasy criticises the Bill as making asylum seekers a third class of citizens who face deportation if they do not follow strict procedures. She argues that there are no safe legal routes proposed, and current systems like the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme have stopped. Creasy asserts that the legislation will harm refugees by criminalising them for how they enter and reinforcing abuse in detention centres.
Jacob Young
Con
Redcar
Supports a firm but fair approach to illegal immigration, emphasising the need for safety and legal routes for asylum seekers. Argues that current high numbers of small boat crossings are economically motivated rather than due to persecution or war.
Steven Bonnar
Lab
Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
Critiques the Bill as a violation of international human rights obligations under the UN refugee convention. Argues that it will criminalise asylum seekers and create a hostile environment for refugees, increasing destitution and delays in processing claims.
Jo Gideon
Con
Stoke-on-Trent Central
Welcomes the opportunity to debate the impact of the current asylum dispersal system on Stoke-on-Trent. Emphasises that Stoke-on-Trent has taken more than its fair share of asylum seekers and highlights the city's commitment to supporting vulnerable individuals. Raises concerns about areas reaching their capacity under the regional dispersal policy, citing figures showing only 95 local authorities participate while there are 398 principal councils in the UK. Expresses support for the Government’s commitment to international obligations regarding modern slavery victims but calls for stricter immigration controls on illegal immigrants.
Gavin Robinson
DUP
Belfast East
Grateful for the Minister's engagement and acknowledges thoughtful contributions made during the debate. Highlights concerns about part 4 of the Bill, particularly regarding the reduction in support for victims of modern slavery from 45 days to 30 days, which conflicts with Northern Ireland’s existing legislation. Raises issues related to indefinite detention and its moral implications. Acknowledges a positive record on refugees but expresses need for resolving issues in Committee stages. Critiques an anomaly in citizenship processes between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Tim Loughton
Con
East Worthing and Shoreham
Supports the Bill for regularising citizenship of certain individuals, prioritising removal of foreign criminals, addressing bureaucracy in the asylum system, reducing costs to Home Office, speeding up processes for genuine refugees, dealing with illegal immigration through channel, criticises French Government's failure to stop boats from crossing illegally, requests reassurance on liabilities of lifeboats rescuing migrants, advocates for proper replacement for Dublin family reunion scheme and Dubs scheme, and emphasises the need for a balanced approach.
Olivia Blake
Lab
Sheffield Hallam
Rejects the Bill as divisive, criticises its differentiation between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ asylum seekers, argues it stacks legal system against vulnerable people, criminalises altruism, opposes discrimination against refugees, highlights challenges faced by group 2 asylum seekers in submitting evidence due to trauma, questions legality of criminalising those helping asylum seekers enter the country, considers Bill as violating international treaty obligations, deems it inhumane and badly thought through.
Joy Morrissey
Con
Beaconsfield
Morrissey supports the Nationality and Borders Bill, emphasising its aim to establish a plan that resolves historic abnormalities in British nationality law. She welcomes clauses 1 to 4 which strengthen pathways to citizenship, noting her personal experience with immigration bureaucracy. Morrissey highlights the UK's refugee resettlement efforts and advocates for tougher definitions of criminal offences to deter illegal entry, supporting longer prison sentences for illegal entrants and life sentences for people smugglers.
Airdrie and Shotts
Qaisar-Javed strongly opposes the Nationality and Borders Bill, referring to it as an 'anti-refugee' Bill. She criticises the Government's language and policies that treat refugees fleeing persecution as criminals. Qaisar-Javed argues against the two-tier system which differentiates between methods of arrival, impacting vulnerable individuals fleeing conflict. She highlights a personal example of Dr Waheed Arain to illustrate how the proposed rules would deny refuge to deserving individuals.
Welcomes the Bill for addressing historical anomalies and unfairness in British nationality law. Emphasises the need to ensure a fairer asylum system, proposing harsher punishments for human smugglers and traffickers to deter illegal entry into the UK and save lives. Advocates for the introduction of life sentences for human smuggling. Supports the moral and legal obligations to help people fleeing cruelty worldwide while condemning those who break the law. Suggests creating a new route to citizenship for existing NHS workers to reward their commitment, proposing fee abolition for indefinite leave to remain and citizenship for NHS staff.
Interjects during Rob Roberts' speech, questioning whether criminalising asylum seekers fleeing persecution could justify locking up individuals like Uyghurs or Syrians for four years.
Kerry McCarthy
Lab
Bristol East
Celebrates Bristol's declaration as a city of sanctuary and highlights the contributions made by diverse communities, particularly the Somali community. Emphasises the need for a fair legal process to support asylum seekers, criticising the inadequacy of existing legal routes and highlighting the moral and economic implications of stringent immigration policies. Raises concerns about the impact on victims of modern slavery and labour shortages in key sectors due to restrictive immigration approaches.
Wirral West
Supports firm but fair immigration system, criticising the exploitation by criminal gangs and emphasises the need for a safe legal route to enter UK. Suggests penalties for illegal entry and proactive measures like offshoring reception centres.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
Interjected, questioning how supporting the Bill aligns with describing asylum seekers as innocent and vulnerable when it criminalises them and risks imprisonment for up to four years.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Opposes the Bill, stating that criminalising those seeking asylum is abhorrent. Criticises offshoring of reception centres and dehumanising conditions faced by refugees in facilities like Napier barracks and Penally camp.
Stephen Farry
SDLP
Strangford
Mr Farry criticises the Bill as unjust and unnecessary, arguing that asylum seekers are not overwhelming public services or stealing jobs. He raises concerns about the high bar to acceptance of asylum claims being raised even higher by the Bill, the risk of criminalisation for those who try to assist, and the offshoring policy as repugnant. He also highlights issues with electronic travel authorisation affecting EU citizens living in the Republic of Ireland and crossing borders daily. Additionally, he discusses nationality aspects related to the Good Friday agreement and the need for legal acceptance of a British or Irish identity by default.
Blackpool South
Ms Greenwood argues against the Bill, stating it undermines international law and principles protecting refugees. She highlights that the Bill creates a two-tier system for asylum seekers based on how they arrive in the UK. She also expresses concerns about removing key protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery. Furthermore, she criticises the lack of new commitments to refugee settlement or family reunion within the Bill.
Lia Nici
Con
Great Grimsby
Ms Nici supports the Bill, emphasising that her constituents want control over immigration rather than stopping it. She argues against illegal entry and claims of asylum as economic migration. She contrasts this with legal economic migrants who follow proper rules to enter the country.
Ruth Jones
Lab
Newport West
Ms. Ruth Jones opposed the Bill, arguing that it would exacerbate existing issues in the asylum system without offering substantive solutions to combat human trafficking or provide safe legal routes for refugees. She also emphasised the moral obligation of the UK to offer sanctuary and highlighted personal encounters with refugees seeking asylum, illustrating their skills and contributions.
Mr. Mick Whitley criticised the Bill for failing to address systemic delays in processing asylum claims and creating a discriminatory system based on how individuals reach the UK. He highlighted the severe impact of these delays on refugees' lives, arguing that the bill fails to uphold the principles of fairness and compassion established by the refugee convention.
Ms. Sally-Ann Hart supported the Bill, emphasising the necessity for border control to ensure national stability and economic security while acknowledging the distinct needs of refugees versus economic migrants. She highlighted the UK's significant contributions towards resettling vulnerable refugees and praised the bill's aim to strengthen legal routes for asylum seekers whilst penalising illegal entry.
Kate Osborne
Lab
Jarrow and Gateshead East
Osborne argues against the Home Office's measures in the Bill, claiming they will likely lead to an increase in women’s detention despite a commitment to reduce it. She raises concerns about Research by Women for Refugee Women which shows that many detained women are survivors of torture, rape or trafficking and locking them up severely impacts their mental health. Osborne criticises clause 10 as creating two tiers of refugee status, with group 2 refugees having more limited protections including shorter periods of leave to remain. She argues this will wrongly place many women in the less protected category, making them liable for detention. Additionally, she raises concerns about clauses 46 and 47 which penalise individuals for not disclosing details of their exploitation, and clause 48 raising the threshold for being recognised as a potential victim of trafficking, all leading to more women becoming liable for detention.
Winter expresses distress over the Bill's introduction, arguing it exacerbates rather than solves problems. She criticises the two-tier system for refugees based on entry routes which criminalises many for failing to meet impossible standards. Winter is appalled by the suggestion that asylum seekers could be removed to third-party countries deemed safe by the Government, risking deporting them to unsafe conditions. Concerned about facilities like Penally barracks and Napier barracks she fears more such facilities will open due to this Bill, opening the door to offshore processing sectors in remote parts of the world. She questions how the Bill promotes improved dispersal for refugees and calls for a well-funded system that safely houses refugees across the country. Winter criticises the Government’s total lack of compassion regarding backlogs in the asylum system and delays in processing.
Tim Farron
Lib Dem
Westmorland and Lonsdale
Farron argues that the Bill's premise of being overwhelmed with asylum seekers is incorrect, pointing out lower numbers compared to other EU countries. He highlights a significant backlog in the system due to incompetence rather than an influx of asylum seekers. Farron criticises the creation of two categories of asylum seekers as illegal and counterproductive. He warns about potential exploitation and modern-day slavery resulting from the Bill's proposed changes. Additionally, he discusses negative impacts on the hospitality industry, emphasising the need for overseas labour in his constituency.
Neil O'Brien
Con
Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
O'Brien supports the measures in the Bill aimed at fixing a broken and unfair system. He highlights issues such as dangerous crossings, illegal migration, and profiteering from traffickers. O'Brien welcomes increased resources for Border Force, tougher penalties for people traffickers and repeat offenders, and measures to reduce vexatious claims and streamline decision-making processes. He also supports restrictions on visas for non-cooperative third countries.
Helen Hayes
Lab
Dulwich and West Norwood
The Bill is a response to an unprecedented refugee crisis, yet it undermines international aid efforts. It closes the Dubs scheme for family reunification, withdraws from agreements with European neighbours, houses refugees in illegal conditions, worsens the asylum system, and cuts funding for English language training. It risks creating a two-tier system that may return people to dangerous situations based on their means of travel.
The Bill aims to increase fairness in the asylum system, deter illegal entry by breaking people-smuggling networks, and enable easier removals. It responds to growing asylum seeker cases, protects vulnerable individuals from dangerous crossings, and supports a differentiated approach based on arrival methods. The current system's backlog is due to increased arrivals; thus, reform is necessary.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South West
The Bill breaches principles of human rights and international law. It addresses a problem that does not exist, criminalises innocent people, and undermines UK’s international standing. It risks breaching multiple UN conventions and articles of the European convention on human rights.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Suggests that if Scotland truly wants more people, it should accept dispersed asylum seekers and play a part in the distribution of such individuals. Points out that only Glasgow among Scotland’s 32 local authorities accepts dispersed asylum seekers.
Asserts that the UK works with UNHCR to select people from refugee camps who have a valid reason and right to come to the UK, rather than those able to pay smugglers.
Craig Williams
Con
My hon. Friend supports the Bill as it reinforces legal routes into the country and highlights that the UK has taken in more refugees than any other European country.
Angela Crawley
Lab
The hon. Member's view is not representative of all constituents across the UK, particularly those in Glasgow who have protected individuals from deportation and welcome refugees.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Intervened to question the hon. Gentleman's position but did not provide detailed arguments in this snippet.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
The Bill is immoral, breaches international law, and criminalises people seeking asylum. It opens the door to offshore detention centres, a dystopian approach without accountability. The legislation stokes division and hate, and shifts blame from Tory policies that hurt society by encouraging anti-immigrant sentiment. This is a divisive approach that fails in the long term.
Challenged Richard Burgon's statistics about asylum seekers, suggesting that only eight out of 750 migrants from Sangatte camp were from Syria, indicating they cannot afford the cost of people smugglers.
Provided updated statistics showing that the majority of channel crossers are refugees from countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Eritrea, and Sudan with high asylum success rates, arguing against locking them up and instead supporting their applications.
Asked for a ruling on the validity of accusing the Conservative Benches of racism given Labour's institutional antisemitism issue, but was interrupted before elaborating further.
Aaron Bell
Lab
Wrexham
Asked Mr. MacAskill whether the Bill offers a pathway for those in dire need, suggesting that it is not about willingness to undertake dangerous journeys.
Duncan Baker
Con
North Norfolk
Asked Mr. MacAskill how a nation could effectively manage organised crime if it does not have information on individuals entering the country.
Carmarthen East and Dinefwr
Responded to Duncan Baker, arguing that increasing legal resettlement programmes would undermine people smuggling rather than engaging in a futile war against it.
Richard Holden
Con
Basildon and Billericay
Asked Mr. MacAskill where individuals without proven status should be held if not offshore or onshore detention centres.
Ceredigion
Attempted to interrupt Mr. MacAskill three times, though the specific content of his interventions is not clear from the transcript.
Challenged the narrative of a deluge of asylum seekers by citing House of Commons Library data showing that asylum claims decreased from about 84,000 in early 2000 to around 36,000 in 2019.
Supported the argument that the Bill is a manifesto commitment and highlighted public concern over the issue, noting that it dominates daily news and fills MPs' inboxes.
Bury South
Agreed with the point about travelling through safe countries and emphasised the need for a meaningful policy to address economic migration up front, supporting the Bill's approach.
Paul Blomfield
Lab
Sheffield Central
Mr. Blomfield highlights that the Bill undermines safe and legal routes to refuge, criminalises refugees arriving through dangerous means with a potential four-year prison sentence, and allows for inhumane treatment of asylum seekers. He criticises the Government's approach as degrading our status on the global stage by breaching international agreements.
Shaun Bailey
Con
West Bromwich East
Mr. Bailey supports the Bill, arguing that it aligns with public opinion and addresses long-standing issues in his constituency. He criticises Labour's handling of immigration during their 13-year tenure, suggesting they lost contact with communities. Mr. Bailey asserts that defining 'migrant' and 'refugee' accurately will help protect vulnerable individuals.
Ruislip-Northwood
He emphasises that people paying large sums to criminal gangs to enter the country are not just economic migrants but also fund criminal activities. He believes that the Bill helps vulnerable individuals and undermines criminal gangs.
Anne McLaughlin
SNP
Glasgow East
She argues against undermining international treaty obligations, expressing concern about the legal standing of the UK on the global stage. She discusses the cost implications of imprisoning asylum seekers and criticises parts of the Bill that increase costs without addressing the root issues. Anne also highlights concerns over the impact of congregated living and detention centres on mental health and human rights.
Hayes and Harlington
Mr McDonnell argues against the detention centres clause, drawing on his extensive experience with asylum seekers in his constituency. He highlights the harsh conditions and high release rates of detainees, suggesting that the cost and impact are disproportionate to their effectiveness. He emphasises the plight of refugees seeking safety, criticising the Government for institutional racism and cynicism towards those escaping war or persecution through illegal routes due to lack of safe alternatives. He also points out that UK accepts fewer asylum seekers compared to other European countries, questioning whether the country is taking its fair share. Mr McDonnell concludes by condemning the Bill as a shameful attempt to whip up division and demonise refugees while failing in its responsibilities.
David Simmonds
Con
Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner
Compassion must accompany robustness in managing borders. The UK should update its approach to asylum management as global challenges evolve. Constituents often express concern over migration impacts but support for known refugees. Most arriving through legal routes are granted asylum, indicating well-founded claims. Illegal immigration funding terrorist activities and dangerous criminal enterprises. Safe and legal routes are essential, including bilateral arrangements with safe countries post-Brexit. Public confidence is key; costly programmes like the Syrian resettlement scheme have garnered goodwill. Effective advocacy at entry points for refugees is crucial to lodging strong claims. Balancing business needs and social pressures in communities requires engagement and recognition of complexity.
Bury South
Emphasises the need to address exploitation by people smugglers, criminal gangs, and asylum shoppers. Cites the example of a Kurdish-Iranian family's tragic death at sea in 2020 and recent high numbers of illegal crossings. Argues for an asylum system prioritising genuine refugees over economic migrants.
Joy Morrissey
Con
Beaconsfield
[INTERVENTION] Questions why Labour Members are not present to debate the issue which matters much to their constituents, implying criticism for lack of engagement on a crucial topic.
[INTERVENTION] Agrees with Wakeford that calling supporters of border control legislation racist is incorrect and points out that many former Labour voters agree with the Conservative stance on immigration controls.
Duncan Baker
Con
Southport
[INTERVENTION] Emphasises the need to control illegal entry routes, suggesting a focus on legal asylum seeker numbers could be more effective in addressing issues raised.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
[INTERVENTION] Criticises those who exploit the system, including human rights lawyers and activists encouraging illegal asylum claims.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
[INTERVENTION] Argues for the removal of loopholes in the system that allow exploitation by legal means, suggesting it slows down the processing of genuine asylum claims.
Jim Shannon
DUP
Strangford
Mr. Shannon supports the Bill's general aim to offer safer legal routes for asylum seekers but raises concerns about young children in immigration detention and advocates for a fairer system based on need rather than criminalization.
Alison Thewliss
SNP
Glasgow Central
Intervened to highlight the importance of addressing religious persecution by Governments, emphasising the need for safe and legal routes.
Nigel Evans
Lab
Camberwell and Peckham
Announced a five-minute limit for speeches to ensure all Members can contribute within the debate time.
Peter Gibson
Con
Darlington
Supports the Bill, emphasising its aim to reform immigration policy and introduce tougher criminal offences for illegal entry. He highlights the Government's record in resettling refugees through schemes like the vulnerable persons resettlement programme.
Aaron Bell
Con
Newcastle-under-Lyme
The speaker supports the Bill as it increases fairness and reduces danger in the immigration system. He emphasises that while Newcastle-under-Lyme is not a hard-hearted town, they support refugees who are genuinely in need of asylum but argue for prioritising vulnerable people over economic migrants. Bell also highlights the success of Australia's Operation Sovereign Borders and supports removing those with no right to be here more quickly, thereby reducing lengthy vexatious claims.
Matt Vickers
Con
Stockton West
The speaker supports the Bill as it addresses the current unfit asylum and immigration system that benefits criminal gangs and people smugglers. He highlights the increasing number of illegal crossings, noting that most genuine asylum seekers cannot afford such high costs and that 80% of those crossing are male adults aged between 18-39. Vickers argues for a firmer approach towards illegal entry and foreign national offenders while also advocating for a fairer system to support genuinely vulnerable people.
Duncan Baker
Con
North Norfolk
Discussed the importance of controlling borders and dealing with criminal elements in immigration. Highlighted constituents' concerns about illegal crossings and called for stronger deterrent measures to curb illegal entries. Emphasised the need for a fair but firm asylum system, impacting those making irregular entries.
Paul Bristow
Con
Peterborough
Shared personal stories of refugees and emphasised that Britain is kind and welcoming. Criticised the current asylum system for being complex, lengthy, and unfair to those seeking refuge. Stressed the need for a quicker and fairer asylum system while prioritising protection for genuine refugees.
Dehenna Davison
Con
Bishop Auckland
The speaker supports the bill, emphasising its aim to protect borders and tackle illegal immigration by cracking down on criminal gangs. She acknowledges public support for a robust approach towards asylum seekers while upholding Britain's moral obligation to welcome those in need.
Tom Hunt
Con
Ipswich
Hunt highlights Ipswich's history of welcoming refugees, but stresses the importance of legal immigration channels. He argues that illegal border crossings limit Britain’s capacity to support genuine asylum seekers and puts pressure on public services.
Andrew Jones
Con
Dewsbury
Jones supports the bill, advocating for better integration of refugees and faster processing of claims. He emphasises the need to tackle people trafficking by making illegal routes less attractive.
Southgate and Wood Green
The hon. Member criticised the rushed development of the Bill without proper consultation or impact assessment, highlighting flaws such as lack of bilateral agreements with France and other EU countries, a two-tier refugee system based on arrival method rather than claim strength, and criminalisation of asylum seekers. He also pointed out that the Bill fails to address safe routes for refugees and adds pressure to Britain’s broken asylum system.
The hon. Member questioned whether the debate on Second Reading was rushed, noting that it is now at the end of the second day and this is rare in his experience.
The hon. Member pointed out that the Bill has seven placeholder clauses, which will not be revealed until Committee stage where most Members will not take part.
The hon. Member proposed finding a safe third country willing to process asylum seekers as an alternative approach, citing Australia’s success in this regard.
The hon. Member argued that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, noting that France, Greece, and Italy are all safe countries.
The hon. Member contended that there is a difference between someone who has broken the law by coming to the UK illegally from another safe European country and those arriving through legal processes.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Philp supports the amendment, stating that it is fair but firm. He asserts that illegal immigration undermines the UK's ability to choose who deserves support and infringes on legal processes for genuine refugees and asylum seekers. He emphasises the need to tackle small boats crossing illegally from France, which he argues are mostly comprised of young men exploiting people smugglers rather than those in dire need such as women or children.
Stuart McDonald
SNP
Central Ayrshire
McDonald interjected to express concerns about the criminalisation of individuals fleeing persecution, including Uyghurs from China and Syrians facing war crimes. He argues that such actions could lead to potential prison sentences for those seeking refuge, which he believes goes against humanitarian principles.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Hayes supports the amendment, encouraging further measures such as using the Royal Navy to intercept boats and processing claims offshore. He also criticises lawyers who exploit legal systems to delay removals or deportations.
Chris Stephens
SNP
Glasgow South West
Stephens questions the assistance provided to individuals with false passports, suggesting that current measures may not be adequate for those who have fled their countries under duress and whose identity documents might be fraudulent.
▸
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.