Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Home Secretary, but does the hon. Lady have an actual point of order?

[Debbie Abrahams]

As the Home Secretary is very eloquently saying, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and the lack of opportunity to hold the Government to account on it is a source of real concern. Can she invite—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. That is not a point of order. We are starting a debate, the purpose of which is to allow this House to hold the Government to account. We will be doing so until 10 o’clock tonight, and then again tomorrow. That is not a point of order, and the hon. Lady knows that.

[Priti Patel]

This is an important Bill, and it is right that we have given the House plenty of time to debate it.

We are seeking to achieve systematic, end-to-end reform of this system, but it is complex—it is absolutely complicated. Throughout this debate and in Committee, I hope all hon. Members will reflect on some of the points that have been made by Government Members. Over decades, we have found anomalies in our system. I have mentioned Windrush, tribunals and many of the processes that we want to streamline, which will of course deal with efficiency and productivity in case management.

Fundamentally, the new system will be fair to those who need our help and support. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system that is fair but firm. As representatives of the British people, we will be finally in control of many of these highly challenging issues that many successive Governments have sought to address in different ways, but now this Government are committed to fixing the broken system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I would be obliged if the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) did not speak loudly while I am on my feet. He can heckle other people, but he should not be heckling the Chair. I draw to the House’s attention the fact that there is obviously a very large list of people who wish to take part in this important debate. Therefore, there will be an initial time limit of four minutes, which will be reduced to three minutes at some point, depending on how fast we proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The Home Secretary shakes her head, but in the 2019 report “Responding to irregular migration: A diplomatic route” the Foreign Affairs Committee warned of exactly that:

“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”

The Home Secretary should remember that because she was a member of the Committee at the time and her name is attached to the report.

While we are debating—or at least should be debating—a plan for refugees, we should cast our minds back to last week and the failure to restore the 0.7% commitment to international aid. The Department for International Development was tasked with delivering help to countries to tackle poverty and the drivers of people becoming displaced from their homes in the first place. The abolition of that Department was wrong and short-sighted. The work that was going on around the world to tackle the refugee crisis has been starved of funds, with programmes suddenly cut off. Our reputation around the world as a force for good has been damaged. The Government should restore the Department for International Development and restore spending to 0.7%.

The Bill is as wrong as it is ineffective. It will not tackle people smugglers, and it will not protect victims of human trafficking. It is, in reality, a continuation of this Government’s culture war. It is a culture war that led them to side with those booing the England men’s football team for taking the knee. Instead of supporting that brave stance against racism, the players were dismissed as taking part in “gesture politics” by the Home Secretary, and were told to stay out of politics altogether by other Conservative MPs. Last week, the Government refused to live up to their promises on international aid, and they ran away from their own failure to stand with football players against racism. This week, they promote more division with this Bill. As ever, they talk tough, but deliver nothing.

As it stands, the Bill is a charter for human trafficking. It is a missed opportunity that represents the worst of all worlds, lets evil criminals off the hook, and fails those who have been exploited. The cruel irony of this Government’s approach is that they are weak on taking action against criminal gangs, and brutal when it comes to orphan children from war zones. I ask all Members of the House to reject the Bill in the vote tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

To reiterate, I am sorry but we have to start with a time limit of four minutes, simply because so many Members wish to participate in the debate. I call Mrs Theresa May.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff North, I should tell the House that after the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the time limit will reduce to three minutes. With four minutes, I call Anna McMorrin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is crucial that we restore trust in our immigration system. Our asylum system is in desperate need of reform and our constituents rightly expect it to be fixed.

In only the past year, 16,000 people have entered the country illegally, and those are just the ones we know about. Some of those people are genuinely fleeing persecution and need our support, but others are not, and they may abuse the legal system by making repeated vexatious and often last-minute claims, challenging the Home Office’s ability to remove individuals lawfully in those cases and costing taxpayers a lot of money. That also creates a severe backlog, which delays the processing of genuine asylum cases and slows down our judicial processes.

Most worryingly, there are now 10,000 foreign national offenders in circulation outside prisons in the UK whom the Home Office are intent on deporting but cannot because of legal barriers. I welcome the fact that the Government’s new plan for immigration will speed up the removal of these dangerous foreign criminals. Any foreign national who comes to this country and abuses our hospitality by breaking the law should be in no doubt of the UK Government’s determination to deport them.

When assessing the needs of individual asylum claimants, knowing the age of applicants is really important for ensuring that children get protected and properly looked after. The UK is currently one of the very few countries in Europe that does not commission or employ scientific methods of age assessment when determining how old these young people are. As a consultant paediatrician, the welfare of children is of the utmost importance to me. As a doctor, I have participated in the past in the assessment of asylum-seeking children, and the current system in place is nowhere near accurate enough for making such crucial and important decisions. I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable the use of scientific age assessment techniques, and that there will be increased research into their accuracy, so that we can best direct our efforts to support the youngest and most vulnerable people.

Finally, the Bill addresses a number of anomalies in the system of British nationality law. Behind each of these anomalies is a person and a family, and I am pleased to see a change in the law that I have lobbied for since 2019: nationality for children whose fathers are not the husband of their mother at the time of their birth. One of my constituents, who has served this country on military operations, was shocked to discover that he was unable to get British citizenship for his son, despite the fact that he is British and the son was born in Britain. This is because his European mother was still legally married to a foreign national at the time of their son’s birth, and under the current legislation a child’s father is legally deemed to be the husband at the time the woman gives birth. However, in this particular case my constituent is the father in all biological, emotional and practical terms.

New measures in the Bill will provide an entitlement to British citizenship for people who were previously unable to acquire it because their mother was married to someone other than their biological father at the time of birth. This will fix an outdated rule and ensure that my constituent and many others can rightfully pass on their nationality to their children. I am pleased to support this Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

For the sake of clarity, I ought to reiterate what Mr Speaker said to the House earlier today. As the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) has been required to self-isolate and therefore cannot take her usual place in the Chair, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) will shortly be taking the Chair having been appointed a temporary Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the House will be gentle with her.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]]

I am delighted to warmly welcome many of the measures outlined in this Bill, specifically those to make some well-reasoned amendments to nationality law and consequently our policy towards those wishing to become British citizens.

As the House will no doubt be aware, citizenship is often the smaller, quieter sibling of immigration policy. Successive Governments have often, and quite understandably, prioritised their focus and thoughts on immigration—how to control it, who to let in, why and when. The Government have done very well in reforming our country’s immigration policy in the midst of our exit from the European Union. We have reshaped our immigration system toward our country’s needs, which is the correct approach for a country navigating different waters in a brave new world as we move towards a global Britain on the world stage.

Previous Governments, however, have seldom thought about the part after immigration, and it is to this Government’s credit that they are now doing just that. Last year I had the pleasure of chairing an independent inquiry into UK citizenship policy with the highly regarded think-tank British Future; it included a number of colleagues from this House and experts from relevant stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland. The inquiry’s report, which is entitled “Barriers to Britishness”, sought to explore the means and capacity for possible reform in this often-forgotten area of policy to see how the UK Government could take a more welcoming and positive approach to those who have come here, built their lives here and made a significant contribution here.

It is often said that the journey to become a British citizen is too expensive or too complicated. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a number of my inquiry’s recommendations. As a result, the Bill goes some way towards simplifying the process of becoming a British citizen. For those applying for citizenship, the introduction of the requirement for applications to show a sustained connection to the UK was one of my inquiry’s key recommendations. That is reflected in clause 8. It comes at the expense of the previous requirement for applicants to prove that they were physically present in the UK five years before their application. That helps to remove a barrier towards Britishness while reducing the need for applicants to rely on costly legal advice for their application. The clause may also benefit non-British members of the armed forces, who might serve abroad for protracted periods.

Clauses 1 to 4 remove some of the remaining anomalies associated with British overseas territories citizenship, allowing mothers and unmarried fathers to pass on BOTC status, which could previously be passed on only by a married father. That introduces a most welcome route to full citizenship for those who hold BOTC passports in 14 qualifying territories, including the Falkland Islands, whose residents, as we all know, have as much a sense of being British as those living here in the UK.

Another welcome change is outlined in clause 7, which creates a new process for the discretionary registration of adults as British citizens in circumstances when they would otherwise have become British had it not been for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority, or other exceptional circumstance. As the House will be aware, the Home Secretary already possesses the power to grant citizenship on a discretionary basis to children. However, by extending that right to adults, the Bill will benefit those such as the Windrush victims who have been stranded abroad or young adults who have grown up in care and whom the local authorities neglected to register as British as a child, or registered them under the EU settlement scheme.

The Bill, in making those amendments to nationality law, goes a long way towards simplifying the citizenship process for those who wish to be British. There are, however, further areas of citizenship policy to which I and the inquiry have recommended changes, not least the cost of a citizenship application. The cost of becoming a British citizen is £1,330. Let us compare that to the cost in Australia, which is £155; in Canada, which is £373; in New Zealand, which is £243; and in the United States, which is £590. I would be most grateful if the Minister explained why the cost of an application is extremely high, compared to the cost in those countries. I urge the Government to consider a much more reasonable application fee and reduce that further barrier to becoming a British citizen.

Overall, I welcome the Government’s proposals to make the offer of citizenship more open and accessible. I hope we can go further in ensuring that those who have chosen the UK in which to work and build their lives, and who have made enormous contributions, have that matched by the offer of citizenship. I will support the Government’s Bill this evening.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We begin with a time limit for Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Jeremy Corbyn, although just before the right hon. Gentleman rises, let me say that I know that he is usually very brief, but it seemed like we had a lot of time for this business and we are now running out of time, so would people just be a bit sharper? It is not a general conversation, but a debate. Let us just get on with it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Sharpness is the order of the day; I will be very brief and very sharp.

This Bill is appalling in so many ways. I will come to that in just a moment. In this set of amendments, we are dealing with people who are suffering the most grotesque exploitation of almost anyone in the world—people who have been trafficked into sexual slavery, and into working illegally in factories and agriculture, and who have no recourse to any support anywhere. They are living in dangerous conditions. They are often isolated and have no one to turn to. While I appreciate that all the amendments are trying to provide better support and better protection for them, these people are the victims of slavery in every form imaginable.

Although I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I do not quite understand why he limits the right to remain to 12 months, because if, at the end of that 12-month period, the person concerned is then faced with deportation, I would ask: deportation to where and under what circumstances? Would they not then be in danger in the country they have originally come from, or from the very gangs that have been called out, because of their seeking safety in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

If I have time, I would not mind saying a little about public order disqualifications. Do I have time for that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is at the hon. Lady’s discretion, but I think everyone wants the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked this afternoon. If the hon. Lady goes on for very much longer, there will not be an opportunity for that. I am not stopping her, but I hope she will not take too much longer.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will take your advice on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am little unsure whether we will get answers, because we have not any other time we have been asking for them.

Any disqualification from protection must be reserved for the most serious of offenders—those who pose a serious risk to the public or to national security. A public order disqualification for victims with prior convictions of 12 months or more is too wide, as others have said. There is a real danger that genuine victims who could give vital evidence against slavery networks, and who pose absolutely no risk to the public, will be excluded from that support.

The actual figures for referrals of offenders in immigration detention to the NRM are low, as was said earlier, and the Government have published no data to back up the sensationalist claims made in support of these measures. It is another theme running through every part of this Bill. There is nothing to back up their scaremongering claims. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was also asking for evidence. I very much doubt the Minister is going to give us any, but let us wait and see.

I will move on, finally, to say that I fail to see why all of this is part of an immigration Bill. We are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about victims of criminal offences. In 2016, I sat on the Immigration Bill Committee, and a Government Member, who is not present and whose name I will not reveal, told me, “If people do not want to be trafficked, they should simply say no.” That demonstrated a crass misunderstanding of what trafficking is. These are people who are not trying to migrate to this country; they are simply caught up in exploitation and they end up here.

I will end by saying that I would love to hear what the Minister has to say. I have zero faith that we will hear anything. I have never ever been so ashamed as I am today, because I know that Members will vote for this Bill that will damage, exploit and kill vulnerable people, who they claim to care about. It is absolutely a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. We will of course watch the progress of the Bill through the other place with interest, and I am happy to work with him and any others as we do so.

Amendments 127 and 128, to which a number of Members have referred, seek to remove clauses 57 and 58 on the one-stop process as it relates to information relevant to modern slavery. These clauses are crucial to the Bill to enable us to appropriately identify victims at the earliest opportunity and make sure that they get support to rebuild their lives.

Finally, on new clause 39 and amendment 3, I appreciate the concerns about clause 62, but it is right that we should be able to withhold protection from serious criminals and those who pose a national security threat to the UK. I would like to reassure hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that our approach is not to have a blanket disqualification based on public order, but to take a case-by-case approach to decisions and consider the individual’s circumstances.

I would like to restate that our approach is to stamp out this evil and inhuman trade. The Bill is firm and fair, and it is in line with the overall objectives of our new plan for immigration. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will be content not to press their amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby? This is not acceptable: this Division should have been concluded by now. There is a lot of business to be done this afternoon, and taking too long to vote is taking time out of the next item of business.

The House continued to divide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is an unacceptable delay in the Aye Lobby. It is simply wrong if people are taking too long to vote, deliberately obstructing the Tellers when coming through and remaining in the Lobby when there is no need for them to be remaining in the Lobby in order to stop other business taking place in this House this afternoon. That is unacceptable. There is deliberate action occurring in the Aye Lobby, and it is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

This Division will be conducted in a timely fashion. I will not have it obstructed deliberately.

New Clause 6

Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking

(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information

notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.—[Holly Lynch.]

Brought up,

Question put, That the clause be added Bill.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is it about the Division?

[Mr Davis]

It is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.

--- Later in debate ---

15:19

Division 141

Ayes: 234

---

Labour: 167
Scottish National Party: 40
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alba Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 293

---

Conservative: 287
Independent: 1

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

New clause 47 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to move the new clause formally.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Not moved.

Clause 58

Late compliance with slavery or trafficking information notice: damage to credibility

Amendment proposed: 128, page 57, line 25, leave out clause 58.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and clear the Lobby?

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relate to the Division?

[David Linden]

It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is taking quite a lot of time to get through the votes, I wonder whether it might be possible to investigate the idea of introducing this thing called electronic voting, which would speed things up a little bit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman had been behaving properly, I might have taken his point of order seriously. I have to say to him and to the House that a very serious piece of legislation is going through the House today. There has been genuine debate and disagreement about it, but it is legislation that will affect a lot of people in this country and it deserves to be properly considered. The antics that have been reported to me—the way in which certain Members have behaved, very obviously delaying and lengthening the time that the Divisions are taking—are, as I said a few moments ago, contrary to good democratic practice. I deplore the actions of those people who have delayed the Divisions, and who indeed are doing so now. Will they please cast their votes, come back into the Chamber and allow the Third Reading to take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am not taking your point of order. Sit down—[Interruption.] Sit down! I am not taking any points of order—

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sit down! I am not taking a point of order. It would have to be about the Division that we have just had—[Interruption.] Sit down!

Clause 60

Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period

Amendments made: 64, page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the requirement that there must be at least 30 days between the making of a positive reasonable grounds decision in relation to an identified potential victim of slavery or human trafficking and the making of a conclusive grounds decision.

Amendment 65, page 59, line 4, at beginning insert “Subject to section 62(2),”.

This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the prohibition on removal of an identified potential victim does not apply where they are disqualified from protection under clause 62 as a threat to public order or for having acted in bad faith.

Amendment 66, page 59, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the identified potential victim;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64. It ensures that an identified potential victim is entitled to a recovery period (giving protection from removal) of at least 30 days even where a conclusive grounds decision is made within 30 days of the positive reasonable grounds decision.

Clause 61

No entitlement to additional recovery period etc

Amendments made: 67, page 59, line 17, after “person” insert

“, in a case where the reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking arise from things done wholly before the first RG decision was made”.

This amendment corrects a drafting error in the definition of “further RG decision”.

Amendment 68, page 59, line 18, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.

Amendment 69, page 59, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—

“(2) If the competent authority considers it appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority may determine that the person may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom during the period—

(a) beginning with the day on which the further RG decision is made, and

(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).

This is subject to section 62(2).”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment removes the disapplication of a requirement to make a conclusive grounds decision following a “further RG decision” and instead provides that, although an identified potential victim is not automatically entitled to protection from removal following a further RG decision, the competent authority may decide that it is appropriate to give them that protection.

Clause 62

Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Amendments made: 70, page 60, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 64 and 69.

Amendment 71, page 60, line 4, at end insert “, and

(c) any requirement under section 64 to grant the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment provides that if an identified potential victim is disqualified from protection (on the grounds of public order or acting in bad faith) but goes on to receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, any requirement to grant them leave to remain in the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise under clause 64 ceases to apply.

Clause 63

Identified potential victims etc in England and Wales: assistance and support

Amendments made: 72, page 61, line 28, leave out from “any” to “arising” in line 29 and insert

“physical, psychological or social harm”.

This amendment changes the reference to “social well-being” to “social harm” to follow more closely the language of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Amendment 73, page 61, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69.

Amendment 74, page 61, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.

Amendment 75, page 61, line 45, leave out subsection (5).—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 73.

Clause 64

Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendments made: 78, page 62, line 23, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.

This amendment and Amendments 81 to 83 make minor drafting changes for consistency with related provisions on the statute book.

Amendment 76, page 62, line 26, after “any” insert “physical or psychological”.

This amendment removes assisting a victim of slavery or human trafficking in their recovery from harm to their social well-being from the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State is required to give a victim limited leave to remain the United Kingdom.

Amendment 77, page 62, line 27, leave out from “exploitation” to end of line 28.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.

Amendment 79, page 62, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section 62(2).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 71.

Amendment 80, page 63, line 3, leave out “as” and insert

“which may be, but does not need to be, an agreement”.

This amendment makes it clear that a trafficking victim may be removed to a country which is not a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, if the UK has made an agreement with that country.

Amendment 81, page 63, line 9, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Amendment 82, page 63, line 11, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Amendment 83, page 63, line 12, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.—(Rachel Maclean.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Clause 81

Extent

Amendment made: 84, page 79, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised so as to extend (with or without modification) to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.

(6) Those provisions are—

(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971,

(b) section 15(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993,

(c) section 13(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996,

(d) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997,

(e) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,

(f) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,

(g) section 338 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,

(h) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004,

(i) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,

(j) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007,

(k) section 57(5) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009,

(l) section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014,

(m) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,

(n) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016, and

(o) section 8(2) of the Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020”.—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended, by Order in Council, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Clause 82

Commencement

Amendments made: 85, page 79, line 21, leave out “This Part and”.

This amendment, and Amendment 86, make minor drafting changes needed as a result of Amendment 87.

Amendment 86, page 79, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) this Part.”

See statement for Amendment 85.

Amendment 87, page 79, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making (and, where required, consulting on) regulations—

(a) section 13 (requirement to make asylum claim at “designated place”);

(b) section 26 (accelerated detained appeals);

(c) section 41 and Schedule 4 (penalty for failure to secure goods vehicle etc);

(d) section 42 (working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry);

(e) section 49 (persons subject to immigration control: referral or age assessment by local authority);

(f) section 51 (regulations about use of scientific methods in age assessments);

(g) section 52 (regulations about age assessments);

(h) section 68 (interpretation of Part 5);

(i) section 77 (pre-consolidation amendments of immigration legislation).”

This amendment brings powers in the Bill to make regulations into force on Royal Assent, so that the regulations can be prepared in advance of the substantive provisions being commenced. The regulations themselves will not be commenced for at least two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 88, page 79, line 38, leave out paragraph (g).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 89, page 79, line 42, leave out paragraphs (j) and (k).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 90, page 80, line 3, leave out paragraph (n).—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

On a point of order—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No points of order!

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo your remarks—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman rises again, I will require him to leave the Chamber.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appalling that we have seen these delaying tactics today.

This Bill introduces the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in over two decades, and it is a shame that Members of this House have brought in these delaying tactics today to prevent this debate. Our Bill will bring in a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on. Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will now hear the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not give way further, so that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) can have some time. The Back Benchers have debated this Bill already.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Sit down. The Home Secretary does not have time to take interventions, neither will the shadow Home Secretary, because time has been wasted by the Members on the SNP Benches. Stay in your seat.

[Priti Patel]

They do not like hearing the fact that this Government will seek to rapidly remove those with no legal right to be in the UK. We are establishing a fast-track appeal process and streamlining the appeal system, making it quicker to remove failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals, the very people they would like to keep in this country. We will tackle the practice of meritless last-minute claims and appeals that clog up the courts, which is a fundamental unfairness that, by the way, even the legal profession says has been frustrating it for too long because the justice system has been gamed. We will protect the rights of modern-day slavery victims, too.

On that basis, we will bring in a fundamental change. The Opposition have had a chance to back the Bill, and they have chosen not to back the Bill. They want open borders, and they would encourage more people smuggling and more dangerous crossings that would compromise our national interest and our public safety. Our opponents have no answers to this Bill, and we are the ones who want to control illegal migration. We want to take back control of our borders. Many Opposition Members have written letters opposing the deportation of murderers and rapists. [Interruption.] They can say they have not, but they have.

This Bill will bring in fundamental reform, and I commend it to the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has made his intervention, so I am going to try to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members should not make interventions when they are sitting down—end of story.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me answer the intervention the hon. Gentleman made while he was standing up. As I said in response to the original intervention, other than what we heard from the politician who gave evidence to us, all the impartial expert evidence was that offshoring achieved absolutely nothing; it was not anything to do with a decline in the number of drownings. The second point to make, in relation to Scottish local authorities, is exactly the same point as has been made by the Conservative party leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council: the Home Office does not step up to its responsibilities because it does not fund local authorities to undertake this work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak. I will try to manage without a formal time limit because it is not normal to have one at this stage of dealing with Lords amendments, but I will introduce a time limit if we cannot have a bit of discipline. If everyone speaks for around four minutes, all colleagues will have a chance to speak, so let us try to do it without a formal time limit.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Unlike the Opposition, I take the view that this Bill is a serious attempt to deal with an almost intractable problem. Nobody should challenge that point. Nevertheless, we are a great nation, and our greatness rests on the fact that we take a moral stance on most things. That is not a formula for softness but it is an argument for rigour in what we do. Lord Kirkhope’s amendment 9 strips out the Government’s plans to create an offshore asylum-processing system, and I believe he is right. Asylum offshoring would be a moral, economic and practical failure. Previous international experience shows that to introduce it here would be an unmitigated disaster.

The first problem with offshoring is an ethical one. To get a sense of the issue, we have only to look at what happened in Australia when it adopted the same approach in 2013. It meant that children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors could be detained offshore. The Refugee Council of Australia has documented gut-wrenching stories of sexual, physical and mental abuse in the processing facilities. A 14-year-old girl who was held offshore for five years doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. Another child starved themselves near to death and had to be removed back to Australia.

Those were not isolated cases. In fact, there have been numerous reports of assaults and sexual abuse relating to Australia’s processing facility on Nauru. Between January and October 2015 alone—just a few months—there were 48 reports of assault and 57 reports of assault against a minor. That is what we appear to be trying to copy. We cannot risk creating a similar situation here. I ask the House to remember what happened to the views of migration around Europe when we saw the body of a drowned child on a Turkish beach. That is what would happen if such stories started to come out of a British offshoring facility.

The second problem with offshoring is its staggering cost. Australia ended up spending over £1 million per person detained offshore—around £4.3 billion for 3,127 asylum seekers. That is 25 times higher per head than what we spend now. We would expect to have many more applicants than Australia had. Last year alone we had 50,000 applicants. Despite what was said earlier, the Australians have learned the lesson. They have wound down their policy, shut down their processing centre in Papua New Guinea and have not sent any new asylum seekers there since 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. My plea for Members to limit themselves to four-minute speeches simply has not worked. I point out to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who intervened just now, that I consider that she has now made her contribution, because there is not enough time for everybody to get into the debate. We will now have a formal four-minute limit. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Disraeli observed:

“How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.”

Many of the amendments put forward by the Lords are carelessly critical. They are veiled, as these things so often are, in a thin covering of assumed moral superiority, but surely it is not moral to oppose a Bill that tries to make the asylum system fit for purpose. Surely it is not ethical to conflate illegal immigration with the immigration of those people who diligently seek to come to this country lawfully and to surmount the hurdles we put in their path, and who, having done so, take pride in making the contribution mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 53C and 53D disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Conversations should not be loud while we are having Divisions. You can whisper quietly and pretend to be polite, but speaking at the top of your voice so that nobody else can be heard is simply rude and impolite, and you should not do it in the Chamber.

After Clause 37

Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 13B disagreed to, and Commons disagreement with Lords amendment 15 insisted on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we come to the next Division, I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the No Lobby are not working—it must be assumed that they are overstrained this evening—so the Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in that Lobby. In the No Lobby only, the Clerks will be there to record Members’ names on paper. I am sorry about this and hope that Members remember how to vote by nodding to the Clerk. In the Aye Lobby, matters will continue as normal with the card readers.

Clause 40

Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 20B disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we continue with the business, I apologise for the delay that has occurred in the No Lobby due to the breakdown in the electronic system. I had asked for the electronic system to be fixed, but unfortunately, because there have been so many Divisions in quick succession, the engineers have not been able to do whatever they have to do to fix the system. I then attempted to go back to the old system, where we have Clerks ticking off names on bits of paper. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, no, I apologise—there might be some enthusiasm for that system among those who were voting in the other Lobby, but not from those who have told me about the shambolic effect in the No Lobby. I have therefore decided to attempt to go back to what we were doing earlier today—the electronic system. There are two electronic readers, rather than four, working in the No Lobby, but it appears that that will be faster than having people with bits of paper, so we will now revert to the electronic system in the No Lobby. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Members for their forbearance—that is, if we have any further Divisions.

Clause 62

Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 7F and 7G, and Government motion to disagree.

[Tom Pursglove]

I hope that this will be the final time in these proceedings around the Nationality and Borders Bill. I will first turn to compliance with the refugee convention. All measures in this Bill are compatible with our obligations under international law. We therefore cannot accept this amendment, which would put our duty to comply with the refugee convention on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary told the House that our asylum system is “broken”. Yesterday, her Minister, who is sitting before us today, again stated clearly that our asylum system is “broken”. We on the Labour Benches completely agree, but what Conservative Members seem to continually miss is the fact that the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years. The problem is that they never stand up and take responsibility; they always try to blame others—the civil service, the courts and even the media. It was revealed this week that the Home Secretary banned the Financial Times, The Guardian and the Mirror from the press delegation accompanying her to Rwanda. That was a truly Orwellian move—cancel culture at its worst.

The truth is that, with every decision this Government make and every ill-conceived scheme they put in place, they make fixing our broken asylum system ever harder. The first of these failures is on the asylum waiting lists. Under this Home Secretary, the Home Office is processing 50% fewer cases than five years ago—the result: 37,000 asylum seekers languishing in expensive hotels, costing the taxpayer an eye-watering £4.7 million per day. Labour would invest to save by increasing the number of caseworkers and decision makers so that processing times and hotel bills are radically reduced. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Come on, let us have a bit of reasonable behaviour. I appreciate that it is late, but it is simply rude to shout to such an extent that we cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. It is not reasonable. There is nothing wrong with a bit of banter, but it should not be at such a level that I cannot hear him.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is in this context that we are supporting Lords amendment 7F today, which would give the 60,000 asylum seekers on waiting lists the right to work, to be reviewed after two years, thereby reducing the burden on the British taxpayer and boosting the Exchequer.

Secondly, during his negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister completely failed to replace the Dublin III regulation, which means that we can no longer return refugees to the country in the EU where they would have first sought asylum. Numbers have increased because this Conservative Government lost control of our borders by losing our long-held power to send people back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have made it absolutely clear that the plan is going to fail, as the Home Office’s top civil servant said, so the question will not arise. We will not need to deal with it; the wheels will fall off the bus. We certainly would not be spending £120 million on a press release.

The Rwanda offloading plan is not only a grotesquely expensive gimmick that is unlikely to deter people smugglers in the long-term, but deeply un-British. Dumping this challenge on a developing country 4,000 miles away, with a questionable record on human rights, raises serious concerns about whether this legislation complies with the UN refugee convention. That is why we will back Lords amendment 5D.

Another deeply un-British part of the Bill was the idea that the rubber dinghies could be pushed back out to sea. Yesterday, we witnessed the Home Secretary’s latest screeching U-turn—this time reversing a particularly unhinged part of the legislation. The Home Secretary’s pushback policy was almost completely unworkable, as she was told by the Border Force, by the French, by the Ministry of Defence and even by her own lawyers. As we learned from court documents published yesterday, she had actually agreed that pushbacks could not be applied to asylum seekers in the channel, but she tried to keep that secret so that she could keep up the bravado and tough talking. We hope that she will correct the record.

I have already pointed out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I want to let the House calm down for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced and efficient Member of this House, will know that he should not be making a general speech at this stage; this is not Second Reading. This debate is very narrow: we are discussing only the amendments that have just come back from the Lords, not general issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now stick to the narrow matter before us—and so will everybody else.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you for your wise counsel, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have already pointed to the work and refugee convention amendments, but we also need to address differential treatment. Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F provide that a person can be a tier 1 refugee if they have travelled briefly through countries on their way to the UK, as somebody from Kabul or Kyiv would have to, or if they have delayed presenting themselves to the authorities for a good reason. They would also require compliance with the refugee convention and state that family unity must be taken into account. The Government should get behind the amendments. What in them can there possibly be to disagree with?

The channel crossings have been taken out of the Home Secretary’s hands and handed to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. The Ukrainian refugee scheme has been handed over to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This Sunday, the former director general of borders and immigration called for a new immigration Department to remove responsibility from the Home Office. With her Department now effectively in special measures, will the Home Secretary not just for once do the right thing and accept the amendments today, so that we can begin to repair some of the damage done by this deeply counterproductive legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will start by recalling that what we are debating this evening is the fate of Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans, persecuted Christians, trafficking victims and others who seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.

A rather perplexing set of votes in the other place means that we are down to just three Lords amendments. While the remaining amendments may be small in number, however, they are huge in significance. Assuming that this place fails to do its duty by agreeing to them, I hope the other place, unlike the Minister, will do its duty by continuing to insist on them.

With the exception of some welcome provisions on nationality, we continue to believe the whole Bill should be scrapped. However, for as long as it is before us, we support amendments that seek to ensure as far as possible that the Government act in accordance with the refugee convention and allow that compliance to be considered by the courts. That means accepting their lordships’ amendments on interpretation and on restricting the offensive clauses on differentiation.

The Government have totally lost the argument. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion, as well as that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is on our side of this argument. No one with an ounce of common sense would just accept this Government’s assurances that everything accords with the refugee convention, nor would they give up the ability to test it in court—and we certainly should not. Today, it seems that the Minister’s argument is basically that it is Parliament’s role just to declare itself in compliance with the refugee convention. Of course that is absolute nonsense.

I reiterate SNP support for the right to work for asylum seekers, and pay tribute to the Lift the Ban coalition members, including in particular the Maryhill Integration Network and many others who have campaigned with passion and integrity on this issue. This policy is the right thing to do for integration, it is right for the public purse and therefore it is right for our citizens and overwhelmingly right for asylum seekers.

The evidence against the policy remains pathetically weak to non-existent, and warm words about deciding cases within six months mean nothing when that prospect appears as remote as ever. The reality is that people are being left in limbo for years, and excluding them from the labour market for years risks effectively excluding them from work forever and undermining integration.

The Home Secretary has repeatedly told us that she is all for safe legal routes. Indeed, last week she told my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Parliament, that this Bill

“actually puts safe and legal routes into statute.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 41.]

The Home Secretary has complained on various occasions that I have not read the Bill, but I am beginning to question whether she has read her own Bill, because that is clearly utter baloney. There is not a single sentence in the Bill as it stands that puts a safe legal route into statute. On the contrary, clause 11 empowers the Secretary of State to diminish safe routes for family members. Their Lordships’ amendments give just a little bit of protection for those rights.

The final argument I want to make relates, believe it or not, to the 2019 Conservative party election manifesto. In advance of this debate, I forced myself to look at that document; indeed, I forced an unfortunate member of my staff to look at it as well. As far as we can see, the words “asylum” and “refugee” feature in that manifesto only once, and in the following terms:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

The manifesto also said:

“We will ensure no matter where in the world you or your family come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”

This Bill not only breaches the refugee convention, but is utterly contrary to the 2019 Government manifesto. There is nothing in that manifesto about driving a coach and horses through the refugee convention. There is nothing about criminalising—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I stopped the shadow Minister, so I have to give the same advice to the spokesman for the SNP. We are not here to talk about manifestos and general matters this evening; we are here to talk about Government motions to disagree to amendments 5D, 6D, 6E, 6F, 7F and 7G, and only that. This Bill has been properly heard in general terms. We will stick to the exact points in front of us now.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The point I am trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I would be allowed, is that these amendments would bring the Government much closer to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto commitments than anything in the Bill today. The Bill rides roughshod not only over the refugee convention but over the Government’s own manifesto commitments. That is the point I am trying to make. It is an important point for this House, for the Conservative party and for this Government. It is also an important point for Members in the other place, because, yes, this is a Bill that breaches international law in egregious ways, and totally undermines the refugee convention and treats asylum seekers appallingly, but it is also, as I said, contrary to the Conservative manifesto. For that reason, if this is not the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be using its modest powers to delay, then I really do not know what is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments passed earlier today. It is clear that, even today, Members of the Lords have made efforts to table new text to find a route to conclude debate on this Bill. Let us remind ourselves that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that the Bill undermines the 1951 refugee convention and that its policies would risk the lives and wellbeing of vulnerable people.

I wish to support, in particular, Lords amendment 5D, moved by Baroness Chakrabarti, who has worked tirelessly in her opposition in tabling significant amendments to this horrendous Bill. This amendment sets out that the provisions of this part of the Bill must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention.

I express my concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with our international obligations, particularly following the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between the Home Secretary and the Rwandan Government. Senior legal representatives have commented on that agreement, including Stephanie Boyce, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, who recently said that there are

“serious questions about whether these plans would or could comply with the UK’s promises under international treaty”.

We all know that the Government’s proposal of pushbacks of boats in the channel has been abandoned this week in the face of legal scrutiny in the courts. I put on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union—the trade union of Home Office staff, including Border Force staff—and the charities Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom from Torture for taking on this legal challenge. As PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka, a fellow Welsh person, said:

“This humiliating climbdown by the government is a stunning victory for Home Office workers and for refugees. There is little doubt that lives have been saved.”

This action has demonstrated that the Government’s bluster about a legal basis for the pushback policy was just that. Are we now meant to take at the Home Secretary’s word that the “New Plan for Immigration” and the horrendous, inhuman, unethical Rwanda policy are just as legally watertight? Forgive me if I am sceptical.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady please stick to addressing the Lords amendments?

[Beth Winter]

I remain totally opposed to this Bill. These proposals are deeply—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is opposed to the Bill, and she was perfectly entitled to say so on Second Reading and on Third Reading, and I think she probably did, but at this point, her opposition to the Bill is of no interest to the House; we are talking about the specific amendments. Will she please stick to the specific amendments?

[Beth Winter]

I therefore urge Members of this House to back the Lords amendments tonight.