Immigration and Asylum Bill

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

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.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

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?

[Shabana Mahmood]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

There is little evidence that the Bill will do what it claims and fix the most serious issues in our asylum system. In fact, experts say that it will divert focus and resources to a system that is unfair, unsafe and unworkable. There are many problems in the Bill, but for the sake of time I will focus on the independent immigration appeals authority. The Government say that to tackle the backlog they will replace the tribunal system, which is made up of judges, with a new system of adjudicators, who are not legally qualified but who are given power and responsibility to make what are, in many cases, life and death decisions. The Government claim that they will be independent, but they are appointed by the chief executive, who is appointed by the Secretary of State. That undermines the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, which are key cornerstones of our democracy. The Law Society says that it risks

“more wrong decisions, more court challenges, higher costs and longer uncertainty.”

Poor Home Office decision making drives the appeals backlog. In the last financial year, 39% of appeals were granted, and more than 10,000 were withdrawn because the Home Office abandoned its initial decision. Rather than building new expensive bodies, the Government should invest in the existing system and get asylum decisions right the first time. The Government could have brought forward a Bill containing evidence-based policies that would fix our broken asylum system—for example, a not-for-profit asylum accommodation system to improve living conditions and integration, genuinely safe routes that are not severely restricted and heavily capped, and fast tracking of obviously well-founded asylum cases such as those from war zones. Instead, I am ashamed to say that the Bill is a betrayal of our party’s values, and I cannot support it. I urge the Government to withdraw this Bill, and instead to work with sector organisations and experts to create an immigration and asylum system that is rooted in compassion, justice and human rights.

Asylum Policy

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

Let me assure the hon. Member that I am making changes that I will ensure will work. I make no apology for disincentivising routes into this country that basically make people smugglers very, very rich men and fuel other disgusting crimes across Europe and in this country. It is right that we reserve a privileged status for those who get into work and education, as refugees on core protection will be able to do, as well as those who come via safe and legal routes. That should be the proper way that people come into this country and it has better integration outcomes as well.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Earlier the Home Secretary advised that I wait for the detail of the reforms before criticising them. Now the detail is out, and I am afraid it does not reassure me in the slightest. It is hard to know where to begin when so much of what has been announced flies in the face of decency and compassion, but I will focus on family reunion. Limiting access to family reunion for refugees will force children and spouses into the hands of the very people smugglers that the Home Secretary is seeking to smash. It will push them into unsafe dinghies, risking their lives. Would she be comfortable with this?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I urge my hon. Friend to look at the proposals on protection work and study and on safe and legal routes. It is right that we try to pivot to a more humane system that privileges those who come not via paying people smugglers a lot of money. On family reunification, British citizens at the moment have to meet thresholds and various qualifying tests before they can apply for family reunion. I think it is right that we bring the position in relation to refugees through the protection work and study route to the same level.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I totally agree. The original sin in respect of what we are dealing with today—hotel use across the country and our pivot to military sites—was the choice of the previous Government to simply stop assessing applications. We are of course reversing that, but it is taking time to turn around their failure.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

2. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of implementing asylum policies similar to Denmark on asylum seekers and refugees.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

I will later today be sharing the full details of my plans for far-reaching reforms to the UK asylum system to restore order and control to our borders. We have learned lessons from our international partners, including Denmark; fundamental reform to its system has seen asylum claims at a 40-year low. The impact of this Government’s plans will be to restore order and control to the border, so we can be the open, tolerant and generous country that we know ourselves to be.

[Nadia Whittome]

The Denmark-style policies briefed in the last couple of days are dystopian. It is shameful that a Labour Government are ripping up the rights and protections of people who have endured unimaginable trauma. Is this how we would want to be treated if we were fleeing for our lives? Of course not. How can we be adopting such obviously cruel policies? Is the Home Secretary proud that the Government have sunk to such depths that they are now being praised by Tommy Robinson?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am disappointed at the nature of my hon. Friend’s question. I hope she will look at the detail of the reforms. As I have already said on these matters, we have a proper problem and it is our moral duty to fix it. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking of that asylum system is causing huge division across our whole country, and it is a moral mission for me to resolve that division across our country. I know that the reforms I will be setting out later today can fix the system and, in doing so, unite what is today a divided country.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear to Members that the order we are voting on is not about whether we support Palestine Action’s political positions or protest methods. To vote against this motion, Members do not have to agree with the group at all; they can still support holding it criminally liable for its actions. The question is whether it should be proscribed as a terrorist group, placed alongside the likes of al-Qaeda, Islamic State and National Action.

It is fitting that this debate takes place on the 97th anniversary of women winning the vote on equal terms with men, thanks in no small part to the suffragettes. The suffragettes carried out direct action far more extreme than anything those in Palestine Action have done, but today their role in changing history for the better is commemorated. Whatever we think of its actions, Palestine Action is part of a similar tradition, with the target this time being to stop the genocide in Gaza. It is unprecedented for a Government to ban a civil disobedience protest group in the way that they are attempting to today, but what is not unprecedented is protesters breaking into military bases. That has never before resulted in proscription.

Proscribing Palestine Action would be a draconian overreach. It would threaten the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It would set a dangerous precedent that could be used in future to further silence dissent, while diminishing what the Terrorism Act is meant to prevent.

[Mr Dillon]

I am the MP for Newbury, where we have Greenham Common, which is now peaceful but had cruise missiles. Greenham Common peace women broke into the base and attacked jets with hammers, and they were prosecuted under criminal law. They were held to account. Does the hon. Member agree that under this Government, even Greenham peace women could have been considered a terrorist organisation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nadia Whittome]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member.

UN experts urge us not to do this. They state that they are

“concerned at the unjustified labelling of a political protest movement as ‘terrorist’”.

Hundreds of lawyers have written to the Home Secretary, warning that proscribing Palestine Action would conflate protest and terrorism. Amnesty International and Liberty have both expressed deep concerns. A senior civil servant has briefed that there is disquiet among Home Office staff about the decision, and has called it “absurd”.

It is important to remember that this proscription would affect not just members of Palestine Action, but anyone who supports them. Donating to a fundraiser or posting positively about the group on social media would be committing a crime. We risk criminalising huge numbers of our constituents. I regret our being denied the opportunity to vote separately on the proscription of Palestine Action. The other two bodies are neo-Nazi organisations whose proscription I wholeheartedly support. This grouping together of organisations that so clearly do not belong in the same category demonstrates again why we cannot allow this proscription to go ahead. I have no choice but to vote against the order.

Crime and Policing Bill

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

The hon. Member is right to say that there is excellent practice in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which I chair, is looking at that. He may be interested in that.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Why should we implement this model for sex work when the evidence from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland shows that it has increased violence towards sex workers?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 14. This Government came into power on the promise to “smash the gangs” and cut immigration numbers—what an empty, cynical slogan that turned out to be. The exact opposite happened: the gangs were emboldened and the Government lost control of illegal immigration, which is up 31% since the election and 35% in this year.

After the failure to smash the gangs and the poor showing at the recent elections, the Government’s response is another gimmick: the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. It is hollow, its five core principles are a word salad of empty phrases and it is a rehash of old ideas and contradictions. It lacks a deterrent. In fact, the biggest mistake that this Prime Minister has made, in a strong field of contenders, was cancelling the Rwanda scheme. Even the National Crime Agency described that as a deterrent, and it was already starting to work; we saw those coming in by dinghy from France starting to head to Ireland and other countries. Without Rwanda or another third country, there is no way to remove any illegal immigrants who destroy their documents as they come to this country.

As a result of cancelling that deterrent, we have seen illegal migration soar. Some of the levels of illegal immigration will come down, but that will be as a result of what the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), did with his restrictions to stop dependants entering the country and the bilateral deals he made, such as the one with Albania to deport criminals. This Government say that they will now create a new legal framework for immigration judges to prevent illegal migrants and foreign criminals avoiding deportation by exploiting article 8 of the ECHR. That will never happen under the human rights lawyer who leads the Labour party, or a Labour party that champions the ECHR and the Human Rights Act.

The reality is that until this Government get ahead of the curve, get a spine, take the UK out of the ECHR, repeal the Human Rights Act—a law that Labour introduced to cement the ECHR in British law—reinstate the Rwanda scheme and radically clamp down on housing and benefits, I am afraid that immigrants will continue to come to the UK. The British people expect security and prosperity, not platitudes and broken promises. We in this House must act accordingly and vote in favour of new clause 14, which would disapply the Human Rights Act.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Vulnerable people are dying in the channel and in our asylum system in record, horrifying numbers. Today, yet another person tragically died trying to reach our shores. The exact figures are murky, but from what we know, last year was the deadliest year ever for people seeking asylum in the UK. The UN estimates that 82 people, including at least 14 children, lost their lives in the channel, but French frontline charities believe the fatality rate to be significantly higher. Meanwhile, freedom of information requests reveal that 51 people died in asylum accommodation, and among them were a 15-year-old boy and two babies.

People are drowning while trying to reach safety. Once they arrive, they are dying by suicide, from infectious diseases and from unknown causes in poverty, in low-quality accommodation or on the streets, like the teenage victim of modern slavery who took his own life while terrified of deportation, the father of one who died of diphtheria after being held in a Government processing centre, or the seven-year-old girl who was crushed to death on an overcrowded boat. In several cases of deaths in asylum accommodation, there have been alleged lapses of safeguarding codes. These deaths are utterly unacceptable and often preventable, yet the Home Office keeps no official record. As such, we do not know how many lives are being lost.

The Government rightly want to reduce deaths in the channel, and the starting point must be to know the numbers. My new clause 1, which is supported by 24 MPs, is a call for truth and transparency. It would mandate that the Home Office records and reports statistics and information on the deaths of people in our asylum system who are meant to be in its care and people at our borders. It would provide opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, because no matter where they come from or how they got here, people deserve dignity. We must not allow them to die in silence, ignored and uncared for, so I urge the Government to act. We need a new approach to refugees and asylum. We need to stand up to Conservative Members scapegoating desperate people for the problems that our communities are experiencing after 14 years of Conservative austerity, instead of parroting them.

Immigration System

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We need to support social care and recognise the importance of that job. That means tackling the long-term recruitment issues here in the UK, not simply always thinking that we can ignore those problems and turn to migration instead. The hon. Gentleman will know that there have been huge problems, including abuse and exploitation, as a result of that route. Some 39,000 people who came here on a care worker visa, often in good faith, ended up being displaced when checks were finally introduced. That is why regional hubs have been introduced to ensure that employers can still recruit from those displaced workers, rather than continuing to recruit from abroad.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Migrants are being scapegoated for problems they did not cause. To be truthful, these arbitrary measures will not fix those problems, but they will harm migrants, people who need social care, our economy and anyone who fears racial abuse, which the rhetoric surrounding this issue emboldens. Why are we trying to ape Reform, when that will do nothing to improve our constituents’ lives and will just stoke more division?

[Yvette Cooper]

In the space of just four years, we saw a huge increase in overseas recruitment at exactly the same time that training in the UK fell. It is a real problem in the UK labour market to have such steep increases in overseas recruitment at the same time as we have such deep problems with training. That is why it is so important to ensure that for the first time, we link the immigration system with training and skills. That has not happened before; we have had the wrong approach to the labour market, and it is right that we bring in these reforms. Of course, my hon. Friend is right that we should also recognise the huge contribution that people make as part of our country. Respecting people for the contribution they make should be embedded in our system, but we have to change this broken approach to the labour market.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Let me start by correcting some misinformation that has been shared throughout the debate by Opposition Members— unintentionally, I am sure. Those who speak about illegal immigrants, or people seeking asylum illegally, should bear in mind that everyone, under international law, has a right to seek asylum from persecution. That is enshrined in international law. There is also the right not to be penalised for entering the country without permission when it is necessary to seek asylum. Those who use the word “illegal” should remember that it is only illegal because the last Government made it so, just as Rwanda was only considered safe because the last Government legislated to make it safe. The vast majority of people need to cross the channel by irregular means because there are very few safe routes. The UK requires them to do that, and then criminalises people who do it.

The Government’s scrapping of the Rwanda plan, and the repealing of some of the most extreme elements of the Conservative Government’s legislation, are very welcome. It is essential for this performative cruelty to be wiped from the statute book, and I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office team on doing so. However, I must admit that I am disappointed that many inhumane policies have been left to stand. For example, the Home Office will still be allowed to operate a two-tier asylum system: some refugees will be penalised for the route by which they arrived; some victims of modern slavery will continue to be denied protections; and some people’s claims will still be automatically inadmissible on the basis that they have come from so-called safe countries, a number of which are anything but safe for minority groups.

I am particularly worried about certain new elements of the Bill. It expands offences, and gives the state additional powers to investigate and prosecute people. I know that the Government’s target is the organised criminals running these operations, but I am deeply concerned about the possibility that many more people seeking asylum will also be criminalised as an unintended consequence. We must ensure that people who just want to start a new life in safety after being forced from their homes are not punished. We need to combat the dehumanising, false narrative that desperate people fleeing war and persecution are criminals, and we must not treat them as such. Instead, we should be properly reforming our broken asylum system. An improved system should include safe and legal routes, a fair and efficient decision-making process, the lifting of work restrictions, the closure of all large sites, and increased asylum support rates.

It is appalling that 138 people—138 human beings—have died attempting to cross the channel since the summer of 2019. I have no doubt that my party is united in wanting to save lives, but I fear that the Bill, no matter how well-intentioned its aims might be, will not succeed, and that more people will die attempting to reach our shores because it does not tackle the lack of alternative options for claiming asylum, which is driving people on to those dinghies. I worry that our approach, which does not differ drastically enough from that of the last Government, will continue to add to the suffering that so many people seeking asylum have already experienced. When sector organisations such as Asylum Matters, Asylum Aid, Médecins Sans Frontières, the Refugee Council and Migrants’ Rights Network have expressed serious concerns about the Bill, alarm bells should be ringing.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Alongside pursuing perpetrators—which must always be the greatest priority because it is about protecting victims and ensuring that those who commit vile crimes face justice—there must be a responsibility on people for their public roles, whether in policing, local councils or other institutions. We have seen issues around the Church of England, the Catholic Church and other institutions that were investigated as part of the inquiry. One reason why we are so keen to change the law—indeed, it is something I raised back when the hon. Member was working in the Home Office—is the importance of the duty to report. That then makes it an offence for public officials to cover up or fail to report. It is so important that we do that so that we can have proper accountability as well.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

I sincerely commend the Home Secretary’s statement. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was extremely comprehensive. Over the course of seven years, it examined 2 million pages of evidence and heard from over 7,000 survivors, every single one of whom we should pay tribute to today. They relived the most horrific trauma, only for the previous Government to drag their heels in implementing the report’s recommendations. Calls for a fresh inquiry from the Conservatives and Reform are a shameful attempt to stoke division at the expense of victims, survivors and children. I thank the Home Secretary for refusing to give in to that deeply harmful and offensive political point scoring. Will she set out a timeline for when she expects to have fully implemented the IICSA recommendations?

[Yvette Cooper]

The clear point is, as my hon. Friend says, that victims and survivors need to be at the heart of the work to take forward the implementation of reforms and changes, and we want to work with the new victims and survivors panel to draw up timelines. I recognise that some of the issues around reform are difficult and that we need extensive work with victims and survivors on how they can be dealt with, but there are other areas in which we can move really swiftly, such as changing the law on the duty to report, overhauling the way in which we collect information and data, and putting in place proper monitoring systems in local areas in respect of child sexual exploitation and abuse. I hope we can build a sense of consensus on our objective, which is to protect children. That is what this should all be about, and I hope that everyone will sign up to it.

Migration and Border Security

Nadia Whittome Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome many of the points that the hon. Member has made. She is right to point to the lack of trust and confidence in the system as a result of the chaos of the last few years, as well as to the loss of controls and practical measures in place. She raised migration for work, which quadrupled in the space of four or five years, at the same time as we had drops in the number of adults in training and apprenticeship starts. That is a system that is broken. I agree that we should support fair pay agreements in social care and a proper workforce strategy around that, to ensure that we can better recruit and support care workers who are UK resident. I have also asked the Migration Advisory Committee to look particularly at the engineering and IT sectors. We have had persistently high levels of recruitment from abroad in those sectors, and frankly we should have had far better and longer standing training here in the UK.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the public are right to be angry about the state of public services, and that the blame lies squarely with 14 years of cuts and mismanagement by Conservative Governments, not with migrants who contribute to their new home? Will she stand up to attempts by Conservative Members to distract from their own failures and divide the country by scapegoating people who just want a better life for themselves and their families, as we all do?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to say that in 14 years the previous Government did deep damage not just to our public services but to our economy, and they have to take responsibility for that. We have a history going back through generations of people who have come to the UK to work, study, and get protection from persecution, but it is because those systems are an important part of who we are that they also need to be controlled and managed. That is why alongside the damage that the previous Government did to our economy and public services, we have also seen damage to the relationship between the migration system and the labour market, which has ended up with a loss of control.