Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The trafficking gangs that profit from the most vulnerable refugees do not care if the people on those boats live or die. It is obvious that we all want to see the end of this horrendous crime, but those who travel are not bad people; they are desperate. It is understandable that communities who see groups of mainly young men being economically inactive will be frustrated and angry, but asylum seekers are not responsible for people not getting a doctor’s appointment—it is the people who traffic them.

When I was the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, I backed the Lift the Ban coalition and met an inspiring young man from Cameroon who had arrived here legitimately on a student visa. While he was here, his village was torched and his uncle killed. He could not return home, so he claimed asylum from where he was in the midlands. He was immediately relocated to a hotel in Bournemouth and refused the ability to work—something that he had done legitimately right up to that point. Letting him work would allow him to contribute to our community, instead of being a great drain on it.

I will speak to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 24 and 33, which relate to our work with international partners. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently learned more about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 99 covers the prohibition of the transport of slaves, but it does not cover human trafficking. Around the world, our international partnerships are being hamstrung as a result, and I urge the Minister to look at how we could use Interpol as a route towards developing UNCLOS further.

Finally, I will speak against new clause 16, which would increase the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. This would mean that the average police officer, research scientist or nurse outside London—in places such as Mid Dorset and North Poole—would not be able to get a visa for their spouse. I was pleased that the Government paused the proposal and left the threshold at £29,000, as I am concerned that we could see a brain drain among many British professionals who choose to leave the UK for their partners’ homes countries, where they will be welcome.

I want to speak about the armed forces personnel I have met both in the constituency and through the AFPS, particularly those coming from Commonwealth countries. They have answered our call to fight for our country, but they are forced to leave their spouses behind, as the lower threshold provided for them only applies after an extended period of service. Pushing that threshold up to £38,000 would take reunification out of their reach, too. The current threshold ensures that families who can support themselves can stay together, and I urge the Government to leave it where it is.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

We can all agree that immigration must be managed. The public rightly expect a fair, firm and functional system, but control cannot come at the cost of compassion, so let me be clear: immigrants cannot be viewed through the lens of fear, and parliamentarians on all sides must choose their words carefully. We are responsible for ensuring that our rhetoric does not incite attacks, fear and division, or even lead to violence. It is not enough to say that we denounce hate; we must also refrain from language that fuels it. Terms like “island of strangers” simply do not help.

Too often, we hear suggestions—either explicitly or implicitly—that immigrants are to blame for everything that is wrong in our country. Let us be honest with the public: it is not immigrants who have polluted our rivers or our seas with sewage; it is not immigrants who set sky-high rail fares while slashing routes; it is not immigrants who have hollowed out our NHS, cut GP services or closed libraries; and it is not immigrants who have overseen 14 years of economic stagnation, rising rents and growing inequality.

There are some aspects of this Bill that I can support—abolishing the ridiculous Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 is one—but there are more shortcomings, especially in relation to the lack of help for victims of human trafficking, which is why I rise to support some of the amendments. I call on Members across the House to support new clause 27, which would ensure that proper age assessments are conducted by trained and independent social workers, and not through rushed visual judgments or flawed and impersonal scientific tests.

Furthermore, in the shadow of our immigration debate, children are being exploited. They are the victims of a modern slave trade run by smugglers and traffickers who prey on desperation. Children are coerced into roles that put their lives and the lives of others at risk. These are not isolated cases. Over 4,000 unaccompanied children claimed asylum in the UK last year alone. The system must recognise the unique vulnerability of children and treat them as such, not as suspects and not as statistics, but as they are: children. Although the Government’s intention to address the asylum appeals backlog is laudable, proposals such as new clause 6 and 7 to impose arbitrary deadlines of 24 weeks, without sufficient resources or legal safeguards, are not the answer. Justice rushed is justice denied.

Finally, by taking on the narrative of those on the right wing, by mimicking their talking points and rhetoric, we are not neutralising the threat of extremism, but feeding it. We will only push Reform UK and others even further to the right, emboldening them to say things that we have made appear acceptable. I ask the Government: when will they stand their ground, choose principles over polling and remember that leadership means bringing people together, not chasing after the loudest voices in the room? Let us reject the politics of scapegoating, and lead with integrity, facts and humanity. Our country deserves nothing less.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I would like to focus on new clause 21. We can all see that the asylum system is broken and expensive, and the horror of people arriving in a desperate state on small boats is causing division and anger across our country. However, turning to a populist party that throws out soundbites that appeal to many but fall apart at the first hint of real scrutiny is not the answer.

How do we address this problem? First, we need to dial down the volume and the divisiveness in this debate, and to talk about these people as humans, not numbers. We need to open up safe and legal routes for people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and conflict. We need to assess their asylum claims quickly and efficiently, and then help them into the workforce so they can start earning money, supporting themselves, contributing to the economy and, just as importantly, integrating properly into our society.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) said on Radio 4 this weekend that his party’s chairman, the child of immigrants from Sri Lanka, was intensely patriotic, saying:

“The whole point of coming to a country is that you adopt it”.

That is exactly what asylum seekers will do when given refuge by a country that offers them safety. We have seen it since time began. Indeed, many in this House are the children of immigrants who have given back enthusiastically to the country that welcomed them.

The asylum backlog stood at 91,000 at the end of 2024. While they wait, asylum seekers are trapped in limbo, unable to work or rebuild their lives and forced to depend on Government funds. This benefits no one. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 21 would lift the restrictions on asylum seekers engaging in employment, which would help to manage the cost of asylum, benefit the UK economy and help asylum seekers to integrate.

Evidence from the Refugee Council shows that, in the medium to long term, refugees in the UK make a net positive fiscal contribution. Initially, they rely more on public services, but within five to 10 years their tax contributions exceed their cost to the state. After five years, 60% to 70% are employed, approaching the national average for employment rates. A study by the Centre for Entrepreneurs shows that one in seven UK companies is founded by a migrant: 17% of non-UK nationals have launched businesses compared with just 10% of UK-born individuals.

The reality is that we have an ageing population, with more people than ever aged over 85 who depend on services. We have fewer people paying tax, working and providing services, and more who have greater needs, particularly in health and care. The chief operations officer of CareYourWay franchising told me:

“We are both baffled and deeply concerned by the government’s decision to revoke the visa route for social care workers. It is harrowing to witness such a critical sector continuously overlooked… This change will, without doubt, have a tangible and far-reaching impact… For many, this decision will not only reduce capacity—it may very well close doors.”

The Liberal Democrats are pushing for more safe and legal routes for refugees, which we know will be crucial to help stop these dangerous channel crossings—

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

The Prime Minister has made it clear that the answer will not be to ignore international law, so we have to ensure that we create a system that is fast and fair and does the job much more effectively than the one we inherited. We are looking into how we can make changes to ensure that that happens.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Everyone agrees that we must have sensible immigration policies, but does the Minister agree that phrases such as “Stop the boats” and “Smash the gangs” are just populist sloganeering that dehumanises the most vulnerable in society and serves as a scapegoat for successive Government shortcomings including the £700 million spent on the useless Rwanda scheme, the billions wasted on personal protective equipment, and the lack of investment in the NHS? That is the reason why people cannot obtain appointments with their GPs, not people arriving on a boat. Does the Minister agree that we must take a holistic approach, including perhaps opening up safe routes and efficient processing, so that when people arrive in this country they can start working from day one?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not think that safe routes would stop people trying to get into this country clandestinely. It is important that we can assert control at the border so that we decide who comes into our country, not the people-smuggling gangs.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Shockat Adam Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

There but for the grace of God go I. Like everyone in this House, I appreciate the need for security at our borders and the need for a sensible discourse around immigration, but we must be very careful and mindful of our approach, rhetoric and implementation. Our approach must always be guided by compassion, legality and an unwavering commitment to human rights. I appreciate that the Bill seeks to confront the increasingly sophisticated methods used by organised crime groups to facilitate irregular migration. However, global instabilities, be they conflict or the devastating impact of climate change, force desperate people to risk everything in search of security. Since August 2019, 138 people, including many children, have tragically lost their lives. They are not migrants who drown; they are not asylum seekers who drown. They are human beings. These losses are a stark reminder that people do not take such risks unless they are fleeing unimaginable atrocities. In our pursuit of security, we must take care not to conflate genuine asylum seekers with criminals or opportunists. Our language and policies must not inflame hatred or prejudice against those seeking sanctuary.

In addressing irregular immigration, the Government have proposed the following four pillars: preventing, by disincentivising migrants; pursuing, by disrupting the operations of organised crime gangs; protecting; and preparing. I would like the Government to add one more: participating, to meaningfully resolve global conflict and address the root causes of migration, such as climate change, famine, conflict and human rights violations. We must increase our spending on overseas aid back up to 0.7% of GDP. By taking a proactive international role, we can help to create conditions that reduce the pressures driving desperate migration.

We must not view this entire process through the prism of criminality. Particularly alarming is clause 18, which creates the criminal offence of

“Endangering another during sea crossing”.

This clause is aimed clearly at those inside the boats—the very individuals fleeing peril—and represents a dangerous escalation in the criminalisation powers under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. Such measures risk penalising vulnerable people who are already caught in the midst of conflict, deprivation and despair. Worryingly, according to the European convention on human rights memorandum,

“Although it is very unlikely, there is no absolute bar to prosecuting parents who have taken their children on journeys which come within the ambit of the Endangerment Offence, which could result in the break-up of families.”

Furthermore, we must ask why the Bill excludes countries such as India, Albania and Georgia from its protections. Genuine survivors of torture, trafficking and persecution from those nations deserve our help, not our suspicion. The retention of sections 59 and 29 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 would restrict or even criminalise asylum and human rights claims from those very countries.

I call on the Government to address these pressing questions. How will we ensure that our measures do not criminalise those seeking asylum? Why are we excluding countries like those mentioned above? What steps will be taken to increase international aid? The Bill is a missed opportunity to demonstrate the Government’s stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law, and to

“modernise the asylum and immigration system”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 40.]

We all welcome the repeal of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024, but I look forward to seeing some meaningful amendments in Committee.

Extremism Review

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The shadow Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I was literally shown the Hansard transcript before this urgent question. [Interruption.] If he will allow me, I will respond to the question.

The hon. Member asked me previously about engagement with the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers. I clearly cannot account from the Dispatch Box for other Ministers’ activities. However, I am happy to look at the circumstances he has raised. I am happy to confirm to him that Government policy has not changed, and if there are specific points I need to come back to him on, I am very happy to do so.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Extreme misogyny associated with far-right ideology is a major factor in extremism. It should be dealt with, to counteract the one women killed every three days in this country, and to ensure that the horrendous Southport killings, the five killings by Jake Davison in Plymouth and the 51 massacred in Christchurch, New Zealand do not happen again. No one wants violence—ideological or political. Does the Minister agree that our obsession with focusing solely on Islamism has left repeated Governments blindsided to real threats facing us from elsewhere?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member is right to say that extreme misogyny is, frankly, a disgusting blight on our country. That is why this Government made a manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. It is an ambitious commitment that has not been made previously. As I told the House earlier, the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister are working at pace to seek to address these issues. It is a big priority for the Government, and we intend to make good on the commitments we have made.

Southport Attack

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Despite the attacker’s three referrals to Prevent, five referrals to the local police force and multiple referrals to multiple hubs, we still did not protect Elsie, Alice and Bebe. We have failed them. We must ensure that this never happens again. Does the Home Secretary agree that whoever the perpetrator is, the victims are always terrorised, and that an obsession with ideology may have been an underlying factor in why we missed this perpetrator? Should we not look again at the Shawcross recommendations on ideology obsession?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that the Prevent learning review identified that in this case, the focus on ideology may have meant that some of the vulnerabilities to radicalisation were missed. We also have to recognise that cases in which there is ideology are different from cases in which there is not, and may require a different kind of response. The assessment of risk, and of the danger that a young person poses, may be the same, but the action that the state takes may need to change, depending on what is driving that danger and risk. For too long, though, some of those mixed-ideology cases—those unclear cases—may have been missed because we have not had sufficient focus on them. That focus is what the inquiry needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

1. What steps she is taking to ensure that the police have adequate resources to help tackle neighbourhood crime.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

2. What steps she is taking to improve the effectiveness of community policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)]

Before I respond, I am sure that the whole House will want to remember PC Rosie Prior, who was tragically killed on Saturday while helping at the scene of an accident, and Ryan Welford, who was also killed. PC Prior’s death is a tragic reminder of the dedication and bravery that police officers show every single day to keep us safe. All our thoughts are with her family, friends and colleagues at this difficult time.

As the Prime Minister announced last month in the “Plan for Change”, we are determined to restore neighbourhood policing and to put 13,000 additional police, police community support officers and special constables back on the beat.

[Shockat Adam]

I refer the House to my registered interests, and I echo the sentiments expressed by the Home Secretary.

Last year, the Leicestershire police panel raised serious concerns about being underfunded, having received a real-terms cut of 20% over the past 13 years. Due to this funding crisis, the police simply do not have enough manpower for night-time patrols. In the Clarendon Park area there has been a wave of burglaries in local businesses—the Christopher James Deli, Loros and Spice Bazzar are three of eight that have been smashed and grabbed over the past two months. At the local crime summit that I arranged to discuss the situation, one owner, Jaskaran Dutta, said:

“We do everything we can to survive in this incredibly difficult economic time. All we ask is that the government supports us by improving policing and security”.

What is the Secretary of State doing to address these concerns?

[Yvette Cooper]

Under the previous Conservative Government, neighbourhood policing was decimated. The proportion of people who said that they never saw the police on the beat doubled. They took police off the beat and did not put them back, which is why we are setting out a neighbourhood policing guarantee. We have increased funding for police forces by £1 billion next year, including £100 million specifically to kickstart recruitment for neighbourhood policing.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point about the responsibility of local councils to recognise the things that have gone wrong in the past, to recognise the responsibilities that they owe to local victims and survivors, and to provide the support that those victims and survivors need. I know that my hon. Friend the Safeguarding Minister will keep in touch with her about progress, but it is really important that all councils make sure that they recognise their responsibilities.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Perpetrators of sexual crimes must face the full force of the law, regardless of their race, their religion or their nationality, but an overseas bad-faith actor is using truly horrific cases of group-based child rape to demonise a community and slander a Minister of the Crown—someone who has genuine experience of helping victims of abuse. This narrative is false, and it is dangerous. Many reports from 2015 to 2024 have concluded that the common denominator for sexual violence is not immigration, race or culture. The real point here is that if victims are being falsely told that perpetrators look a certain way or are part of a certain community, they will have a false sense of security when they are with people who do not fit that stereotype. The real issue here is that we need the discussion to be focused on victims, not political rhetoric, and we need evidence-based policies.

[Yvette Cooper]

One of the points that the independent inquiry made was about the broad nature of this abuse and the way in which it can be found anywhere. When we have half a million children being subjected to child sexual abuse or exploitation every year, there is an impact right across the country. It means that we have serious problems and failings within all kinds of different institutions, as the inquiry found. It looked into issues within local councils, care homes, faith organisations including the Church of England, and different grooming and exploitation groups. Wherever such abuse is found, we have to treat it as a terrible crime against children—no excuses. No excuses can be made for perpetrators, and no excuses can be made for inaction. There has to be strong action to go after the perpetrators, whoever and wherever they are, and protection for the victims, whoever and wherever they are.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

As it is very local to me, I take a particular interest in the Sandycroft centre. Such centres are invaluable to vulnerable women, and I would be delighted to visit him and Lee—it would be a 15-minute drive.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that local charities like Jasmine House, which operates in my constituency, play a vital role in supporting women who have been victims of a sexual crime? But in addition to the worry of constantly trying to find funding, they are concerned about the impact that the Government’s proposed increase in employer’s national insurance will have on their ability to continue providing that help. Does the Minister agree that they should be exempt from the changes to national insurance contributions?

[Jess Phillips]

I pay tribute to Jasmine House. As someone who applied for funding for a similar centre, I understand exactly the funding pressures that its staff will face. What the sector really needs is stability, the assurance of more than single-year funding, which the Government are looking at, and making sure that we mitigate to ensure that there is enough.

Facial Recognition: Police Use

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing this debate and agree with him wholeheartedly that this issue should be considered further in the main Chamber.

It is said that technology is a very useful servant but can be a very dangerous master. Many colleagues have already made a robust case for the use of this technology and undeniably it can be very useful. However, I am extremely concerned and believe that we must proceed with caution. In Leicester, some people already want to use the technology, but we must ensure that there is watertight legislation before we proceed any further.

Among my main concerns is the accuracy of the technology. We must ask whether it is fit for purpose. A spokesperson from StopWatch, a UK coalition of academics, lawyers and activists, has said that

“there is very little evidence on the efficacy of LFR deployments”.

In fact, in the first six months of this year, when this technology was deployed, StopWatch found that on average it stopped one person nearly every hour, or every 55 minutes, and that a person was arrested every two hours because of it. The data showed that, as the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, over 80% of those arrests were unnecessary. The right hon. Member for Maldon said that the police have polite conversations with people, but polite conversations have a different meaning for different people.

Secondly, there is equality and non-discrimination. We already know that a black person is four times more likely to be stopped by this technology, as we are now. The technology has been shown to exacerbate any racial profiling. In fact, it has been demonstrated that it disproportionately misidentifies women, people of colour and even disabled people. That is a real concern.

Thirdly, as the majority of colleagues have already mentioned, the technology is an attack on our civil liberties. Earlier this year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Russia after claims that it had used LFR technology to locate and arrest a protester on the Moscow metro system. That is extremely frightening. Similarly, China has been accused of perfecting a version of facial technology that can single out and track Uyghurs—members of the repressed Muslim community in China.

We must acknowledge these concerns and ensure that, like the EU, we have in place stringent legislation, like the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act 2024, before this technology becomes widely used and turns into our master.

--- Later in debate ---

[James McMurdock]

Absolutely. Let me put it like this: if any of us were to turn up at a social event and unexpectedly find a large swarm of police, that would give us a moment’s pause for thought. We need to be careful to ensure that this technology is not a more pervasive version of that example. It must not be constantly in existence, attached to every CCTV camera, without us even being aware of it.

To go back to transparency, we have to be open and frank about any issues with how the technology is being implemented, so that we can fix them. I agree that there absolutely could be issues, and we definitely want to be on the right path.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this technology could further alienate minority communities —as happened with the Muslim community, which felt unfairly targeted by the Prevent strategy—and could cause further division and mistrust of the police?

[James McMurdock]

This is all about the first principle of “without fear or favour”. If there are any examples of where that is failing, regardless of whether it relates to local behaviour or the broader introduction of a new technology, we need to be open, transparent and mindful. We live in a world in which not everything is done perfectly, but there are some communities with problems that are perhaps not being tackled in the most beneficial way. I do not want to get too deeply into these issues, because I am not an expert and I recognise that they are extremely sensitive, but I think we can tackle them transparently.

The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) used the excellent analogy of a night out. I completely agree; I was thinking, “Yeah, I’m up for it, but let’s just make sure we can all get home safe”, but the more we discuss the issue, the more I think the appropriate camp to be in is, “I could be tempted out, but let’s make sure we like the destination.” I will leave it there. I thank hon. Members for their time.

Small Boat Crossings

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, and the repurposing of some of that money and resource that has not been lost is funding the new approach.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that the loss of life is colossally too high on these channel crossings, including the loss of a two-year-old child just the other week? Does she also agree that we should reopen safe routes so that we can treat those coming to this country with the dignity and respect that they deserve?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I do not believe that safe routes would stop people from attempting to come over the channel in small boats. I have some sympathy with the idea of safe routes, but I do not think they would stop this trade. For example, 1,500 Indians came across, and we have a visa regime with the Indians. The highest nationality for small boat arrivals this year is the Vietnamese. Again, it is not always about people who are asylum seekers coming over; it is people who do not have a right to be here but are paying to come here. Safe routes would not solve that problem.