Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

New Clause 5

Extension of prohibition on employment to other working arrangements

“(1) The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) In the italic heading before section 15, after “Employment” insert “and other working arrangements”.

(3) Before section 15, after the italic heading insert—

(1) In sections 15 to 24, a reference to a person employing another person includes a reference to—

(a) a person (“person A”) engaging an individual (“individual A”) under a worker’s contract,

(b) a person (“person B”) engaging an individual sub-contractor (“individual B”), and

(c) an online matching service (“person C”) providing the details of an individual who is a service provider (“individual C”) to potential clients or customers.

(2) Accordingly—

(a) references in sections 15 to 24 to employment include engagement of the kind mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) or the provision of details as mentioned in paragraph (c) of that subsection;

(b) references in those sections to an employer include person A, person B or person C;

(c) references in those sections to an employee include individual A, individual B or individual C.

(3) In this section—

“worker’s contract” means a contract, other than a contract of service or apprenticeship, under which—

(a) individual A undertakes to do or perform personally work or services for person A or another person (whether or not that other person is specified in the contract), and

(b) person A is neither a client nor customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by individual A;

“individual sub-contractor” means an individual (“individual B”) who has entered into a contract with person B to provide work or services in circumstances where person B has entered into a contract with a third party to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services but individual B has not;

“online matching service” means a person who, in the course of a business—

(a) keeps a register of service providers for the purpose of matching them with potential clients or customers,

(b) provides an online service by which potential clients or customers can submit enquiries for the purpose of being matched with suitable service providers, and

(c) charges a fee or commission in return for making such matches;

“service provider” means a person providing, or seeking to provide, work or services for remuneration.

(4) Subsection (1)(a), and subsection (2) so far as it has effect in consequence of subsection (1)(a), do not apply if and to the extent that—

(a) under the worker’s contract, individual A undertakes to do or perform personally work or services for a person other than person A (whether or not that other person is specified in the contract), and

(b) the status of a person for whom individual A does or performs work or services under the contract is that of a client or customer of a profession or business undertaking carried on by individual A.

(5) In this section a reference to a contract includes a contract that is express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing.

(6) This section is subject to subsection (2) of section 15A (which provides for subsection (1)(a) of that section not to apply to in relation to an online matching service).”

(4) After section 15 insert—

(1) Subsection (4) applies where a person (“A”)—

(a) employs an individual to provide work or services, or

(b) is contracted to provide, or arrange for the provision of, work or services and enters into a contract under which another person is to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services (or part of the work or services).

(2) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to A employing an individual does not include A doing so as mentioned in section 14A(1)(c) (online matching services).

(3) Subsection (4) also applies where—

(a) a person (“A”) is an online matching service who provides the details of another person who is a service provider to potential clients or customers, and

(b) as result of being matched by person A, the service provider enters into a contract with a client or customer for the provision of work or services.

(4) For the purposes of section 15, and where this would not otherwise be the case, A is to be treated as employing any individual (“B”) who personally provides the work or services (or any part of the work or services), including where—

(a) A is not in a contractual relationship with B, or

(b) A does not know that B is providing the work or services (or part of the work or services).

(5) Subsection (4) applies where A is contracted to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services regardless of whether that contract is the first or any other contract in a chain of contracts to provide, or arrange for the provision of, the work or services (or part of the work or services).

(6) This section does not affect the liability of any other employer under section 15.

(7) In sections 15, 16, 17, 23 and 24 a reference to a person employing another person includes a reference to a person who is treated as doing so by virtue of subsection (4); and references in those sections to employment, employers and employees are to be construed accordingly.

(8) In this section “online matching service” and “service provider” have the same meaning as in section 14A.”

(5) In section 25—

(a) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert “subject to sections 14A and 15A,”,

(b) in paragraph (b), leave out from “whether” to the end of the paragraph, and

(c) after that paragraph insert—

“(ba) a reference to a contract includes a contract that is express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing,”.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

18:24:00

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 6—Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support. Government new clause 7—Timeframe for determination of certain appeals brought by non-detained appellants liable to deportation. Government new clause 8—Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime. New clause 1—Duty to report and publish data on deaths in the asylum system and small boat crossings— “(1) The Secretary of State must, on a quarterly basis, publish and lay before Parliament a report that includes the number of deaths that have occurred in relation to the UK asylum system in the three months preceding the date specified in that report. (2) The specified date under subsection (1) must be no more than six months prior to the date of publication. (3) A report under subsection (1) must include― (a) The total number of deaths occurring, during the specified period, of persons who were, at the time of death― (i) in receipt of accommodation under sections 4, 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; or (ii) awaiting the outcome of a claim for asylum while residing in other forms of accommodation or at no fixed abode; or (iii) undertaking an unauthorised crossing of the English Channel; (b) the cause of death for each person reported, if known; and (c) the locations in which each death occurred, if known. (4) The first report under this section must be made published no later than one year after the passing of this Act. (5) For the purposes of this section― (a) A “claim for asylum” is defined in accordance with section 167 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and (b) an “unauthorised crossing” is a sea crossing made by an individual without leave to enter the United Kingdom, made from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom.” This new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and in small boat channel crossings. New clause 2—Reports on restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment— “(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report explaining what progress has been made towards providing asylum applicants with the right to take up employment whilst their application is being determined. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be published— (a) by 31 December 2025, or (b) within three months of the passing of this Act, whichever is earliest (3) The Secretary of State must make a further report under subsection (1) at least every twelve calendar month after the publication of the first report, until the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment are removed. (4) Any report under subsection (1) must include a review of— (a) the current 12 month waiting period attached to the permission to work, and (b) the restriction of roles to the Immigration Salary List. (5) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) a copy of any report published under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament before the end of the day on which it is published, or the next sitting day if it is published on a non-sitting day; (b) the House of Commons to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Commons has considered the report; and (c) the House of Lords to debate a motion, made by a Minister of the Crown, to the effect that the House of Lords has considered the report. (6) The debates required under subsections (5)(b) and (c) must take place within 25 sitting days of the day on which the report is laid before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report back to Parliament annually on the Government's working rights policies for people in the asylum system, and for both Houses of Parliament to debate a motion on the report. New clause 3—Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy on the Government’s efforts to establish additional safe and legal routes for persons to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. (2) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a strategy on the development of safe and managed routes for people to seek asylum in the UK. New clause 4—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022— “The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed— (a) sections 58 to 65, and (b) sections 68 and 69.” This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, relating to modern slavery victims. New clause 9—Humanitarian Assistance— “A person (“P”) does not commit an offence under section 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime), section 14 (handling articles for use in immigration crime), or section 16 (collecting information for use in immigration crime) if P’s action was for the purposes of providing humanitarian assistance.” This new clause would ensure that individuals who provide humanitarian assistance would not be considered as having committed the new criminal offences created by clauses 13, 14 and 16 of this Bill. New clause 10—Functions of the Commander in relation to sea crossings to United Kingdom— “(1) In exercising the Commander’s functions in relation to sea crossings to the United Kingdom, the Commander must have regard to the objectives of— (a) preventing the boarding of vessels, with the aim of entering the United Kingdom, by persons who require leave to enter the United Kingdom but are seeking to enter the United Kingdom— (i) without leave to enter, or (ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person; (b) ensuring that a decision is taken on a claim by a person under subsection (1)(a) within six months of the person’s arrival in the United Kingdom; and (c) making arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of a person who enters the United Kingdom without leave, or with leave that was obtained by deception. (2) The Commander must include, in the strategic priority document issued under section 3(2), an assessment of— (a) the most effective methods for deterring illegal entry into the United Kingdom; (b) the most effective methods for reducing the number of sea crossings made by individuals without leave to enter the United Kingdom; and (c) the most effective methods for arranging the removal, to the person’s own country or a safe third country, of a person who enters the United Kingdom illegally. (3) For the purposes of this section— (a) “sea crossings” are journeys from dry land in France, Belgium or the Netherlands for the purpose of reaching dry land in the United Kingdom; and (b) illegal entry to the United Kingdom is defined in accordance with section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences).” This new clause sets out objectives and strategic priorities for the Border Security Commander in relation to sea crossings and arrangements with a safe third country for the removal of people who enter the UK illegally. New clause 11—Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom— “(1) The minimum qualification period for applications for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is a period of ten years. (2) The qualification period in subsection (1) applies to a person who has— (a) a tier 2, T2, International Sportsperson or Skilled Worker visa, (b) a Scale-up Worker visa, (c) a Global Talent, Tier 1 Entrepreneur or Investor visa, (d) an Innovator Founder visa, (e) a UK Ancestry visa, or (f) a partner holding UK citizenship. (3) A person who has lived in the United Kingdom for ten years or more but does not meet the criteria in subsection (2) cannot apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.” This new clause would extend the qualification period for applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the UK to ten years and abolish the long-stay route, through which a person can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain based on having lived in the UK for ten years or more. New clause 12—Age assessments: use of scientific methods— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament— (a) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 52 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 specifying scientific methods that may be used for the purposes of age assessments, and (b) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 58 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 making provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods for age assessments.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to specify scientific methods for assessing a person’s age and to disapply the requirement for consent for scientific methods to be used. New clause 13—Revocation of indefinite leave to remain in certain circumstances— “(1) Indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom is revoked with respect to a person (“P”) if any of the following conditions apply. (2) Condition 1 is that P is defined as a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. (3) Condition 2 is that P was granted indefinite leave to remain after the coming into force of this Act, but would not be eligible for indefinite leave under the requirements of section [Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain in the United Kingdom]. (4) Condition 3 is that P, or any dependents of P, have been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from HM Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules. (5) Condition 4 is that P’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period, or subsequent to receiving indefinite leave to remain. (6) A person who has entered the United Kingdom— (a) under the Ukraine visa schemes; (b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme; (c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or (d) on a British National Overseas visa, is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2, Condition 3, and Condition 4. (7) For the purposes of subsection (5)— (a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and (b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation. (8) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules vary the conditions set out in this section.” This new clause would revoke indefinite leave where a person is a foreign criminal, has been in receipt of benefits, earns below the national median income, or (for those granted indefinite leave after the coming into force of this Act) would not meet the requirements sought to be imposed by NC11. New clause 14—Borders legislation: Human Rights Act— “(1) This section applies to any provision made by or by virtue of this Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Immigration Acts, and any legislation relating to immigration, deportation, or asylum, including the Immigration Rules within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971. (2) The legislation identified in subsection (1), including in relation to the enforcement of immigration policy, deportation, the granting, removal, revocation or alteration of immigration status, or asylum, or other entitlements, must be read and given effect to disregarding the Human Rights Act 1998. (3) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2. (4) In the Immigration Act 1971— (a) in section 8AA— (i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”; and (ii) omit subsections (2)(a)(ii) and subsections (3) to (6); (b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A). (5) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002— (a) in subsection (1), after “must” insert “not”; (b) in subsection (2), after “must” insert “not”; (c) in subsection (2), for “section 6” substitute “any section”; and (d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”. (6) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)— (a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section; and (b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.” This new clause would disapply the Human Rights Act and interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this Bill and to other legislation about borders, asylum and immigration. New clause 15—Offences and deportation— “(1) The UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) In section 32— (a) in subsection (1)(a), at the end insert “and”; (b) in subsection (1)(b) leave out "and” and insert “or”; and (c) leave out subsection (1)(c) and substitute— “(c) who has been charged with or convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971” (d) leave out subsections (2) and (3). (3) In section 33, leave out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (6A). (4) The Illegal Migration Act 2023 is amended as follows. (5) Leave out subsection (5) of section 1 and insert— “(5) The Human Rights Act does not apply to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or to— (a) the Immigration Act 1971, (b) the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, (c) the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, (d) the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, or (e) the Immigration Act 2016.” (6) In section 6 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, leave out subsections (4) and (5). (7) In section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, leave out all instances of “knowingly”.” This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with or convicted with an immigration offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. New clause 16—Restrictions on visas for spouses and civil partners— “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually as a spouse or civil partner of another (the sponsor). (2) Before making regulations under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult— (a) in England and Wales and Scotland, such representatives of local authorities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; (b) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland; and (c) any such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (3) But the duty to consult under subsection (2) does not apply where the Secretary of State considers that the maximum number under subsection (1) needs to be changed as a matter of urgency. (4) The Secretary of State must commence the consultation under subsection (2) in relation to the first regulations to be made under this section before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (5) The regulations must specify that the number of persons from any one country who enter as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor cannot exceed 7% of the maximum number specified in the regulations under subsection (1). (6) If, in any year, the number of persons who enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor exceeds the number specified in regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament— (a) setting out the number of persons who have, in that year, entered the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner of a sponsor; and (b) explaining why the number exceeds that specified in the regulations. (7) The statement under subsection (6) must be laid before Parliament before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the last day of the year to which the statement relates. (8) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (9) to (11). (9) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom with a view to settlement as the spouse or civil partner of a person present and settled in the United Kingdom or who is on the same occasion being admitted for settlement includes that— (a) the applicant is married to, or the civil partner of, a person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and is, on the same occasion, seeking admission to the United Kingdom for the purposes of settlement; (b) the applicant provides evidence that the parties under subsection (9)(a) were married or formed a civil partnership at least two years prior to the application; (c) each of the parties intends to live permanently with the other as spouses or civil partners and the marriage or civil partnership is subsisting; (d) the salary of the person who has a right to abode in the United Kingdom or indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom equals or exceeds £38,700 per year; and (e) the applicant and the person who has a right of abode in the United Kingdom are both at least 23 years old. (10) Leave to enter the United Kingdom as a spouse or civil partner under subsection (9) is to be refused if the parties concerned are first cousins. (11) For the purposes of this section, “local authority” means— (a) in England and Wales, a county council, a county borough council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, and (b) in Scotland, a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify a cap on the number of spouses or civil partners who may enter the UK, and on the number that may enter from any one country. It would also amend the immigration rules to set a salary threshold. New clause 17—Restrictions on visas and grants of indefinite leave to remain— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules provide for all visa grants, including spousal visas, to be conditional on the following— (a) the requirement that the applicant or their dependents will not apply for any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules; and (b) the requirement that the applicant’s annual income must not fall below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. (2) Immigration Rules made under subsection (1) must ensure that any breach of the conditions set out in that subsection will render void any visa previously granted. (3) The Secretary of State is not permitted to grant leave outside the immigration rules or immigration acts. (4) A person is not eligible to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom if any of the following conditions apply. (5) Condition 1 is that a person is a “foreign criminal” under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. (6) Condition 2 is that a person, or any of their dependents, has been in receipt of any form of “social protection” (including housing) from the UK Government or a local authority, where “social protection” is defined according to the Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses, subject to any further definition by immigration rules. (7) Condition 3 is that a person’s annual income has fallen below £38,700 for six months or more in aggregate during the relevant qualification period. (8) A person who has entered the United Kingdom— (a) under the Ukraine visa schemes; (b) under the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme; (c) under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy; or (d) on a British National Overseas visa, is exempt from the requirements of Condition 2 and Condition 3. (9) For the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (7)— (a) the condition applies only to earnings that have been lawfully reported to, or subject to withholding tax by, HM Revenue and Customs; and (b) the relevant sum of annual income must be adjusted annually by the Secretary of State through immigration rules to reflect inflation. (10) The Secretary of State may by immigration rules make further provision varying these conditions, including by way of transitional provisions.” This new clause would place certain restrictions on the granting of visas or indefinite leave to remain. It would require migrants to be self-sufficient and not to require state benefits, and would deny indefinite leave to remain to foreign criminals. New clause 18—Cap on the number of entrants— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses. (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total. (3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1). (4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.” This new clause would provide a mechanism for a binding annual cap on the number of non-visitor visas issued by the UK. New clause 19—Removals from the United Kingdom: visa penalties for uncooperative countries— “(1) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows. (2) In section 70, omit subsections (4) and (5). (3) In section 72— (a) subsection (1), after “A country”, for “may” substitute “must”. (b) In subsection (1)(a) omit “and” and insert “or, (ab) is not cooperating in relation to the verification of identity or status of individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country, and” (c) in subsection (1)(b), after “citizens of the country” insert “or individuals who are likely to be nationals or citizens of the country”, (d) omit subsections (2) and (3), and (e) in subsection (4), omit from “70” to after “subsection (1)(a)”. (4) Omit section 74.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to use a visa penalty provision if a country is not cooperating in the removal of any of its nationals or citizens from the UK, or in relation to the verification of their identity or status. New clause 20—Exemptions from the UK GDPR: illegal migration and foreign criminals— “(1) The Data Protection Act 2018 is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (2)(b) of section 15 (Exemptions etc), at end insert “, and makes provision about the exemption from all GDPR provisions of persons who entered the United Kingdom illegally and foreign criminals; (3) In paragraph (2) of Schedule 2, after sub-paragraph (1) insert— “(1A) GDPR provisions do not apply if the data subject entered the United Kingdom illegally or is a foreign criminal. (1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A)— (a) a person “entered the United Kingdom illegally” if they entered the United Kingdom— (i) without leave to enter, or (ii) with leave to enter that was obtained by means which included deception by any person; and (b) “foreign criminal” is defined in accordance with section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007.”” This new clause would disapply data protection laws from data on people who have entered the UK illegally or are Foreign National Offenders. New clause 21—Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment— “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.” This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied. New clause 22—Additional safe and legal routes— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make regulations specifying safe and legal routes through which refugees and other individuals requiring international protection can enter the UK lawfully.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes, under which refugees and others in need of international protection can come to the UK lawfully from abroad. New clause 23—Duty to meet the director of Europol— “The Border Commander must meet the director of Europol, or their delegate, no less than once every three months.” This new clause would require the Border Commander to meet with the Executive Director of Europol every three months. New clause 24—Duty to establish a joint taskforce with Europol— “(1) The Secretary of State must seek to establish a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of cooperation on the matters set out under subsection (3). (2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, make a report to Parliament on progress made to date on establishing a joint taskforce under subsection (1). (3) Any joint taskforce established pursuant to the Secretary of State’s activities under subsection (1) has a duty to promote cooperation on— (a) the disruption of trafficking operations; (b) the enhancement of law enforcement capabilities; (c) the provision of specialised training for officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement; and (d) any other matters which the Secretary of State or Director of Europol deem appropriate.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek a joint taskforce with Europol for the purposes of disrupting trafficking operations, enhancing law enforcement capabilities, and providing specialised training to officials involved in border security and immigration enforcement. New clause 25—Participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations— “(1) The Secretary of State must provide adequate resources to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of enhancing their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations. (2) The resources provided under subsection (1) must include technology for conducting improved surveillance on, and detection of, smuggling networks. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “law enforcement agencies” include— (a) the National Crime Agency (b) police forces in England and Wales; and (c) the British Transport Police.” This new clause would require the Government to allocate adequate resources to law enforcement agencies to enhance their participation in Europol’s anti-trafficking operations, including through technological tools for better surveillance and detection of smuggling networks. New clause 26—Requirement to produce an annual report on cooperation with Europol— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament an annual report on cooperation between UK law enforcement agencies and Europol. (2) A further report must be published and laid before Parliament at least once per year. (3) An annual report under this section must include— (a) actions taken during the previous year to cooperate with Europol; (b) progress in reducing people smuggling and human trafficking; and (c) planned activities for improving future cooperation with Europol.” This new clause would require the Government to provide an annual report to Parliament detailing the UK’s efforts to cooperate with Europol, its progress in reducing levels of people smuggling and human trafficking, and its plans to improve future cooperation. New clause 27—Reuniting unaccompanied child refugees with family members— “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by immigration rules make the changes set out in subsections (2) to (6). (2) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom as a child relative of a person or persons given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection, are that the applicant— (a) is the child, grandchild, sister, brother, nephew or niece of a person or persons granted limited leave to enter or remain as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection granted as such under the immigration rules; and (b) is under the age of 18; and (c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join without recourse to public funds in accommodation which the person or persons the child is seeking to join, own or occupy exclusively; and (d) can, and will, be maintained adequately by the person or persons the child is seeking to join, without recourse to public funds; and (e) if seeking leave to enter, holds a valid United Kingdom entry clearance for entry in this capacity. (3) The requirements to be met by a person seeking leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as the close relative of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection are that the applicant is— (a) a parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle of a child with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection; and (b) joining a refugee or beneficiary of humanitarian protection with limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom who is under the age of 18 and not living with a parent or grandparent; and (c) can, and will, be accommodated adequately, together with any dependants, without recourse to public funds. (4) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) may be granted for five years provided that, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant has entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) may be granted provided the Secretary of State is satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met. (5) Limited leave to enter the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if, on arrival, a valid passport or other identity document is not produced to the Immigration Officer and the applicant does not have entry clearance for entry in this capacity. Limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom as an applicant under subsection (2) or (3) is to be refused if the Secretary of State is not satisfied that each of the requirements of subsections (2) or (3) is met. (6) Civil legal services are to be provided to an applicant under subsections (2) or (3) in relation to rights to enter, and to remain in, the United Kingdom pursuant to schedule 1, subsection 30(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.” This new clause would require changes to the immigration rules to extend the family members that could apply to join an unaccompanied child refugee in the UK, to include parents, grandparents, sisters, brothers, uncles and aunts, and to allow unaccompanied child refugees to sponsor close adult family members to join them in the UK. It also provides for legal aid to be available in such cases. New clause 28—Good character requirement: illegal entry— “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, ensure that illegal entry to the UK is disregarded as a factor for the purposes of assessing whether a person applying for British citizenship meets the good character requirement.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to change current Home Office guidance stating that individuals who enters the UK illegally, regardless of how long ago, will "normally be refused" citizenship (if they applied after 10 February 2025). New clause 29—Report on impact of carers’ minimum wage on net migration— “The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passage of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of introducing a minimum wage for carers on levels of net migration.” This new clause would require the Government to publish a report on how implementing a carers’ minimum wage would impact on levels of net migration. New clause 30—A three-month service standard for asylum casework— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passage of this Act, implement a three month service standard for asylum casework. (2) The service standard must specify that 98% of initial decisions on all asylum claims should be made before the end of three months after the date of claim.” This new clause would require UK Visas and Immigration to reintroduce a three month service standard for decisions on asylum cases. New clause 31—Exemption of NHS workers from immigration skills charge— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, implement an exemption for National Health Service workers from the immigration skills charge for sponsoring a Skilled Worker or a Senior or Specialist worker.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to apply an exception to the NHS as an employer from having to pay the immigration skills charge when sponsoring skilled employees. New clause 32—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 2)— “(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed— (a) sections 12 to 65; and (b) sections 68 and 69.” This new clause would repeal specified provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. New clause 33—Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings— “The Secretary of State must— (a) within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce legislation to ensure the United Kingdom’s full compliance with the 2009 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings; and (b) within 18 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on how the Government is ensuring full compliance with the Convention under this section.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation which incorporates the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings into UK law and report on compliance with the Convention. New clause 34—Victims of slavery or human trafficking: protection from immigration offences— “(1) The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows. (2) In section 52 (Duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), after subsection (2), insert— “(2A) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to ensure that notification under this section does not include the supply of information to relevant persons or authorities that might indicate that— (a) the victim has committed an offence under sections 24 to 26 of the Immigration Act 1971, or (b) the victim might otherwise meet the requirements for removal from the United Kingdom or for investigation pending removal. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “relevant persons or authorities” include— (a) a Minister of the Crown or a government department; (b) an immigration officer; (c) a customs official; (d) a law enforcement officer; (e) the Director of Border Revenue; (f) the Border Security Commander; (g) a UK authorised person; and (h) the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom.”” This new clause would prevent a public authority, when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking, from sharing information with immigration authorities and other public authorities that might result in deportation or prosecution for an immigration offence. New clause 35—Humanitarian travel permit— “(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if— (a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom; (b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and (c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account— (a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted; (b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom; (c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and (d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant. (4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them. (5) The requirements are— (a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and (b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration). (6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1). (7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order. (8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom. (9) For the purposes of this section— (a) “appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph(1); (b) “entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971; (c) “protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations— (i) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”); (ii) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or (iii) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”); (d) “persecution” is defined in accordance with the Refugee Convention; and (e) “serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).” This new clause would create a new “humanitarian travel permit”. New clause 36—Refugee family reunion— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days. (2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate. (3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. (4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules. (5) In this section, “family members” include— (a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent; (b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner; (c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; (d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either— (i) under the age of 18, or (ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and (e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to— (i) the importance of maintaining family unity, (ii) the best interests of a child, (iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person, (iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological well being of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or (v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (6) For the purpose of subsection (5)— (a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules, and (b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection. New clause 37—Children born in the UK: British citizenship— “(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows. (2) After section 1(3A) insert— “(3B) A person (“P”) born in the United Kingdom on or after the relevant day who is not a British citizen by virtue of subsection (1), (1A) or (2) or section 10A shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen if, when P was born, P’s father or mother— (a) had previously entered the UK whilst holding leave to enter the UK; and (b) was subsequently, and at the time of P’s birth, subject to UK immigration control.” (3) The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 are amended as follows. (4) In Schedule 1, Table 20A, insert— “No fee is payable in respect of an application for registration as a British citizen under the 1981 Act where the application is made under section 1(3B) of that Act.”” This new clause would ensure citizenship for children born in the UK whose parents had leave to enter the UK but were not British citizens or had settled status at the time of their child's birth, and for fees for that registration to be waived. New clause 38—Repeal of certain provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (No. 3)— “(1) The following provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 are repealed— (a) section 12, (b) section 16, (c) sections 30 to 38, and (d) section 40.” This new clause would repeal provisions of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 concerning: the creation of two separate groups of refugees, subject to differential treatment; the inadmissibility of asylum claims by persons with a connection to a safe third State; the interpretation of the Refugee Convention; and the creation of offences relating and similar to illegal entry to the UK. New clause 39—Duty to deport in accordance with the Refugee Convention— “(1) The Secretary of State must seek to remove anyone who, based on Article 1F and Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, does not have the benefit of the non-refoulement provisions of the Refugee Convention. (2) This duty does not apply in relation to persons who would face a real risk of capital punishment or extra-judicial killing or whose removal would contravene the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against Torture. (3) If a domestic court or tribunal has ruled that a person’s removal would not contravene subsection (1) and (2), the court or tribunal may— (a) Consider whether removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, (b) But if it considers that removal would be contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Secretary of State may seek the removal of that person, notwithstanding the Act. (4) The Secretary of State may delay the removal of an individual where subsection (3)(b) applies, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the compatibility of that removal. (5) The Secretary of State must argue before the European Court of Human Rights that the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be interpreted as preventing the removal of an individual if such removal is compatible with the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention against Torture. (6) If the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rules that the European Convention on Human Rights takes precedence over the Refugee Convention and United Nations Convention against Torture, the Secretary of State may decide to comply with that Grand Chamber decision. (7) If the Secretary of State decides to comply with a ruling of the Grand Chamber, they must publish a quarterly report setting out the anonymised details of those individuals who could be deported subject to subsections (1) and (2) but have not been deported because of a decision by the Secretary of State to comply with a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court on Human Rights.” New clause 40—Detention of illegal migrants— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, set out plans to detain illegal migrants in secure accommodation. (2) Detention under subsection (1)— (a) must occur immediately upon a person’s arrival into the UK without leave to enter the UK; (b) must be in accommodation with requisite security, not including hotels or residential accommodation; and (c) must be for no more than 24 hours, during which any asylum claim must be assessed and decided. (3) Any person whose asylum claim under this section is refused must be deported within 24 hours of refusal. (4) A plan under subsection (1) must be— (a) laid before Parliament, and (b) implemented within twelve months of the passing of this Act.” This new clause would require the Government to set up secure accommodation to detain illegal migrants as soon as they arrive in the UK, assess any asylum claim with 24 hours of detention, and deport any failed applicants. New clause 41—Impact of European Convention on Human Rights on border security— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an assessment of the impact of the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights on the UK’s border security. (2) An assessment under this section must be laid before Parliament and must include— (a) the number of additional persons likely to be deported from the United Kingdom annually if the UK were to depart from the European Convention on Human Rights, and (b) of those, the number of foreign criminals likely to be deported annually.” This new clause would require the Government to assess the impact of the ECHR on the UK’s border security. New clause 42—Transparency in age dispute decision-making— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and on a quarterly basis thereafter— (a) prepare and publish a report on age assessments conducted for the purposes of immigration control, and (b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament. (2) The report must include— (a) the total number of age disputes raised during the reporting period, (b) the number of individuals who were initially treated as adults but were subsequently assessed to be under the age of 18, (c) the number of individuals who were initially treated as children but were subsequently assessed to be 18 or over, (d) the number and percentage of individuals referred for a formal Merton-compliant age assessment, (e) the number of safeguarding referrals made as a result of age misclassification, and (f) the number of legal challenges brought in relation to age assessments, and the outcome of those challenges. (3) The report must also include an assessment of the impact of age dispute procedures on unaccompanied children, with particular regard to— (a) the duration of time spent in adult accommodation, detention, or prison, (b) any effect on access to education, healthcare, and social care services, (c) any risks to mental and physical health arising from misclassification, and (d) any referrals to or findings made by safeguarding professionals or regulatory bodies in relation to such cases. (4) In this section— “child” means a person who is under the age of 18, “Merton-compliant” means compliant with the principles established in R (B) v Merton LBC [2003] EWHC 1689 (Admin), “age dispute” means any case in which the claimed age of an individual for immigration purposes is challenged or reassessed by the Home Office or a relevant authority.” This new clause would require the Home Office to publish a detailed analysis which includes the outcomes on age assessments. It aims to increase transparency in the current process and to support policy reform that better safeguards children at risk of being misclassified as adults. Its aim is to ensure a more transparent, and accountable approach to age disputes. New clause 43—Management of immigration removal centres and asylum accommodation— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make by regulations a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation. (2) The register under subsection (1) must include all companies or persons— (a) found guilty of or fined for— (i) gross misconduct, (ii) abuse, (iii) overcharging, or (iv) fraud in relation to their operation of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation, or (b) who have not, following inspection by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration (ICIBI), met the recommendations of the subsequent report within 6 months. (3) The Secretary of State or department must not enter into further contracts or renewal of contracts with any prohibited provider.” This new clause would require the Home Office to make a register of prohibited providers of immigration removal centres and other forms of asylum accommodation who have been convicted of gross misconduct, abuse, overcharging or fraud, or have not met the recommendations of an inspection report. The Home Office cannot renew or enter into further contracts with prohibited providers on the register. New clause 44—National Referral Mechanism: duty to create a new visa scheme— “(1) The Secretary of State must, by immigration rules, create a new visa scheme for persons who— (a) are regarded by a first responder organisation as eligible for referral into the National Referral Mechanism for modern slavery; and (b) are in receipt of an Overseas Domestic Worker visa under the terms of the Immigration Rules Appendix Overseas Domestic Worker; or (c) have been in receipt of such a visa within the six months prior to a referral under paragraph (a). (2) Immigration rules under subsection (1)— (a) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the passing of this Act; and (b) must be commenced within six months of being laid before Parliament. (3) Immigration rules under subsection (1) must— (a) enable an eligible person to remain in the UK until the later of— (i) the date on which a conclusive grounds decision is made; or (ii) the date on which any reconsideration or judicial review of a conclusive grounds decision has concluded; or (iii) for persons recognised as a victim of modern slavery through a positive conclusive grounds decision, the date on which the person is granted either Discretionary Leave under the Immigration Act 1971 or Temporary Permission to Stay under section 65 of the Nationality and Borders and 2022; and (b) enable the eligible person to work as a domestic worker for any eligible employer during the period specified by this subsection. (4) For the purposes of this section— “first responder organisation” is to be defined by immigration rules under this section; “National Referral Mechanism” means the national framework for identifying and referring potential victims of modern slavery and ensuring they receive appropriate support; “conclusive grounds decision” means a decision by a competent authority as to whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce a new visa scheme for victims of modern slavery who have been granted an Overseas Domestic Worker visa, to avoid visa concerns acting as a deterrent against referral for support under the National Referral Mechanism. New clause 45—Good character requirement— “(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows. (2) In section 41A, (Registration: requirement to be of good character), after subsection (4), insert— “(4A) The good character requirement under this section must not be applied in a manner contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under any international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party. (4B) The Secretary of State must ensure any guidance issued regarding the good character requirement reflects the following— (a) any assessment of good character may only take into account the illegal entry, arrival or presence of a person (P) in the United Kingdom if at the time of P's entry to or arrival in the UK— (i) P was aged 18 years or over, (ii) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it, and (iii) the assessment of P's good character is made on the basis of guidance, which was published. (b) It is for the Secretary of State to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that— (i) P would have been given leave to enter under the immigration rules, if P had sought it; and (ii) it would have been reasonable to expect P to have sought and obtained such leave to enter. (4C) In this section— “the good character requirement” refers to the provision regarding a person being of good character in section 41A (Registration: requirement to be of good character), section 4L (Acquisition by registration: special circumstances), and paragraphs 1 and 5 of Schedule 1 to the British Nationality Act 1981. “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.’ This new clause would ensure the good character requirement is not applied contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. It also ensures that guidance would only take into account a person’s illegal entry, arrival or presence, if they arrived as an adult, when there was a safe route under the Immigration Rules available to them, and it would have been reasonable to expect them to have used that route. Amendment 1, clause 3, page 2, line 28, after “such threats”, insert— “including the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports,”. This amendment requires the Border Security Commander (“the Commander”), to have regard to the threats posed to UK biosecurity by illegal meat imports. Amendment 31, page 2, line 36, at end insert— “(2A) The strategic priority document issued under subsection (2) must support the Home Office’s UK Border Strategy.” This amendment would require that the Border Security Commander’s strategic priority document supports the UK Border Strategy. Amendment 2, page 3, line 2, after “borders”, insert “, including biosecurity”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1, and clarifies that UK biosecurity is an element of border security. Amendment 4, page 7, line 12, at end insert— “(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is— (a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities, (b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors, (c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, (d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma, (e) an unaccompanied child, (f) a person at risk of persecution, (g) a pregnant woman, or (h) a person holding refugee status.” This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 13 (supplying articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual. Amendment 36, in clause 14, page 8, line 21, at end insert— “or, (c) their action was— (i) solely as part of their own journey, and (ii) they did not gain financially from the action.” This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence. Amendment 30, page 8, line 26, at end insert— “(6) For the purposes of subsection (1), P cannot commit an offence if P is— (a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities, (b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors, (c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, (d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma, (e) an unaccompanied child, (f) a person at risk of persecution, (g) a pregnant woman, or (h) a person holding refugee status.” This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 14 (Handling articles for use in immigration crime) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual. Amendment 37, in clause 15, page 9, line 2, at end insert— “(i) a telephonic device (j) means for charging a telephonic device” This amendment adds to the list of articles that aren’t included as relevant articles for the purposes of the new criminal offences of supplying or handling items to be used by people making a dangerous journey. Amendment 38, in clause 16, page 9, line 38, leave out from “journey” to end of line 39 and insert— “that they would not benefit from financially.” This amendment seeks to ensure that the new criminal offence is targeted at people smugglers rather than those seeking asylum by amending the statutory defence. Amendment 5, in clause 18, page 11, line 36, at end insert— “(E1C) For the purposes of subsections (E1A) and (E1B) a person cannot commit an offence if the person is— (a) an individual forced or coerced into criminal activities, (b) a parent, family member or guardian accompanying minors, (c) a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery, (d) a survivor of torture, gender-based violence or severe trauma, (e) an unaccompanied child, (f) a person at risk of persecution, (g) a pregnant woman, or (h) a person holding refugee status.” This amendment would specify that the offence created by clause 18 (Endangering another during sea crossing to United Kingdom) cannot be applied to certain categories of individual. Government amendments 6 to 12. Amendment 32, page 30, line 29, leave out clause 37. This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Amendment 33, page 30, line 31, leave out clause 38. This amendment would remove the clause relating to the repeal of immigration legislation. Amendment 35, in clause 38, page 30, line 34, leave out “11” and insert “12”. This amendment would add section 12, concerning the Secretary of State’s powers to detain people under the Immigration Act 1972, to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed. Amendment 34, page 31, line 1, leave out “28” and insert “29”. This amendment would repeal Section 29 of the Illegal Immigration Act 2024, which requires the Secretary of State to remove people who have sought to use modern slavery protections in “bad faith”. Amendment 3, page 31, line 5, at end insert— “(i) sections 29 and 59.” This amendment would add sections 29 and 59 to the list of sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to be repealed. Government amendments 13 to 29.

Before I speak about the key Government amendments tabled on Report, I would like to recall why the Government have brought forward the Bill. We are working to take the necessary actions to secure our borders, bring order to the chaotic immigration and asylum system we inherited, and go after the dangerous criminal gangs that undermine our border security. This legislation is part of that plan for change. For six years, the organised gangs behind small boat crossings have been allowed to take hold, so we are strengthening international partnerships, enhancing enforcement operations nationally and internationally, and equipping ourselves with the tools we need to identify, disrupt and dismantle criminal gangs, while strengthening the security of our borders. The organised immigration crime summit hosted by the Government in London last month mobilised over 40 countries and organisations to launch an unprecedented global fight against the ruthless people-smuggling gangs. The new landmark measures in the Bill will provide law enforcement agencies working across the border security system with stronger powers to pursue, disrupt and deter organised immigration crime.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have asked questions in this Chamber—to be fair to the Minister, she has answered in a positive fashion—on border security in Northern Ireland; people can come from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland and can then cross into the UK. It is so important that the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is closed. What in-depth discussions have taken place between the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security forces to ensure that that avenue of illegal immigration is closed for good?

As I have before, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the border security force in this country works very closely with the PSNI and the Garda Síochána to deal with all potential threats in the common travel area. I assure him that we keep a very close eye on what is going on there to ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s worries are properly addressed. The Bill strengthens the immigration and asylum system. We are repealing the costly and unworkable legislation introduced by the previous Government, and are introducing new provisions to address shortcomings, tackle harm, and build a more efficient and robust system. The Bill is about making changes to enable a properly functioning immigration and asylum system that ensures that those with a genuine right to be here are properly supported, while those who have no legal right to remain in the UK do not abuse the system and undermine the protections the UK has a history of providing for those in need.

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is giving a really important speech on a very important subject. Does she agree that part of the issue with the asylum system is the backlog created by the previous Government, who wrongly decided that the best way to deal with the issue was to make the process take longer, as some sort of deterrent? That meant there was a huge backlog, which this Government have to tackle.

My hon. Friend is right. We inherited a system in total chaos; asylum decision making had all but ground to a halt. Many, many tens of thousands of people were left having claimed asylum, as the law allowed them to, but unable to be processed because the previous Government passed a law that made it illegal for them to be processed. They were left in limbo. The cases were just piling up and costing the taxpayer a fortune. We have had to untangle the situation.

I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being most generous with her time. She will be aware that more than 600 illegal migrants have entered this country today. They could get up to all sorts of mischief, and commit crimes and maybe even acts of terrorism. Does she agree that these young men crossing the channel should be immediately detained and deported, along with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?

18:30:00

I certainly hope that that kind of comment might be a joke. I wonder whether that kind of arbitrary treatment of people who are in this country would become the norm for Reform, if we came out of the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Member wants. We are a law-abiding Government. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has a complete right to his opinions and a complete right to express them, from whichever side of the House he sits. I have personally worked with him and have a great deal of respect for him, so I am shocked that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) thinks that an appropriate thing to say in this place.

On a slightly more constructive point, does the Minister agree that calls for the process to allow asylum seekers to work after they have been in the country for three months would allow them to integrate more closely with their communities and to earn money to support themselves? A measure to change the arrangement from 12 months to three months would make a massive difference to asylum seekers, reduce the bill for hotels and allow people to contribute to the communities they want to be a part of.

We will come to these debates when we get on to debating the new clauses to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. We have been clear from the Government Benches about the balance between respecting work visas, which people have to apply for if they are coming to work here, and allowing asylum seekers who have not applied for work to come and work at that sort of length. The change that he suggests would risk undermining the system. We have a disagreement about timing. The answer to his question is that at the moment an asylum seeker can work if their case has not been heard after 12 months, if that is through no fault of their own. We are talking about time here, and the balance between not undermining our work visa system and having a pull factor for more people to come across illegally.

I thank the Minister for the remarks she just made. Would she accept that people who make an incredibly dangerous journey and are exploited in doing so are often totally desperate, are victims of human rights abuse and war, and have been through horrendous journeys to get there? One day, they will find somewhere where they will be able to live their lives and make a contribution to our society. As a world, do we not need to look at the plight of refugees as a whole and do much more to try to bring an end to the conditions that force people to seek these desperate journeys in the first place?

I agree that we in this place have to always think about the humanity involved and not try to label everybody who comes into our country when they are claiming asylum as some kind of threat or, even worse, as a terrorist or something, as was done by the hon. Member for Ashfield. We have to treat every case on its merits, and we have to treat every person as an individual human being, but we also have to recognise—the right hon. Member for Islington North needs to recognise this too—that not everybody who comes across on a boat is the kind of person he describes; some are the people running the people-smuggling gangs. A variety of humanity comes across on the boats, just as one can discover a variety of humanity if one comes across a pool of human beings anywhere.

I wish to get on with discussing the amendments, but because I served with him on the Intelligence and Security Committee, I will give way to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) .

Is not the truth of the matter that showing humanity means recognising, as the Minister has implied, that some people are coming, perfectly understandably, for entirely economic reasons? If you thought you could get a better deal in Britain for you and your family, you would turn up and say you were claiming asylum on all kinds of grounds. That is the real truth of it. The system is being gamed and it has to stop being gamed.

Yes in some circumstances, but no in others, because some people who come over are genuine asylum seekers. Even under the right hon. Gentleman’s Government—when he, too, was in the Home Office—such people were granted asylum. As always, there are many different circumstances and each case has to be looked at and judged on its merits.

I am sorry, but I need to get on, because we do not have a lot of time and I think I have been generous. The Government have tabled further amendments, to which I now wish to turn, to strengthen the Bill. First, new clause 5 extends right-to-work checks. Preventing illegal working forms a critical part of the Government’s plan to strengthen the immigration system and restore tough enforcement of the rules, undermining the proposition sold by unscrupulous criminal gangs that individuals can work in the UK. In reality, such work is illegal and puts individuals in a vulnerable position and at risk of exploitation. Legitimate businesses are undercut and the wages of lawful workers are negatively impacted, with links to other labour market abuse such as tax evasion, breach of the national minimum wage and exploitative working conditions. Those working illegally in the UK are exploiting a loophole in the existing right-to-work scheme, whereby only those organisations that engage individuals under a contract of employment are required to carry out right-to-work checks. Government new clause 5 means that those who engage individuals to work as casual or temporary workers under a worker’s contract, individual subcontractors, and online matching services that provide details of service providers to carry out work or services for potential clients or customers for remuneration, will be legally required to check a person’s right to work. Individuals who are self-employed in the traditional sense, and who contract directly with clients, will not be in scope of new clause 5, ensuring that a member of the public directly engaging a tradesperson or business will not have to carry out a right-to-work check. That is a long overdue extension of right-to-work checks to include sectors that were previously out of scope and to crack down on the unscrupulous exploitation of employment law loopholes. I note new clause 2 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and new clause 21 in the name of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on the Government’s policy on the right to work for asylum seekers, but it is important, as I said earlier, to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work. Although pull factors to the UK are complex, the perception of easy access to the labour market is among the reasons that people undertake dangerous journeys to the UK. I turn to Government new clauses 6 and 7. First, asylum appeals in the first-tier tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber currently take an average of nearly 50 weeks, according to the latest published statistics. That is because of the huge backlogs we inherited when we came into government. Government new clauses 6 and 7 seek to set a 24-week statutory timeframe, requiring the first-tier tribunal of the immigration and asylum chamber to decide supported accommodation cases and non-detained foreign national offender cases within 24 weeks from the date the appeal is lodged, as far as is reasonably practicable. There are no easy or perfect choices here, but the Government have to take action, and we are focusing in the first instance on measures that will allow us to get people out of costly hotels and to facilitate the swift deportation of non-detained foreign national offenders, where that is in the public interest. While implementing the 24-week timeframe for supported asylum appeals and appeals from non-detained foreign national offenders, it is our expectation that the judiciary will continue to prioritise appeals lodged by detained foreign national offenders and the most vulnerable. We are working at pace in the Home Office and with the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to look at all possible improvements to the end-to-end immigration and appeals system and to the speed and efficiency of decision making and appeals, while continuing to guarantee access to justice. We will set out further reforms to the asylum system later this summer.

The Minister will know that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. An important thing for us is those of a Christian faith and other faiths who come here. The Government have been incredibly generous in giving them the opportunity of asylum and positions here; schemes of both the previous Government and this Government are to be commended, and I thank them. Can the Minister today assure this House, the people I represent here in this United Kingdom and those from overseas that there will still be the opportunity for those who are persecuted because of their faith to come here and claim asylum?

None of the changes that I have talked about in the new clauses will impinge at all on the criteria currently used to determine whether somebody has a need for protection under the refugee convention. Clearly, in certain circumstances that includes the reality of religious persecution in the homeland. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman. Government new clause 8 redefines how the UK interprets the phrase “a particularly serious crime” for the purpose of excluding refugees from the protection against refoulement. Under existing arrangements, anyone convicted of any offence that attracts a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will have committed a particularly serious crime for these purposes. Those arrangements remain unchanged, but new clause 8 goes further and will mean that a particularly serious crime will now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Importantly for these cases, the fact that a particularly serious crime has been committed will be a presumption that can, obviously, be rebutted by the individual in question so that they get a fair hearing. Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act lists the offences that automatically make an offender subject to notification requirements, meaning that they have to notify the police of personal details annually, or whenever their details change. Failure to do so is a criminal offence and the system is sometimes known as the sex offenders register. The Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims in our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade. To achieve that, a broad set of the right powers must be available for authorities to tackle sexual crimes, bring perpetrators to justice and manage sex offenders.

I accept the wisdom behind this new clause, but will the Minister go further and comment on new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? That new clause is designed to put an end to another mischief affecting the non-refoulement rules; it would ensure that primacy was given to the torture convention and the refugee convention, and that it was not possible for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European convention on human rights in such a way as to exclude those provisions.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his creativity in asking that question when I am talking about this particular Government new clause. I think we had a debate in Committee on the amendment in the name of the Father of the House, and I certainly intend to come on to it later in our proceedings—hopefully, when he is here. As part of our efforts to halve violence against women and girls, it is important that the small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing sexual crimes, but they have undermined public confidence in the system. New clause 8 changes the law to deny refugee status to those convicted of the abhorrent crimes listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, treating them with the seriousness they deserve and supporting our wider mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The trouble is that, when the judiciary get hold of this and there is an appeal, they very often cite exceptional circumstances, which are cited in the original legislation but have been interpreted over the years in a very liberal way—so much so as to be almost meaningless. Will the Minister define more clearly what exceptional circumstances are, so that there can be no doubt in the minds of lawyers about who might be eligible for appeal against decisions made by the Home Office, and who is not?

Certainly we will come into the detail of how this works once it is on the statute book, in the guidance that is issued, but I am making it very clear to the House tonight that the Government wish those few people—the very small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of serious sexual offences such that they have been put on the sex offenders register—to be denied refugee status. We will also deny refugee status where we are able to show that an individual has been convicted in a foreign court for a crime that would have fallen under schedule 3 to the 2003 Act if they had been convicted in the UK. Those convicted and made subject to the notification requirements have committed the most serious of sexual offences, which should be included in the definition of a particularly serious crime.

18:45:00

I shall move on to the amendments relating to the Immigration Services Commissioner. The Government are seeking new powers for the Immigration Advice Authority to clamp down on malpractice in the provision of immigration advice. Building on clause 40 and schedule 1, these new measures will extend the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner to ensure effective, modern regulation and enforcement of immigration advice and services.

Government amendment 24 creates the power to amend the definition of “relevant matters” for the different types of immigration advice that can be brought in and out of the Immigration Services Commissioner’s regulatory oversight. It will introduce greater flexibility to keep pace with wider modernisation and transformation of the immigration system. Currently those definitions are in primary legislation, but this amendment moves them into secondary legislation.

Government amendment 25 allows for a person’s registration as a provider of immigration advice or immigration services to be cancelled or suspended with immediate effect where serious concerns are raised regarding their actions or behaviour. Government amendment 26 establishes that persons who have received certain severe disciplinary sanctions cannot continue to provide immigration advice under the supervision of a person regulated by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Government amendment 27 introduces additional sanctions, specifically monetary penalties, and the ability to amend the amount of fines, enhancing the range of tools available to the commissioner to tackle inappropriate or unlawful practice by unregistered advisers and to shore up standards. Monetary penalties may be imposed up to a maximum of £15,000 on each regulated organisation that has breached the commissioner’s codes of standards, obstructed an inspection or failed to comply with regulations.

Government amendment 28 provides the Home Secretary with the power to specify a non-exhaustive list of fees that the Immigration Services Commissioner can charge for the exercise of their regulatory functions. Having the ability to charge for services such as competence assessments and training will enable the Immigration Services Commissioner to provide more of those services, helping to drive up competence, capability and capacity in the sector.

Finally, Government amendment 29 makes provision to expand the existing complaints scheme to include unregulated advisers and organisations and to create a civil recovery scheme where the Immigration Services Commissioner can order the refund of fees or the repayment of compensation to the victims of poor practice.

The final Government amendments relate to serious crime prevention orders and electronic devices. To support operational efficiency, Government amendments 6 to 11 will enable an inspector to authorise a constable to use the powers to access, examine, copy, retain or use information under clauses 20, 21 and 23 of the Bill. That is thought to be more operationally effective than the current measures in the Bill, which place that authorisation at superintendent level, as I am sure the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) will remember from our long discourse on these matters in Committee.

Does the Minister find it strange that in a debate on a Bill so important to Reform UK—indeed, it is the party’s raison d’être—80% of Reform UK MPs have left the Chamber and are, presumably, in the pub?

I think they probably call that campaigning, but it is up to them to justify how long they spend in the pub, or indeed in this Chamber. Moving to serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders, Government amendments 14 to 19 will remove Scotland and Northern Ireland from clause 48, which allows electronic monitoring as a condition of serious crime prevention orders and interim serious crime prevention orders in terrorism-related cases. The amendments will ensure that the devolved Governments retain full legislative competence over their existing electronic monitoring regimes. For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members on the gargantuan group of amendments we are dealing with tonight.

I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 18, and to various other new clauses and amendments that stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) and for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who are sitting beside me. They toiled with enormous fortitude and patience through 12 Committee sittings. They did extremely diligent and good work, and I put on record my thanks to them both. The new clauses and amendments that we have tabled are made necessary by the Government’s abject and appalling failure, since they came to office last July, to control small boat crossings of the English channel. They came to office saying that they would “smash the gangs”, a claim that is now in tatters. Let us take a look at what they have done since 4 July last year. Since the election, 35,048 people have illegally crossed the English channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period the previous year. This year—2025—how is smashing the gangs going so far? Well, 11,806 people have crossed, which is the worst start to a year in history. That is an appalling and abject failure, for which this Government are responsible. Yesterday alone, 232 people crossed, and we understand that today, as we stand here, several hundred more people have made that illegal crossing. There is no control over who they are. There are suggestions that some of the suspects in the recent Iranian terror case were living in asylum accommodation and may therefore have crossed by small boat. I certainly recall that some people crossing the channel had very serious prior convictions. The Government have no idea who these people are, and they certainly have no control. The people crossing are almost entirely young men. They have pushed themselves to the front of the queue by paying people smugglers. I do not see them as victims; they are committing a criminal offence by entering the United Kingdom in this way. It is a criminal offence contrary to section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, as I am sure everybody knows.

If the former leader of the Liberal Democrats wants to say something to the contrary, I would be glad to give way.

I could not help myself, I’m afraid. Some 87% of Eritreans coming over are refugees. The right hon. Gentleman talks about young men. The refugees are young men, because Christian young men in Eritrea are conscripted to murder their own communities, so of course they are disproportionately represented. Why does he not take part in this debate on the basis of evidence, rather than playing tabloid nonsense?

The hon. Gentleman will know that around the world, there are very many female and child refugees. The last Government welcomed many of them here under the UK resettlement scheme from Syria. The young men who push themselves to the front of the queue in Calais are displacing potentially more deserving applicants. They are embarking from France, which is a manifestly safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. Nobody—including young men from Eritrea—needs to leave France to seek sanctuary when they can perfectly well claim asylum in France. Article 31 of the refugee convention, which in general terms prohibits the criminalisation of refugees, expressly says that that only applies if someone comes “directly” from a place of danger. France is not a place of danger. Much better that we choose the deserving cases, rather than having people pay criminal gangs to enter this country illegally from a place, namely France, which is safe.

The last Government introduced the idea of having age verification. That is important, because the evidence supports the suggestion that some young men claim to be younger than they are. Many other countries use medical age verification systems. Does my right hon. Friend have a reason why the Government decided not to take our amendments forward in Committee, and why they are not considering implementing them now?

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. In fact, he draws me to new clause 12, which we tabled. It mandates the Government to get on with implementing scientific age assessments, which scientifically verify if someone is or is not over the age of 18. Every other European country uses these tests. It could be, for example, an X-ray of the wrist.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way in a minute. There are more complicated techniques these days, such as testing DNA methylation, and other less intrusive tests. We are the only country not to use them. Many people who illegally cross the channel claim to be under 18—they usually claim to be 17—when common sense would often suggest that they are far older. There are documented cases where men with beards have ended up in schools with teenage girls. [Interruption.] I am going to give way to the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp) in a moment. I ask the Minister, when she replies, to explain to the House her plans for introducing these tests. We are an outlier in Europe; we are the only country not to use them. It is important from a safeguarding perspective to make sure that people who claim to be 17 really are 17, and not in their mid-20s. The hon. Member for Dover and Deal was very keen to intervene, and I think enthusiasm deserves its reward.

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his condescending tone after his deluded rant. I must say to him that he is misleading the House: 400 crossed in 2018, and more than 150,000 have crossed since. The majority of those were on the Conservative Government’s watch, so how they can claim that that happened on Labour’s watch is beyond me. As the new expert—

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has had long enough for his very brief intervention.

I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman has had long enough, and his constituents may well agree in a few years’ time. I gave the figures very clearly: since the election, 35,000 people have crossed the channel. That is a 29% increase on the same period a year before. So far, this year has been the worst year on record—the worst year in history—for illegal channel crossings. The claims to smash the gangs lie in tatters.

We missed the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee. Given the sophistication of the organised immigration crime threat to the country, will he explain why he plans on voting against the Bill tonight when it provides counter-terrorism style powers that the National Crime Agency and our security services have told us they want to be able to bring to bear on this serious question?

I missed being in Committee as well, and I missed the prospect of spending hours and hours in the hon. Lady’s company. Perhaps on some other occasion an opportunity will present itself. The hon. Lady invites me to comment on a Third Reading matter, but since she asked the question, when we vote on a Bill at Third Reading—a yes or no vote—we are voting on it in its totality. While the counter-terror measures may have a very marginal benefit—it will be no more than marginal, as she should know—the Bill will also do some extremely damaging things that will make it a lot harder to control our borders. For example, clause 38 repeals pretty much the entirety of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I will answer the question first. Among other things, the Illegal Migration Act requires the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally, and it says there is no path to citizenship for somebody who comes to this country illegally, which is a very sensible measure. This Bill repeals almost all of that. The Bill also removes from the statute book the legislative basis to implement a removals deterrent. One of the first things the Government did on coming into office was cancel the Rwanda scheme.

19:00:00

Will the right hon. Member give way?

No, I will answer the question first. The Government cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. The first flight had been due to take off on 24 July. Everybody, including the National Crime Agency, has warned that without a removals deterrent we are not going to stop the boats. Law enforcement alone—important though it is—is not enough, and a border security commander with no powers is certainly not enough. Experience from around the world shows that we need a removals deterrent. If people enter the UK illegally from France and are rapidly removed to somewhere else, be it Rwanda or elsewhere, others will not attempt the crossing because they know that removal will follow. Australia tried something very similar about 10 years ago—it was called Operation Sovereign Borders. Australia had a bigger problem than we did—at that time there were 50,000 people a year crossing—and within the space of only a few months, the removals deterrent it used stopped the illegal maritime arrivals, as Australia called them, entirely. The number went to zero, and it saved lives in the process. Australia used an island called Nauru rather than Rwanda, but the principle is the same. Home Office Ministers must by now be regretting their hastiness, because in the absence of any removals deterrent, the numbers have gone through the roof. As I said already, this year so far has been the worst in history. Without a removals deterrent, there is no hope of stopping the crossings. Clause 37 of the Bill repeals the entirety of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and amendment 32 seeks to remove clause 37. There will probably come a time—if not today, then in six months; and if not in six months, then in 12 months—when Labour Ministers will realise that their plans are not working, that the numbers are getting worse, and that without a removals deterrent they are not going to stop the boats. That is why this Bill and their policy is so misguided, and it is why the numbers this year have been the worst in history.

I wonder whether the shadow Home Secretary could comment on the views of his colleague the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), who said during the Public Bill Committee that “immigration is too high. Previous Governments have failed to solve it.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 347.] I wonder whether he could also comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), who said in Committee: “The system is broken. It has been broken for many decades, and that is now plain to see.”––[Official Report, Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Public Bill Committee, 18 March 2025; c. 335.]

I agree with both my colleagues, and that is why we have tabled amendments and new clauses to address this issue. I will come on to those in a moment. It was a Labour Government that chose to cancel the removals deterrent before it started, and that is why the numbers are higher than they have ever been in history. It is a result of their choices.

Talking of the Rwanda scheme, the previous Tory Government spent £700 million on a scheme that saw four volunteers removed. That figure included £290 million given to Rwanda for nothing in return and £134 million on IT systems that were never used. Can we get a refund?

As I said already, the plan was never started. The first plane was due to take off on 24 July, but the Labour Government cancelled it within days of coming to office. The money would have been extremely well spent had the scheme started, because the deterrent effect would have stopped the boats, meaning that we would not have tens of thousands of people in hotels costing billions and billions. While we are on the topic of hotels, let us look at how the Labour Government’s pledge during the election to end the use of asylum hotels is going. The numbers in asylum hotels have gone up by 8,000 so far under this Labour Government. Speaking of removals deterrents, I was in Berlin four or five weeks ago talking to members of the CDU party, which is now in Government. The incoming German Government intend to implement a removals deterrent very similar in concept to the Rwanda scheme. So other Governments around the world have realised that they have to do this; it worked in Australia, and the new German Government will be doing something very similar. It is just our Government who are going headlong in the opposite direction.

Will the shadow Secretary of State give way?

I will make some progress. Turning to the amendments on indefinite leave to remain, new clause 11 would limit eligibility for ILR to 10 years, and new clause 17 would set various conditions on ILR. New clause 17 essentially says that to get ILR after 10 years a person has to have made an economic contribution, and cannot be a burden on other taxpayers. Those strike me as very fair measures. I notice that in the immigration announcement by the Prime Minister this morning, he made reference to 10 years for ILR, despite the fact that the Minister and her colleagues voted against that measure just a few weeks ago. I wonder what has magically changed their minds. If they are serious about such a measure, will they support new clause 11, which would implement what the Prime Minister announced this morning, and vote for it later today? If I understand the Prime Minister’s announcement correctly, he said that when someone reaches 10 years of residence, they automatically qualify for indefinite leave to remain under the Government’s proposals. What we propose in new clause 17 is that there should be conditionality, even after 10 years. The person should be making some kind of contribution to the country in order to qualify for indefinite leave to remain. Will the Minister take the opportunity to agree with that approach and therefore support new clause 17? I will turn now to the two new clauses that we intend to push to a vote this evening. First, new clause 18 would establish a binding cap on immigration numbers each year, to be voted on in Parliament. It would be democratically accountable and completely transparent. It will be up to Parliament to debate what the number should be, but I would argue that it should be a lot lower than any recent number we have seen, and indeed a lot lower than the recent forecasts from the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Let me finish my point. The critical point is that whatever one’s views on the number, it would be Parliament that voted to cap migration every year. Never again would we see immigration rise to levels far higher than anyone intended. We would never again see unintended consequences, where visa rules are set up but numbers end up being much higher. A good example of that is the health and social care visa, which was initially supposed to be for only a few thousand people but ended up being for hundreds of thousands. With a cap mechanism in place, that would never happen again. I invite the Minister to tell me, when she responds, whether she would support a binding annual cap, decided by this Parliament. Will she support democratic accountability for that number, and if not, why on earth not? I can see no reason at all why this elected Parliament should not set the limit each year and why we should instead end up with numbers that many of us would think are far too high.

The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with great confidence, as ever—and great volume, I have to say. He is very clear about having the cap, but it is less clear what level he believes it should be set at. He says that it should be lower than the current numbers, but from his experience and with his confidence, what level does he feel it should be set at? What would his first proposal be for the cap?

How about the hon. Gentleman votes for the cap this evening, and then we can debate what level it should be set at? We are not going to debate the level of a cap that currently does not even exist. His own Front Benchers are trying to deny him and every Member of this House a voice on this issue. If Labour Members believe in Parliament deciding these issues and in democratic accountability, they will vote for new clause 18 and let Parliament decide what the cap should be.

The cap idea builds on work that the last Government wanted to bring forward in relation to refugees and asylum seekers. The last Government asked councils to work out how many they could accommodate. It seems remarkably practical to say that while we are a generous nation able to look after people in need, that comes with a capacity. The whole idea would be to implement a cap and for all councils in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to say what number they could hold, and for us to vote on it as a nation. Is that something my right hon. Friend would consider when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers?

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and it is germane to the earlier discussion about people crossing the channel illegally. So long as we have 11,000 or 12,000 people crossing the channel a year—as I said, this is the worst year ever—it is very difficult to create safe and legal routes, because our capacity is completely taken up by people entering the country illegally. If we can stop illegal migration by using the measures I suggested, and a removals deterrent in particular, that will create capacity for a limited safe and legal route for people who we—the Government and Parliament—judge to be deserving. We did that for the Syria crisis, where the UK resettlement scheme went to refugee camps on the Syrian borders, identified the most vulnerable refugees—often women and children—and brought them to the UK, instead of having people crossing the channel illegally and pushing their way to the front of the queue. That is exactly what a new, tougher approach on illegal immigration would facilitate.

Will the right hon. Member give way?

I am going to make a bit of progress. The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference. It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone. The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments. A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders? In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950. That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will follow your injunction to wind up. Of course, we need to pay attention to the rights and protection of children, but having people smuggled across the English channel on boats does not in any way help with that. If the Government are serious about getting back control of the immigration system and stopping illegal immigration, they will support our measures that would put a cap on migration and repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters.

Order. We will start with an immediate four-minute time limit, with the exception of Front-Bench speeches and any maiden speeches.

19:15:00

The intention to repeal much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 through this Bill, and the scrapping of the Rwanda scheme in particular, are extremely welcome. Years of brutal Tory policies that have criminalised, persecuted and scapegoated migrants and those seeking safety on our shores must be unravelled by this Labour Government, but we must go further, faster, and turn our back entirely on the politics of hate and division if we are to avoid repeats of the recent election results. The riots that took place in my city last year, which targeted asylum accommodation and organisations and visibly black people and businesses, did not emerge from nowhere; they were the result of the myths and misinformation perpetuated by media and social media. For our Prime Minister to say today that unfettered immigration risks the UK becoming “an island of strangers” is deeply concerning. We cannot concede to the anti-migrant agenda promoted by those who thrive on division. It is simply dishonest to suggest that migration causes falling living standards. It is not migrants but political decisions that have hollowed out our communities, brought public services to their knees and allowed inequality to run rampant. I am proud of my African and Irish heritage, and proud that my home, Liverpool, is a city of sanctuary. However, I am not proud of some of the language being used today, particularly the phrase, “island of strangers,” which echoes the devices and cruel politics of our past. I have had constituents say that it is reminiscent of the “rivers of blood” speech. Mine is a port city, where people arrive from all over the globe, and our city is far better for it. These people are neighbours and friends. Liverpool has a world-leading higher education sector; thousands of international students want to train there. I have spoken to the vice-chancellors of Liverpool Hope University and Liverpool John Moores University, who are both concerned about the announcements made today. The Labour Government must unequivocally make the case that the fight against racism and scapegoating is the same fight as that against low pay, poor housing and crumbling public services. We cannot defeat one without the other. While the Bill goes some way towards repairing the damage done by the previous Government, the overall approach remains punitive, particularly in clause 41, which will expand the Home Office’s power of detention retrospectively. The new criminal offences in parts 1 and 2 are deeply concerning, as is the retention of section 29 of the Illegal Migration Act, which removes protections for victims of modern slavery, and section 59 of that Act, which makes asylum and human rights claims from a list of countries inadmissible. Instead, we should focus on restoring the right to seek asylum in the UK, opening up safe routes, abandoning offshore processing, resolving the legal aid crisis, restoring the right to work, increasing support rates for asylum seekers and ending the use of immigration detention and harmful, destructive rhetoric—in short, we should focus on building a compassionate, rights-based and evidence-led approach to immigration and asylum. I am proud to have added my name in support of new clause 1, which would enshrine in law a duty on the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics—detailed information—on deaths in the asylum system and on small boat channel crossings. We know that lives are being lost, but we do not know how many, which makes our system an outlier. I call on the Home Secretary to take on board those comments.

I rise to speak to new clause 21 and other new clauses in my name and those of other hon. Members. I put on record my particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Woking (Mr Forster), and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), for the sterling shifts they put in on the Bill Committee. We can all agree on the need to stop these perilous channel crossings, but under the Conservatives, safe and legal routes were dismantled, forcing vulnerable people into the hands of criminal gangs. Meanwhile, the asylum system was left to rot, and a staggering backlog grew year after year. Now we have thousands of people stuck in limbo, unable to work, rebuild their life or contribute to the UK economy, while taxpayers foot the bill for hotel accommodation in communities like mine.

Does the hon. Lady accept that, despite what she has just said, under the last term of the Conservative Government, record numbers of people came here through resettlement schemes, which are safe and legal routes?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening on me in debates on immigration; this is not the first time we have had a conversation of this nature. Ukrainians and Hongkongers came here under the previous Government, and that is to be welcomed—

And Afghans.

And Afghans; the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. But there are countries in the world—Eritrea, Sudan and others—from which there are no safe and legal routes, and that is what new clause 21 is about. The Home Secretary said in the White Paper published this morning that we need an immigration system that is “fair and effective”, and I strongly agree with her. The current system is neither, and I would have liked to have seen more in the Bill to change that. The Liberal Democrats believe in a common-sense immigration and asylum system that treats people with dignity. That means scrapping headline-chasing gimmicks, such as the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan, investing in swift decision making, and tackling the problem of criminal gangs at its root. We welcome some of the measures in the Bill to achieve those ends, but one of the most glaring injustices of our system is the ban on work for people seeking asylum. Right now, those who have been waiting months and months for a decision are barred from working to support themselves and their family, and from contributing to the economy. That is wasteful and demoralising; it is a lose-lose for everyone. New clause 21 in my name would change that. It proposes that if someone has been waiting for more than three months, they should be able to pay their fair share. I know from those seeking asylum in my area that these are people who want to pay their way, contribute their skills and taxes and be part of the local community. We should not be stopping them. This is about common sense. Giving people the right to work will ease the pressure on public finances and give dignity back to those caught up in the system. It will help employers to fill vacancies at a time of work shortages, and allow asylum seekers to build the foundations of a new life. I urge colleagues across the House to support this new clause. It is the fair and practical thing to do, and it benefits us all. Any Government serious about tackling the smuggling gangs—and I believe that this Government are—must cut off the gangs’ business model at the source. New clauses 22 and 36 would require the Government to set out new safe and legal routes, giving those fleeing persecution a proper alternative to dangerous crossings. The lack of these routes is a direct cause of the current crisis. We cannot keep saying that we want to stop the boats while slamming shut every door to safety for those who need it. There must certainly be greater scope for family reunion. No child should have to face the trauma of fleeing war or persecution alone, only to be denied proper contact with their loved ones. New clause 27 would widen family reunion rules, so that unaccompanied child refugees could be joined by their closest relatives.

On the point about reuniting families, the shadow Minister seemed to be utterly bemused as to why so many migrants and illegal immigrants are male. I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware of the Doctors without Borders report that showed that a large number of sub-Saharan African women were being injected with such high levels of contraceptive as to make them permanently infertile, because they were being raped so many times on their way here that they could not then work to pay off their debt, because they were pregnant. A fairer system would allow more women and children to come to the UK.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. That is one of a number of utterly hideous stories that any of us could hear through any of the wonderful bodies and non-governmental organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees who are coming to this country. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend from the other place, Baroness Hamwee, who has done a huge amount of work on family reunification. This is about basic humanity. These children need safety and the support of their families to truly rebuild their life. People smuggling of the type that this Government are trying to crack down on is an international problem, and we cannot solve it by going it alone. New clauses 23 to 26 will bolster our co-operation with Europol, encourage regular meetings with its leadership and establish joint taskforces, ensure more resources and provide a transparent system of reporting back to Parliament. To dismantle these smuggling networks, we need to work hand in glove with our European allies. This Bill could go further to strengthen those vital ties. The UK should be leading on this, not lagging behind. The Liberal Democrats will keep fighting for a system that is fair, fast and humane, in which there are safe routes, families can be reunited, and those who come here are treated with dignity and can contribute to their new communities. Our new clauses offer practical steps to rebuilding an asylum system that works for all of us, and I urge the House to back them today for practical, humane and effective solutions.

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. I thank the Ministers and members of the Public Bill Committee for their work on this Bill, which I continue to support as a whole. My constituents in Folkestone and Hythe want to see Parliament give our law enforcement agencies the powers that they need to tackle these highly sophisticated, organised criminals. The small boats industry, which was allowed to run for years under the Conservatives, flourished in part because of the lack of powers for the National Crime Agency and the lack of co-ordination with our European partners. We absolutely do not need the performative politics of the Conservatives, including their new clause 14 to disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration functions. We have just had the VE Day 80th anniversary, and it was that fundamentally important victory over tyranny in Europe that led to European democracies uniting to safeguard the rights of everyone living in Europe. When I met Ukrainian politicians at the Council of Europe in January this year, they were very clear that they need human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unity of values in Europe, and they need us, the United Kingdom, to help them in their fight against an enemy that lacks those principles. We are at a point in history when it is more important than ever to be clear about our values, what makes our society one to be proud of, and what we have in common with our neighbours and friends. Rightly, the Government will not disapply the Human Rights Act from one group today; maybe the Conservatives would want to deprive another group of it tomorrow. The Opposition’s new clause, which I will oppose, is a reminder of this important dividing line in our politics. I also want to comment on new clause 3 on safe and managed routes to asylum. I raised this issue in the Chamber on Second Reading. I fully accept that safe routes will not, on their own, stop small boat crossings; that is why we need the enforcement measures in this Bill. However, it is unsustainable to continue to make it virtually impossible to claim asylum lawfully, and then criminalise those who have made valid claims, but who have no lawful means of accessing the asylum system. I am grateful to the Minister for Migration and Citizenship, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for agreeing to meet me next week to discuss this issue. A recent report by the APPG on refugees proposed a pilot system for those from specific conflict zones who have strong claims to be allowed to travel here, so that their claim could be fully examined on UK soil. That would build an evidence base on the issue, to inform future policy. Finally, on British citizenship, though the Government are repealing the measure that bars citizenship for those arriving unlawfully, they have effectively reintroduced it via policy. I would ask them to rethink their approach. By the time a person in that situation applies for citizenship, they will have been granted asylum, having a well-founded claim. They will have been here for over five or six years; they will be of entirely good character; and they may be making a valid contribution to our society. However, because of their method of entry all those years ago, they could be prevented from accessing citizenship and integrating in this country. We need measures to promote, rather than hinder, the integration of those lawfully present here. Despite these points, I support the Bill, and thank the Government and Members for their work on it.

I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including my work with the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. New clause 21 would help the Government to tackle poverty, prevent homelessness and demonstrate competence. Enabling asylum seekers to work would reduce the asylum support budget because they could instead support themselves. It would help cohesion between host communities and asylum seekers if asylum seekers were seen to be paying their way. It would also reduce the need to use hotels to house asylum seekers. Those seeking asylum should have the dignity of being able to work, and the taxpayer should get the benefit of the massively reduced costs that that would bring.

19:30:00

I turn to new clauses 22 and 35 on safe routes and humanitarian visas. As things stand, desperate people choose unsafe journeys to uncertain destinations, delivered by those who care nothing for their welfare and who continue to cash in while people continue to die in terror in the Mediterranean and in the channel. For people escaping tragedy and terror in Eritrea, Sudan and elsewhere who have passed through the lawless horror that is Libya and have crossed the Mediterranean, the channel holds fewer fears than it would do for the likes of us, so we need an intervention that will change people’s decisions. New clause 35 suggests a pilot visa scheme to authorise people who meet the criteria to travel to the United Kingdom safely in order to claim asylum. The proposal would mean a controlled, ordered, planned, dignified and humane process.

Talk of “strangers”, “invasions” and “swarms of migrants” is despicable. The implication that not just refugees but diaspora communities here in the UK are somehow lesser citizens, not really British, is utterly shameful language and I condemn it. Politicians and commentators who use such language are guilty, frankly, of spending too much time online and too little time on the doorstep, in market squares, in churches, in communities and even in the pubs. The reason the Rwanda scheme was so unpopular was not—shockingly—because every Brit is a bleeding-heart liberal, but because the scheme was unfair and ineffective. The British people just want fairness and competence, so I urge the Government not to fall into the Tory trap of making ludicrous promises they cannot keep and I counsel other Opposition parties not to make ludicrous promises that they would not be able to keep either, because one day they may find themselves in power and face the wrath of an electorate for their failure to deliver.

In these discussions on migration, I have read and heard far too many references to the apparent threat to Britain’s Christian heritage. Well, let me finish by saying this: the Bible does not tell us what our policy should be, but it definitely tells us what our posture and attitude should be. I am afraid that the Prime Minister made awful remarks today about an “island of strangers”. Leviticus 19 rebukes him:

“the stranger who resides with you shall be to you like someone native-born among you; and you shall love him as yourself,”.

As the socially conservative American theologian, Russell Moore, says,

“Yes, Jesus was a refugee. And he is still in their camp. We should be too.”

I represent Walthamstow; once upon a time, the architect of the ECHR, Winston Churchill, was our constituency next-door neighbour. But let us be under no illusions and let us be frank, because people in this Chamber will write off my corner of London as some nirvana of good relations and say that we do not get issues or challenges with immigration: we have people in our community who judge people on the basis of their skin colour and who listen to the social media tropes; and we have people who seek division, who share that common aim and who will find somebody to blame rather than a solution for the challenges we face. Legislation needs to counter that, not facilitate it, because the reality is that across this country there are too many people with too much month at the end of their money, and it is too easy to tell those people that immigrants are the reason why, rather than telling them the truth. The people in my community are not woke; they are wise. They get that some are trying to tell them that immigrants are the problem, when the truth is that it is actually politicians who do not face up to the challenges we have. People in my community, like those across this country—whether they are old friends or strangers, incomers from Hackney or even further afield—can all find common ground if they do not get their bins collected, if they cannot park their cars or if they feel that their children are at risk. In this country, people find humanity in each other—in our common grumbles. That is what it means to be British: to have a moan about the reality of daily life. Those who want to divide us—who tell us the way forward is finding somebody to blame rather than a solution to the challenges—do nobody a service. Let us talk about what we could do in this Bill to make things better. I support new clause 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) from the other end of the Victoria line. We should not be making a profit from children who are seeking to be citizens who have the right to remain here. I draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 44, which I have tabled. We could learn from Australia and New Zealand—those bastions of progressive immigration policy—and introduce a worker’s justice visa. We really need to help overseas workers in our communities who are at the behest of their sponsors. It is outrageous that there are people in this country whose future relies on somebody else’s largesse, rather than their basic human rights. We can learn from Australia and New Zealand in introducing such a visa in order to correct the issue whereby somebody who is clearly a victim of modern slavery cannot stay in the country to pursue that claim, so the person making them a slave cannot be held to account.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we have significant problems in this country as the system to address modern slavery has degraded? Will she join me in pushing for the national referral mechanism to be reviewed, as the Government promised, to tackle exactly what she is talking about?

Absolutely. Let me be clear: I recognise that my suggestion will not address all the issues with overseas domestic workers, but a worker’s justice visa could be the start of ensuring that our immigration system is more functional. I also draw the Minister’s attention to new clause 45, which is about the “good character requirement”. It makes no sense to those of us concerned about integration to say to somebody that they may stay in this country—that they have a well-founded fear of persecution—but that they will never be able to make a life here, that they will always end up paying more for their mortgage because they will not be able to get a proper income, and that they will never be able to get jobs as easily as others, so they might be more dependent on benefits. That is what happens when we start denying citizenship to people who have the right to be here. The Refugee Council recognises that the requirement will affect 71,000 people because it is retrospective. It is little wonder that a court case is now in train. Bad policymaking in the face of social media tropes does nobody any favours, and I urge Ministers to look again at the provision. New clause 45 is simple: it is about us upholding our international obligations. It is about saying that if there was a safe route, absolutely it would be bad character not to use it, but I would love some Opposition Members, who are no longer in their place, to tell me what the safe route from Iran is, when many people on the boats are from Iran. We have to get immigration policy right. I stand here as somebody who does not want open borders. I want a fair and just immigration service. I learned in my first year in this place from the former Home Secretary Jack Straw, who told me there were two divides: left and right, and those people who had to deal with the UK Border Agency and those who did not. The legislation before us does many welcome things, but it also does things that I fear we will come to regret in future—just as we will come to regret pandering to those who wish to divide us, rather than getting on and sorting out why we still have a cost of living crisis. The Government will have my support if they want to do more to bring people together, not just by sorting out bin collections—that perennial challenge—but by investing in everybody, whether they were born here or have come here to make a contribution. After all, those of us with refugee heritage—whether we were Huguenots, Farages or Creasys—deserve and need better.

We will now start a three-minute time limit.

My constituency has a proud and long history of supporting those fleeing persecution. It was home to the Ockenden Venture, a trailblazing charity founded in the 1950s to help resettle refugees from post-war Europe, Vietnam and beyond. Humfrey Malins, the former Conservative MP for Woking even set up a national immigration service. That legacy reminds us of the best of British values. It is important, especially today, that we reflect on that and on what makes Britain great. However, this Bill falls far short of those values—it is not very great at all. I sat on the Public Bill Committee, where I tabled 15 amendments. Although I support the parts of the Bill that seek to tackle the cruel trade of people smuggling, I am deeply concerned that once again this Government are prioritising punitive-sounding headlines over practical solutions. The Bill completely fails to lift the ban on asylum seekers working while they await a decision. That is why I support new clause 21. People spend years in limbo waiting for their application to be processed, with no right to contribute, no right to earn and no hope of building their lives. We heard in Committee that, as a result of the Conservative Government’s mishandling of the situation, 19 people have waited 10 years or more for their claim to be settled. They are capable adults who should have been contributing to the economy. Letting people work is the right thing to do. That is why Australia lets people work straightaway, why Canada allows refugees to apply for a work permit while their applications are being processed, and why the United States allows people seeking asylum to work after six months. Human beings are amazing creatures, capable of so much. It is waste for people essentially to be kept away from society. We want to support them; that is what new clause 21 would do, by giving people the right to work after three months. I urge colleagues to support it. I will briefly address safe and legal routes. Ukraine has shown us that providing safe and legal routes takes away the people smuggling and illegal immigration. That is why I support Liberal Democrat new clauses 22 and 36, and SNP new clause 3. Those vital measures would tackle the root causes of dangerous crossings, and I hope that Members will support them. Critically, we talked in Committee about Interpol. We are turning our backs; we are not asking Europe to help us with this problem—the Government refuse to do so. Instead of isolating ourselves, we should be leading the efforts to tackle people-smuggling gangs. We cannot solve the global crisis without resolving those main issues, but we can do better. Britain has a proud history, and this Bill should be a lot better.

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about the help that I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I am also the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I welcome the Government’s action in the Bill to repeal parts of the previous Government’s repeated gimmicks and nonsense legislation in the last Parliament. I will speak to new clauses 1, 2 and 37, all of which I have sponsored. New clause 1 was tabled by my right hon. Friend—apologies, I should have said my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome); she is not right honourable, but she should be. The new clause would require the Home Office to publish quarterly statistics and information on deaths in the asylum system and small boat channel crossings. Under the last Government, a horrifying number of refugees and people seeking asylum died trying to cross the channel and in Home Office accommodation. In 2024, that number reached a record high. Despite daily and weekly reports on the number of people stopped or deported, we still do not have regular, clear and transparent reporting on those who have lost their lives in the system. That is incredibly important, not just morally but in order to address the evidence gap, so that we get policy right. New clause 2 would require reports on the right to work. I heard what the Minister said about this being a discussion about time, but mental health and working rights are not separate issues. The majority of asylum seekers in the UK are unable to work and use their skills to support themselves and their families or even to save enough to rent a home. Instead, they are trapped, isolated, inactive and dependent on state support. There are countless compelling reasons why asylum seekers should be allowed to work like the rest of the population. Given the huge amount of support that idea has from the public and businesses, we should at least have the opportunity to scrutinise why the ban remains and the impact that it is having. Finally, new clause 37, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), seeks to ensure that children born in the UK who have grown up here and know no other home are not priced out of citizenship simply because of their parents’ immigration status at the time of their birth. Such young people are part of our communities, schools and the fabric of our future. They should not be denied their rights or go on to face barriers in education, housing, healthcare and across society. They are not “strangers”; they are our friends and neighbours. Some have stoked racist divisions against migrants—a drum that the far right have continually banged since—and the whole House must oppose that rhetoric. Amid rising anti-refugee sentiment, including last year’s shocking riots, it could not be more urgent or valuable to enable people to feel secure and contribute to their communities. I am aghast at some of the amendments tabled by Opposition parties, particularly new clause 41. I wonder how many ruined lives those Members will consider too many. It is shameful to see the victimisation of people who have come here to find safety.

I call Sarah Pochin to make her maiden speech.

19:45:00

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by saying how delighted I am that my colleagues have dragged themselves out of the pub to join me for my maiden speech? I am so proud to be in this place; I feel so privileged to be here. I hope that I will make a good contribution to the business of this place, with my background of 20 years of public service as a magistrate and a borough councillor. I thank all the voters of Runcorn and Helsby who put their trust in me. It certainly was an historic night—one that I will never forget. We had a recount at about 3 o’clock in the morning, and the result finally came through at about 6 o’clock—and there were six votes in it, so I think six is probably my lucky number from now on. We certainly put Runcorn and Helsby on the map. It is the closest ever parliamentary by-election result. There was lots of drama and it made for some great headlines the next day—well, great headlines for us, anyway. I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Mike Amesbury. In 2020 he won a ballot to introduce a Bill of his choice. He chose to focus on the cost of living crisis by limiting the cost of school uniforms. His Bill gathered cross-party support and became the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act 2021. I, too, will focus on the cost of living. During the campaign, it was raised with me endlessly on the doorstep by voters who feel let down by this Government—voters who have lost their winter fuel allowance, who have had their disability benefit slashed or who have seen their energy costs go through the roof when they were promised that their bills would go down. It is very important that I make my maiden speech today. There were a few raised eyebrows, as I have been here less than a week, but the Bill is important because it is so relevant to what I believe in. There are over 900 illegal immigrants—that we know about—living in Runcorn. Some 400 of them are housed in an asylum hotel—the Daresbury Park hotel, which was, incidentally, to be shut down by the Government during the election campaign, but is, of course, still open—while the remaining 500 or so are housed in houses of multiple occupancy in the community. The recent Government announcement encouraging private landlords to give up their properties to house illegal immigrants in order to get a five-year guarantee of rent and all the property maintenance paid for will only make that situation worse. We will end up with British tenants being evicted, rents being forced up and the already limited housing supply getting worse. The problem for communities in places such as Runcorn is that those houses of multiple occupancy often have 15 to 20 young men in them. Families living nearby have to put up with antisocial behaviour through the night, drug dealing, people coming and going, and noise. I saw the CCTV throughout the campaign; I have heard the stories. People are frightened to go out. They will certainly not let their children play out on the pavements when there are such houses on their street. We know that these HMOs are breeding grounds for organised crime gangs, whether they are involved in drugs or people trafficking, or whether they are grooming gangs—something that was recently downplayed by the Leader of the House. Tackling sexual violence against women and the abuse of women and promoting the safety of women and children are things I will champion, not deny. I hope that my background in the justice system will give substance to my contributions on subjects that are close to my heart, such as the current state of our prisons and the daily threat that our brave prison officers—men and women—face at work. Over the last couple of days, there was yet another example of what they are facing in the news. I will also be a strong voice against the prosecutions of our Northern Ireland veterans, who were so brave on our behalf in the troubles. I will be brave, as they were for us, and I will stand up for what is right and fair. My constituency was formed in the boundary changes last year by five other constituencies lending areas to its geography. Not only is it new; it is diverse. It is home to some of the wealthiest and to some of the poorest. It is home to a beautiful and vibrant market town, Frodsham, and to Runcorn old town, which is in decline and in desperate need of investment. It has beautiful, leafy villages and housing estates battling drug crime and antisocial behaviour. I have lots of wonderful businesses in the constituency, ranging from the chemical industry and the farming industry right through to the science park. There are many challenges ahead and the problems I am going to take on, on behalf of my constituents, include the drastic shortage of housing and the desperate need for investment and regeneration in the old town. The standard of education in the five secondary schools is at best average and at worst way below average. Somebody needs to highlight these issues. We have an incinerator that churns out toxic waste, and an investigation into the health implications is ongoing. And then we have the white elephant that is the net zero project, with carbon capture and storage, and an extensive solar panel farm right across the middle of the constituency. I will challenge the people who have put those policies in place; I will speak for the people who have for so long lacked the representation they deserve. This constituency has huge potential; it has hard-working people who just want fairness and I will be their voice. To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) for his vision, his commitment and his conviction, which have brought a new voice to this Chamber. I will stand up for what is right, and I say to all my colleagues in this House that they will find me fair, principled and here to serve my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked many times over the last 10 days whether I am overwhelmed by recent events and by being in this place. I am not overwhelmed; I am deeply respectful of this place, I am humbled by this place, but I am ready for this place.

It is an honour to follow that eloquent and impassioned maiden speech by our new colleague, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I can tell that we will be hearing a lot more from her in this House, and while I am sure that her colleagues are pleased to have their number back up to five, I think we can all understand that her lucky number is six. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendments, drawing on the evidence we heard in Committee. The purpose of this legislation is to stop the small boat crossings in the channel. They are too dangerous and too many vulnerable people die in the attempt. They represent a lack of grip on the immigration system, because it should be the Government who decide who comes into this country, not people smugglers. The previous approach manifestly failed. That is because the Rwanda scheme meant we could never reduce demand enough. As Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory told us in our evidence sessions, demand for crossing the channel is essentially inelastic and we will never get it down enough. Deterrence alone therefore will not work. If we want proof, we should consider that of all the asylum seekers in the system, those who went to Rwanda represent one 4,000th of 1%. Rather than tackle demand, we should tackle supply. We need to make it harder to get in boats and to organise crossings, and we need to disrupt the supply chain that drives this multimillion-pound industry and seize the phones of those making the crossing. On new clause 3 on safe routes, let us be clear that there is absolutely a wider case to be made for safe routes and there is a national obligation to help where we can, but let us also be clear that safe routes already exist at significant scale. Some 500,000 people sought sanctuary in the UK through them over the last few years. We must be clear, too, that given the vast numbers of people in the asylum system just now, no one can argue that Britain does not have enough refugees. Most importantly, safe routes fall into the same logical trap as the Rwanda scheme, in that they aim to reduce demand rather than to tackle supply. Rwanda said, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you’ll be sent to Rwanda instead.” Safe routes say, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you can come through safe routes instead.” The purpose of the Bill is to reduce channel crossings. There are good arguments for safe routes on many levels, but having worked on migration policy for 15 years before coming here, I know we have to recognise that they will not play a role in reducing this cross-channel travel.

The Government’s repeal of the vile and illegal Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and large parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 are welcome, but they must do more to repeal the underlying legal framework, which continues to undermine the UK’s ability to uphold the rule of law and human rights. The Illegal Migration Act simply does not belong on the statute book, and my preference would be to scrap the lot of it. My amendment 35 at least seeks to restore judicial oversight of decisions about detention. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association points out that without my amendment 35, a software engineer who overstayed her visa could be detained for longer than a suspected terrorist, and with far less judicial oversight. Turning to my new clause 38, I am disappointed that the Government have not used the Bill to repeal the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when Labour rightly opposed that legislation in its entirety on its Second Reading. That Act marked the UK’s move away from upholding the 1951 refugee convention and instead denies the right to territorial asylum, yet this Labour Government have chosen to leave the Act on the statute book, untouched by this Bill. My new clause 38 focuses on undoing the provisions that penalise and criminalise people who make unsafe journeys to the UK to seek sanctuary. It scraps the parts that create an unfair two-tier asylum system with differential treatment for different groups of people—a proposal so unworkable that the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to pause it when in government. Crucially, it scraps the law that criminalises people arriving in the UK without permission or the right paperwork with a penalty of up to four years in prison. This law is clearly contrary to article 31.1 of the 1951 refugee convention, which provides immunity from penalties in recognition of the fact that refugees are often compelled to arrive without appropriate documents in order to access their human rights under that convention. Lastly, my new clause 38 would scrap sections 30 to 38 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which sought to—I will put it charitably—poorly reinterpret the refugee convention. I wish to highlight the fact that the Government are leaving on the statute book measures that unjustly penalise and criminalise refugees for arriving irregularly when there are no safe and managed routes to travel here to claim asylum for the vast majority of people who might need and be eligible to do so. In the words of Warsan Shire: “no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”. This Government are clearly focused on appearing tough on immigration, and to do so they have brought in some of the previous Government’s cruel policies and introduced some of their own—

Order. I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

20:00:00

I want to speak in support of new clause 37, which stands in my name, but I will begin by addressing the political theatre that often surrounds immigration. Politicians constantly speak about immigration, spinning fear and suspicion, and then conveniently report back that immigration is a top concern for voters, when it is not. Recent polls show clearly that immigration does not feature in the top concerns among those who were considering voting Labour but did not. Instead, people are talking about tangible issues, such as the winter fuel allowance, the rising cost of living and the desperate need to fund our public services. Rather than dealing with those issues, we choose to stoke division with sentiments about “strangers”. I want to be crystal clear: immigration is not the crisis. What we are facing is the crisis in how we treat people, value rights and understand our responsibilities to one another. The focus seems always to be on small boat crossings, but irregular migration—people arriving by boats—accounts for just a fraction of the nearly 1 million people who came to this country last year. I do not call then “illegal migrants” as that term is morally degrading and asylum seekers have the right under international law to seek refuge. If we want to resolve these issues, we need to start with safe and legal routes. Regular migration has soared since 2021, under the Tories and post Brexit, because the Government’s own policies created this situation. The points-based immigration system was always designed to encourage people to come here—and they have. So the issue is not migration itself, but the exploitative business model behind it. Policies around immigration are never about fairness but always seem to come back to profit. That same logic—profits over people—governs our asylum system. The companies contracted to run immigration detention—household names such as Serco, Mitie and Mears—are all profiteering and make millions off the backs of vulnerable people. We have seen reports of detainees being abused and being kept in unsanitary conditions, yet those companies continue to get millions of pounds in contracts. Speaking of protection, let me turn to children, specifically children born here in the UK or who have lived here since they were young, who have called no other place home, yet are still denied British citizenship. I have tabled new clause 37 to address that. These children are not migrants, but they are treated like second-class citizens, often not knowing they are not officially citizens until they apply to university or for a job. Does that sound familiar? They suddenly find themselves locked out of everything through no fault of their own. It is a quiet scandal, just like the Windrush scandal—they have lived here their whole lives, only to be told that they have no right to be here. We promised “Never again” and said that we would learn lessons, but in 2025 we are charging British-born children £1,214 to register as citizens, when we know the administrative cost is only £372. We are charging those children for something that is their right. Up to 215,000 children are legally entitled to citizenship but they are undocumented because of the exploitative fee. The fee waiver is not working, so we are calling for fairness. At the very least, if a child is entitled to citizenship, they should be able to claim it without being priced out. No child should be punished for where their parents were born or how much money they have.

I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on her maiden speech, but she seems to have joined her colleagues in the bar. I was going to tell her that she had achieved something quite notable: she has been able to force this Government to bring forward this immigration White Paper, as both the main parties try to outdo and triangulate the hon. Members from Reform, who are no longer in their places. May I just say to hon. Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches that they are more or less wasting my time: why would voters go for one of the diet versions when they could have the full-fat version in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? I have spoken at every stage of this Bill, including four interminable weeks and countless hours on the Public Bill Committee—[Interruption.] I wish I could say otherwise. Of course, for the Minister it was a positive experience, but for me it was nothing other than thoroughly frustrating, depressing and dispiriting. I have been appalled at the emerging casual and callous way that the most wretched people in the world are now portrayed and demonised, and I fear what this House now has in store for them. I despair at the lack of empathy and humanity that has been shown to some of the most desperate people in the world. I abhor the perception that essential human rights are considered a hinderance, to be dispensed with in the pursuit of even more cruelty and disregard. I think the House forgets that these are real people fleeing conflict, oppression and unimaginable horror. I rise to speak in support of my new clause 3, on safe routes, because I believe that is the only way we should deal with those people. What we have done just now is create a monopoly and exclusive rights for the gangs that operate the Channel crossings. There is no other way for asylum seekers to assert their asylum rights. When they have the opportunity to assert those rights, most of them have them granted, which makes a nonsense of the fact that asylum seekers are being termed “illegal immigrants.” Instead of smashing the gangs, the Government are actually giving them new opportunities and making their business model even more lucrative. I pay tribute to all the agencies and support organisations that helped me with these amendments and the amendments I tabled in Committee. Those groups are now in some sort of legal jeopardy because of some of the clauses in the Bill. Their opportunities to support the most desperate people in the world through advocacy and looking after their rights are now at risk because of some of the measures in the Bill. We are heading towards a particularly dark place in some of the considerations on these issues. I am impressed by some of the Labour speakers when they talk about immigration and say that we have to be very careful how we handle this debate as we go forward, but I am really feart just now. I listened to what the Prime Minister said this morning and was horrified by some of the language he conjured up, which we thought we had lost decades ago. This is the type of territory that we venture into with very great sensitively, and I am afraid that the Prime Minister lost that this afternoon. I hope that we have the opportunity to press these new clauses and amendments, secure the safe routes and ensure that we do everything we can for asylum seekers.

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. “People started dying. People were screaming. It is very painful when someone is dying inside the water. The way they die—they cannot breathe...it is very difficult. I never thought I would experience such a thing… It is a harrowing experience I do not want to remember. I was holding on to what remained of the boat and people were screaming. It is something I will not forget.” This is the witness testimony of Mohammed Omar when he spoke at the Cranston inquiry, which is investigating the UK’s worst small boat disaster. On 27 November 2021, it is believed that 31 people lost their lives. Mohammed said that he was told that 33 people would be aboard the dinghy, but more were added, including children. Those gang members whose sole focus is on the billions of pounds that their horrific trade generates, who overload boats that are not fit to go into the ocean, who treat human life as having no value, willing to put lives at risk for huge profits must experience the full force of the law. This Bill gives Border Command the powers to pursue, arrest and prosecute those people. Breaking and destroying the gangs is critical to bringing an end to the small boat crossings. Mohammed’s witness evidence underlines how important it is to achieve that. The Bill not only gives the power and authority to work with our international partners to track down and break up the gangs, with the powers to seize and interrogate mobile phones and laptops to collect data and evidence, but the new amendment will introduce enhanced illegal working checks, putting a stop to those delivery drivers bringing meals or parcels to our doorsteps who cannot speak a word of English, potentially using IDs that have been borrowed or purchased from legitimate employees. I welcome the raids on the businesses, such as the nail bars, barbers and restaurants employing illegal workers, potentially in slave labour conditions. In January there were 131 raids in my area of the midlands, with 106 arrests. The amendment will mean that those arrested will now face fines of up to £60,000 per worker and prison sentences of up to five years. The French have said that people want to come to the UK because it is all too easy to be swept into the black economy and work illegally. The heavy disincentives of fines and prison sentences have the power to put a brake on the demand for the illegal trafficking of people. I welcome this Bill. As I said in February, “crack on with the job, give us a running commentary of every success, publicise the return flights and the jailing of criminals, clear up the Conservatives’ mess, secure our borders, close down the use of hotels and stop the small boats.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 124.] Today is the next step forward.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14. This Government came into power on the promise to “smash the gangs” and cut immigration numbers—what an empty, cynical slogan that turned out to be. The exact opposite happened: the gangs were emboldened and the Government lost control of illegal immigration, which is up 31% since the election and 35% in this year. After the failure to smash the gangs and the poor showing at the recent elections, the Government’s response is another gimmick: the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It is hollow, its five core principles are a word salad of empty phrases and it is a rehash of old ideas and contradictions. It lacks a deterrent. In fact, the biggest mistake that this Prime Minister has made, in a strong field of contenders, was cancelling the Rwanda scheme. Even the National Crime Agency described that as a deterrent, and it was already starting to work; we saw those coming in by dinghy from France starting to head to Ireland and other countries. Without Rwanda or another third country, there is no way to remove any illegal immigrants who destroy their documents as they come to this country. As a result of cancelling that deterrent, we have seen illegal migration soar. Some of the levels of illegal immigration will come down, but that will be as a result of what the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), did with his restrictions to stop dependants entering the country and the bilateral deals he made, such as the one with Albania to deport criminals. This Government say that they will now create a new legal framework for immigration judges to prevent illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoiding deportation by exploiting article 8 of the ECHR. That will never happen under the human rights lawyer who leads the Labour party, or a Labour party that champions the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. The reality is that until this Government get ahead of the curve, get a spine, take the UK out of the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act—a law that Labour introduced to cement the ECHR in British law—reinstate the Rwanda scheme and radically clamp down on housing and benefits, I am afraid that immigrants will continue to come to the UK. The British people expect security and prosperity, not platitudes and broken promises. We in this House must act accordingly and vote in favour of new clause 14, which would disapply the Human Rights Act.

Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and in our asylum system in record, horrifying numbers. Today, yet another person tragically died trying to reach our shores. The exact figures are murky, but from what we know, last year was the deadliest year ever for people seeking asylum in the UK. The UN estimates that 82 people, including at least 14 children, lost their lives in the channel, but French frontline charities believe the fatality rate to be significantly higher. Meanwhile, freedom of information requests reveal that 51 people died in asylum accommodation, and among them were a 15-year-old boy and two babies. People are drowning while trying to reach safety. Once they arrive, they are dying by suicide, from infectious diseases and from unknown causes in poverty, in low-quality accommodation or on the streets, like the teenage victim of modern slavery who took his own life while terrified of deportation, the father of one who died of diphtheria after being held in a Government processing centre, or the seven-year-old girl who was crushed to death on an overcrowded boat. In several cases of deaths in asylum accommodation, there have been alleged lapses of safeguarding codes. These deaths are utterly unacceptable and often preventable, yet the Home Office keeps no official record. As such, we do not know how many lives are being lost. The Government rightly want to reduce deaths in the channel, and the starting point must be to know the numbers. My new clause 1, which is supported by 24 MPs, is a call for truth and transparency. It would mandate that the Home Office records and reports statistics and information on the deaths of people in our asylum system who are meant to be in its care and people at our borders. It would provide opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, because no matter where they come from or how they got here, people deserve dignity. We must not allow them to die in silence, ignored and uncared for, so I urge the Government to act. We need a new approach to refugees and asylum. We need to stand up to Conservative Members scapegoating desperate people for the problems that our communities are experiencing after 14 years of Conservative austerity, instead of parroting them.

20:15:00

I am glad that this Bill repeals the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and much of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, but we need to reverse all the dehumanising policies implemented by the last Government, not just the ones covered by this Bill. We need to expand safe and legal routes to the UK, including resettlement, family reunion and piloting a refugee visa to travel, as proposed in a report by the Public and Commercial Services Union and Care4Calais, the launch of which I was privileged to host here in Parliament.

No longer must people seeking asylum fall through the cracks of a system that does not provide them with the care and safety that they deserve. Let us ensure that every person who loses their life is counted, remembered and mourned and that we do everything in our power to prevent anyone else from dying because of this inhumane system.

May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided. Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause. One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says: “This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an issue of democracy here? Successive Governments and Ministers have said that they want to toughen up the regime, but that is undermined by activist judges. That is a further reason to support the new clauses that he mentions.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [Interruption.] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, because for far too long, criminal smuggling gangs have operated with virtual impunity, ruthlessly exploiting men, women and children and putting their lives at risk for profit. That is why I am encouraged to see a Government being honest with me and my constituents. No more gimmicks. No more wasting £700 million on unworkable and fantastical Rwanda schemes. They are just giving our law enforcement bodies the tools and resourcing that they need to intervene earlier and act faster. The Bill contains new offences targeting those who supply or handle boat parts used in crossings, with up to 14 years behind bars for those found guilty. It allows for the seizing of electronic devices, such as phones and laptops, to help gather evidence and disrupt operations, and creates a new interim serious crime prevention order, which allows immediate restrictions on travel, communications and finances, so that we can stop criminals in their tracks before they escalate their activity. I am particularly pleased about the £150 million going into the new Border Security Command, and further National Crime Agency officers working across Europe—including, importantly, through Europol. It is not rocket science, but the National Crime Agency has said that these measures will give it what it needs to disrupt smuggling networks and dismantle their business model. Just as importantly, the Bill will put a stop to the Conservative party’s attempts to make us turn our back on the world. The fantastic trade deals that we concluded just last week with India and the US are vital recognition that putting Britain back on the global stage and tackling the gangs that are smuggling people into our country can go hand in hand. Crime does not respect borders, so it is quite right that we are prioritising strong international partners. I particularly welcome the new joint action plan with Germany and, through the Calais Group and the G7, the alignment of efforts across Europe to shut down smuggling groups, seize key equipment and bring gang leaders to justice. New clauses 6 and 7 set reasonable timelines for first-tier tribunal appeal determinations. Those are important clarifications, given the damage done to trust in our immigration system by interminable proceedings and delays. Those new clauses will cut the asylum backlog and drastically save money for taxpayers. New clause 8 will, I hope, improve our approach to persons convicted of serious sexual offences, which my constituents have grave concerns about. It is right that foreign nationals who commit sex offences should not be able to claim refugee status in the UK. The UK is a welcoming and open nation, and we need a sensible, fair and caring immigration system to support our key industries. I am pleased that the Government are making moves towards that, and I will be pleased to support the Bill tonight.

I want to go through the differences between what the Government told the newspapers, and the reality of this Bill and the amendments that have been tabled. Ministers said that they would change indefinite leave to remain, but the White Paper proposal today is weak, and the Home Secretary admitted that it may not apply to immigrants who are already here. It is therefore no wonder that the Government refuse to support new clause 11, which would do the job for them. The visa crackdown on the nationalities blamed for asylum costs—Pakistanis, Nigerians and Sri Lankans, we were told—and the promise to kick out all foreign criminals were both headlines, but no credible policy on those issues was presented to us today. The Government promised action against the tens of thousands of people, or maybe more, who are working illegally for delivery companies as a result of abusing substitution clauses. It is welcome that substitution clauses are being added to sections 15 to 24 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, but what will be the operational reality? There are perhaps 1 million illegal immigrants in Britain, but only 366 fines were imposed for illegal working in the last quarter of last year. At least 100,000 people are trading identities online to work as substitutes. Before the local elections, the headlines said, “Foreign sex offenders will be banned from claiming asylum in the UK”. I suppose that is what Government new clause 8 does, but what use is that new clause if Ministers do not give themselves legal powers to deport foreign sex offenders? The Government are whipping their MPs to vote against new clause 14, which disapplies the Human Rights Act and interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I am afraid that today is just another stage in the cycle of political deceit. I should say that in the past, my party has been as culpable as the Labour party—we must be honest about that. Immigration policy must be about not just who comes here, but who we decide must leave. People who are here on time-limited visas must be told to go; people who refuse to accept our culture and way of life must leave; and people who have broken the law, and those who take out more than they put in must be thrown out. We will need to ensure vast numbers of removals and deportations in the years ahead, and we need to remove the legal impediments in domestic law, and in international conventions drafted in another age, that stop us securing the border and saving our country. We must also be tough about who we allow to come here. We cannot afford to import more of the world’s hatreds, nor to allow foreign conflicts to be fought out on our streets. We must accept that not every migrant is the same, and not every culture is equal; one in 50 Albanians in Britain is in jail, one in three Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage adults is economically inactive, and 72% of Somalis live in social housing. We are a million miles away from doing what is necessary, and despite the rhetoric, this Bill takes us even further backwards. Look past the words, and this country will see what this Government are doing.

I rise to speak in support of the Bill and the Government’s new clauses, as this issue matters deeply. When we talk about immigration and border control, we are not just talking about policies made in Westminster, but about real-life consequences for those seeking refuge. This Bill is a major step forward in building an immigration system that is both firm and fair, both robust and compassionate. Since the general election, this Government have already taken bold action. Over 24,000 people with no legal right to remain have been processed—the most in years. In just one month, enforcement teams raided over 800 businesses, arresting more than 600 people for allowing illegal working practices—a 73% increase on the same period last year. However, this is not just about numbers; it is about confronting a criminal underworld that preys on human suffering. People-smuggling gangs are profiting from desperation. They are putting lives at risk in the channel and undermining the values of fairness and order that we all believe in. With this Bill, and with new clauses 6 to 8, we can now go even further. We are introducing real criminal penalties for those who supply boat parts—up to 14 years in prison. We are making it a crime to endanger life at sea during illegal crossings, modernising how we process asylum claims by using artificial intelligence to speed up decisions, banning sex offenders from ever claiming refugee status in this country, and putting tough restrictions on bogus immigration lawyers. Let me be clear: being tough does not mean being cruel. True compassion means creating a system that works for everyone. That includes the people who are coming here, because there is nothing humane about placing vulnerable people from around the world in the most deprived communities in the country, with poor housing, overstretched services, and no opportunity to rebuild their lives. In Leigh, we have seen that at first hand. This does not relate to the Bill, but I need to mention it: Serco has acquired many properties in my constituency and in the Greater Manchester area generally. Our town has lost its industry. We have fewer job opportunities and a housing crisis of our own, and yet we are being asked to carry a disproportionate burden simply because our homes are cheaper. That is not compassion; it is neglect. People are being housed in failing conditions and no one benefits—not the asylum seekers and not our local residents. This Government are delivering real results—results that we are seeing for the first time. This is what we need to see. We need to see a fairer system that protects lives, upholds the law and restores order without losing sight of basic human dignity.

I should start by mentioning that I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which would allow asylum seekers the right to work after three months of waiting for a decision. I back this measure for three key reasons: common sense, economic rationale and human dignity. In my constituency, I work closely with a charity called Big Leaf, an outstanding organisation that supports more than 200 displaced young people. Through it, I met Mohi—a young woman who, on arriving in the UK, lived in a hotel for 20 consecutive months. Her husband had nursing experience, and Mohi herself dreamed of becoming a nurse. She told me, “I want to give back to the country that has given me safety. We are here to be useful. We don’t want to rely on benefits. We just want a normal life.” Big Leaf, her peers, her mentors, her colleagues and her employers all recognised what Mohi could become. Everyone saw her potential, except the system. Today she works as a healthcare assistant, and this September she is excited about beginning training at the University of Surrey to become a nurse.

20:30:00

New clause 21 would give Mohi and so many like her a chance to contribute, grow and begin their lives in this country with dignity. Britain lags behind our international friends. Countries like Canada and Sweden allow asylum seeker to work within weeks. The Refugee Council and the Lift the Ban coalition estimate that the change proposed in new clause 21 could generate over £100 million a year through tax revenue and savings. Given that this is a country that prides itself on being sensible, I have to question why, for 14 years, the Conservative Government refused to see sense on this issue. We have the opportunity to bring change, improve lives, and unlock so much potential, both human and economic.

My hon. Friend has given three fantastic reasons that my hon. Friend has given for lifting the ban, but such a move is also popular with the public: 80% of people polled backed the right for asylum seekers to work. Moreover, 45% of asylum seekers would be classified as critical workers. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are, in fact, four fantastic reasons why the Government should lift the ban?

I absolutely agree. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for new 21 for all four reasons that, between us, my hon. Friend and I have stated.

So late in the day, with so much said, I am going to take a direction that differs from that taken by some of my colleagues. I want to talk about what border security means for us as a country. The playwright James Graham says that our country is only the story that we tell about ourselves. With the Conservatives, we were told a story of hopelessness, despair and scapegoating. People were left to believe that we should be frightened by the challenges we face, frightened by our inability to meet them, and frightened by the setbacks that we face and what they say about who we are and where we are going. That is why it is so important for this Labour Government to be correcting that narrative. Getting a grip on our borders, closing asylum hotels, bringing the asylum bill down: those are the basics that people expect. They are what make people feel confident, not frightened—secure, not susceptible to those on the Opposition Benches who would peddle empty promises and, ultimately, let the British people down.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. For me, border security sits alongside fixing potholes, tackling graffiti and fly-tipping, and stopping e-scooter and e-bike speeding. It is obviously more complicated—for one thing, it involves a great deal of international negotiation—but border security is security. It is vital for people’s safety and pride. It underpins so much. If people cannot rely on the basics, they cannot begin to enjoy everything else that life has to offer. If people cannot see pledges being kept, promises being delivered and things being improved where they live, they will not just lose trust; they will succumb to hopelessness. We must not allow the spirit of our people to break. We must get the basics right, and with the Bill we will do that. We will secure our borders with this Bill and these amendments. We will have new powers on seizing electronic devices, a new law to protect life at sea, a new statutory border security command, tougher action on foreign national sex offenders, and the ending of asylum hotels that cost eye-watering sums. It is in our national interest to get our borders back under control against criminal smuggler gangs. In order to understand the politics of where we are, I have been looking back at old debates, and Conservative Members may enjoy hearing what I am about to say. With our policies and politics on border security, as with much else, I feel that we could benefit from listening to a question that was put by the first Earl of Stockton in his maiden speech in the other place in 1985. He said: “Should we just slowly and majestically sink…like a great ship—or shall we make a new determined and united effort… Let us do the latter and then historians of the future will not describe…the decline and fall of Britain but…the beginning of a new and glorious renaissance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 254.] As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I want to work with all in this place who share the former Conservative Prime Minister’s moderation and determination to have a united effort to bring about a better Britain. That involves fixing the basics, such as border security. After all, it would be an absurdity for small boats to sink a great ship.

The trafficking gangs that profit from the most vulnerable refugees do not care if the people on those boats live or die. It is obvious that we all want to see the end of this horrendous crime, but those who travel are not bad people; they are desperate. It is understandable that communities who see groups of mainly young men being economically inactive will be frustrated and angry, but asylum seekers are not responsible for people not getting a doctor’s appointment—it is the people who traffic them. When I was the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, I backed the Lift the Ban coalition and met an inspiring young man from Cameroon who had arrived here legitimately on a student visa. While he was here, his village was torched and his uncle killed. He could not return home, so he claimed asylum from where he was in the midlands. He was immediately relocated to a hotel in Bournemouth and refused the ability to work—something that he had done legitimately right up to that point. Letting him work would allow him to contribute to our community, instead of being a great drain on it. I will speak to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 24 and 33, which relate to our work with international partners. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently learned more about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 99 covers the prohibition of the transport of slaves, but it does not cover human trafficking. Around the world, our international partnerships are being hamstrung as a result, and I urge the Minister to look at how we could use Interpol as a route towards developing UNCLOS further. Finally, I will speak against new clause 16, which would increase the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. This would mean that the average police officer, research scientist or nurse outside London—in places such as Mid Dorset and North Poole—would not be able to get a visa for their spouse. I was pleased that the Government paused the proposal and left the threshold at £29,000, as I am concerned that we could see a brain drain among many British professionals who choose to leave the UK for their partners’ homes countries, where they will be welcome. I want to speak about the armed forces personnel I have met both in the constituency and through the AFPS, particularly those coming from Commonwealth countries. They have answered our call to fight for our country, but they are forced to leave their spouses behind, as the lower threshold provided for them only applies after an extended period of service. Pushing that threshold up to £38,000 would take reunification out of their reach, too. The current threshold ensures that families who can support themselves can stay together, and I urge the Government to leave it where it is.

We can all agree that immigration must be managed. The public rightly expect a fair, firm and functional system, but control cannot come at the cost of compassion, so let me be clear: immigrants cannot be viewed through the lens of fear, and parliamentarians on all sides must choose their words carefully. We are responsible for ensuring that our rhetoric does not incite attacks, fear and division, or even lead to violence. It is not enough to say that we denounce hate; we must also refrain from language that fuels it. Terms like “island of strangers” simply do not help. Too often, we hear suggestions—either explicitly or implicitly—that immigrants are to blame for everything that is wrong in our country. Let us be honest with the public: it is not immigrants who have polluted our rivers or our seas with sewage; it is not immigrants who set sky-high rail fares while slashing routes; it is not immigrants who have hollowed out our NHS, cut GP services or closed libraries; and it is not immigrants who have overseen 14 years of economic stagnation, rising rents and growing inequality. There are some aspects of this Bill that I can support—abolishing the ridiculous Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 is one—but there are more shortcomings, especially in relation to the lack of help for victims of human trafficking, which is why I rise to support some of the amendments. I call on Members across the House to support new clause 27, which would ensure that proper age assessments are conducted by trained and independent social workers, and not through rushed visual judgments or flawed and impersonal scientific tests. Furthermore, in the shadow of our immigration debate, children are being exploited. They are the victims of a modern slave trade run by smugglers and traffickers who prey on desperation. Children are coerced into roles that put their lives and the lives of others at risk. These are not isolated cases. Over 4,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in the UK last year alone. The system must recognise the unique vulnerability of children and treat them as such, not as suspects and not as statistics, but as they are: children. Although the Government’s intention to address the asylum appeals backlog is laudable, proposals such as new clause 6 and 7 to impose arbitrary deadlines of 24 weeks, without sufficient resources or legal safeguards, are not the answer. Justice rushed is justice denied. Finally, by taking on the narrative of those on the right wing, by mimicking their talking points and rhetoric, we are not neutralising the threat of extremism, but feeding it. We will only push Reform UK and others even further to the right, emboldening them to say things that we have made appear acceptable. I ask the Government: when will they stand their ground, choose principles over polling and remember that leadership means bringing people together, not chasing after the loudest voices in the room? Let us reject the politics of scapegoating, and lead with integrity, facts and humanity. Our country deserves nothing less.

I would like to focus on new clause 21. We can all see that the asylum system is broken and expensive, and the horror of people arriving in a desperate state on small boats is causing division and anger across our country. However, turning to a populist party that throws out soundbites that appeal to many but fall apart at the first hint of real scrutiny is not the answer. How do we address this problem? First, we need to dial down the volume and the divisiveness in this debate, and to talk about these people as humans, not numbers. We need to open up safe and legal routes for people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and conflict. We need to assess their asylum claims quickly and efficiently, and then help them into the workforce so they can start earning money, supporting themselves, contributing to the economy and, just as importantly, integrating properly into our society. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said on Radio 4 this weekend that his party’s chairman, the child of immigrants from Sri Lanka, was intensely patriotic, saying: “The whole point of coming to a country is that you adopt it”. That is exactly what asylum seekers will do when given refuge by a country that offers them safety. We have seen it since time began. Indeed, many in this House are the children of immigrants who have given back enthusiastically to the country that welcomed them. The asylum backlog stood at 91,000 at the end of 2024. While they wait, asylum seekers are trapped in limbo, unable to work or rebuild their lives and forced to depend on Government funds. This benefits no one. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 21 would lift the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment, which would help to manage the cost of asylum, benefit the UK economy and help asylum seekers to integrate. Evidence from the Refugee Council shows that, in the medium to long term, refugees in the UK make a net positive fiscal contribution. Initially, they rely more on public services, but within five to 10 years their tax contributions exceed their cost to the state. After five years, 60% to 70% are employed, approaching the national average for employment rates. A study by the Centre for Entrepreneurs shows that one in seven UK companies is founded by a migrant: 17% of non-UK nationals have launched businesses compared with just 10% of UK-born individuals. The reality is that we have an ageing population, with more people than ever aged over 85 who depend on services. We have fewer people paying tax, working and providing services, and more who have greater needs, particularly in health and care. The chief operations officer of CareYourWay franchising told me: “We are both baffled and deeply concerned by the government’s decision to revoke the visa route for social care workers. It is harrowing to witness such a critical sector continuously overlooked… This change will, without doubt, have a tangible and far-reaching impact… For many, this decision will not only reduce capacity—it may very well close doors.” The Liberal Democrats are pushing for more safe and legal routes for refugees, which we know will be crucial to help stop these dangerous channel crossings—

Order. I call Iqbal Mohamed.

The UK immigration system is in shambles. That is no secret after the debacle of the last Government, with the proposed Rwanda scheme, the controversial refugee barges, the Illegal Migration Act 2023 to stop boat crossings, and the hostile environment, which made immigration enforcement the responsibility of nurses, doctors, teachers and public service workers. I think we all agree that any step towards fixing this mess is a step in the right direction, and the Bill deserves credit for repealing certain measures proposed by the previous Government. However, it needs to go further and it still has substantial issues: worryingly, it criminalises vulnerable families fleeing hardship and it fails to adequately protect victims of trafficking.

20:45:00

Let us talk about the most pressing failure of the Bill: the complete lack of a clear, humane strategy for safe and legal routes. The truth is that if we do not give people fleeing war, persecution or trafficking a safe way out, they will find a dangerous one. We have seen the consequences: families risking everything, children arriving on our shores and an asylum system buckling under the weight of its own inhumanity. Yet the Bill, in its current state, offers no plan and no route for how the UK will open legal doors, instead of forcing people to scale fences. That is why I support new clause 3, which would require the Government to publish a long overdue strategy on how it will establish safe routes into the UK. We need safe routes not because it is morally right, but because it works.

Moving on to deaths of asylum seekers, more than 10 people have already died this year trying to reach the UK on small boats. Last year, over 80 people died trying to reach our shores. That is why I also support new clause 1 to shine a light on the human cost of this broken system. Right now, the Government do not have a system to ensure that a full record of deaths is published. People die in asylum accommodation. People die while waiting for decisions. Also, over 450 children went missing between 2021 and 2024. In 2024, over 100 were still unaccounted for.

Immigration and asylum legislation is not just about fixing systems; it has a profound impact on people’s lives. Therefore, it is crucial that the provisions in the Bill are compassionate and prioritise the needs of vulnerable communities and the very people who suffer the most within these systems.

We have no more speakers, so we will go straight to the Minister. Forgive me, I thought we had another person bobbing, but they no longer seem to be in the Chamber. Minister Eagle, you get the lucky extra few minutes for the winding-up.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise after what has been a very full debate, with people having to fit in quite complex points in short amounts of time. I congratulate everybody on the points they made. I will try, as much as possible, to deal with some of them in the time I have left. I thank all those on the Labour Benches who made contributions: my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Bassetlaw (Jo White), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt). Liberal Democrat Members concentrated on safe and legal routes, and the ability to work. I was worried that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) had had such a difficult time in Committee. I thought we were having quite a reasonable time, but he was extremely downbeat about it. I must try more on another occasion. I welcome the maiden speech from the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), which we all listened to in traditional silence. I congratulate her on it, welcome her to the House and wonder if Reform is practising the principle of one in, one out—or perhaps one out, one in. It is a pleasure to welcome her to the House. The shadow Home Secretary produced a flurry of amendments and new clauses demanding that we do a whole range of things that not only did he not do when he had the chance as a Home Office Minister, but his party did not do when they had the chance over 14 years. I have to keep saying this, but we inherited a system in the most incredibly difficult mess, with huge backlogs. He says we have made it worse, but by beginning to process claims, that by definition creates a backlog of those who have been refused. By trying to get the system working again, we get a backlog of appeals, because people who are refused asylum generally appeal, and the backlog—as he knows from his time in the Home Office—therefore reappears in the appeals system. That is why we have the new clauses to attempt to get a timeline for dealing with those cases. I will concentrate on some of the things that I know there will be votes on tonight. First, I will deal with safe and legal routes and new clause 3. Our approach is to resettle refugees identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees who would benefit most from resettlement to the UK. Alongside that, we have bespoke routes to sanctuary for those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong. It is important that safe and legal routes are sustainable, well managed and in line with the UK’s capacity to welcome, accommodate and integrate refugees. Part of the difficulty we have at the moment is the legacy we received from the Conservatives of a huge quadrupling of net migration and the issues with having to assimilate all those people in the huge, unplanned way in which they delivered that. New clause 37 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). We recognise her campaigning on this issue over the past five years. We also recognise that there has been an unfair burden for some families with rights to citizenship under the system as it is. I can confirm that the work referenced on page 76 of the White Paper—it is right at the end—will look at tackling the financial barriers that she highlighted in her speech. I urge her to work with us on how we move forward and to not press her new clause. The Opposition tabled new clause 14. Let me be clear that this Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights at home and abroad. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the United Kingdom is unequivocally committed to the European convention on human rights, and it is worth noting that many of the legal obligations provided for in the European convention are also found in other international agreements to which the UK is a party.

Will the Minister give way?

Very quickly, because I have a lot of points and not much time.

The Minister has just set out once again, as the Prime Minister did earlier today, her steadfast commitment to the ECHR. Does she not accept that that means that the legislation is not watertight and that those who have committed serious criminality will continue to be able to stay in the United Kingdom, because of the ECHR?

New clause 8 will deny refugee status to those who commit sexual offences. We also have the work being announced on narrowing article 8, which will allow Parliament to give more direction to judges about how the rules ought to be interpreted. The immigration rules reflect the requirements of the ECHR generally, including the qualified nature of article 8, setting requirements that properly balance the individual right to respect for family and private life with the public interest in safeguarding the economic wellbeing of the UK by controlling immigration.

The Minister mentioned the provision to prevent certain sex offenders from claiming asylum. While that is a welcome step, what will happen in practice is that the sex offender will simply make a claim under article 3 of the ECHR instead. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases like that, and that is precisely why we need to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from all immigration matters. Otherwise, there will just be a huge loophole, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) pointed out.

If we disapplied the Human Rights Act, people would just go to the ECHR anyway, and a lot of these cases would end up in Strasbourg, which would take even longer. Disapplying the Human Rights Act would also mean that other countries that we have to work and collaborate with to deal with cross-border people smuggling would not work with us. The Conservatives had many huge rows with people and went around the world making it look as though they did not believe in the rule of law. This Government do believe in the rule of law and we will carry on upholding the rule of law; we regard that as an important part of the value system we have in this country. On new clause 18 and the cap on non-visitor visas, as always the Conservatives talk a good talk now that they are safely in opposition, having not delivered when they were in government. They promised time after time to reduce net migration down to the tens of thousands—they did it in their manifestos and in the many different manifestations of Conservative Governments that we saw plough through the House, especially in the past four years—and what did they do? They quadrupled net migration. We do not need a cap; we need to get migration down, fundamentally lower than it is now, to make the system fair and effective. In order to do that, we have published a White Paper today and introduced further measures in this Bill. We will come back to this issue to ensure that we can deliver—unlike the Conservative party.

I thank the Minister for her mention of my new clause and her commitment to ending the financial burden on young children and their families who have a right to citizenship. What further work will be done to consult campaigns such as Citizens UK, Lambeth Citizens and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that have been working on this issue? I know that the White Paper covers a range of issues, but I want to understand what consultation will be done with those organisations to ensure that we get to where we need to be: a situation where children are not priced out of citizenship.

The Minister for Citizenship and Migration, my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), has just made it clear to me from the Front Bench that she is very happy to consult and meet all those groups. We want people to contribute to the consultation so that we get this right. I hope that in the light of that, my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill will not press new clause 37. I want to deal with the right to work in the brief time I have left, because those on the Lib Dem Benches talked about that in particular. It is an issue of balance: we know at the moment that, if someone’s asylum claim is delayed for 12 months, they have the right to work in particular shortage areas. Our way of dealing with this is to get the system to work more quickly, so that we do not have people languishing for many years in limbo. That is what we are aiming to do. We are worried that if the right to work came in after three months, it would be too much of a pull factor and get around some of the issues with work visas. We have to have a system that people apply to properly, rather than one that they can get around by coming in by irregular routes. That is the issue. I appreciate what Lib Dem Members are trying to achieve; we have a slight difference of approach on that, but clearly we will carry on having these debates. Question put and agreed to. New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

21:00:00

New Clause 6

Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support

“After section 86 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 insert—

(1) This section applies on an appeal under section 82(1)(a) brought by a person to whom, at the time the appeal is instituted, accommodation is being provided under section 95 or 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

(2) The Tribunal must, except where the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so, determine the appeal and give notice of its determination to the parties before the end of the period of 24 weeks beginning with the day after that on which the appeal is instituted.

(3) But subsection (2) does not apply or, as the case may be, ceases to apply, if the appeal must be brought, or must be continued, from outside the United Kingdom.’” —(Dame Angela Eagle.)

New Clause 7

Timeframe for determination of certain appeals brought by non-detained appellants liable to deportation

“(1) After section 86A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as inserted by section (Timeframe for determination of appeal brought by appellant receiving accommodation support)) insert—

(1) This section applies on an appeal under section 82(1) where the appeal is brought by a person falling within subsection (2).

(2) A person falls within this subsection if, at the time the appeal mentioned in subsection (1) is instituted, the person—

(a) is not detained (whether under any provision of the Immigration Acts or otherwise),

(b) has been convicted of an offence (whether in or outside the United Kingdom), and

(c) is liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 (Secretary of State deeming deportation conducive to public good).

(3) The Tribunal must, except where the Tribunal considers that it is not reasonably practicable to do so, determine the appeal and give notice of its determination to the parties before the end of the period of 24 weeks beginning with the day after that on which the appeal is instituted.

(4) But subsection (3) does not apply or, as the case may be, ceases to apply, if the appeal must be brought, or must be continued, from outside the United Kingdom.”

(2) In Schedule 2 to the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/61) (application of the 2002 Act to appeals to the Tribunal)—

(a) in paragraph 1, after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) section 86B;”;

(b) in paragraph 3, after sub-paragraph (5) insert—

“(5A) Section 86B has effect as if for subsection (4) there were substituted—

‘(4) But subsection (3) does not apply or, as the case may be, ceases to apply, if the appeal is brought, or is continued, from outside the United Kingdom.’”

(3) In Schedule 2 to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052) (appeals to the First-tier Tribunal), as it continues to have effect following its revocation, after paragraph 1 insert—

“1A Section 86B of the 2002 Act (timeframe for determination of appeal brought by certain non-detained appellants liable to deportation) applies in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as it applies in relation to an appeal under section 82(1) of the 2002 Act but as if for subsection (4) there were substituted—

‘(4) But subsection (3) does not apply or, as the case may be, ceases to apply, if the appeal is brought, or is continued, from outside the United Kingdom.”’”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

New Clause 8

Refugee Convention: particularly serious crime

“(1) Section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (construction and application of Article 33(2) of Refugee Convention) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (5) insert—

‘(5ZA) A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if—

(a) the person is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and

(b) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (2).

(5ZB) A person is to be presumed to have been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime if—

(a) the person is convicted outside the United Kingdom of an offence,

(b) the act constituting the offence would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 had it been done in any part of the United Kingdom, and

(c) the person is not, by virtue of the conviction, a person falling within subsection (3).’

(3) After subsection (5A) insert—

‘(5B) A person presumed to have been convicted of a particularly serious crime by virtue of subsection (5ZA) or (5ZB) is to be presumed to constitute a danger to the community of the United Kingdom.’

(4) In subsection (6), for ‘subsection (5A)’ substitute ‘subsection (5ZA) or (5ZB) that a person has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime or under subsection (5A) or (5B)’.

(5) In subsection (7), for ‘(5A)’ substitute ‘(5ZA), (5ZB), (5A) or (5B)’.

(6) In subsection (8), after ‘(5A)’ insert ‘or (5B)’.

(7) In subsection (9)(b), for ‘(5A)’ substitute ‘(5ZA), (5ZB) , (5A) or (5B)’.

(8) In subsection (10)(b), for ‘(5A)’ substitute ‘(5ZA), (5ZB) , (5A) or (5B)’.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

New Clause 3

Duty to publish a strategy on safe and managed routes

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a strategy on the Government’s efforts to establish additional safe and legal routes for persons to seek asylum in the United Kingdom.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.” —(Pete Wishart.)

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

191|21:00|90|318|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 14

Borders legislation: Human Rights Act

“(1) This section applies to any provision made by or by virtue of this Act, the Illegal Migration Act 2023, the Immigration Acts, and any legislation relating to immigration, deportation, or asylum, including the Immigration Rules within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) The legislation identified in subsection (1), including in relation to the enforcement of immigration policy, deportation, the granting, removal, revocation or alteration of immigration status, or asylum, or other entitlements, must be read and given effect to disregarding the Human Rights Act 1998.

(3) In the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, omit section 2.

(4) In the Immigration Act 1971—

(a) in section 8AA—

(i) in subsection (2), omit “Subject to subsections (3) to (5)”; and

(ii) omit subsections (2)(a)(ii) and subsections (3) to (6);

(b) in section 8B, omit subsection (5A).

(5) In section 84 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—

(a) in subsection (1), after “must” insert “not”;

(b) in subsection (2), after “must” insert “not”;

(c) in subsection (2), for “section 6” substitute “any section”; and

(d) in subsection (3) after “must” insert “not”.

(6) Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the exercise of any function under the legislation identified in subsection (1)—

(a) it is only for a Minister of the Crown to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure under this section; and

(b) an immigration officer or court or tribunal must not have regard to the interim measure.”.—(Chris Philp.)

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

192|21:13|98|402|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 18

Cap on the number of entrants

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually across all non-visitor visa routes, with such regulations subject to approval by both Houses.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations also specify a maximum number of entrants for individual visa routes, subject to the overall total.

(3) No visas may be issued in excess of the total maximum number specified in subsection (1).

(4) Any visas issued in excess of the number specified in subsection (1) must be revoked.”—(Chris Philp.)

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

193|21:27|94|315|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

It has been brought to my attention that not all the Division bells are working. We are trying to rectify that as soon as possible. I urge colleagues to remain close to the Chamber and the estate, and to keep their eyes on the annunciators. New Clause 21 Removal of restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment “The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for asylum applicants to take up employment whilst their application is being determined, if it has been over three months since the application was made, with no decision made.”—(Lisa Smart.) This new clause would remove the restriction on working for asylum seekers, if it has been over three months since they applied. Brought up. Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

194|21:40|87|404|The House divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Clause 20

Powers of authorised officers to search for relevant articles

Amendments made: 6, page 14, line 33, leave out “superintendent” and insert “inspector”.

Amendment 7, page 14, line 33, at end insert—

“(7A) If an inspector gives an authorisation under subsection (7), the inspector must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of at least the rank of superintendent to be informed.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 21

Powers to seize and retain relevant articles

Amendments made: 8, page 15, line 3, leave out “superintendent” and insert “inspector”.

Amendment 9, page 15, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) If an inspector gives an authorisation under subsection (2), the inspector must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of at least the rank of superintendent to be informed.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 23

Powers to access, copy and use information stored on relevant articles

Amendments made: 10, page 17, line 41, leave out “superintendent” and insert “inspector”.

Amendment 11, page 17, line 41, at end insert—

“(3) If an inspector gives an authorisation under subsection (2), the inspector must, as soon as it is practicable to do so, cause an officer of at least the rank of superintendent to be informed.”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 25

Extension of powers to other persons

Amendment made: 12, page 18, line 24, leave out “22” and insert “23”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 40

Immigration advisers and immigration service providers

Amendment made: 13, page 32, line 21, at end insert

“and certain related amendments of other provision”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 48

Insert Clause 48 Heading

Amendments made: 14, page 43, line 7, leave out “within subsection (2)” and insert

“made by a court in England and Wales”.

Amendment 15, page 43, leave out lines 11 to 14.

Amendment 16, page 45, line 2, leave out “the court” and insert

“, in the case of an order made by a court in England and Wales, the High Court in England and Wales”.

Amendment 17, page 45, line 6, leave out “the court” and insert

“, in the case of an order made by a court in England and Wales, the Crown Court in England and Wales”.

Amendment 18, page 45, line 10, leave out “the court” and insert

“, in the case of an order made by a court in England and Wales, the Crown Court in England and Wales”.

Amendment 19, page 45, leave out lines 12 to 21.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 57

Extent

Amendment made: 20, page 60, line 22, at end insert—

“(ca) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Clause 58

Commencement

Amendments made: 21, page 60, line 32, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) paragraphs 2 to 4 of Schedule 1 (and section 40 and paragraph 1 of that Schedule so far as relating to those paragraphs);”.

Amendment 22, page 60, line 36, after “regulations” insert “or an order”.—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

Schedule 1

IMMIGRATION ADVISERS AND IMMIGRATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

Amendments made: 23, page 62, line 5, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—

“1 The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 is amended as follows.”

Amendment 24, page 62, line 6, at end insert—

1A In section 82 (interpretation of Part 5), after subsection (3) insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of “relevant matters” in subsection (1).

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may make consequential amendments to this section.”

1B (1) In section 166(5) (regulations subject to the affirmative procedure), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(cza) section 82(4),”.

(2) If sub-paragraph (1) comes into force before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016, sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if after “procedure),” there were inserted “omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) and”.”

Amendment 25, page 62, line 6 at end insert—

1C In section 84(3)(b) (effect of suspension of registration on person’s registration), for “4B(5)” substitute “4C(1)“.

1D (1) Section 87 (appeals to First-tier Tribunal) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3A) insert—

“(3AA) Subsection (3A) does not apply in relation to a decision to cancel a person’s registration under paragraph 4A(e) of Schedule 6 if condition A or B is met.

(3AB) Condition A is that the Commissioner notifies the person to whom the decision relates (“the relevant person”) in writing that—

(a) the Commissioner considers that the relevant person is acting or has acted in a way which—

(i) creates a risk of serious harm to persons seeking immigration advice or immigration services, or

(ii) creates a risk of serious harm to the system of immigration control in the United Kingdom, and

(b) accordingly, the decision to cancel the relevant person’s registration has effect from the time specified in the notice and while the period mentioned in subsection (3A) is running.

(3AC) Condition B is that the person’s registration has been cancelled wholly or partly on the basis that the person has been convicted of—

(a) an offence involving dishonesty or deception, or

(b) an indictable offence.”

(3) After subsection (3C) insert—

“(3D) Tribunal Procedure Rules may not permit a direction of the kind mentioned in subsection (3B) in relation to a decision to cancel a person’s registration under paragraph 4A(e) of Schedule 6 where the person meets condition B in subsection (3AC).”

(4) In subsection (4), for the words from “paragraph 4B” to the end of the subsection substitute “paragraphs 4AA and 4B of Schedule 6 (appeals against suspension by the Commissioner).”

(5) After subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of this section, conduct creates a risk of serious harm to the system of immigration control in the United Kingdom if, in particular, it involves—

(a) abuse of a procedure operating in the United Kingdom in connection with immigration or asylum (including any appellate or other judicial procedure), or

(b) advice to any person to do something which would amount to such an abuse.”

1E (1) Schedule 6 (registration) is amended as follows.

(2) Before paragraph 4B (but after the italic heading before that paragraph) insert—

“4AA “(1) The Commissioner may, by notice in writing to a registered person, suspend the person’s registration from the time specified in the notice if—

(a) the Commissioner has reason to suspect that the registered person is acting or has acted in a way which—

(i) creates a risk of serious harm to persons seeking immigration advice or immigration services, or

(ii) creates a risk of serious harm to the system of immigration control in the United Kingdom, and

(b) accordingly, the Commissioner considers it is necessary to suspend the person’s registration.

(2) The Commissioner—

(a) may, by notice in writing to a person whose registration has been suspended under sub-paragraph (1), cancel the suspension of the person’s registration, and

(b) must do so if the Commissioner is no longer satisfied that paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph applies in relation to that person.

(3) If a person’s registration has been suspended under sub-paragraph (1), the Commissioner must consider whether the suspension should be cancelled—

(a) before the end of the period of 7 working days beginning with the working day after the day on which the Commissioner issued the notice of the suspension, and

(b) before the end of each subsequent period of 7 working days.

(4) A person whose registration is suspended under sub-paragraph (1) may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the suspension.

(5) For the purposes of this paragraph, conduct creates a risk of serious harm to the system of immigration control in the United Kingdom if, in particular, it involves—

(a) abuse of a procedure operating in the United Kingdom in connection with immigration or asylum (including any appellate or other judicial procedure), or

(b) advice to any person to do something which would amount to such an abuse.

(6) In this paragraph “working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in any part of the United Kingdom.”

(3) In paragraph 4B—

(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—

“(1) The Commissioner may, by notice in writing to a registered person, suspend the person’s registration from the time specified in the notice if the person is charged with—

(a) an offence involving dishonesty or deception,

(b) an indictable offence, or

(c) an offence under section 25 or 26(1)(d) or (g) of the 1971 Act.

(1A) The Commissioner may, by notice in writing to a person whose registration has been suspended under sub-paragraph (1), cancel the suspension of the person’s registration.

(1B) A person whose registration is suspended under sub-paragraph (1) may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the suspension.”,

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), in the opening words, for “The suspension” substitute “Otherwise, the suspension under sub-paragraph (1)“, and

(c) omit sub-paragraphs (5) to (7).

(4) After paragraph 4B insert—

“4C “(1) A person whose registration is suspended under paragraph 4AA or 4B is not to be treated as a registered person for the purposes of section 84 (but is to be treated as a registered person for the purposes of the other provisions of this Part).

(2) Where a person’s registration is suspended under paragraph 4AA or 4B the Commissioner must as soon as reasonably practicable record the suspension in the register.

(3) Where a suspension under paragraph 4AA or 4B ceases to have effect (and the person’s registration is not cancelled) the Commissioner must as soon as reasonably practicable remove the record of suspension from the register.””

Amendment 26, page 62, line 6, at end insert—

1F In section 84 (provision of immigration services), after subsection (3B) insert—

“(3C) A person’s entitlement to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of subsection (2)(e) is subject to section 84A and regulations under section 84B.”

1G After section 84 insert—

(1) A person (“P”) is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) (persons acting under supervision) if—

(a) P is disqualified under paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 (conviction of certain immigration offences) for registration under paragraph 2 of that Schedule or continued registration under paragraph 3 of that Schedule,

(b) P’s registration is suspended under paragraph 4AA of Schedule 6 (suspension on grounds of risk of serious harm), or

(c) P’s registration is suspended under paragraph 4B of Schedule 6 (suspension of persons charged with particular offences).

(2) A person (“P”) is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) during the relevant period if—

(a) P’s registration has been cancelled under paragraph 4A(e) of Schedule 6 (cancellation for lack of competence etc), and

(b) the cancellation took effect before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3A) of section 87 because condition A in subsection (3AB) of that section (risk of serious harm) was met in relation to P.

(3) In subsection (2) “the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the time specified in the notice under section 87(3AB) as the time at which the decision to cancel P’s registration had effect.

(4) Subsection (2) does not apply if—

(a) the Commissioner decides to register P or to continue P’s registration, or

(b) the cancellation of P’s registration is overturned on appeal (unless the cancellation is subsequently reinstated as a result of a further appeal).

(5) A person (“P”) is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) if—

(a) P’s registration has been cancelled under paragraph 4A(e) of Schedule 6, and

(b) the cancellation took effect before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (3A) of section 87 because condition B in subsection (3AC) of that section (conviction of particular offences) was met in relation to P.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply if—

(a) P’s conviction of the offence mentioned in section 87(3AC) is quashed or set aside,

(b) the Commissioner decides to register P or to continue P’s registration, or

(c) the cancellation of P’s registration is overturned on appeal (unless the cancellation is subsequently reinstated as a result of a further appeal).

(7) A person (“P”) other than a person to whom subsection (1), (2) or (5) applies is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) if—

(a) subsection (8) applied to P when P entered into the arrangement for supervision, and

(b) P did not inform the person by whom P was to be supervised of that fact before entering into that arrangement.

(8) This subsection applies to P if—

(a) P is or has previously been subject to a direction by the First-tier Tribunal under section 89(2A)(a) (directions in connection with registration),

(b) P is or has previously been subject to a direction by the First-tier Tribunal under section 89(8)(a) (restrictions on provision of immigration advice or immigration services),

(c) P has previously been subject to a direction by the First-tier Tribunal under section 89(8)(b) (suspension from provision of immigration advice or immigration services),

(d) P is or has previously been subject to an order made by a disciplinary body under section 90(1)(a) (restrictions on provision of immigration advice or immigration services),

(e) P has previously been subject to an order made by a disciplinary body under section 90(1)(b) (suspension from provision of immigration advice or immigration services),

(f) P has at any time been given a penalty notice under section 92C (power to impose monetary penalties),

(g) P’s registration has at any time been cancelled under paragraph 6(3)(a) of Schedule 5 (failure to assist with investigation),

(h) P’s registration has at any time been cancelled under paragraph 10A(7) or (8) of Schedule 5 (failure to allow access to premises etc),

(i) P’s registration has at any time been cancelled under paragraph 4A(d) or (e) of Schedule 6 (cancellation following direction by First-tier Tribunal or for lack of competence etc),

(j) P’s registration has previously been suspended under paragraph 4AA of Schedule 6, or

(k) P’s registration has previously been suspended under paragraph 4B of Schedule 6.

(9) Subsection (7) does not apply if, before the time mentioned in subsection (7)(a), the direction, order, penalty, cancellation or suspension referred to in subsection (8)—

(a) had been reversed, cancelled or quashed,

(b) had been overturned on appeal (and had not subsequently been reinstated as a result of a further appeal), or

(c) in the case of suspension under paragraph 4B of Schedule 6, had ceased to have effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph.

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) where—

(a) the person is subject to a professional sanction of a kind specified in the regulations, or

(b) in the circumstances specified in the regulations, the person is disqualified or suspended from practice as a member of a relevant profession.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a person (“P”) is not entitled to provide immigration advice or immigration services by virtue of section 84(2)(e) where—

(a) when P entered into the arrangement for supervision—

(i) P was or had previously been subject to a professional sanction of a kind specified in the regulations, or

(ii) in the circumstances specified in the regulations, P was or had previously been disqualified or suspended from practice as a member of a relevant profession, and

(b) P did not inform the person by whom P was to be supervised of that fact before entering into the arrangement for supervision.

(3) In this section—

“professional sanction” means an order, direction or decision which is imposed, given or made by, or other action which is taken by—

(a) a designated professional body,

(b) a designated qualifying regulator,

(c) a relevant disciplinary body,

(d) an Inn of Court, or

(e) a judge, court or tribunal in the exercise of a function in relation to the provision of legal services;

“relevant disciplinary body” means a body established wholly or partly for the purpose of exercising disciplinary functions in relation to—

(a) members of a designated professional body, or

(b) persons regulated by a designated qualifying regulator;

“relevant profession” means a profession which is regulated by a designated professional body or a designated qualifying regulator.””

Amendment 27, page 62, line 6, at end insert—

1H After section 92B insert—

(1) The Commissioner may give a relevant person a penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the relevant person—

(a) has failed to comply with—

(i) the duty imposed on the person by paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 5 (duty to comply with Code of Standards) or paragraph 6(2) of that Schedule (duty to assist with investigation of complaint), or

(ii) any other requirement imposed on the person by or under this Part, or

(b) has, without reasonable excuse, obstructed the Commissioner in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions under paragraph 4A of Schedule 5 (power to carry out inspections).

(2) In this section “relevant person”, in relation to the giving of a penalty notice, means a person who was a registered person at the time of the act or omission in relation to which the notice is given.

(3) A penalty notice is a notice requiring the person to whom it is given to pay to the Commissioner—

(a) an amount specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State (a “fixed penalty notice”), or

(b) an amount specified by the Commissioner in the notice (a “variable penalty notice”).

(4) The Commissioner may give a person who is not a relevant person a penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has failed to comply with the duty imposed on the person by paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 5.

(5) The Commissioner may give an unqualified person a penalty notice if the Commissioner is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person has committed an offence under section 91 or 92B.

(6) In subsection (5) “unqualified person”, in relation to the giving of a penalty notice, means a person who was not a qualified person at the time of the act or omission in relation to which the notice is given.

(7) An amount specified in regulations under subsection (3)(a), and the amount specified in a variable penalty notice, must not exceed—

(a) in the case of a penalty imposed on a person under subsection (5) in relation to the commission of an offence under section 92B, the maximum amount of the fine that could be imposed on the person on summary conviction for the offence;

(b) in any other case, £15,000.

(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (7)(b).

(9) In this section and sections 92D to 92H—

“penalty notice” means a notice under this section;

“fixed penalty notice” and “variable penalty notice” have the meanings given by subsection (3).

(1) Before giving a penalty notice to a person the Commissioner must notify the person of the Commissioner’s intention to do so.

(2) The notice under subsection (1) must—

(a) specify the proposed amount of the penalty,

(b) specify the Commissioner’s reasons for proposing to impose the penalty,

(c) specify the period during which the person may make representations about the proposal (“the specified period”), and

(d) specify the way in which those representations may be made.

(3) The specified period must not be less than 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice under subsection (1) is given.

(4) The Commissioner must have regard to any representations made by a person during the specified period in deciding—

(a) whether to give a penalty notice to the person, and

(b) if the Commissioner decides to give a variable penalty notice to the person, the amount of the penalty specified in the notice.

(5) Where the Commissioner gives a penalty notice to a person, the notice must specify—

(a) the amount of the penalty, and

(b) the period within which the penalty must be paid (“the payment period”).

(6) The penalty notice must also contain information as to—

(a) the grounds for the penalty,

(b) how payment may be made,

(c) the details of any early payment discount or late payment penalty included by virtue of subsection (7),

(d) the consequences of non-payment,

(e) rights of appeal, and

(f) the period within which an appeal may be made.

(7) The penalty notice may include provision for the amount payable under the notice—

(a) to reduce in the event of early payment;

(b) to increase in the event of payment after the end of the payment period.

(1) A person to whom a penalty notice has been given may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against—

(a) the decision to give the person a penalty notice;

(b) where the notice given is a variable penalty notice, the amount of the penalty specified in the notice.

(2) On an appeal under this section, the Tribunal may—

(a) cancel the penalty,

(b) confirm the requirement to pay the penalty, or

(c) in the case of an appeal under subsection (1)(b), amend the amount of the penalty.

(3) The requirement to pay the penalty under the notice is suspended at any time when—

(a) an appeal under this section could be brought by the person in respect of the penalty, or

(b) such an appeal is pending.

(4) But subsection (3)(a) does not prevent the requirement to pay taking effect if the person notifies the Commissioner that the person does not intend to appeal.

(5) No further amount is payable as a result of provision included in the penalty notice by virtue of section 92D(7)(b) in respect of the period during which the requirement to pay is suspended.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) an appeal is pending during the period—

(a) starting when the appeal is brought, and

(b) ending when the appeal is finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.

(1) This section applies if a person who is liable to pay an amount to the Commissioner under a penalty notice has not paid the whole or any part of that amount when it is required to be paid.

(2) In England and Wales the Commissioner may recover the unpaid amount on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(3) In Scotland payment of the unpaid amount may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(4) In Northern Ireland the Commissioner may recover the unpaid amount on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(1) The Commissioner must prepare and publish guidance about the Commissioner’s use of the power to give a penalty notice.

(2) The guidance must, in particular, include information as to—

(a) the circumstances in which the Commissioner is likely to give—

(i) a fixed penalty notice, or

(ii) a variable penalty notice, and

(b) in the case of a variable penalty notice, the matters to which the Commissioner has regard in determining the amount of the penalty.

(3) The Commissioner—

(a) must from time to time review the guidance, and

(b) may revise and republish the guidance following a review.

(4) Before preparing or revising guidance under this section, the Commissioner must consult such persons as the Commissioner considers appropriate.

A person who is required to pay a penalty under a penalty notice given under section 92C(5) (penalty in respect of offence under section 91 or 92B) may not at any time be convicted of an offence under section 91 or, as the case may be, 92B in respect of the act or omission in relation to which the notice was given.”

1I (1) In section 166(5) (regulations subject to the affirmative procedure), after paragraph (cza) (as inserted by paragraph 1B) insert—

“(czb) section 92C(3)(a) or (8),”.

(2) If sub-paragraph (1) comes into force before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016, paragraph 24(2) of that Schedule has effect on its coming into force as if for “for the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) substitute” there were substituted “after paragraph (czb) insert”.

1J (1) Schedule 5 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 6(3) (investigations under the complaints scheme), after paragraph (c) (and on a new line insert)—

“(See also section 92C (which confers a power to impose monetary penalties for breaching the duty imposed by paragraph 6(2)).)”

(3) In paragraph 9(1) (determination of complaints), after paragraph (f) (as inserted by paragraph 1M(4)) (and on a new line) insert—

“(See also section 92C (which confers a power to impose monetary penalties for breaching the Code or otherwise failing to comply with requirements imposed by or under this Part).)””

Amendment 28, page 62, line 6, at end insert—

1K After section 93 insert—

(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide for fees to be charged by the Commissioner in respect of the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.

(2) The order may, in particular, make provision—

(a) for fees (including fees for the taking of examinations) to be charged in respect of the assessment of a person’s competence to provide immigration advice or immigration services;

(b) for fees to be charged in respect of a person’s registration or continued registration;

(c) for fees to be charged for making changes to a person’s registration;

(d) for fees to be charged in respect of the provision by the Commissioner of training for persons providing or seeking to provide immigration advice or immigration services;

(e) for fees to be charged in respect of the provision by the Commissioner of, or of access to, training or other material for such persons;

(f) for fees to be charged in respect of the provision by the Commissioner of events for such persons;

(g) for fees to be charged in respect of the accreditation by the Commissioner of training or events for such persons;

(h) for fees to be charged in respect of the provision of advice by the Commissioner;

(i) for, and in connection with, requiring or authorising the Commissioner to waive all or part of a fee in particular cases.

(3) The order may result in the charging of a fee in respect of the exercise of a function in a particular case which exceeds the costs of exercising the function in that case.

(4) But in specifying the amount of a fee by virtue of subsection (3) the Secretary of State may have regard only to either or both of the following—

(a) the costs of exercising the function in question;

(b) the costs of exercising any other function of the Commissioner.

(5) References in subsection (4) to the costs of exercising a function are to the costs of doing so in a particular class of case or in all cases.

(6) In this section “registration” means registration with the Commissioner under section 85.”

1L In Schedule 6, for paragraph 5 substitute—

“5 No application under paragraph 1 or 3 is to be entertained by the Commissioner unless it is accompanied by the fee specified for that application by order under section 93A (but this is subject to any waiver in accordance with provision by virtue of subsection (2)(i) of that section).””

Amendment 29, page 62, line 6, at end insert—

1M (1) Schedule 5 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 5(3), after paragraph (b) insert—

“(ba) the provision of immigration advice or immigration services by a person in contravention of section 84,”.

(3) In paragraph 6—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2) for “is the subject of an investigation under the scheme” substitute “falls within sub-paragraph (2A)”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) A person (“P”) falls within this sub-paragraph if—

(a) P is the subject of an investigation under the scheme, or

(b) in a case where the person who is the subject of an investigation under the scheme is a relevant body, P—

(i) was an officer, member or partner of the body when the body provided the immigration advice or immigration services to which the complaint relates, but

(ii) is no longer such an officer, member or partner.

(2B) In sub-paragraph (2A)—

(a) “relevant body” means a body which was a registered person at the time to which the complaint relates;

(b) “officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body.”

(4) In paragraph 9—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after paragraph (e) insert—

“(f) if the person to whom the complaint relates (“P”) was not, at the time to which the complaint relates, a relevant authorised person, order P or a relevant body in relation to P—

(i) to refund all or any part of the fees charged by P or the relevant body for the immigration advice or immigration services to which the complaint relates;

(ii) to pay to the person to whom the advice or services were provided an amount specified in the order by way of compensation in respect of any loss, inconvenience or distress suffered by the person as a result of the provision of the advice or services.”;

(b) after sub-paragraph (1B) insert—

“(1C) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(f) and this sub-paragraph—

(a) a person is a “relevant authorised person” if—

(i) the person falls within section 84(2)(b), or

(ii) the person falls within section 84(2)(e) because the person acts on behalf of, and under the supervision of, a person falling within section 84(2)(b);

(b) a body is a “relevant body” in relation to P if P was acting as the employee, officer, member or partner of the body when providing the immigration advice or immigration services to which the complaint relates;

(c) “officer”, in relation to a body corporate, means a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body.

(1D) The total amount that may be ordered to be refunded or paid by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(f) in respect of a complaint must not exceed £250,000.

(1E) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount for the time being specified in sub-paragraph (1D).

(1F) An order under sub-paragraph (1)(f) may specify the time by which the refund or payment must be made.”

(5) After paragraph 9 insert—

9A The complaints scheme must include provision securing that, where the Commissioner proposes to make an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) against a person—

(a) the Commissioner must give the person a notice of what is proposed (a “notice of intent”),

(b) the person may, within the period specified in the notice of intent, make written representations and objections to the Commissioner in relation to the proposed order,

(c) the Commissioner must, at the end of the period for making representations and objections, consider any representations and objections made and—

(i) determine to make the proposed order,

(ii) determine not to make an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) against the person,

(iii) determine to make an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) against the person requiring the person to refund or pay an amount which is less than the amount mentioned in the notice of intent, or

(iv) provisionally determine to make an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) against the person requiring the person to refund or pay an amount which is greater than the amount mentioned in the notice of intent, and

(d) where the Commissioner makes a provisional determination as mentioned in paragraph (c)(iv), the person is given an opportunity to make written representations and objections in relation to the provisional determination which must be considered by the Commissioner before the order is made.

9B Where the Commissioner makes an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) against a person, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the making of the order.

9C (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) on determining a complaint under the complaints scheme, the Commissioner makes an order under paragraph 9(1)(f) for an amount to be refunded or paid to a person (“P”), and

(b) the appeal rights in relation to the order are exhausted.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b) the appeal rights in relation to an order are exhausted at a time when—

(a) it is no longer possible for an appeal against the order to be made under paragraph 9B (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time), and

(b) there is no appeal against the order which is pending.

(3) On the application of P or the Commissioner, a court may order that the amount to be refunded or paid under the order is recoverable as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(4) The Commissioner may make an application under sub-paragraph (3) only—

(a) in the circumstances specified in the complaints scheme, and

(b) with P's consent.

(5) If a court makes an order under sub-paragraph (3) on the application of the Commissioner, the Commissioner may, in the circumstances specified in the complaints scheme and with P’s consent, recover the amount mentioned in that sub-paragraph on behalf of P.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) an appeal is pending during the period—

(i) starting when the appeal is brought, and

(ii) ending when the appeal is finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn;

(b) “court” means—

(i) in England and Wales, the High Court or the county court;

(ii) in Scotland, the Court of Session or the sheriff;

(iii) in Northern Ireland, the High Court or a county court.”

1N (1) In section 166(5) (regulations subject to the affirmative procedure), at the end of paragraph (d) insert “or

(e) paragraph 9(1E) of Schedule 5,”.

(2) If sub-paragraph (1) comes into force before the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016, paragraph 24(2) of that Schedule has effect on its coming into force as if the “or” at the end of paragraph (ca) as inserted by paragraph 24(2) were omitted.

(3) If sub-paragraph (1) comes into force at the same time as or after the coming into force of paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 11 to the Immigration Act 2016, omit the “or” at the end of section 166(5)(ca) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (as inserted by paragraph 24(2) of that Schedule).”—(Dame Angela Eagle.)

21:55:00

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This Bill restores order to an asylum system that was left in chaos by the Conservatives. It puts an end to the failed gimmicks and unworkable mess that they bequeathed us. It repeals in full the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, and it repeals most of the unworkable Illegal Migration Act 2023, which trapped asylum seekers in limbo as asylum backlogs soared and the taxpayer picked up a spiralling bill. This Government are clearing up the mess that the Conservative party left us, and the Bill before the House will help us to succeed. It will assist in securing our borders by dealing with the soaring backlogs. It gives counter-terror style powers to law enforcement agencies, equipping them to go after the people-smuggling gangs that are making millions of pounds out of exploiting people’s misery. The Bill introduces new powers to seize electronic devices and disrupt the activities of people smugglers; new offences against gangs selling or handling small boat parts for use in the channel; new powers on serious crime prevention orders to target individuals involved in organised immigration crime; a new law to protect lives at sea by making it an offence to endanger another life during small boat crossings; a new statutory footing for the Border Security Commander; and new and improved data sharing between Government agencies, such as HMRC and DVLA, and law enforcement to detect organised immigration crime. The Bill introduces a statutory timeline for appeals decisions and a major modernisation of the powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. It ensures that those who commit certain sexual offences will be denied protection under the refugee convention, and contains a long-overdue extension of the right-to-work checks for casual and temporary workers in the gig economy, so why on earth is the Conservative party going to vote against it tonight? People smuggling is a complex and multifaceted problem, and there are no quick or easy solutions to prevent it. Anyone who claims that there are easy answers is a snake oil salesman, but it is possible to identify, disrupt and dismantle the criminal gangs and strengthen the security of our borders through international diplomacy and operational co-operation. This Bill will help us do just that, and I commend it to the House.

I call the shadow Home Secretary, who has a minute or two.

21:57:00

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this unexpected opportunity. The reason the Opposition will vote against the Bill is that it does nothing to restore control of our country’s borders. It repeals the legislative basis for a removals deterrent, which is needed to stop people crossing the English channel. The fact that the Labour Government cancelled that deterrent before it started is why illegal crossings have gone up by 29% since the last election, and why this year has been the worst in history for illegal crossings of the English channel. This Bill weakens border controls, and it removes the powers that the Government could otherwise exercise to control our borders. They are failing, and this Bill will do nothing to restore control of our borders. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

195|21:59|316|95|The House divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0