Immigration and Asylum Bill

The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Two years ago, when this Government took office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos. The Conservative Government had ceded control of our borders to criminal gangs and, as a result, between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people arrived here by small boat, while a further 175,000 claimed asylum by other routes. As numbers soared, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support was £4.7 billion, including £9 million spent daily on housing people in 400 asylum hotels. In the last two years, this Government have begun the work of restoring order to our borders. That starts by taking the fight to the criminal gangs. In the last year, arrests of people smugglers were up 55%. Since taking office, we have disrupted organised immigration crime on 3,700 occasions—up by 46%. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have stopped 46,000 attempted channel crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a new deal signed in April. This will fund increased patrols and intelligence operations, with a 53% increase in personnel on the French coast. The deal is already bearing fruit. In May, nearly two thirds of attempted small boat crossings were thwarted. Meanwhile, we have rebuilt a shattered asylum system. Decision making ground to a halt under the last Government; now, decisions are at a 24-year high. As a result, removals are now at their highest level in nearly a decade—up 41% on the same period prior to our taking office. We have now deported and removed nearly 10,000 foreign criminals. That is 36% more than the last Government achieved. We are also beginning to lighten the burden on local communities. This Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament. Two years in, we have already emptied one in five, reducing the hotel population by 29% and cutting asylum costs by £1 billion.

I can say absolutely wholeheartedly that the Home Secretary retains my complete support for seeing this legislation through in full. Does she not agree that, as we take this action forward, it is important not just that the hotels are reduced, but that the dispersal accommodation that has overburdened communities, like mine in Hartlepool, is also reduced?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is absolutely right: we need to reduce the pressure in local communities as much as possible. He knows that dispersal accommodation has been part of the asylum accommodation estate for many years, including under the previous Government. Of course, the best way to reduce the need for asylum accommodation—the use of large sites, dispersal accommodation and other sites—is to reduce the inflow of people coming to the country on small boats in the channel. Once we get to grips with those numbers, we will see the biggest decrease in asylum accommodation, no matter what form it takes, and that is the work that this Government are taking forward.

I congratulate the Home Secretary on not resiling at all from the tough stance that she is trying to take. Has she received any indication that after 20 July, a Labour Home Secretary—hopefully she herself—will be able to continue to develop this important work?

Oh, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me with some attractive bait, but I will resist the temptation! I am sure that once the events of 20 July have taken place, all these matters shall become clearer still. This Government have taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more: around 94,000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year; while asylum claims fell by 12% last year, they remain close to historic highs; and with the criminal gangs still at work, people continue to die in the channel, with over 100 deaths since the start of 2024, including women and young children.

We always forget that people lose their lives in the channel—including last year, tragically, a young girl of four and a young man of 16 who had just tried to phone his parents. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone with any humanitarian beliefs at all should be doing everything they can to stop cross-channel boats, and that it is incumbent on everyone that we do everything we can about that?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really shocking that we no longer seem to give huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel; in fact, they barely make the news. Most people do not realise that so many still lose their lives when crossing on small boats in the channel. That is why there is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a Government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, and how we ensure that we finish off this trade once and for all. The only people who really benefit from this trade, and from the huge risks that people place themselves under, are the criminal gangs themselves. That money is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it. This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact, but we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and unless we restore control, we will lose the British public’s support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public’s confidence, and thereby ensure that we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system—fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and towards those communities already here who bear the burden of support.

On fairness, I understand that some 80 Labour Back Benchers have written to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), asking him to review the Home Secretary’s plans for indefinite leave to remain. Are they likely to be disappointed or encouraged by his response?

Indefinite leave to remain, and the Government’s proposals on earned settlement, will be settled policy later this year when the Government respond to the earned settlement consultation, in which we have said that we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the subject of the Bill.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them. Many of them were able to reunite with their families from refugee camps, who are now living with them in Bradford, and all of them are contributing very positively to Bradford and to this country. Under the Home Secretary’s changes, they would never have been able to reunite with their families, and they would not have done that. Does she think that is right and fair on them?

I remind my hon. Friend that, as he knows, we have paused family reunification, and the Government have said that we will bring forward further proposals for our approach to that. We need to ensure that we have more parity of treatment between those who are ultimately recognised as refugees and other migrants who come to this country—and indeed British citizens who may marry from abroad but are subject to different rules that do not apply to their refugee counterparts. I think there is a need to bring some coherence to the family reunification system, and to ensure that we have an approach that is fair to all the sorts of people who make claims for family reunification. That is not the subject of the Bill, but it is something on which the Government will soon bring forward additional policy proposals. There is nothing fair about a system that is based on uncontrolled, unsafe and illegal routes into this country. The only people it serves are the people smugglers. Instead, a fair asylum system must be grounded in controlled, safe and legal asylum. For that reason, in the last few weeks I announced new routes for genuine refugees to build a new life here. These capped, safe and legal routes will soon allow communities, universities and businesses to sponsor refugees. The approach means that those in need of protection arrive with the consent of communities, and with the financial support of their sponsor and not the taxpayer. It is an approach to asylum that promotes integration within, and contribution to, this country.

Will the Home Secretary put on record thanks to communities like mine in Hornsey and Friern Barnet who have opened their doors for the Homes for Ukraine scheme? People have been deeply involved—through the synagogue, the mosque and the church—in community-based schemes that find accommodation locally, and have helped people into work who were already refugees—the UNHRC had decided they were refugees, so there was no question about their application—and that has been a really positive development for our communities.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people arrive through controlled, safe routes, when we have made a decision to allow people to enter, and when we are in control and not the people-smuggling gangs, the inherent openness, tolerance and generosity of the British people is unlocked. People are willing to welcome those who are in need and who come to this country at our invitation and through a system that has broad public support. Those are the principles that will underpin this Government’s approach to the asylum system.

Even in rural areas like Cornwall, community schemes welcoming Syrian refugees are working very well. They show that community sponsorship schemes can work well across the country.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—yes, they can and they do. That is the difference with a safe and legal route that has buy-in from communities across the country, and that is the basis on which we will build a system for the future.

It is great to hear my right hon. Friend supporting schemes like Homes for Ukraine. The reason we do not see Ukrainians crossing the channel on small boats is because, rightly, we have a safe and legal route. Why not expand those safe and legal routes to places like Sudan and Eritrea, because obviously if an asylum claim comes from those countries, at the very least they should be fast-tracked? That would help to clear up the backlog, so would she support that?

We have set out our proposals to open up a student refugee scheme and a community sponsorship scheme that will go live later in autumn this year, with the first arrivals coming in the autumn of the following year. Numbers on those schemes will grow. We will also make it possible for businesses to sponsor refugees to come to this country and provide them with work opportunities. I think that is the right way forward. It means that we will be able to accommodate different cohorts of refugees, where we believe we are able to offer a fresh start for people, and to make the best of the contribution that they are able to make to the country. I look forward to getting those routes open, and to welcoming the first arrivals. In Canada, local communities have long sponsored refugees, and 70% of those sponsored refugees have found work within a year. Here the story is very different. In the first year after being granted asylum, just a quarter of refugees are in work. That leaves them unable to contribute and build a life here, relying instead on the support of British taxpayers. This autumn we will begin to take applications for our new community sponsored and study routes. The first refugees will arrive in autumn 2027, and while numbers will start relatively small, it is my intention that they grow in scale as we restore order to our asylum system by reducing the numbers arriving by unsafe, illegal routes. The Bill is focused on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country, and on reducing the burden placed on local communities.

We have read reports recently that the Home Secretary’s important reforms to indefinite leave to remain are being watered down because of the views of the incoming Prime Minister. We have also read of the letter from 80 Labour MPs, many of whom are in the Chamber today, who oppose her plans today. My simple question is: what are we all doing here right now? Is there any guarantee that her reforms and the Bill will survive contact with the next Prime Minister, who will be assuming power without any scrutiny, without any transparency, and with absolutely no accountability as to what his plans are?

I have already answered the point about proposals around indefinite leave to remain; I remind the right hon. and learned Lady, and the House, that it has been settled Government policy to increase the qualifying period from five years to 10 years since last summer—since before I was Home Secretary. In our earned settlement consultation, we have set out a series of proposals that we are consulting on. We are seeking views on the appropriate transitional arrangements that should be applied to that cohort. That is not what we are debating today, but if there is one thing I am sure of, it is that those arrangements will be the subject of intense debate in the weeks and months to come.

For the benefit of the House and for clarification, does the Home Secretary intend to implement her proposed ILR changes via amendments to the Bill, or via the immigration rules in the autumn?

As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the Bill is specifically about the changes we are making to our asylum system, to human rights laws, and to the approach that the Government want to take to asylum appeals. This is not a Bill about indefinite leave to remain. When we have settled policy later this year, those changes will be subject to the usual procedure for changes to immigration rules, which always take place with the scrutiny of this House.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I will give way to the right hon. Lady, but I will make progress after that.

The Home Secretary referred earlier to immigrants coming here to live off the taxpayer. I put it to her that not only do a disproportionate number of immigrants find themselves in work, whether legal or illegal work, but the children of immigrants pay tax. She should remember that.

I say to the right hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, that it is not as if I am about to forget my own background, so I do not really need other people to remind me of my own history or background in my own country. We are talking about people smugglers, and about men, women and children—these days, primarily young men—getting on small boats in the channel and crossing into this country. They are not arriving in a safe and legal way. They are not migrants in the usual sense. We wish to pivot to a system in which this country will live up to its responsibilities to help those in need across the world and fulfil our international obligations by taking people through safe and legal routes. We will be able to increase the numbers that we take on those routes, and that will be subject to debate in this Parliament. We will ensure that we are playing our full part, but in a controlled way that does not put tens of thousands of pounds per person in the hands of people smugglers. The right hon. Lady knows that that is the trade we are trying to break. We have been going after the gangmasters, and now we must make legal changes to change the calculus of those who seek to get on a boat in the north of France. The Bill focuses on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country and on reducing the burden placed on local communities. It is designed to be fair to genuine refugees and fair to British citizens. It will ensure that asylum claims are fair and fast, with legitimate claimants not stuck in limbo, and ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. It will ensure that human rights protections remain robust where they must be, but are also tightened where necessary to eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system. Finally, the measures in the Bill ensure that we support those in their hour of need while making it clear that, although this may be a right, it comes with responsibilities. When the recipients of public support are in a position to contribute to their costs, they should do so. With those goals in mind, I will take the House through the detail of the Bill. It begins with measures to make asylum decisions fast and fair. Today, the backlog in appeals hearings is a major barrier to this. Although the Government have slashed the backlog in initial decisions, the vast majority of failed asylum seekers lodge an appeal. There are now more than 150,000 people waiting for an appeal decision, with average wait times of well over a year. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue.

A number of civil rights organisations are opposed to the changes to the appeals process, and the Bar Council has spoken out strongly against them. It has said that “it is in the interests of justice that the persons who decide immigration appeals are legal qualified”. Will the Minister listen to those criticisms, and the strength of feeling in this House, and remove these proposals so that we can ensure high-quality and legally sound dispute resolution for asylum appeals?

Well, I disagree with my hon. Friend, the Bar Council and other groups on this matter. In fact, I will shortly set out the many tribunals in which people make decisions of great import every single day without being required to be legally qualified professionals before they do so. We must be honest about the nature of the appeals queue. Some are genuine appeals, but others have been made simply to delay a legitimate removal from this country. By placing themselves last in the long queue for a hearing, people delay the date of their removal, continue to receive taxpayer support and use the time to accrue rights that could strengthen their appeal. The best way to prevent this gaming of the system is to speed up decision making while ensuring that claims are heard fully and fairly.

Will the Home Secretary give way on that point?

I will in a moment. I will make a little more progress—I think I have been rather generous. As many here will know, appeals are currently heard by judges in the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. This model, which relies on judicial availability, simply does not have the capacity to meet the scale of demand, nor does it have the flexibility to respond to sudden surges in cases. Part 1 of the Bill will therefore establish a new independent immigration appeals authority, staffed by independent adjudicators, not judges. That will allow us to recruit from a far wider pool of candidates and therefore respond more rapidly to increasing and changing demand. To those who say that such decisions can be taken only by a judge, I need point only to the complex and weighty decisions taken each and every day by those without law degrees, such as magistrates, parole board members, ombudsmen, planning inspectors and many others. A person does not have to be a judge to have good judgment.

The Home Secretary refers to the “gaming of the system”, but will she clarify the basis on which she says that? Around half of Home Office initial asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, so there is a huge issue about the quality of Home Office decision making, as various National Audit Office reports have shown. It would be useful to know the proportion of appeals that are actually, in her words, abusive.

As my hon. and learned Friend will know, 50% of a 150,000 backlog is still 75,000 cases. He will also know that the multiple appeals made to delay and frustrate legitimate removal from the country are a real problem in the system. That is why our proposals include a single appeal route. With the new authority, we are seeking to change the totality of the behaviours that are designed to frustrate lawful, legitimate removal from this country.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I will make more progress and I will come back to the right hon. Lady. As anyone who knows these tribunals can attest, most immigration and asylum appeals turn on the facts. That requires careful, impartial and well-trained decision makers. Our adjudicators will be paid professionals who are trained to make robust, defensible decisions. Where specific legal expertise is required, we will have on hand a smaller cohort of legally trained adjudicators, who must have been a barrister or solicitor or have similar legal experience. Decisions taken in the new authority will be appealable to the upper tribunal, which will continue to sit before a judge. As today, the appeals will be only on a point of law; they will not be an opportunity to rehear full cases.

On the independent immigration appeals authority, I wonder whether hon. Members will be concerned, given the political nature of the decisions made here, that the Home Secretary’s proposals involve a blurring of the line between the Executive and the judiciary.

As the right hon. Lady will see, the authority will be fully independent, and the impartiality of this new authority is vital. As clause 1 makes clear, its decisions will be entirely independent of Government, with every Minister of the Crown compelled to uphold the independence of the authority. As is often the case with establishing a new body, the first chief executive and chief appeals officer will be appointed by the Home Secretary, but appointments thereafter will be made by the chair of the authority, as set out in clause 2. These will be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition. The authority’s operations and performance will also be subject to external scrutiny, and it will be placed under the remit of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration.

rose—

rose—

On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?

I will give way to my hon. Friend who has not asked a question yet.

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor or the Judicial Appointments Commission to have input into the first of each of these appointments, to ensure their independence is guaranteed?

All such appointments will be subject to the usual public appointments principles, which will apply here as they do elsewhere. I am happy to discuss with Members, as the Bill passes through the House, whether there are any additional safeguards—

On that point, will the Home Secretary give way?

I have given way to my hon. Friend before; I will make progress and come back to him. In the new system, a single, faster appeal route will be established, as addressed in clauses 11 and 12. Today, too many claimants make multiple claims at different stages of the process, including at the last possible moment, often to thwart their legitimate removal from this country. To give just one illustrative and eye-opening example, one case involved a convicted rapist who was due to be sent home after serving eight years in jail. Despite not challenging his deportation at first, he went on to make a series of late claims, including a judicial review on the eve of being removed from this country. Although we eventually managed to remove him, it took more than four years to get this criminal out of the country. For that reason, alongside the new authority, we will create a single appeal route. That will require claimants to raise all relevant matters up front. Where late claims are raised, particularly in the run-up to removal, they will be dealt with through an expedited process. That means that genuine issues will still be considered, but tactical claims can no longer be used to frustrate a removal. As is already the case, claimants may access advice and legal representation, with legal aid available to those who are eligible. That advice and support are vital to ensure that appeals progress fairly, without delay or disruption. In clause 21, in part 3 of the Bill, we are introducing further measures to ensure that decision making is fast and fair. Today, there are two separate types of protection: refugee status and humanitarian protection. Both carry near-identical entitlements and eligibility for settlement. That creates near-duplicate claims and unnecessary complexity, which slows down our asylum system. The Bill therefore replaces those two forms of protection with one form—the core protection model. That means that each claim will be assessed once, with one outcome. A right of appeal will be available only to those refused protection, not those who wish to seek protection under a different status. That is a clearer, simple process that will make no difference to those lodging genuine claims, but will cut inefficiency in the system and ensure that those with genuine appeals get a faster, fairer decision. An effective asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly. Those who have a legitimate claim receive the protection they need, while those who do not are removed from this country, without turning the bureaucracy against us. That is what the measures in this Bill seek to achieve.

rose—

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), if he still wants to come in. [Interruption.] No? I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) then.

The Home Secretary is being very generous. The purpose of the Bill is to make the system more swift, but I am surprised to see that there is no component of mandatory reconsideration included in it. As we have seen in the Department for Work and Pensions, that has really made the system faster. We had a broadly similar system in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, which was replaced, and that did not make the system quicker. How will this situation be different from what we have had before?

I think my hon. Friend means mandatory reconsideration in the context of a case when an appeal is made.

indicated assent.

To reassure my hon. Friend, before a case proceeds to appeal, we already have an internal process whereby we check whether we should still defend the claim at appeal stage. If the facts have changed or if there are issues with the original decision, we remove cases from the list of those proceeding to an appeal under the current system. We are doing something similar already. I do not want to create additional bureaucracy and ever-more complication, but that is part of the Home Office’s current process. We have removed cases from the appeals backlog where we know that they should be granted.

The case that the Home Secretary is making for this legislation is that the way in which appeals are being dealt with is unnecessarily slowing up and clogging up the system, because of the nature of the appeals being made. She has just argued that there is a quality control with the initial decisions that the Home Office is making. Looking at the figures, I see that that accounts for 40% of these appeals being overturned. Will she reflect again on the quality of initial Home Office decision making? Will bringing in a piece of legislation that will further complexify that decision-making process lead to better decisions being made the first time? For value for the public purse and the decency of how we treat refugees, surely that is where she should focus her efforts.

Actually, I think we need to focus our efforts in a number of areas. We need to ensure that we are improving the quality and speed of initial decisions, and we have been doing that. However, as my hon. Friend will know and as I have just set out, people make multiple claims, often at the last minute. I raised the example of a foreign national offender who it took us four years to remove from the country after he had served a sentence. That is because he kept putting in appeal after appeal after appeal after appeal. These reforms are designed to deal with that problem. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that we need to be able to look at the system in its totality, so we should absolutely look at the quality of initial decisions, but there is no silver bullet here. There is nothing that says, “As long as you fix that one thing, you are not going to have a problem anywhere else.” There will still be claims that are rightly refused both at the initial stage and at appeal stage, and it is imperative that we can remove people from this country as quickly as possible when they have no right to be here. It is vital that we provide protection to those who are truly in need. Following the devastation of the second world war, this country led the world in promoting human rights to ensure that we learned from the horrors of the past. This Government will always be committed to that internationalist ideal and to the robust human rights laws that underpin it. However, we are also realists, so we admit where noble intentions have been misused and abused. Today, too often, we see well-meaning laws used not to defend a human right, but as a way to frustrate the removal of someone with no right to be in this country, including failed asylum seekers, visa abusers and even foreign criminals. The British people have a natural sense of fairness. They believe that those who require protection should receive it, but no one should be able to abuse that protection. The abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that these laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse. Clauses 17 to 20 reform the domestic application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a family and private life. Article 8 is undoubtedly a vital protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that the rights of individuals must be weighed against the public interest. Over time, the balance between an individual’s family rights and the rights of the wider community has shifted. Without a clear definition from Parliament of how that balance should be struck, the interpretation of article 8 in our domestic courts has expanded beyond the original convention and what Strasbourg case law requires. To understand how far the balance has shifted, consider just one example. In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before. While that is just one example, the expansion of article 8 is clear throughout the system. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our own rules, relying instead on their article 8 rights, and 71% of those who stay in the UK because of article 8 rights arrived here illegally or overstayed their visa. The Bill addresses both the definition of family life and the public interest test. Clause 19 tightly defines the public interest. It clarifies that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK, including whether they are able to support their family, and that no weight should be given to an article 8 claim when someone is here illegally. Clause 20 strengthens the public interest test so that foreign criminals can be removed more easily. It states that the more serious the offending, the greater the public interest in removing them from this country. It also specifically addresses those facing deportation who may be appealing on article 8 grounds. The Bill makes it clear that a deportation should go ahead outside of a limited number of truly exceptional circumstances, as set out in clause 20. On the subject of deporting foreign criminals, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Bill in response to the widely reported case of the vile grooming gang leader Shabir Ahmed. Our amendment will provide the Home Secretary with a new power to disapply section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 for serious criminals. That section provides protections for long-term UK residents, but it clearly should not act as a bar to removal in cases such as that of Shabir Ahmed. The threshold for the power will be tied to the power to deprive citizenship, which applies only in cases of exceptional severity. It is important to note that that does not guarantee his removal from this country, as the Conservatives know all too well from their own experience. The Foreign Secretary and I will continue to work on all avenues to pursue a deportation. I know that the thoughts of everyone here are with the victims and survivors of this vile criminal. Let me return to the Bill as drafted and our reforms to the definition of family life in domestic law. Clause 18 tightens the definition of family life. For immigration purposes, a “family” will now normally mean relationships in the immediate family unit. That means a spouse or partner, a parent or a child under the age of 18, apart from in truly exceptional circumstances, such as an incapacitated adult who lives with and is entirely dependent on their sibling. Clause 19 makes it clear that judges must consider when article 8 rights were established and, in particular, whether that happened after someone entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa. In clause 17, we clarify whose article 8 rights should be considered. This makes it clear that for someone overseas to come to the UK on article 8 grounds, a family life claim must be made by a UK-based sponsor, and cannot be made by family members overseas. That is because our obligations under the ECHR are, rightly, to those who are living in the UK. In clause 19, as part of our reforms to article 8, we set out where it is unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK when a member of their family is being removed. Specifically, it is if the child will not receive an education in the other country or will not be able to integrate into that country, or where relocation would have a very significant and long-lasting adverse effect on them. This brings us in line with case law in the European Court. We also set out the limited circumstances in which it may be reasonable to remove a parent where they do not have a genuine and subsisting relationship with the child. In doing so, we once again bring UK law in line with existing Strasbourg case law. We do so with legitimate cause. As the interpretation of article 8 has widened, we have seen shocking examples of the abuse of parental relationships, including a paedophile who was allowed to stay in this country because his deportation to Pakistan was, under article 8, considered “unduly harsh” on his children. That was despite the fact that his contact with those very same children is restricted by law, in order to protect them from their father. The Home Office appealed the case and eventually won, but only after a lengthy legal battle necessitated by the lack of a clear definition in the law. This Bill rectifies that situation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.

Order. I am sure the Home Secretary has seen the number of people in the Chamber, and will be bringing her remarks to a conclusion shortly.

I have been far too generous, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will plough on, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the way to make sure that the interpretation of international human rights law is in line with what the general public would expect and with the original intention of the drafters is to work with our international colleagues—not to rip up human rights law and give up on it, but to make sure it is fit for purpose. Just as article 8 has been exploited by those facing legitimate removal from our country, so has our modern slavery system. Human trafficking is an abhorrent crime, and we will always provide the support victims need, especially vulnerable children. For that reason, the Bill strengthens a number of those protections, especially by placing child trafficking guardians on a statutory footing and making sure that modern slavery decisions about children are devolved to local authorities, so that those closest to the child—those best placed to make decisions about the support they need—make those decisions properly. We are also strengthening slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders, ensuring that law enforcement can restrict offenders’ movements and work. Clauses 44 to 49 raise the standards for businesses and public bodies. They must report on their actions to identify and tackle abuse in their supply chains, or face potential fines of up to £1 million. However, we know that we must also address the growing misuse and abuse of those protections. In 2025, modern slavery claims by arrivals on small boats reached an all-time high. Over half now relate to alleged exploitation overseas, rather than here in the United Kingdom, and claims are increasingly being used to frustrate legitimate removals from this country. Last year, over a third of charter flight returns failed to go ahead because of a modern slavery referral lodged at the last minute. Foreign criminals have seen the opportunity—in recent years, last-minute claims have been made by a convicted rapist, a gangster jailed for possession of a firearm, and an attempted murderer. In every case, those claims successfully delayed their removal from this country. For that reason, part 5 of the Bill introduces measures to address abuse in the system. In particular, we make it clear that anyone who poses a threat to public order or national security will not receive modern slavery protection and support. This includes any foreign national who has received a custodial sentence, including if that sentence was suspended. In clause 36, we make clear that delayed disclosures have a damaging effect on a person’s credibility unless there are good reasons. By doing so, we further reduce the incentive to make claims as late as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

I will not, because Madam Deputy Speaker wishes me to wind up quickly. In clause 37, we close another significant loophole. As it stands, those whose claims turn out to be unfounded can continue to receive taxpayer-funded support for a 30-day recovery period. The Bill will ensure that we stop providing protection for those who we know do not need it. This Government are committed to the protections provided by human rights law, but those protections must be applied fairly. That means ensuring that they are always given to those who are truly in need, and it means ending the abuse that runs contrary to their spirit and intention. The measures in the Bill are realistic and proportionate, and are designed to protect those who are genuinely deserving while bearing down on abuse that erodes public support for the very existence of such protections. A fair asylum system is one in which claims are heard fast and fairly, and where protections are upheld for those who need them, but not for those who seek to abuse them. It is one in which we provide support, but expect that those who are in a position to contribute do so. Every day, we ask our constituents to bear the burden of funding our asylum system. As that asylum system has spiralled out of control, the weight on their shoulders has grown. That is not fair, and it was also never foreseen; the original drafters of the refugee convention could never have imagined that the British people would spend billions each year on asylum support. To continue their legacy—providing protection to those in need while retaining public support—we need to adapt to our new reality. We need a fair way of addressing the challenges of the world as it is. To that end, part 4 of the Bill creates a new contributory principle within our asylum regime. It does so through clause 23, by introducing a power that requires those who have received taxpayer-funded support to pay back a portion when they can. This measure reflects a principle that most people would recognise as fair: once you are able to contribute, you should. Refugees have immediate access to the labour market and housing, and many go on to work, build successful lives and contribute enormously to our society. Payments under our new system will be proportionate and made over time; no one will be asked to contribute more than they can afford, but payments will not be optional for those who can make them, and those who have received support but have been removed from the country will not be able to return until their debt is repaid. There are some to whom this will not apply, including children and anyone who came to this country via a safe and legal route. Clause 23 of the Bill introduces this new power; however, the precise design of the payment programme will be set out in draft regulations, which I will share with the House during the Bill’s passage through Parliament. There will be ample opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of these changes. That brings me to the end of the Bill. It must be read in the light of the inheritance that this Government received—borders out of control, an asylum system in crisis, and a burden placed on the British people that was simply too great. This country has long provided support to those fleeing war and persecution, and proudly so, but the chaos that the Conservative party left behind has eroded public trust in our asylum system. This Government have already done much to restore order at our borders, but there is more to do. That is the goal of this Bill: to ensure that decisions and appeals are fast and fair; to provide protection to genuine refugees; to offer protections under human rights laws for those who are in genuine need, while closing loopholes that have too often been abused; and to ensure that the generosity of the British people is not forgotten, and that people can contribute when they are in a position to do so. This is a Bill that will provide fairness for genuine refugees, but also fairness for local communities, thereby making sure that we secure our asylum system for generations to come.

With the exception of the Front Benchers, we will be starting with an immediate seven-minute time limit. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, while welcoming some of its provisions, because the Bill does not ensure all foreign criminals and illegal immigrants will be deported; does not end asylum for illegal immigrants; does not stop modern slavery claims suspending removal; does not stop illegal immigrants getting citizenship; does not make the changes the Government promised to reduce the numbers of people eligible for Indefinite Leave to Remain; because the Bill will allow sponsor human rights claims, which will enable people outside the UK to enter under human rights grounds; because measures in the Bill such as narrowing the ability to make Article 8 and modern slavery claims will not be effective while the UK remains in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 remains in force; and because the provisions in the Bill are not capable of eliminating illegal immigration.” The reasoned amendment, which stands in the names of the Leader of the Opposition, myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, is to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill on the grounds that it does not go far enough to combat illegal immigration or to ensure that all foreign criminals are deported. First, I cannot help but notice the absence of the hon. Member for Dover and Deal (Mike Tapp), the immigration Minister, whom I was expecting to see in his place. Perhaps the Home Secretary has not yet forgiven him for openly defying her a few weeks ago, leading to her rather extraordinary public campaign to get him fired. No wonder she has so much trouble deporting illegal immigrants—she cannot even deport her own junior Minister from Marsham Street. [Interruption.] Does the Home Secretary deny that she tried to get him fired a couple of weeks ago, unsuccessfully? I notice that she makes no such denial. At the beginning of her speech, the Home Secretary made a number of claims about statistics, one or two of which I would like to gently take issue with. She referred to small boat crossings. Since the election, 76,000 people have dangerously and illegally crossed the channel by small boat. That is more than under any other Prime Minister. Let us keep in mind that those crossings were undertaken mainly by young men, all of whom were leaving a safe country, France. Nobody needs to flee danger in France. The Home Secretary also referred to removal numbers. Some 85% of those removals are voluntary, and only a tiny fraction are of people who arrived by small boat. In fact, since the election, removals of people illegally entering by small boat have amounted to only about 5% to 7% of small boat arrivals. Given that someone entering this country by small boat has a 95% chance of staying, and gets put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation, it is no wonder that crossings have occurred in record numbers. The only way of deterring these crossings is if almost everybody arriving gets deported when they arrive. I observe that of the 80,000 people whose asylum claims were rejected at first instance in 2025, only 12,000 left or were removed. It is true that FNO removals are somewhat up, which I welcome, but if we look at the breakdown by nationality, it tells a rather different story. The numbers of foreign criminals deported to countries such as Albania, Romania, Lithuania and Poland are high when we compare them against the offender population. When we look at countries outside of Europe, the numbers are much lower. For example, Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia together have 1,150 offenders in prison—and many more out in the community—yet last year, only 110, or less than 10%, were removed. Yes, the removal of FNOs to countries in eastern Europe is going well, and I commend the Government on that, but when it comes to removing foreign criminals to countries outside Europe, such as Jamaica, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, the figures are very low. The reasons for that are some of the ones that the Home Secretary touched on earlier.

I am reluctant to interrupt the shadow Home Secretary when he is in full flow, but he listed countries to which we are successfully deporting people; does he think that our membership of the ECHR has any impact on our ability to deport people to those countries?

Our membership of the ECHR has less effect on deportations to Europe, because it is hard to make an ECHR-based claim if the receiving country is in Europe. However, when it comes to deporting foreign criminals to countries outside of Europe, such as those I listed, there are frequent ECHR-based claims, as the Home Secretary said earlier. I will expand on that point later, but there is no question in my mind that ECHR-based claims are one of the reasons why it is difficult to deport foreign criminals to those countries I just listed. Human rights claims, combined with asylum claims and modern slavery claims, mean that dangerous criminals remain in this country. I will give the hon. Gentleman a number. Under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007, the Home Secretary is under a legal duty to deport a foreign national sentenced to more than a year in prison, yet 20,000 people who meet that criterion are at large in the community, and many of them continue to offend. They are still at large in the community because they make claims under the ECHR, modern slavery and asylum routes. Those 20,000 people are a risk to my constituents and to his, and I take exception to some of the Home Secretary’s high-fiving at the beginning of her speech. Let me touch on the proposal for so-called safe and legal routes, or refugee sponsorship. The numbers that we are talking about would be in addition to the number of asylum claims that we are already processing. Last year saw the highest number of asylum claims in history. From memory, it was somewhere in the region of 109,000. This year, the number will only be a little lower. Adding to that when we already have record numbers of asylum claims strikes me as irresponsible. The Home Secretary said that there would be a cap, but she did not specify what it would be; I would be interested to hear that. She also asserted that the people coming in by these routes would not be a burden on the general taxpayer, because their sponsor would look after them. She neglected to mention that that support has to last only for the first year. Thereafter, the taxpayer could have to pick up the tab. I must say that I do not support the creation of these schemes until we have illegal immigration and asylum claims down essentially to zero. The argument that the creation of safe and legal routes will somehow stop small boats is absurd, because unless we give access to this country to everybody who wants to come—to everybody congregating in northern France, waiting to get on a dinghy—the ones who do not come in on that scheme will still try to cross on small boats. The idea that safe and legal routes will stop the boats on their own is absurd.

Does the shadow Minister agree that rising numbers of asylum claims, and rising numbers of approvals of said asylum claims, are essentially acting as a magnet for others? Essentially, that amounts to an amnesty for asylum claimants.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. For many nationalities that cross the English channel by small boat—Afghan, Iranian, Iraqi, Eritrean and Sudanese, to name just six or seven—the asylum grant rate is well over 90%. In some cases, it is very close to 100%, which means that crossing by small boat is tantamount to an automatic right to stay here, even though those illegal immigrants—and they are illegal immigrants—are leaving a safe country. They are not fleeing danger; they were in France already. I agree that that creates a massive pull factor.

I know the shadow Minister is an intelligent man who thinks a lot about these things. Has he considered for a moment why there are so many refugees globally, and why there are 70 million people without a home to call their own? Has he considered the effects of wars, environmental disaster and human rights abuses on populations around the world? Should there not be an international effort to try to help those people, as well as to deal with the problems at home? Does putting up barbed wire all around the world solve the problem, or create an even worse situation globally?

I agree that the situation in countries such as Afghanistan creates large movements of people—that is correct—and fixing problems at source is clearly the best thing to do. However, I do not think transferring potentially tens of millions of people—he gave the number just then of 60 million or 70 million—into the west is the right solution to this problem. Those people who are displaced are probably better helped close to their country of origin. Transporting people en masse into this country is not the solution. When we have illegal migration under control, by which I mean at zero, there is a case for a limited safe and legal route, but until such time as we do that, I do not think such a transfer is reasonable. By the way, the people who are crossing by small boat are not the most vulnerable. They are not typically women and children, or people who are sick and vulnerable. They are mostly young men who are paying people smugglers. If we were going to choose who to help, it would not be them.

I will give way again, but I want to make a bit of progress first. There will be plenty of other opportunities later. I will briefly touch on indefinite leave to remain, which is conspicuous by its absence from the Bill. We heard the policy proposal when it was announced last November, but we still do not have any of the details laid out. I agree with the thrust of the Home Secretary’s proposal to increase the period to 10 years, because otherwise a large number of people—about 2 million—who entered in the past four or five years will get a permanent right to stay, including a full right to benefits. That includes people who came in on skilled worker visas sponsored by, among others, kebab shops and fried chicken shops. I am keen to make sure that the Home Secretary sticks to her previous pledge that these rules would apply to people who are in the country already, and does not give in to pressure from her Back Benchers. I remind the House that the Home Secretary said to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 5 March this year that the change to a 10-year qualification period means “applying any rule changes to those who are in the UK today, but have not yet received settled status.” I hope she stands by her commitment. If she does, we Opposition Members will vote for it. She has our support on that. While we are speaking about legal migration, let me urge the Home Secretary to reconsider her plan to introduce remote language tests, which are open to enormous fraud and abuse. Australia and Canada rejected them for that reason, and some domestic professional bodies, including the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, have stopped carrying them out because they are so open to fraud. I know that this testing is more efficient and I know that it will save money, but it is massively open to fraud.

It is quite something to listen to a shadow Secretary of State whose party oversaw a net migration increase of 2.5 million in four years, and who has the brass neck to lecture the party in government on how to clear up his mess. Does he think he has any credibility at all on this matter, or is this just about the Facebook clip that he will undoubtedly be pumping out on his social media this evening?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about Facebook clips, but let me be honest: mistakes were made in the past, and the policies that we have now developed, under new leadership, will fix those issues. In fact, this indefinite leave to remain policy was first proposed by us about a year ago, and then, very wisely, the Home Secretary adopted it. Let me come to the commitment that the Home Secretary made on Shabir Ahmed, the vile gang rapist who should be deported back to Pakistan. We support the amendment to section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971, although section 33 of the UK Borders Act 2007—I think it is subsection (1)(b)—might need some attention as well. I would only ask the Home Secretary not to do that by amending this Bill, which will probably take a year or so to reach the statute book. I hope that she will consider doing it instead through emergency legislation in September, which could be completed in a couple of weeks; we took the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 through Parliament in, I believe, 15 days in February of that year. There is not a moment to lose, and this can be fixed quite quickly. As for the substance of the Bill, I agree with some of the Home Secretary’s analyses of where the problems lie. She is right to say that the immigration appeal system, modern slavery laws and human rights laws are being abused on an industrial scale by foreign criminals, and also by people with no legal right to be here, including people who came here illegally in small boats. These illegal immigrants and foreign criminals do make repeated claims, time after time. The Home Secretary gave the example of a foreign criminal whom it took four years to deport. I was aware of the case of a Somali man who entered the country illegally and participated in the violent gang rape of a 16-year-old girl. On his release from prison, it took eight years to deport that man back to Somalia, because he made two or three different claims on sometimes contradictory grounds. I think that he made two modern slavery claims, and a number of human rights claims as well. There have been other cases in which foreign criminals have avoided being deported. For example, an armed robber avoided being deported back to Nigeria on the grounds that his mental health needs would not be taken care of perfectly there. Another man, a drug dealer, was not sent back to Iraq on ECHR grounds because, apparently, he had become too westernised. There was not a single thought for the safety of British children and the need for them to be protected from paedophiles. A Zimbabwean paedophile was not deported to Zimbabwe because he might get treated with hostility there. The judge gave no thought to protecting British children, and no thought to protecting our citizens from criminals. In another case, a man was taken off a charter flight to Jamaica, again on human rights grounds—I think it was article 8—and about six months after being removed from that flight, he murdered someone on the streets of south London. That happened because of the supposed human rights of a criminal who went on to commit murder. I agree with the analysis that our immigration legal system, our modern slavery system and the human rights system are being abused on an industrial scale, and that has to end.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that practitioners of the legal system seem to believe that there are such things as absolute human rights, whereas most human rights are relative, and can be trumped by other people’s human rights, and in fact, can be abrogated? When you infringe other people’s human rights, you surely cannot expect your own to have priority over theirs, in a sensible system.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. When it comes to foreign criminals, and people who enter this country illegally, having exited a safe place, namely France, I do not think that they should be given all the protections that we have been discussing this afternoon. Let me turn to some of the specifics that the Home Secretary has put in the Bill. The changes to the immigration tribunal system, and the measures dealing with modern slavery and trying to better define article 8 constitute small steps in the right direction, but on their own, they are not going to work. Past Governments have attempted to make such measures work, but they have essentially failed, and I think that they will fail again. For example, better defining article 8 in domestic law was attempted in—I think, from memory—section 19 of the Immigration Act 2014, which I believe created section 117 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That was an attempt to do, broadly speaking, what the Home Secretary is trying to do now, and it did not work, because judges—not just those in Strasbourg, but our domestic judges, empowered by the Human Rights Act—simply continued interpreting family rights very expansively and allowing foreign criminals to stay. I admire the Home Secretary’s effort to do this, but it has been tried before and it did not work. Excluding modern slavery claims by foreign criminals has also been attempted before. The Bill essentially seeks to amend section 63 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was an attempt by a previous Government to fix this problem four or five years ago, and it has been repeatedly struck down by the courts. Because of the ECHR and the way in which it is incorporated by the Human Rights Act, it does not matter how we legislate. As with section 63 a few years ago, following the Home Secretary’s most recent attempt today judges will use the European convention on human rights, empowered by the HRA, to circumvent laws passed by this Parliament. The Home Secretary experienced that herself just last week, when her “one in, one out” scheme was upset by vexatious modern slavery claims. She tried valiantly to fix the loophole in guidance, and last week a court struck it down. The conclusion that I have reached—having suffered in the Home Office in the past as she is suffering now, trying to fix these issues within the construct of the ECHR and modern slavery legislation, and the examples that the Home Secretary gave only support this—is that the only way to fix this issue is to come out of these institutions entirely. We cannot do it by tinkering, which is what the Bill seeks to do. The previous Government tried it, I have tried it personally, the Home Secretary’s predecessor tried it, and she is now trying it again. The truth is—

rose—

Let me finish the point. The truth is that tinkering like this does not work when we have very expansive rights-based conventions. The only way of fixing this properly is to exit the ECHR entirely, repeal the Human Rights Act entirely, exit the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—the modern slavery treaty—and say that people entering the country illegally, particularly from a safe place such as France, simply cannot claim asylum. That would enable us to legislate in this House without courts’ effectively circumventing our legislation, as they do on a near-daily basis. It would enable us to deport not just some foreign criminals but all foreign criminals, and it would enable us to deport, within a week of arrival, anyone entering the country illegally by small boat, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country if we could not deport them to their country of origin. That would be a genuine deterrent to prevent these unnecessary crossings, and would give us back control of our borders. While I share many of the diagnoses in the Home Secretary’s speech, I honestly do not think that these measures, which are incremental and an attempt to work within the existing framework, will work. Only radical solutions will actually work. I see that the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is twitching with excitement, so I think I had better give way.

I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am hearing the shadow Secretary of State glibly throw away 80 years of legislation on human rights—human rights that were forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. He stands there and talks glibly about throwing them out when they have protected hundreds of millions of people around the world. There is a clue. The reason they are called “human” rights is that this is the universal condition—we are all human beings—and the day we forget that in this place is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history.

When the ECHR was first conceived and entered into as a treaty in 1950, it was developed for very good reasons. It was designed to avoid a repetition of the horrors of the second world war, which the hon. Gentleman refers to, but over the years judges in Strasbourg and domestically, using the living instrument doctrine, have expanded and expanded and expanded the definitions of the articles, which are necessarily very vaguely worded. For example, article 3 of the ECHR is on “freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.” When it was written, that meant “Don’t send people to concentration camps.” On the face of it, the words are very reasonable; if we were to sit down today and come up with a convention, it would have those words in it. But the way it is applied by judges today means that we cannot send foreign criminals back to other countries, like Zimbabwe, in case they face hostility there as foreign criminals. We cannot run our border system because of the way the articles are interpreted. The balance has now shifted so far that it is preventing border control and a number of other things as well, and that is why we have to leave the ECHR. I do not accept the proposition that the only thing standing between us and barbarism is the ECHR or the Human Rights Act. This country has led the world in human rights, not just for decades but for centuries. If there are any gaps in our protection of rights that this Parliament feels are exposed by leaving the ECHR, the proper remedy is for this sovereign, democratically elected Parliament to legislate to fill them. If there is a gap in our domestic statute or our common law, and this House feels that the gap needs to be filled, the right way to do so is not by having judges make up expansive case law; it is by having this democratically elected parliament debate the issue, as we are doing now, and take a vote on it. That is the way in which democracy should function. I think that one of the reasons mainstream politics is coming under pressure, if I can put it euphemistically, is that pledges made at elections, by successive Governments, on issues like immigration do not get delivered. One of the reasons why is that the human rights legal framework prevents them from being delivered. The Home Secretary gave examples of that, and it is essentially a democratic deficit; this Parliament, not judges, should decide how our borders are run. While I welcome these measures as small steps in the right direction, I do not think that they will work. I do not think that the measures in this Bill go far enough, because they do not address the fundamental problem.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will take one last intervention before finishing.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us his experience. Governments of all colours have always been angry about the European Court of Human Rights, because they are kept honest by having a court of human rights that can act to protect citizens when Governments make incorrect decisions about people’s basic fundamental liberties. If he wants a good example of why upholding international treaties matters, I suggest that he talk to our colleagues from Northern Ireland about the Good Friday agreement, which is rooted in the European Court of Human Rights. Before he argues that we should remove those protections in such a cavalier fashion, perhaps he might reflect on why people like Winston Churchill wanted to protect citizens from Governments who might make incorrect decisions, whether in the immigration system or about their fundamental human rights.

First of all, I do not think that Winston Churchill would ever have envisaged that the ECHR, which he helped create, would lead us to being unable to control our borders. Secondly, on the Good Friday agreement, I urge the hon. Lady to read the 175-page report by Lord David Wolfson KC, which explains how our Good Friday agreement obligations could be upheld after leaving the ECHR. Thirdly, on her point about protecting rights, the ultimate guarantor and protector of the rights of people in this country should be this democratically elected Parliament, not judges handing down expansive definitions of vaguely-worded clauses that have acted as a charter for illegal immigrants and foreign criminals. I ask the House to support our reasoned amendment. While these are small steps in the right direction—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I need to finish. While I agree with the diagnoses that the Home Secretary eloquently set out in her speech, the measures that she proposes simply will not work. I know that because I have tried to introduce such measures in the past, including by amending section 63, and the courts do not let them stand. Until we come out of the ECHR and the ECAT treaty, stop illegal immigrants claiming asylum and end judicial review of most immigration cases, we will not get control of our borders and the public will continue to lose trust in mainstream politics. That is why I moved the Opposition’s reasoned amendment.

There is now a seven-minute time limit.

I listened with great care to the Home Secretary’s speech, and one of the things she said—she said it more than once, in different phraseology—was that her legislation is designed to remove the burden of asylum seekers from the shoulders of British people. I live in a part of the world that has as many asylum seekers and immigrants as anywhere else. Over the centuries, we have had Irish immigrants, Jewish immigrants, Caribbean immigrants, south Asian immigrants, Turkish immigrants and African immigrants. None of them was a burden on anyone’s shoulders, and my constituents will be dismayed to hear her talk in those terms. The Home Office website tells us that there have been well over 150 pieces of primary legislation or policy changes on immigration since 1988. I have been in the House for some of them, and each one was accompanied by the same grand assertions that the Home Secretary has made this afternoon: that they would bring fairness to our immigration system and fairness to our asylum system. They did not. They simply took away rights and treated people badly. One example of a piece of legislation that was introduced in precisely the same terms in which she is introducing this Bill is the Immigration Act 2014, which was created in the name of the hostile environment. Again, the House was told that it would bring fairness. Instead, it led directly to the Windrush scandal. People who had been invited here, with cross-party support, to help rebuild Britain after world war two were treated in the most shameful way. People who had given their lives to the UK were deported. People born here were deported. Families were split up. People lost their jobs. Others were denied re-entry to the country after holidays or travelling to family events, including funerals. That scandal is not over, and it is not something that we can move on from. Very many victims of that legislation are still facing severe delays, wrongful rejections and low payouts. Maybe the Minister should talk to some of the people waiting for their compensation, because there is a view that Ministers or officials are trying to wait out the victims. It is as if they are hoping that, year by year, there will be less victims to give compensation to. The legislation before us is being sold and explained in exactly the same way that nearly 40 years of immigration legislation has been sold to this House. I would argue that that legislation has failed to do what Ministers said it would do; in fact, it has made people’s lives harsher and more difficult. I would argue that if the Bar Council or any amount of legal bodies are saying to the Secretary of State that this legislation is unfair and unduly cruel, and will not achieve the result that it is meant to achieve, she needs to look again. This very negative and hostile rhetoric and language about asylum seekers and immigrants is not what one would want to hear in this House. My parents were immigrants, and many of my relatives were asylum seekers. We need to be talking about the contribution that immigrants and asylum seekers have made to this country, not talking about them as if they are some kind of burden. Even at this late stage, maybe the Home Secretary will reconsider the legislation that she is bringing forward.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I was quite taken aback by the passion that the shadow Home Secretary showed for wiping out many decades of hard-won human rights that we all enjoy. Human rights are not just for asylum seekers and people from other countries; in the first instance, human rights are for all of us. To put the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) slightly correct, some rights are absolute, and others are qualified and limited.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will make progress. [Interruption.] I will give way.

To put the hon. Gentleman right, it is customary when a Member names another Member, particularly in a critical way, to give way to them freely, not to have to be forced into it. The fact of the matter is that I would love the hon. Gentleman to list all these absolute human rights. Even in a democracy, there is not an absolute right for people not to put themselves in danger when they get conscripted in a wartime situation. Does he or does he not accept the basic moral fact that, if someone infringes the human rights of other people, they cannot expect their own rights to be fully respected, because they abrogate those rights? If there has to be a clash between an innocent person’s rights being infringed and the perpetrator’s rights being infringed, I—and, I would like to think, most sensible people—would say it is the perpetrator who should lose out.

These things are actually defined in law. I saw a human rights barrister on the other side of the Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), furrowing his brow at the same time. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned the report by Lord Wolfson, who is in fact a commercial barrister. When he goes into a hospital with a urology complaint, I assume, therefore, that he demands a cardiologist. Maybe he does not, but who knows? Does he seek experts from the right field? Perhaps he does not. According to the Oxford Migration Observatory, asylum seekers in Calais regularly tell researchers that they know the UK’s absence from agreements with the EU is a weakness in our asylum system. They even use the word “Dublin” in reference to the agreement that we left. If asylum seekers have worked it out, why have Ministers not done so? One commentator has even described how Brexit has turned the UK into the final court of appeal for any asylum seeker in the EU. It will come as no surprise that the Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this Bill. It is not because we deny the problems in the UK’s asylum system, which impact not only local people in our constituencies but asylum seekers themselves. It is quite the opposite: the backlog is too large, accommodation costs have spiralled and dangerous small boat crossings must be brought to an end for the good of everyone. However, this Bill does not solve those problems. It piles more bureaucracy on to the Home Office, it risks greater costs to the taxpayer, it undermines integration and it still fails to address the fundamental causes of irregular migration. The Government’s stated rationale for this Bill is: “Claiming asylum in Britain today is more attractive than elsewhere in Europe”. However, data from the Home Secretary’s own Department shows this not to be true. Britain was fifth in the number of asylum applications made to European countries in 2025, behind Germany, France, Spain and Italy. The truth is that many migrants who have had their asylum claims rejected in EU nations are trying their luck in Britain. This is the legacy of the Brexit given to us by Farage and the Conservatives, including the shadow Home Secretary. Our damaged relationship with Europe has created Brexit pull factors, yet nowhere does this Bill attempt to restore an orderly relationship on asylum with our European neighbours to end small boat crossings once and for all. It is an uncomfortable truth for the Conservatives, but it is a problem they created. There is the issue of the asylum backlog. Accommodation costs have risen sharply, with more and more people stuck in hotels at considerable cost. Poor Home Office decision making is a key cause of this backlog, with two thirds of the concluded appeals finding that the Home Office’s initial decision was flawed, yet the Bill does not address the quality of first instance decisions. Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain. If the Government want to solve the problem, they should focus their resources on clearing the backlog by expanding processing capacity and ensuring decisions are right first time. Those asylum seekers fortunate enough to be successful in their claims will apparently face a later penalty of £10,000. We Liberal Democrats are in favour of asylum seekers and all migrants contributing to our economy and paying taxes. That is the fair thing to do. It is just one way that we believe migration can make our country a stronger place, but only if integration is successful. However, this measure is punitive, and pushes refugees further towards destitution and state support. Refugees with a job after eight years of being here had a median income of just £23,000 per year. It has been suggested that repayments will start when refugees are earning far less than that, which seems unfair. If the Home Secretary was serious about getting refugees to pay their way, she would take the opportunity to allow asylum seekers to work. This would immediately relieve the burden on the taxpayer and bring down costs. Instead, these proposals create a bigger burden on the state, often falling on already overstretched local councils, which will be forced to look after those who would otherwise become destitute. That is un-British. Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years. On the unintended yet entirely foreseeable consequences, there are serious concerns that this Bill could inadvertently criminalise victims of modern slavery. It is simply unrealistic to assume that people trafficked here by criminal gangs will be able or willing to raise a claim on arrival. The Home Office’s own statistics suggest that there is not widespread abuse of the current system, so it seems this particular measure is unnecessary and could work against the Government’s aims. On the point about the ECHR, the Government know that the interpretation of the law remains in the gift of the UK courts—the judges whom the shadow Home Secretary dislikes so much, but who perform such a valuable role in our justice system—and that will be the case regardless of what happens with this Bill. The reality is that this Bill is all show and no substance. When this House discussed the Home Secretary’s statement last November, something weird happened. An unholy alliance emerged between Labour and the Conservatives, and even the Reform party welcomed the Home Secretary’s approach. The thrust of our response to that statement last November was that there were issues to resolve in the asylum system, which had been devastated by the Conservative Government, but recognition was also needed that immigration has a role to play in our economy and in delivering public services. I also urged the Government to drop divisive rhetoric on this subject, but that suggestion did not quite find favour with the Home Secretary and others. Indeed, after my plea for moderate language, I was in receipt of some direct and forthright feedback from the Home Secretary, which the Minister for Border Security and Asylum will remember. Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament. I continue to wear that as a badge of honour. In a different recent podcast, the Home Secretary told an audience member who disagreed with her stance on migration and asylum to eff off, and later she joked that she would taser and deport four of her political opponents. I am clear it was a joke, but I am not absolutely certain that those are the actions a Government Minister should be taking. It is clear that the tone of this debate has not improved much since November. Unfortunately, policy heavy and rhetoric—

Get it right!

Unfortunately, this is policy heavy on rhetoric and light on substance, and it risks playing into the hands of Nigel Farage. I thank the right hon. Member for his heckle. He says, “Get it right!” I suggest he gets his knowledge of human rights right. Accommodation costs will remain sky high, small boats will keep coming, with all the danger that that causes to people being trafficked, and the British people will rightly feel that the system is neither fair nor functional. Until Ministers recognise, as asylum seekers seem to, that not having a proper agreement with the EU is at the heart of the small boats crisis, there will be no resolution. Labour MPs claim that the new Prime Minister will present a reset for the country, and we all hope it does, but if the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) sticks with these plans, it will be more of the same—bad value for money for the taxpayer, failures on integration and no comprehensive plan to stop dangerous small boat crossings. That is why the Liberal Democrats will not support this Bill.

I think all of us in the Chamber accept that the immigration and asylum system is broken. All of us want an asylum system that is both firm and fair, in which the impact is managed both for those seeking asylum and coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and for the host communities, with integration managed in that process. Where there is clearly disagreement is on how on earth we fix a system that is so broken that there is not a single lever to pull to make all this mess right. We have an absolute crisis in our immigration system, as well as in our asylum system, and every debate is polarised. Unfortunately, when we come to this place, which is meant to be a place of evidence-based policymaking and exchanges that try to find a degree of common ground, at times it feels as though we are just parroting the social media posts that I see every morning when I dare to open X or Facebook. We need to be better than that. I think we can say that immigration has made a positive contribution to our country, but that there are strains of immigration in some parts of the country that have been managed so poorly the public consent for immigration is fraying. If we do not accept that principle, we will not win back public support. But we also have to accept that the tone of the debate means that every person coming to flee persecution and war is being cast somehow as a chancer—that they are here to try it on and are acting against our national interest. I do not think that that is in tune with British values. We have a long and proud history, certainly in a town such as Oldham, of supporting people fleeing persecution. We are, however, also a town that believes in fair play and contribution. On the other side, there are people in the system who are not living up to those values. They are trying to play the system through the appeals process and different claims, and are not contributing because when they arrive they break the laws of the land. If we on the Labour Benches are not willing to be honest about those tensions, how on earth can we build the middle ground? There is a lot of work to do to build trust and I have a great deal of confidence in the work the Home Secretary is doing. The evidence speaks for itself, and not just on asylum and immigration. This week, the figures on knife crime have come down again. It takes a lot of hard work—often quiet hard work—to get through these issues, but it is happening and we are just two years in, so I am optimistic that we can get a grip. But where I think the country, and certainly people in Oldham, want to see progress is on a tougher line on small boat crossings, because they do not believe that is playing fairly or playing by the rules if people are breaking them on day one. But people are aghast that there are no safe routes to support families fleeing persecution. Most fair-minded people look at the images of children fleeing war—we see it in Gaza, but also across the world—and think, “There but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want in terms of sanctuary to give them a future and not leave them exposed to starvation or death?” This is where we are not quite getting the balance right, so I welcome the efforts being made to introduce safe routes. I want a fairer distribution of asylum seekers around the country. Under the previous Labour Government, we were so fearful of right-wing headlines about asylum seekers being housed in accommodation in London “living in a £1 million townhouse”—they would pick out a Camden townhouse as an example—that the Government responded by saying, “Where is accommodation cheapest?” So, of course, they came to towns such as Oldham, Rochdale and Stoke, where housing at that time was probably plentiful and very cheap. That is not the case today. In Oldham, there are 588 children living in temporary accommodation and over 100 of those households have been in temporary accommodation for over a year. Those housing pressures are felt by the whole community across Oldham. A fairer distribution of asylum seekers might win a bit more public support. On top of that, we are still waiting for the asylum hotel to close at some point. The Minister has been lobbied heavily on that. It is important to know, as a way of rebuilding public consent, that all parts of the country are playing their part and are taking their fair share. I appreciate the speed and the efforts being taken in the case of Shabir Ahmed. I do not think that anybody would look at the Rochdale grooming gang and Shabir Ahmed as its ringleader over a long period of time and think that he is anything other than evil and abhorrent. The way he sexually abused and exploited young girls in both Oldham and Rochdale shook the town. It was on a scale that we had not seen before. What really struck home was the complete lack of any empathy for the victims, his refusal to take any responsibility, and his laughing at the justice process that was holding him to account. When news came of his release back into the community—of course, we do not know where he is; it certainly is not in Oldham and Rochdale, because of the exclusion zones—it retraumatised the victims who have spent a long time trying to rebuild their lives. The fact is this: he has already been stripped of his British citizenship. He has no right to be here, bar the loophole in the Immigration Act 1971 that will now be closed thanks to the actions of our Home Secretary. That is not to say that we should rush to say the answer is always deportation, but in the case of a child rapist who has acted in such an abhorrent way, that must be the ultimate justice secured for the victims who were affected. I give credit for the work that is taking place, but pace is really important. The parole board rejected his early release on three separate occasions because of the risk he posed to victims and wider society. I do not believe that he is any safer today than he was 18 months ago when the parole board last looked at the terms of his licence conditions. As speed is of the essence, I ask Ministers, please, whether there are grounds in such cases to return people back to custody, pending deportation?

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon). He was absolutely right about the tone we need to employ. I recognise the comments he made about his constituents. I suspect that his constituents have a very similar view to my constituents—we are not too far apart. I refer him to the Home Affairs Committee report on asylum accommodation, which talked about the point he made about the disproportionate numbers of asylum seekers in lower-cost accommodation areas. We did ask the Home Office to look at that. I also suggest that he avoids X and Facebook in the morning. It will probably make his life a lot better. I rise to speak briefly on the Bill, which I broadly welcome. These are matters on which our constituents expect action to be taken. It may not go as far as some would like in some areas and it may go too far for others, but on Second Reading we look at the principle of a Bill, and I agree that it should have a Second Reading and then be considered in Committee and on Report. There are a couple of points I want to make before I move on to my main comments. On article 8 of the ECHR, the Chişinău declaration was very encouraging. It is a good step forward to see agreement across the Council of Europe area on the way article 8 and other parts of the ECHR are being abused. I suggest that the Minister look at section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which states that the UK courts “must” refer to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Perhaps the wording could be changed to “may” to make it easier for courts to disregard clearly ridiculous decisions that should not have any bearing on the decisions being taken in our courts. I also refer him to the work done in the coalition Government on the European arrest warrant, when we were still a member of it. We changed the rules in the UK so that only somebody who was guilty of a crime that would be a crime in the UK could have an arrest warrant applied to them. Previously, we had all sorts of spurious claims such as not paying tips to Greek waiters and so on. The Minister may want to look at that. On small boats, the Select Committee visited northern France. The hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Bassetlaw (Jo White) were all there to see the work being done. It is very impressive to see the work being done jointly with the UK. We heard a lot from UK law enforcement and others who were working closely with their French counterparts. I encourage more of that. However, I cannot stress enough how important ministerial oversight is. I pay tribute to our former colleague James Brokenshire, who as Immigration Minister insisted that he receive an update every single day on the number of people entering the country, the number who were in claims and the number of visas being issued. He kept on having a daily update. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a delight that you are in the Chair, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was also an Immigration Minister and she employed a similar approach. It would be fair to say that the evidence we have heard on the Select Committee indicates that that level of ministerial oversight has not happened at all times, and perhaps that is why we saw some big spikes.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and I were in northern France together. Does she share my impression from that trip that the scale and complexity of the operations the French Government were undertaking was quite astonishing? Will she join me in welcoming the new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty? This may be stretching the bounds of bipartisanship too much, but does she agree that it is good to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours? In cross-border channels, when difficult issues arise, it is only through those joint working operations—now that we have left the European Union—that we can collectively tackle the small boats, which are as much of an issue for France as for the UK.

I thank the hon. Member—my friend from the Select Committee—for an enjoyable visit. We learned a lot, but it was a challenging visit, as there was an awful lot to take in. This is a problem that affects countries across the world; it is not an issue that can be solved by one country alone. We have to work together. We also came away agreeing that if everybody who arrived from France was immediately taken back to France, it would kill the trade of the people smugglers. That is something that we should start trying to negotiate with our friends in France. In the short amount of time that I have left, I will focus on part 5. I declare that, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I have some concerns. Apart from anything else, human trafficking and modern slavery is not an immigration crime. Someone’s immigration status may make them more vulnerable, but it is a financial crime—it is the exploitation of one human being by another for financial gain. Although I understand the reasons and we are grateful that there are some good points in the Bill, it is concerning that it keeps being put into the migration bucket, rather than being seen as the financial crime that it is. I am in contact with a number of organisations, and the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Eleanor Lyons, has been in touch with me. There is general agreement that there are some good things in the Bill—the strengthening of civil orders and the support for children are welcome. However, the abuse of the modern slavery protections needs to be looked at, because nobody can self-declare as a victim of modern slavery. A first responder has to say that this person is likely to be a victim of modern slavery, so what is going wrong with the first responders? Why is it that first responders are being dragged into, as the Government say, declaring people to be victims of modern slavery to avoid deportation? That is something that should be looked at without removing protections for victims. One has to have a victim-centred approach to this crime in order to solve it; it cannot be solved only by pursuing the bad guys. The victims have to be at the centre, because it is an extraordinary crime in which the commodity that money is being made from is the human being. It is not a drug, a firearm or any other product; it is a human being. That human being needs to be prepared and able to give evidence, to speak out and to recognise the crime that has been committed against them. Victim support is essential to solve this crime. If one wants to see the issue in a hard-nosed way, the only way we are going to kill the trade is by looking after the victims so that we can stop the bad guys. That is the basic point. I do not have time to go through the specifics, but I urge the Minister to engage with the many authorities—in particular, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—to see where the measures that the Government have introduced may have unintended consequences that make it harder to tackle this crime. With that, I will sit down and let other Members speak, as there are many others who wish to do so.

Order. I am imposing an immediate three-minute time limit.

In the time that I have, I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 16, which create a new appeals body for immigration and asylum cases known as the independent immigration appeals authority. It will be staffed by non-lawyers or members of the public and will perform much of the work currently done by the first-tier tribunal immigration and asylum chamber. The backlogs in the FTT have reached around 60 weeks for cases to be heard—11 weeks longer than a year ago. It is vital, however, that such reforms are properly thought out and resourced. Last week, the Justice Committee took evidence from experts in the sector. The Committee has taken a keen interest in the proposals since they were announced last year and has visited the first-tier tribunal. We saw a system under great operational strain, but with judges doing a good and efficient job. From that visit, our diagnosis was that these are operational problems. There are two key questions for the House: will the IIAA fix the problems with the current system, and will it be truly independent from the Home Office? On the first point, while I do not have time to give all the figures, a big part of the problem is the poor quality of initial decision making, with 45% of decisions being overturned. How will a body staffed by members of the public, as opposed to judges and legal experts, result in a reduction of errors in a complex area of law? A further risk created by an increase in errors is that it may shift the current backlog in the first-tier tribunal to the upper tribunal. It is not clear from the impact assessment accompanying the Bill that enough thought has been given to the potential impact on the upper tribunal. It is also fair to assume that non-expert adjudicators will take more time to hear cases than judges would, given the complexities of asylum cases. There is insufficient legal aid available, which is likely to lengthen hearings as well. On the second point—the issue of independence—the Home Secretary says that the IIAA will be independent from the Home Office and puts the word in its title, but the Bill contains provisions for the Home Secretary to expedite cases, to set the length of time for cases, and to appoint the chair and chief executive. The IIAA is effectively a quango over which the Home Secretary has substantial control. I cannot do further justice to the issue in the time available, but I would like to see that this body, if it is set up, is independent and able to make sensible and judicial decisions. I do not see that at the moment with what is in the Bill.

I hope the whole House can agree—surely it can—that public confidence in our immigration system depends on the principle that those who seek to undermine our borders, exploit vulnerable migrants or, worse still, profit from illegal migration are identified, apprehended and removed wherever possible. All our constituents expect robust border security, effective immigration enforcement, and a system that distinguishes between genuine asylum seekers and those who seek to abuse the rules. It is against that backdrop that I wish to raise the deeply troubling case of Twana Jamal, who was recently exposed by journalist Sue Mitchell and her team through a BBC investigation, which was broadcast only a week or so ago. Twana Jamal was exposed as an illegal asylum seeker apparently working in my constituency in Blaby—and worse still, in a mini-mart right next door to my constituency office.