PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Nationality and Borders Bill - 7 December 2021 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Former British-Hong Kong service personnel: right of abode—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of section 2(1) insert—

“(c) that person is a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service, or

(d) that person is the spouse or dependent of a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service.”’

This new clause would mean that all former British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have right of abode in the UK.

New clause 5—British National (Overseas) visas: eligibility—

‘(1) Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to ensure that all persons meeting the condition set out in subsection (2) are eligible to apply for the British National (Overseas) visa.

(2) The condition referred to in subsection (1) is that the person has at least one parent who is a British national (overseas).’

This new clause would enable any persons from Hong Kong who have at least one parent who is a British national (overseas) to apply for the British National (Overseas) visa.

New clause 7—Exception to the requirement to pay fees in connection with immigration or nationality—

‘(1) In relation to an applicant meeting the criteria set out in subsection (2) of this section, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for an exception to any requirement to pay fees set out in a fees order under section 68 (fees) of the Immigration Act 2014.

(2) The criteria referred to in subsection (1) are that the applicant has—

(a) lawfully resided in the UK for a minimum period of five years, and

(b) lawfully worked in a clinical capacity for the National Health Service anywhere in the United Kingdom for an unbroken period of three years

provided that, if the applicant leaves the employment of the National Health Service in any part of the United Kingdom within the three years following a successful application in respect of which the applicant was exempted from paying fees, those fees become payable on termination of employment in the National Health Service.’

This new clause exempts clinical NHS workers from the fees associated with immigration and nationality, provided that they have lived lawfully in the UK for at least five years, worked in the NHS for at least three years, and continue to work in the NHS for a further three years after being granted the fee exemption.

New clause 8—Children registering as British citizens: fees—

‘(1) Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018.

(2) The amendments referred to in subsection (1) must include—

(a) provision to ensure that the fees charged for applications for registration as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 or the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, where the person in respect of whom the application is made is a child at the time the application is made, do not exceed the cost to the Home Office of processing the application;

(b) provision to ensure that no fees are charged for applications for registration as a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 or the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 where the person in respect of whom the application is made—

(i) is a child being looked after by a local authority at the time the application is made; or

(ii) was looked after by a local authority when they were a child, and at the time the application is made is either—

(A) under the age of 21; or

(B) under the age of 25 and in full-time education.

(3) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the effect of such fees on the human rights of the children applying for registration as British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 and the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997.’

In respect of children registering as British citizens, this new clause would prevent the Home Office from charging a fee which exceeds the cost of processing the application. It would also abolish such fees altogether for looked-after children until they reach the age of 21 (or 25 if in full-time education), and would require the Government to produce a report setting out the effect of such fees on children’s human rights.

New clause 22—Requirement for the Secretary of State to waive the full capacity requirement—

‘(1) In section 44A of the British Nationality Act 1981, for “may” substitute “should”.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to require the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for a person to have full capacity if it is in that person‘s best interests to do so.

New clause 25—Birthright commitment under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, produce a report setting out how the UK Government will give statutory effect to the recognition set out in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may choose.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before each House of Parliament.’

New clause 33—Acquisition of British citizenship by birth or adoption: comprehensive sickness insurance—

‘(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection 1(3A) insert—

(a) a person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is not a British citizen is entitled, on application, to register as a British citizen if the person’s father or mother would have been settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the person’s birth, if Assumption A had applied.

(b) assumption A is that, in assessing whether the person’s father or mother met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, this is to be regarded as having been satisfied whenever they

(i) had access to the NHS in practice; or

(ii) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.

(c) registration under this subsection shall be free of charge.”

(3) After section 50A insert—

“50B Exceptions

(a) is not to be treated as having been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws during a period of time that has been counted as part of a continuous qualifying period in a grant of leave to that person under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, and

(b) is not to be treated as not being of good character on account of a failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance during some period of residence in the UK.”

(4) The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(5) After section 15, insert—

“15A Comprehensive sickness insurance

(1) For the purposes of any decision taken by a public authority under this Part after commencement of this section, a person is to be treated as having met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, whenever they—

(a) had access to the NHS in practice; or

(b) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.

(2) This section shall in particular apply to any decisions taken under residence scheme immigration rules.”’

This new clause provides that a person seeking to acquire permanent residence documents, naturalisation or citizenship need not have had comprehensive sickness insurance prior to applying for citizenship.

New clause 34—Registration as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen: Fees—

‘(1) No person may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.

(2) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if that child is being looked after by a local authority.

(3) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.

(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen among people possessing those rights.’

This new clause would ensure that fees for registering as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen do not exceed cost price. It would also ensure that children being looked after by a local authority are not liable for such fees, and that no child is charged an unaffordable fee. Lastly, it would require the Government to raise awareness of rights to registration.

Amendment 108, in clause 3, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (4).

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the good character requirement for a person applying for British overseas territories citizenship who has previously been discriminated against where this could perpetuate that discrimination.

Amendment 12, page 11, line 35, leave out clause 9.

This amendment would remove clause 9, which would enable the Home Secretary to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice.

Government amendments 17 and 18.

Amendment 2, page 12, line 33, leave out clause 10.

This amendment would remove clause 10, which restricts entitlement to British citizenship for children born stateless in the UK.

Amendment 111, in clause 10, page 13, line 23, after “birth”, insert

“without any legal or administrative barriers”.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that, in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Statelessness Convention, British citizenship is only withheld from a stateless child born in the UK where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.

Amendment 110, in clause 10, page 13, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) in all the circumstances, it would be in the best interests of the child for it to acquire the nationality in question.”

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the best interests of the child are central to decision-making in deciding whether to grant or decline an application for British citizenship by a stateless child who was born in the UK.

The Chagos islanders have suffered over half a century of consistent injustices. They were forcibly exiled from their homeland, the Chagos islands—Diego Garcia and outer islands such as Peros Banhos—by the Harold Wilson Administration in the late 1960s to make way for a military base, and they were typically relocated against their will in Mauritius, but also in the Seychelles and other locations.

There are many aspects of the injustices suffered by the Chagos islanders on which I and many other hon. and right hon. Members across the House have campaigned, such as a right of resettlement, a right to compensation—a package has still not been fully realised to any extent at all—and a right to self-determination. It is London, Washington, the UN in New York or Port Louis that is seeking to decide their future sovereign status.

However, there is another injustice that has been suffered by descendants of Chagos islanders: the denial of their moral rights to British overseas territory citizenship. It is no fault of the grandchildren and other descendants of the Chagos islanders that their forebears were forcibly removed from their homeland and essentially dumped in other parts of the Indian ocean, but it has meant that they have lost their rights to British overseas territory citizenship. Had those individuals been born in other overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands or Bermuda, they would have a right to British overseas territory citizenship. This is causing great hardship for many families, and dividing many communities as a result.

Those who were born on the Chagos islands and the direct children of those born on the Chagos islands do have a right to British overseas territory citizenship and therefore British citizenship. They are able to settle in this country, and are productive members of our wider society. I am grateful that many have decided to live in my Crawley constituency. However, many grandchildren and other descendants of those islanders are technically seen as foreign nationals, and have to go through an expensive and rigorous visa process to be here, and then apply for indefinite leave to remain. That results in families with different nationality status and immigration status, often in the same household. Some are able to work and to access public funds and public services. Others are unable to, which creates issues in terms of housing overcrowding.

As I said, this community has suffered a series of injustices. It is the sort of thing you would expect to read in the history books of colonialism of several hundred years ago. We are not talking about many people either. We have just heard a lot about 20,000 Afghans evacuated from that country with the fall of Kabul. We have heard a lot about over 3 million BNO—British national overseas—citizens in Hong Kong with a potential right to settle in this country as a result of the increasing Chinese erosion of democracy there. With the Chagos Islanders, only numbers in the hundreds to low thousands would be eligible.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is not about the numbers; it is about the principle and about living up to our historical obligations. I have seen a number of initiatives of this sort. I will be happy to support this new clause. It remains to be seen what the response will be from the Treasury Bench. Will he join me in putting the message across to the Ministers and officials responsible that this will never just go away? If not today, then sooner or later, these injustices will have to be addressed.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and I agree with every word he said.

We have had over half a century of appalling injustice, in many different regards, for this community. It is now time that this House rights the wrongs that they have suffered. In allowing British overseas territories citizenship for the descendants of the Chagos Islanders, we can go a long way towards doing that. Chagos islanders were forcibly removed from their homeland not by this House but by an Order in Council. This issue has never had the proper scrutiny of this elected House, which can now play its part in righting a significant historical injustice. I therefore call on Members from across the House to support new clause 2.

It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) in proposing new clause 2. I pay tribute to his commitment to this cause, which has been a long-standing one for him and his constituents. I wish to put on record the Opposition’s support for the new clause, which seeks to rectify the long-standing injustice in British nationality law that affects a relatively small number of people—Chagossian people, descendants of the Chagos islanders, who were forcibly removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s. The fact that British citizenship does not automatically pass to second and third generation Chagossians despite some of them migrating to the UK with their British parents as very young children is nothing short of a scandal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support new clause 2.

Whereas the hon. Member for Crawley is seeking to rectify an injustice, the Nationality and Borders Bill does the opposite and seeks to create chaos and injustice. I will focus my comments on part 1. Clause 9 provides the Government with dangerous and unprecedented powers to deprive UK nationals of citizenship, without warning. We are wholeheartedly opposed to this. Through clause 9, the Government seek to amend the long-standing position under the British Nationality Act 1981 that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality. It exempts the Government from giving notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship if authorities do not have the subject’s contact details or if it is not “reasonably practical” to do so. The Government’s proposal also allows such secret deprivations to take place solely on the basis that the Home Office deems it “in the public interest” or in the interest of “foreign relations”. Effectively, this means that the Home Secretary can strip someone of their citizenship without informing them because it would be internationally embarrassing for her to do so. This abhorrent proposal therefore enables the Government to remove basic fairness, on top of an already dangerous power.

Like many measures in the Bill, there is no practical reason for this change. Present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address. The real purpose of this rule appears to be to introduce measures that remove the right to appeal. These measures make lawful previously unlawful citizenship stripping. They ask Parliament to pretend that an unlawful decision was lawful all along. It is shameful and Orwellian in equal measure.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could cast his mind back to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where, for the first time, people who had acquired British citizenship through birth were made subject to citizenship deprivation powers. So what he has just commented on was brought in and voted through by a Labour Government. Could he address that point?

As I mentioned, any reasons to strip people of citizenship are given on notice, but this deprives people of the right to—

Do you agree with the principle?

I do not agree with the principle of it: it should be done on notice.

Clause 9 means that individuals will not be able to challenge deprivation of their nationality as they will not be aware or told that they are no longer British citizens, and the time limit for appeal may run out before the individual becomes aware that their rights have been stripped. As Reprieve has pointed out, under these proposals, a person accused of speeding would be afforded more rights than someone at risk of being deprived of their British nationality.

I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. Is he aware of the very widespread alarm that clause 9 is creating up and down the country?

My right hon. Friend is exactly right.

In recent years, the Government have unlawfully failed to satisfy the simplest of obligations in relation to citizenship deprivation: providing notice to people that they are seeking to deprive them of their rights. Having been found to have unlawfully stripped people of citizenship without telling them, the Home Secretary now seeks to undo these unlawful actions.

Can I just ask the hon. Gentleman very simply: does he agree with the principle of citizenship revocation? Forget the issue of duty of notice—does he agree with the principle of it?

The British Nationality Act has been in law for the last 40 years and that provides the power to strip people of citizenship. What we are talking about here is doing it without notice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to deprive a person of their citizenship without warning or explanation would be a flagrant breach of natural justice and that to do so as an alternative to submitting that person to due process under the law risks undermining our national security, rather than enhancing it?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is exactly right. How can it be right that somebody is able to be stripped of their citizenship without knowing about it? That is clearly a breach of natural justice.

My hon. Friend has made a very important point about people not knowing that they have been deprived of their citizenship and how that might affect their ability to appeal. Clause 9 says that someone subject to these new rules

“may appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.”

However, as I understand it, rule 8 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission gives individuals 28 days to appeal deprivation of citizenship if they are outside the United Kingdom. Does not he agree that the Minister, in responding today, has to give absolute clarity that that 28-day period will be extended?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. How can someone know when the 28 days are going to run if they have not received notice of the decision to strip them of their citizenship? It is basic.

Does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of this matter is the complete stripping away of due process? A person does not have to be given notice, or a reason why they are being stripped of their nationality. This has a disproportionate impact on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This measure will clearly affect people who have other citizenships available to them, because it is unlawful to deprive someone of citizenship and leave them stateless. Clause 9 is about people’s citizenship, identity and, ultimately, rights; without citizenship, people do not have rights, and that leaves them without an identity or a sense of belonging.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I will give way one last time, but I need to make progress; otherwise, there will be very little time for anyone else to speak.

I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is a reasonable man, so I am sure that he will agree that when it comes to sensitive issues, such as the very small number of people whose nationality may be revoked by the Home Secretary, as has been possible for the past 100 years, it is incredibly important that they are not the subject of rather embarrassing scaremongering, such as that being done by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Will the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) confirm at the Dispatch Box his clear understanding that when someone has a single nationality, they cannot have their nationality revoked and be sent abroad, as the hon. Member for Bradford East has implied?

Many people have dual nationality in the UK, and those are the people who are in fear of the measure being introduced. I will now make progress.

The clause not only represents a total disregard for justice and the rule of law, but also says to certain British citizens that despite their being born and raised in the UK, their rights will always be precarious and subject to change, because, in the words of the Home Office,

“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”

The consequences of that are drastic. It is a threat to all, but particularly to those from ethnic minority backgrounds. According to analysis by the New Statesman, nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and under this proposal, two in five people from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told.

Have the Government learned nothing from the Windrush scandal? They are repeating the same mistakes time and again. How can we trust the Government and the Home Office? How can we trust them with the measures proposed in clause 9? Simply put, we cannot, and I therefore commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on bringing forward amendment 12, which would remove clause 9 from the Bill. We support that amendment in the name of fairness and in order to uphold the rule of law.

Another aspect of part 1 that we are concerned about is statelessness and, in particular, clause 10, which is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling amendment 111, which would give effect to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published an excellent report on the Bill earlier this month. I wish to put on record my thanks, and I am sure the whole House’s thanks, for the enormous contribution she has made as a parliamentarian to preserving rights and demanding equality. She will be sorely missed when she steps down at the next election.

Clause 10 proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. The Government’s proposals to restrict and amend that obligation are an affront to children. They will impose the most profound of exclusions on children: the denial of any citizenship, and particularly citizenship of the place where they were born and live—the only place they know. This exclusion and alienation, when inflicted on a child in their formative years, will be highly damaging to their personal development and their feelings of security and belonging. The Government consistently failed, on Second Reading and in Committee, to explain what assessment has been made of the impact of this proposal on statelessness. That is unacceptable.

We Opposition Members therefore welcome amendment 111, and support its intention of ensuring that the Government act in compliance with article 1 of the 1961 UN statelessness convention. It would amend clause 10 so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. This is a necessary amendment, as the Government have failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill; on the contrary, they have introduced cruel and unworkable proposals that will only exacerbate the challenges for children and young people in the UK.

New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), is on an issue that follows on from that of child statelessness. We support that new clause, which concerns the fee—£1,012 for a child—that people must pay to exercise their right to be registered as a British citizen. Like hon. and right hon. Members across this House, I have raised many cases on behalf of constituents navigating this inefficient, ineffective and expensive system. The fees imposed by the Home Office deny people their rights. Application fees are one barrier, and Home Office delays and inefficiencies are another. If we look at the figures, we see that the unfairness is extremely stark—even to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who rightly described the registration fees for children as

“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.

I have heard that when the Bill was being prepared, the Children’s Commissioner was not consulted at all about its implications for the status of children. Can that possibly be right? Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on that point?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not aware that the Children’s Commissioner was consulted, but I am sure the Minister will clarify whether they were.

The fee for a child to register as a British citizen stands at £1,012. The Home Office confirms that the cost of registration is only £372. The remaining £640 is, therefore, money made after delivery of the service. Home Office registration fees do not reflect the cost of registration. On the Government’s watch, people are being prevented from accessing the immigration system, and that leads to exclusion and isolation for the children and young people who are denied citizenship due to the barriers in their way.

Citizenship should not be about cost; it should be about contributing to our communities and inclusivity, but under the current system, it is about cost. By design, it is about astronomical application fees. Rather than fixing these problems through this legislation, which, despite its draconian measures, provides a unique opportunity to right this wrong, the Government concern themselves with outlandish and unworkable policies. I strongly urge Members from all parts of the House to carefully consider new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. It would deliver fairness where the Government have failed to, and it has our full support.

Finally, I wish to speak about another issue that has broad cross-party support—a further important and unique opportunity to right wrongs. New clause 5, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, relates to the British national overseas visa scheme. As we know, the BNO scheme was, in theory, designed to offer a path to citizenship for Hongkongers, but in practice the scheme is not working as well as it could. Indeed, there are worrying and significant loopholes in it that mean individuals and groups of individuals are being left in limbo. That is particularly true for younger Hongkongers who have fled the country over fear of repercussions, as those born after 1997 do not hold BNO passports, and are therefore unable to settle in the UK via the BNO route. The result of this loophole in the BNO scheme is that young people who have fled police brutality find themselves fighting for their rights within the sclerotic and inefficient UK asylum system, having been arbitrarily excluded from the scheme because of their age.

Hongkongers born after 1997 do not hold a BNO passport. Those documents were issued to citizens following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997, so those aged under 24 cannot benefit from the BNO scheme. Home Office figures show that there were 124 asylum claims from Hong Kong nationals in the year to June 2021, compared with 21 the year before and just nine in the year to June 2019. This is a growing problem, and it cannot be swept under the rug. For those stuck in the system, there is, in the words of Hong Kong Watch, an “agonising wait”. That should not exist, and could be fixed in the BNO scheme. Again, the Opposition proposed that in Committee, and naturally we fully support new clause 5. There are deep and historical ties between the UK and Hong Kong. The Government must not waiver in their commitment to people whose way of life has been put at risk. By accepting new clause 5, they could take a significant and immediate step towards that, with the Opposition’s support.

The Government’s decision to offer the Hong Kong BNO scheme is a welcome expression of the UK’s historical relationship with the citizens of Hong Kong. Individuals and families arriving from Hong Kong will enrich the UK’s cultural life and contribute to our economy. However, without amendment, the scheme is in danger of being just more warm words. As I have said on other amendments and new clauses, despite our deep concerns about the Bill’s draconian, dog-whistle politics when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, it provides an opportunity to right wrongs in our system. I will leave my comments there, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Order. Perhaps I should give a little bit of guidance. There are two groups of amendments this afternoon. If colleagues wish to speak to the second group of amendments, they should wait until we get to that group. Obviously, many colleagues will want to speak in various parts of the debate, so it might be wise for colleagues to prioritise the groups that they wish to speak to. I shall prioritise those who have tabled amendments in this first group. I call David Davis.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask a question with respect to your ruling? I take it that I will be able to speak to my amendments in the second group in debate on that group, and that I do not have to address them now. Is that correct?

I am sure that very careful consideration will be given to the tabled amendments, but some people may not get in on both groups. If there are votes on the first group, that will eat into the time for the second group.

Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not looking for a promise.

Before I talk about my amendment, for which I have a one-minute speech, let me address questions that my hon. Friends on the Government Benches asked the Opposition spokesman. He was asked whether he agrees with the idea of withdrawing citizenship, full stop. My answer is that the British Nationality Act 1981 gives too much power to the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I will answer, if I am not interrupted. It gives too much power, without sufficient early judicial intervention. It allows for a right of appeal, but it does not require the right of application to court first, and given that we are talking about something as serious as citizenship, it should.

We should not give the state the power to take every right away from erstwhile citizens of the country. That is not just my view; it also happens to be that of our biggest ally. In my time in this House, I have only once had a visit, as it were, from the State Department of the United States, and that was on this policy. In some people’s view, we are leaving our “human detritus” out in the conflict zones of the middle east. Most of our allies, having started with that policy, have withdrawn it and are taking back their people to put them on trial in their own country. From a security point of view, this policy does not stand up in the view of our allies.

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly strong point. Does he think it is quite inappropriate for one of the leading nations at the United Nations, with the privilege of a veto, not to accept its international responsibilities, when all other members of the permanent five do?

I do think that, but I was focusing on the security element, and I do not think that the security argument stands up.

Amendment 12, in my name, would remove clause 9 from the Bill. That would not take away the Home Secretary’s right of rejecting citizenship, but it would take away her right to do so without notification. Of course, that matters. I go back to judicial rights. Say that someone does not know that they have had their citizenship withdrawn. They cannot appeal the matter for as long as they do not know, and that might be a long time.

Clause 9(2) says that the requirement to notify

“does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that”—

and there is a series of conditions, one of which is that notice should not be given if that is

“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.

I cannot think of a weaker reason to withhold the rights of one of our citizens than to favour our diplomatic relations with another country. I do not think we are on the same page on that.

I remind hon. Members that being fairly brief in remarks, as done admirably by David Davis, will allow more people to get in. I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

Even though the Scottish National party has fundamental disagreements with most of this horrific Bill, that is not the case for part 1, where we are in agreement with much of it. We support the efforts to correct some historical injustices of UK nationality law and bringing British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship law back into line. It should have happened a long time ago, but we support that it is happening now. We pay tribute to the campaign groups that have continued to make the case over several years, including the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and Amnesty International. However, there are a number of issues that I want to raise and I will start with the SNP’s new clauses.

New clause 34 would ensure that the Government do not profit from people registering as British citizens or British overseas citizens. Hon. Members might be interested to know that, in 2018, the Home Office made profits of £500 million by charging £500 million more than it cost to process applications. The cost to the Home Office of the registration process is about £372 a person, but to the person applying, it is a minimum of £1,100 for children and £1,200 for an adult. Why? More importantly, why does that matter? How does that affect someone’s life?

I would like to share a story that I told in Committee of someone who has become part of my family and the devastating impact that the extortionate fees had on his family life. Cambull—that is not his real name—came from Sudan. The village where he grew up was razed to the ground, everybody fled, and he did not know where the rest of his family were. He assumed that his brothers, sister, mother and father had died, but he did not know for sure. He kept hearing rumours over the years. He came here as an asylum seeker and got his refugee status. He worked in security on minimum wage, zero-hours contracts, but he had a diligent approach to his job and built a life for himself. But the need to know for sure what had happened to his family members was always in the back of his mind. Any of us would share that need.

The Red Cross got some information for Cambull. There was a possibility that some of his family had survived, but nothing was certain. He needed to go back to find out if that was the case. To do that, he needed the protection of a British passport and British citizenship, so he set about applying. Because he was on the minimum wage, it took him years to save up the fees. I realise there are many in here who cannot imagine that, and I make no criticism of them—I am not being facetious—for never having experienced poverty. I would like nobody to experience it, but I would urge Conservative Members to trust me when I say that it took him years to save up the £1,200, and he could not have saved any harder. Had he been charged what it actually cost the Home Office, he would have got to Sudan a whole lot sooner. I know that nobody in this Chamber would have wanted what happened to him to have happened—I am coming to that—but I want to explain the impact of these extortionate fees in the hope that the Government can be persuaded to reduce them.

It took Cambull a long time, but he did finally get back to Sudan, with his British passport, to see what had become of his family, and he discovered that his mum had, in fact, survived the brutal attacks. She later became ill, and was ill for many years, but she lived longer than anyone expected because she had clung on hoping she would see his face one more time. She died two months before he got there. As I have said, I am not for a second suggesting that anybody here or anybody drafting the legislation would not care about what happened to Cambull, but if he had been able to apply for his citizenship when he became eligible—in other words, if he had been able to afford the cost because it was the actual cost, rather than the cost plus profit—he could have been reunited with his mum before she passed away, and it would have meant so much to both of them. There are so many Cambulls out there and others with different stories.

I want to express my party’s support for new clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). I will leave her to make what I know will be very good arguments about the even more offensive practice of making profit from children’s applications. One of those arguments is of course that the courts have already ruled against it, but that does not seem to make a difference to this Government these days.

Finally, on awareness raising in relation to new clause 34, several organisations, including Amnesty, have expressed concern about the lack of it. They have asked for assurances that where an individual application is successful, the Government will take positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at discretion. This means that where an example is identified, as the Bill says, of

“unfairness,…an act or omission of a public authority, or…exceptional circumstances”,

on which it is right or necessary to exercise the discretion, there should be publicity and awareness raising. We talked about that in Committee, but those organisations want to know that it will happen, and that members of the public who could use the legislation to the same positive effect will have access—easy access—to such information. I would also like an assurance from the Minister that awareness raising will apply equally to British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.

On new clause 33, EU citizens have been living in the UK without knowing that, for some, there is an obscure requirement to hold a form of private health insurance. With free access at the point of need to our unique NHS, of which we are all proud, the EU rules on the need for comprehensive sickness insurance were not really written with the UK’s unusual situation in mind. New clause 33 is necessary because, for many, this requirement has only become apparent when applying for citizenship or when applying for British passports for their children born in the UK, and it is now presenting significant hurdles to obtaining citizenship. It could easily be rectified by this new clause, which would allow an applicant the right of free access to the NHS to satisfy the requirement that an individual should hold CSI.

The Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—made sympathetic noises on this in Committee, so if he will not accept this new clause, will he at least tighten up the guidance so that nobody has to take the risk of shelling out over £1,200 to apply, only to lose it when the decision maker takes the view on CSI that the Minister seemed to be suggesting he would not want them to take?

We support many of the amendments and new clauses, but I will mention just a couple in particular. Amendment 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) would leave out clause 10 on statelessness. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. This creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens. Rather than ease the process and reform the current system to help children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. Why? Because they have a handful of anecdotal examples of parents who appear to be using the system, as far as they are concerned, to jump the queue.

In fact, I remember only one such anecdote in Committee. However, I do remember hon. Members on the Committee asking repeatedly for evidence, and the Minister stated repeatedly that evidence would be forthcoming. I remember that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) asked, I asked several times, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) asked. When I looked at the record, I counted at least 10 times that we asked for something more than anecdotes, and we were told that the evidence would be forthcoming, but it just has not been, so perhaps the Minister is going to surprise us and give us the evidence now.

The impact of the anecdotes—or the one anecdote I remember being given—was that a child who has done nothing wrong may end up registered as British five years before they otherwise might be. That hardly seems grounds for introducing this restrictive clause. The impact of statelessness on children can be dreadful. It is a terrible thing for a child to feel that they do not belong during their formative years.

I come now to amendment 12 in name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). We are very much opposed to clause 9, which, as we have heard, grants the Home Secretary the power to strip UK nationals of their citizenship in secret and without advance warning. This is deeply concerning, and it sends completely the wrong message. Since this has become public knowledge, I have had a number of people phoning me about it in an absolute panic.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is not only us and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who share these concerns? A petition that was started on change.org by my constituent Mr Kashif Iqbal has now got over 150,000 signatures calling for the removal of clause 9 to ensure that British citizenship cannot be stripped from our constituents in this manner.

I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I pay tribute to Mr Iqbal, my hon. Friend’s constituent, because that is what we want. We want public pressure, and in Committee I felt that we were not being listened to at all. Of course, we did not win any of the battles in Committee and we are probably not going to win any of the battles here, but we will try, and public pressure is what will make this Government change their mind.

As I have said, we do support many of the amendments—for example, new clause 2 on Chagos islanders, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his tenacity on that. We support new clauses 4 and 5 on Hong Kong citizens, new clause 7 on health care workers—it seems a bit of a cheek to be charging people for the privilege of putting themselves at risk fighting the pandemic—and those amendments and new clauses from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I say, we support righting the historical wrongs, but our primary concerns are stateless children, stripping away people’s nationality without notice, the CSI requirement for EEA citizens, and the need to end the practice of profiteering from people registering as British citizens—that has to stop.

Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate has to finish at 4.46 pm. Obviously, the Minister will require some time at the end, so if colleagues speak for about five minutes, we might make it.

I wish to speak to new clause 5, and I thank the more than 50 colleagues, representing every party in this House, who have supported it. I also wish to thank Ministers for engaging positively with me on the substance of the amendment.

My new clause aims to provide greater protection for the brave young people in Hong Kong who are fighting oppression. In particular, it gives them a right to settle in the UK, which is very difficult for them at the moment. Why is this needed? I would illustrate that with one case—that of 20-year-old Tony Chung, who has been handed a prison sentence of more than three and a half years. His crime was that what he said on a small student Facebook group when he was 18 years old was deemed to amount to secession and to be in breach of Hong Kong’s national security law. This illustrates how what was once Asia’s freest and most vibrant city is moving towards totalitarianism. Political persecution is growing by the day. Amnesty International calls it a human rights emergency, and I agree. The Hong Kong Government, at the behest of Beijing, are silencing the free press, gagging civil society and smothering all forms of dissent in the city.

As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a signatory to his new clause. Does he share my concern that 93% of those who have been arrested just for being pro-democracy are young people? We have a unique obligation to protect them and provide them with safe and legal passage. When dealing with the Chinese Communist party that can “disappear” a tennis player, or even sanction Members of Parliament, we must be absolute in the support we give to young Hongkongers.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she anticipates a point I was about to make. The key point that arises from her remarks is that the British Government have, sensibly and rightly, introduced the British National (Overseas) visa, which allows people in Hong Kong who registered for that scheme before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 the right to settle in this country. The problem is that many of the dissenters and demonstrators in Hong Kong are under 25, and therefore too young to have qualified under that route as it currently stands. I seek to give under 25-year-olds that route as well.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having tabled this new clause. It speaks of the decency of what we represent here in this House, and I support him in that. Does he agree that right now, many of the individuals he is referring to are desperately looking to us for some hope of freedom? We as this, the mother of all Parliaments, need to offer them the chance of that freedom.

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Most of these young people are fighting for the values that we fight for and that this Parliament represents—that I why I am so pleased that Members across the House have supported the new clause. In practical terms, I have thanked Ministers for being positive in their engagement, and I hope to hear more from the Minister when he winds up the debate.

Although the Government are moving in this direction, and their heart is in the right place on this, I fear that at this stage they may not move far enough. In particular, I know the Minister is keen on using the youth mobility scheme, which exists not just for Hong Kong but for many other countries, as a route for young people in Hong Kong to move towards settlement. However, I will enter two quite large caveats about using that scheme.

The first is straightforward practicality, which I can illustrate by the example of a 19-year-old young woman from Hong Kong called Venus—that is not her real name, for obvious reasons. She was involved in many protests, and the university she was at reported those protests to the Hong Kong authorities. She evaded the police for a time, but she soon became aware that they were coming for anyone involved in protests, under the pretext of the national security law. She fled to the UK from Hong Kong the day after, and several of her friends were arrested two weeks later. If she had applied through the youth mobility scheme, it would have taken at least three weeks for her to get out of Hong Kong, which would not have been enough. That is a practical point about using the youth mobility scheme.

My other point is that the youth mobility scheme is reciprocal, requiring both sides to agree. If the Chinese authorities, or the Hong Kong authorities, decided not to participate in a reciprocal scheme, they could close it down tomorrow. What would Ministers do in those circumstances?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this new clause. Does he agree that the under-25s from Hong Kong who are seeking asylum and safety in our country not only have to navigate a difficult asylum system, but now also face difficulties with access to healthcare, and also with safety once here?

I do not wish to get into wider issues in the immigration system, as at the moment I am most concerned with giving people a route to get to this country apart from the asylum system. We already have a couple of hundred of people in the asylum system, and if Ministers could find, or if we could find, another route, that would take a bit of pressure off the asylum system. I recommend that Ministers look at Canada’s young talent work experience pathway to permanent residence as a suitable exemplar to follow for Hong Kong.

I want to work with Ministers on this, and I believe that they have the best interests of the people in Hong Kong at heart. I hope not to have to move the new clause to a vote this time; I want to give Ministers more time to work out better details of a mobility scheme that is suitable for young people in Hong Kong. As we know, after this week the Bill will go to the Lords, where it will excite detailed interest. By the time their lordships debate it, I hope and expect that Ministers will have sorted out the gaps that remain in their proposals sufficiently, so that a similar new clause is not needed again. If that is not the case, I expect—indeed, I encourage—their lordships, to table a similar new clause and let us have another go. If that has to happen, those of us supporting the new clause will be less accommodating to the Government than I propose to be today. However, I hope it does not come to that. We all have a duty to the brave people fighting for democratic values—our values—in Hong Kong, and by the time this Bill has passed through all its stages, I want to know that we have fulfilled that duty. It is over to the Minister to do the right thing.

Order. May I clarify that everybody who wants to speak in this debate is now standing? I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.

I wish to speak to new clause 8 about child citizenship fees, which I am grateful has been signed by a number of Members. The children in question are not migrants. I repeat that they are not migrants, because every time this issue is raised, there is some suggestion that there is something slightly illegal behind this, which is disgraceful. On the contrary, the large majority are exactly like me and the Prime Minister, and have every right to British citizenship. This Government, and all successive Governments, accept that, but the issue is that they are being priced out.

We in this country charge British children—children!—up to 10 times more to claim their citizenship rights than their counterparts in Spain, France, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. The fee is the most expensive in Europe. If the £35 fee introduced back in 1983 had risen in line with inflation, it would be only £120 today. Instead, we charge £1,012—a fee that has doubled in the past decade, and which the Government have the ability to increase at will. It is a fee that far too many cannot afford, and a fee the level of which neither I nor the Prime Minister had to pay.

Why do I keep mentioning myself and the Prime Minister? It is because the circumstances of our births are no different to those of the children in question today. Indeed, many Members across the House were not born here or were born to migrants, and none of us faced such barriers to claiming our citizenship. No one questions our rights, and our British citizenship gives us the right to sit as Members of this House. I repeatedly mention myself and the Prime Minister because I believe that neither of us should be in a position to make things difficult for those children born after us. I certainly did not come to this House to do that.

Like the Windrush generation, through no fault of their own, and often with no idea of what is to come, these children go on to face real difficulties with everyday life and with things that we take for granted, such as travelling, getting a job, renting a home or going to university without being asked to pay international fees. That is in the country they were born in or have lived in their whole lives. Make that make sense.

Citizens UK, Amnesty International, and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has led on this campaign, have estimated that between 85,000 and 215,000 children with a legal entitlement to British citizenship have ended up undocumented due to the extortionate registration fee. Imagine how many children have never had the opportunity to reach their full potential because they spent the end of their childhood, and the beginning of their adulthood, fighting to prove that they have rights in their own country, or fighting to prove that they belong in the only place they have ever called home. It is exactly what happened with the Windrush generation.

We must understand that the harm of being denied citizenship rights in the only country you know cannot be overstated. It is not just about societal barriers; it is the psychological impact of being constantly treated like a second-class citizen. Why do I continually compare them to the Windrush generation? That is because, just like the Windrush generation, a piece of legislation or policy that attempted to dissuade migrants and make the environment more hostile for them is impacting on a group of people who have every right to be here. Just like the Windrush generation, this policy disproportionately affects those of black, Asian, and minority ethnic heritage.

Does my hon. Friend agree that to make children bear the burden of this Government’s hostile environment policy must be wrong?

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am sure she will agree with me that, clearly, no lessons have been learned.

New clause 8 does not even ask the Government to scrap the fee, which is my personal preference; it just asks them to reduce it to cost and examine its impact on the rights of children. The new clause does, however, ask for the fee to be scrapped for children in care, for the obvious reason that children in care are the responsibility of the state. As we approach Christmas and we are thinking about families and home, with all the disadvantages that children in care face, the Government seem all too at ease with telling these children that they have no country to call home unless their local authority is willing to pay for it.

I spoke to children who were Lambeth care leavers and they told me horrific tales of threats of deportation to countries they have never been to because they cannot prove their link to their citizenship due to issues with their relations with their parents. Our cash-strapped local authorities cannot afford to keep paying these fees, and they are not border guards or immigration specialists who understand exactly what is happening.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) is absolutely right that there are parts of the citizenship section of the Bill that we appreciate, and things have been corrected. I spoke to the Immigration Minister earlier this week, and I was grateful for his time—I promised I would say something nice, and I did. If we are correcting all these other things, why would we not correct this policy now? We know exactly what the issue is. We know that the courts ruled, the Government appealed, and the courts ruled again that these fees are not in the best interests of children. This Bill is so horrible in so many other areas; is there not just one thing that we can all agree on? Just like with the Windrush scandal, why do the Government want to be dragged screaming into submission on something that they know is absolutely right?

I am glad to be standing here today, because I get to keep the promise that I made just before my election to a group of students from St Gabriel’s College who, along with Lambeth Citizens, explained to me their plight as children who were suffering in this way. I am proud to be a governor at their school, because they are what I call citizens. They are affected by this issue. Some of them have moved on, but they continue to fight for others in their place. I promised that I would stand up in the House and try to show that these young people are valued by their country—because this is their country. I hope that, when new clause 8—hopefully—goes to a vote, every other Member of this House will walk through the Lobby with me and show those young people that they have every single right to be here, that we will not continue to price them out, and that they should be able to access every single right, just like myself and the Prime Minister have been able to do.

I rise to speak to new clause 4, which would secure the right of abode of the brave and loyal servicemen who served Queen and country in the British military, in the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong royal naval service corps, until 1997. They were servants of the Crown and I believe they should be treated equally to all those who have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces.

I am a co-signatory to new clause 4, and I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing it to the House. Does he agree that this is a unique group of individuals because of that service, and therefore that they should be considered favourably by the Government?

They most certainly should, and it should not have taken all this time for the Government to accept the need to deal with this matter. This is a left-behind group of ex-servicemen, and they really do need to be given the right of abode here in the United Kingdom.

Only 159 of the 654 British Hong Kong servicemen who applied under the 1990 to 1997 British nationality selection scheme prior to the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China were offered full UK passports for service to the Crown. I believe that those who applied for UK passports and were denied them have been discriminated against, and it is time that was rectified. They should have been treated equally to the 159 and given British citizenship for their armed forces Crown service.

The campaign for the right of abode of former British Hong Kong servicemen has established the number of servicemen still seeking recognition from the Government at around 301, with immediate family growing the group to around 1,000. That is a very low number of people when compared with the 3 million citizens affected by the changes made last year to introduce the BNO passport, which was such a welcome support for the people of Hong Kong.

Am I right in thinking that these very patriotic individuals are seeking the right to come here if they need to in case of future discrimination? They are not necessarily all likely to have to take up that right.

My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, and he is of course completely correct. These ex-servicemen in Hong Kong are not demanding the right to come here straightaway, but they want that option should there ever be a need for them to leave Hong Kong—if they felt unsafe or their families were under threat. Surely, in such a situation, Her Majesty’s Government should support those who have served Her Majesty’s armed forces.

I thank the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for tabling this important amendment. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the amendment is welcome and it would be an improvement on the current situation, it would still mean that young people born after 1997 were relying on the BNO status of their parents, and that that would disproportionately impact poorer Hongkongers and people whose families moved after 1997?

I think that refers to a different amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker.

On new clause 4, is it not the case for this very explicit group of people, who have given loyalty and service to this country in standing for freedom, liberty and the rule of law, that it would be deeply ironic and unjust if we were to leave them to the vagaries of a regime that has turned out to be entirely opposite freedom, liberty and the rule of law? That is why we owe them this duty of care, if they choose to take it up.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly. This is about giving people who have loyally served the Crown and defended freedom and liberty in Hong Kong the option, if they so choose, to live in the United Kingdom and be treated as equals. That is surely something we should now accept. This measure is long overdue, and I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.

I know that Mr Speaker himself shares my interest in resolving this long-standing issue. Prior to his elevation to the Chair, I worked on this issue with him for over a decade. I have worked with a number of Ministers—Home Secretaries and Ministers of State—including my friend James Brokenshire, the late Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We have worked together to try to resolve this matter and right this wrong that has been done to these servicemen, but I say with deep regret that, so far, no concrete steps have been taken by this or previous Governments to resolve this matter.

An appropriate solution must include a mechanism to grant every single one of these servicemen immediate settled status in the UK if and when they decide that they would like to take up that option. Furthermore, it should not create another group of left-behind servicemen by requiring an arbitrary period of service for people to be eligible for the right of settlement or by putting an age limit on the immediate family members they can bring to the United Kingdom. Only legislation that includes all those measures will be sufficient to finally correct the anomaly that has led to these fine servicemen being left behind. My new clause 4 would secure those objectives and finally give these servants of the Crown the right to be treated as fully British, which is no less than they deserve.

I ask the Government to support my new clause or to produce an appropriate and legally acceptable way to support these veterans and give them the status they are entitled to, dealing with this matter once and for all. With that in mind, I thank the Minister for reaching out to me about suggesting an alternative solution that may be possible. However, let me be clear: I require guarantees that will not be watered down. If the Minister does not feel able to support my new clause, I expect him to provide a fair and just solution that gives these brave and patriotic Hongkongers the outcome they deserve. I ask him to use this opportunity to provide the assurances I seek.

Order. Can I once again urge colleagues to stick to the five minutes that we talked about? We are going to have to impose a time limit shortly if we are going to get everybody in.

We have a fair old mixter-maxter of different amendments, new clauses and other provisions, and as I try to find a common theme, I find this: policy decisions that we make as a country and that we make in this place sooner or later have domestic policy implications. It does not matter how hard we try to ignore them, as we have with the rights of the Chagos islanders, or how hard we resist the logic of our decisions, as we have in the case of the Hongkongers until recent years—eventually they all require to be dealt with.

I want first to deal briefly with amendment 2, in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill, and with amendment 12, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which would remove clause 9. Clause 10 restricts the rights of children who would be born in this country but who would otherwise be stateless. The point about clause 9, which the right hon. Gentleman made very well, is not only that the removal of citizenship is obnoxious but that removal without notice is supremely dangerous. It is perfectly legitimate for Government Back Benchers to point out that the genesis of removal is to be found in the 2002 Act—[Interruption.] I see them nodding. However, I would gently counsel them that finding a way of making a measure introduced by David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, even more illiberal and draconian is not necessarily something about which anybody should be particularly proud.

It is the removal without notice that is particularly objectionable. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, one of the things we are dealing with here is the basic British sense of decency. We should not be using citizenship as some sort of tool for further punishment; there are plenty of other ways in which people who have done wrong can be punished. However, we do not use fundamental concepts of domestic and international law, such as citizenship, as a tool to do that.

The hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) have tabled various provisions on the financial barriers that have been put in place. I was happy to sign the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Streatham, and I very much support those tabled by the Scottish National party.

It seems to me from my casework as a constituency Member that the immigration system is already so complex that it is virtually impenetrable to those who are not in some way legally qualified—and, as far as I can see, to many who are. It should not therefore be administered in such a way that it is open to the Government to make a profit from these cases. There are already sufficient financial barriers in place for those who wish to have, and need to have, citizenship, and we should not be putting a further financial barrier in their way.

There is a whole range of different matters before the House this afternoon, which illustrates to me the fact that this Bill is far from properly scrutinised. We are taking it at a canter this afternoon. There may well be reasons for that in the minds of the Government’s business managers, but, as is the case with trying to wish away the consequences of our foreign policy decisions, they will not carry any water when the Bill gets to the other place, and I fear that, even though the Government will probably get their way in virtually everything today, we will not have heard the last of this Bill yet.

Order. After the next speaker, I will impose a time limit of four minutes.

I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name, and has been kindly supported by Members from eight different parties, including immigration and NHS subject experts, for which I am exceedingly grateful. I would like to declare an interest: my partner is an NHS clinician from overseas, but this new clause would not benefit him as he already has his permanent residency status confirmed.

In this country, we typically use the word “hero” far too casually; it is lavished on our celebrities and sports stars, but, while I am sure they are very deserving, this pandemic has shown us who this country’s true heroes are—our NHS workforce. While the entire NHS has played a vital role, our thanks and gratitude should perhaps go in particular to our NHS clinical workers who have come from other countries. They are individuals who have travelled huge distances to be here, often separated from their families, putting their own lives at risk to help save our lives. Regardless of their or our citizenship, the duty and responsibility to care and contribute to the wellbeing of others always comes first with them.

Although I welcome the many steps that the Government have taken already for foreign NHS workers, we need to go further, and I ask the Minister to give this some serious consideration for support this afternoon. With fees for indefinite leave to remain at almost £2,400 and citizenship applications at another £1,330, the total cost of naturalisation is almost £4,000—one of the highest fees of its type in the world, and that is after a minimum of five years, in which there will also have been an initial visa cost, another high fee to be renewed every third anniversary. The process of becoming a citizen for our NHS workers is a costly and challenging one.

Let us take as an example the case of Carrie. It is a real-life case, but I have used a different name. Carrie moved to the UK in 2016, leaving behind a husband and a four-year old child back home in south Asia. It took another year for her husband and daughter to join her because of the costs involved in dependants’ visas. They could only get to be together as a family once more by taking a loan, which she has to pay for over three years.

Three years after she arrived—so with still one more year of loan payments to go—she had to get another loan and compound her cash flow problems because she was due for visa renewal, and so had a load more fees. This year, Carrie is entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain, with loans still ongoing from previous renewals, and the ILR is more expensive again. What does she do? What options are available to Carrie? Her only choice is to apply for another loan, even bigger than before, to have the right to occupy a space in the UK and call it home. She pays her taxes every month, and has done so for five years—and oh, by the way, she is an intensive care unit nurse. She has spent the past five years, especially the past 18 months, saving lives. She should not be in debt; we should be in her debt.

I feel that it is our duty to create a new route to permanent residency for NHS workers, one that will not leave them in debt, poverty, or in constant worry about funding their next application, and that is by abolishing the costs associated with applying for indefinite leave to remain for NHS clinical workers.

I am proud that our NHS attracts such global talent and recruits from around the world, and, frankly, we would not be able to run it without them. As of last year, more than 160,000 NHS staff stated that they were of a non-British nationality, from more than 200 different countries. Residency should not be about cost; it should be about inclusion, about our communities and about contribution. Arguably, by saving our lives and keeping us safe, our NHS workers have given the biggest contribution of all.

Despite being such valued members of the communities in which they live and work, without ILR and citizenship, individuals cannot be fully part of them. Without ILR, they face barriers to home ownership, difficulty obtaining a mortgage and challenges in the job market and in higher education—there are so many different aspects. Scrapping the fees would not only make ILR more affordable and a viable option for foreign workers in our NHS, but create a more diverse and, crucially, more integrated society. Why is that important? A few weeks ago, I had a message from my partner, who was distressed at having met a new patient that morning who said, “I hope you’re not from Myanmar.” We have a long way still to go with integration and acceptance.

People from other countries who have worked in the NHS during the pandemic and throughout their lives deserve to be able to call the UK home, and actually feel like it is. It is time to abolish the fees for indefinite leave to remain for those who do clinical work in our NHS, so that those who spend time helping and treating us in our time of need can finally feel like they belong and are welcomed here with open arms.

I call Seema Malhotra, with a time limit of four minutes.

I want first to acknowledge my support for new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) tabled, and to congratulate her on a very powerful speech on ending the shame of profiteering from child citizenship fees. I also support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).

I will make my short contribution mainly about amendment 12, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and to which I have added my name. It seeks the removal of clause 9—tabled by the Home Secretary—which would deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice. That is an extraordinary proposal, which has caused shockwaves across communities. In particular, in Feltham and Heston, it has really affected the south Asian community. I am grateful to all who have written in to me and signed the petition, which has almost 150,000 signatures. I also thank the immigration solicitor, Mr Harjap Bhangal, for his work and awareness raising of this issue.

I was born in Britain in Hammersmith in west London, and I grew up in Hounslow. It appears that, under the law, as drafted, I could theoretically be deprived of my citizenship with no notice, and potentially without appeal, because my parents were born in another country, even though they became British nationals and served their community with distinction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say in his closing remarks whether that could ever happen to anyone. It appears that this proposal is the thin end of an appalling wedge. Members of my extended family were also among those who were expelled from Uganda in mass expulsions of the Indian community. I am sure that the Minister will understand why this has caused such concern.

The Home Secretary’s clause would amend the British Nationality Act 1981, which requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of their deprivation order, the reasons for the order and their right of appeal. In clause 9(2), proposed new section 40(5A) of that Act specifies circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice. That includes when

“the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to…give notice”

or

“it would…not be reasonably practicable to give notice”

for any other reason, or if giving notice would not be

“in the interests of national security”,

in the interests of relations with another country or “otherwise in the public interest”.

Perhaps someone can tell me what “relations with another country” means. If, in theory, a foreign Government with whom the Government are negotiating a trade deal say that they want British citizenship revoked from a group of people they would like to see returned back to their country of origin as a condition, possibly for political reasons, in theory, the Home Secretary could do so without saying why. This is a matter not of what this is likely to be about, but of what becomes possible. There is no practical reason for this change. The present rules governing notice allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to the individual’s last known address.

I cannot support the Home Secretary’s clause, which has breathed huge distrust and insecurity into the lives of millions of peaceful, law-abiding people. Having this power, without needing to give explanation, could affect not just those people but their children and grandchildren. I urge all hon. Members to support amendment 12 today.

Today’s debate covers many different aspects. I certainly hope that the Government will consider new clause 4 carefully, but I want to focus on new clause 9 and the impact that the change in notification of revocation of nationality has had.

I say straightaway to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not in her place at the moment, that when she describes the Bill as “hostile” and “horrible”, she should consider very carefully, as we all should, the impact on the lives of so many people of those who are killed by terrorists. Whether they are in Manchester, in London Bridge or anywhere else, the important thing about those ghastly incidents is that they affect those from every background, of every faith, of every race and of every colour. Clause 9 is not—

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member properly. We are talking today about people dying because of this Government’s policies—because they are so desperate that they are fleeing war-torn countries—and he wants us to think about terrorists. I think that that is quite appalling. I would really like him to withdraw that comment.

With the greatest respect, what I am talking about is a specific aspect of the revocation of nationality for appalling behaviour against the interests of the country to which we all belong and of which we are all nationals—a very specific point—so I will not follow the hon. Member into that debate, I am afraid.

To clarify, in reference to the very eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) drew an association between terrorism and the fees for children seeking to get nationality here. That is what has just happened. I think he should revoke those comments.

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. I specifically quoted two words that the hon. Member for Streatham used in relation to the clause—she spoke about this “horrible” Bill and this “hostile” Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) will recognise that the clause has been used by Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), to stir up concerns—which, bluntly speaking, I regard as scaremongering—among members of different ethnic communities in our country. To my way of thinking, that is deeply inappropriate.

What we are talking about is the notification of revocation of British nationality to a tiny, tiny number of people who have chosen to behave in a way that is totally against the interests of our country and who have allied themselves with the enemies of this country. All the clause will do is allow for the absence of physical notification where those individuals are either unreachable or in a war zone. So far, so good.

I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he take it from me that the alarm about the clause is not because of any stirring from the Opposition, but because of the reality of its content and the Government’s track record?

Over the past 10 or 11 years, I have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman many times on many issues, particularly work and pensions. On this particular point, I am sorry, but I think he is being a little disingenuous about how some of his colleagues are using it to stir up concerns when actually we need to be together as a nation. Where I agree with him is that there is real work for the Government to do—as the Minister knows, because he kindly gave me time on the point yesterday—to communicate much more effectively with Britons across this country about the facts of the legislation, which draw on a right that has been there for the Government for 100 years, since the first world war. Most people—most of our constituents—have no idea about that.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I have given way quite a lot. Can I make some progress? I am just conscious that a lot of people want to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me make some progress and let us see where we are.

The really important points are as follows. How many people have actually had their UK nationality revoked in such a context? On which crimes does the 100-year clause have an impact? Is there a right of appeal to a legal tribunal? There is. Will anyone have their single nationality revoked, completely obliviously to where their parents or grandparents might have come from originally? The answer to that, to my strong understanding, is almost certainly no in 99.999% of cases.

In the remaining time, may I press my hon. Friend the Minister for clarification, not just for Members but for those in the nation at large, to reassure them about the nature of the atrocities that need to be committed for this clause to be applied, and the fact that it absolutely does not target anyone of any origin whatsoever? Indeed, if it did, my wife, who was Kenyan when I married her, would certainly be affected. There are millions of people who potentially might be affected, and that is why reassurance is required to make clear that this is purely about a very simple business of notification when a person is unreachable or in a war zone.

On that note, I will give way to the hon. Member for Streatham.

I am very glad that the hon. Member has given way. I was not present when he referred to my speech, but I want to ask him if he really understands what the issues are. The Government, as he rightly said, already have the ability to reduce people’s citizenship, so why do they want to make it even easier, and why do they want to remove all checks and balances? This is where the concern arises. After what has happened to the Windrush generation, and after what has happened to the young people who—

Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time. The allotted time allows two interventions, and we have had those, so I am afraid that that is it.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have just welcomed Little Amal to Parliament Square. Little Amal is the 3.5-metre puppet which has travelled 8,000 km across the world to raise the plight of refugees and support them. However, I did not rise to speak about refugees. I want to speak about clause 9, which has been mentioned several times during the debate.

I know that these powers to strip people of their citizenship are not new powers. I do not need a lecture about what has happened in the past, and which Government introduced it. What worries me is that the legislation that is being introduced now is making the powers more draconian. Since 2019, we have seen the Government justify the deprivation of citizenship of people who do not possess dual nationality, who were born in this country, and who have not set foot in the country to which they are being returned. The Secretary of State simply referred to “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual would be eligible for foreign citizenship; that was not even confirmed.

My hon. Friend is describing exactly what could have happened to me when I was born. It is likely that if this Bill had been law in the early 1970s, I would have been stripped of my citizenship as a young child. [Interruption.]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Let me just say that, being a middle child, I am not intimidated by the braying from the other side of the House, so I will continue to advance my arguments.

Clause 9 states that the Government do not need to notify someone who has been stripped of citizenship. Is there data from the Home Office which says that the Government cannot enact this law because they have had so many problems reaching people to notify them that they have been stripped of their citizenship? Is there a genuine blockage, or is this being done because it means more power and more severity?

No, I will not give way.

Is this also being done because it means that the appeals process and the decisions that are made will receive less scrutiny? The Government need to think long and hard about all that.

I am also concerned about the extent to which the Government are beginning to increase the frequency of their use of this policy. Between 2006 and 2018, 175 people lost their citizenship on national security grounds, but 104 of those instances occurred in just one year, 2017. If the Government feel that they have to use these powers more and more frequently, that is a worrying trend. Of course dangerous criminals should be locked up and serve their sentences, but if a criminal has been born and raised here and has been radicalised in this country, why do we think it is the responsibility of another country to try that person? That cannot be right.

I know that this will provoke some reaction from the Government Benches, but the truth is that it is nearly always non-white people whose citizenship is being revoked. Before there is any more braying, let me read out the statistics. According to the New Statesman’s analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics, two in every five people from non-white ethnic minorities in the UK are likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship. This compares with one in 20 characterised as white. We cannot argue about the statistics.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a wonderful speech.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is making some interesting points, but it is really important for us all to understand that this is not some sort of act of racism. Anna Chapman was a Russian spy with dual nationality and she had her nationality revoked. So I urge the hon. Lady to do the right thing by her old friend Jo Cox and to do the things that bring us together. This is about the good of the nation. It has nothing to do with colour or race.

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. What I would say to everyone is that I am not trying here to flame tensions or to play politics. I am genuinely saying that ethnic minorities in this country are in fear of this clause. It has created widespread fear in communities. If we start treating non-white criminals and terrorists as though they are the responsibility of another country and not our responsibility, we will send a signal to law-abiding non-white British citizens that they are somehow less British in this country. I genuinely ask the Government to consider this.

I have been listening to the hon. Lady and I am very confused. Can she tell me where exactly in the Bill it refers to people’s skin colour or ethnicity? Otherwise, this is pure scaremongering and trying to create division. The Bill does not reference skin colour or ethnicity. A terrorist is a terrorist, and I do not want them in this country, regardless of their skin colour.

I do not feel that I can even respond to the hon. Member’s comments, but I will say that I agree that terrorists are terrorists. Regardless of their skin colour, they should be tried in this country, because they are British terrorists who were born here, radicalised here and committed their crimes because of growing up here. I really think that maybe the hon. Member should go on unconscious bias training, because I am not sure what else to say to him.

Finally, I would say to the Minister that the Government also have to think about whether the powers that they are bringing in are compatible with this country’s international obligations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps not the best look to persuade people to trust this Government with their citizenship, when they are shouting down Members who are of an ethnic minority, raising concerns—[Interruption.] And shouting down another one. We are raising genuine concerns on behalf of our constituents and their families.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I was born and raised in this country. I do not even need to mention the colour of my skin. I am here representing people who are genuinely worried about the powers in the Bill and how their lives will be impacted as we move forward. I would just say, without taking up too much time, that people in this House should consider that the powers we have in this House will have a severe impact on people who are non-white, are law-abiding British citizens, make up the fabric of our community, do everything right and now feel that they are being penalised.

I know that emotions are running high on both sides, but Members on both sides should try to take the heat out of this. I have heard shouting on both sides and it is really not helping the debate.

I rise to speak to amendment 12 to clause 9. Peterborough is a city of an estimated 20,000 Muslims and a city full of people who can trace their ancestry to scores of different countries around the world. Many are dual nationals. They are my friends, my colleagues and my supporters. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims—something I do with pride.

Last week, I held a surgery at the Khadijah mosque and met my local branch of the Conservative Muslim Forum. A common experience within British Muslim households and families are stories from first-generation migrants—grandparents and great-grandparents—telling younger family members that there may come a time when they will be asked to leave. Despite our shared values, this insecurity is understandable and genuinely felt. The UK was a very different country in the 1970s, when racism and far-right marches were common and Idi Amin had just thrown the Asians out of Uganda. Even today, Islamophobia and racism are all too common.

Some 93% of Muslims say they feel strongly that they belong to Britain. That not only applies to Muslims; it applies to other communities, too. There is nothing—nothing—in this Bill that should make families more insecure, and those who push this perception on social media and in this House spread fear and anxiety. They should understand the consequences of their actions.

For over a century, Home Secretaries have had the ability to remove British citizenship in exceptional circumstances, provided it does not leave a person stateless. There must be a significant risk of harm to the public, such as terrorism, and there is a right to appeal. This Bill makes no changes to these existing powers. There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether it is right for the Home Secretary to have this power and whether she should be able to strip, albeit in limited circumstances, dual nationals of their citizenship. That argument was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

But that is not what this Bill is about. Clause 9 alters the requirement for the Home Secretary to serve notice on a person in cases where this would be impracticable, such as if they are in hiding or in the middle of a warzone. To present this as a threat to people living in my city is scaremongering, which is shameful. Nobody in Peterborough is affected by this minor change to the law, and no constituent should feel concerned about their citizenship.

Let me tell the House what Labour activists and Labour councillors are saying in my constituency. Councillor Amjad Iqbal, a legal practitioner—not a lawyer—messaged constituents saying:

“As your councillor I am very concerned at some of the policies this government is sharing behind closed doors. As ethnic minority individuals I wish to share this with you and please sign and send to Paul Bristow the MP whose Government is responsible for this fiasco.”

Behind closed doors? We are debating it in the House of Commons.

Another councillor, Councillor Qayyum, said ward residents

“have been told that their Nationality cannot be revoked by an MP who has written to them on official letterhead paper. This is untrue.”

I cannot revoke anyone’s citizenship. To send out that message to people in my constituency is shameful. This misinformation has consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in my city.

One of the kindest, most loving families in my constituency—a family I helped with a schooling issue—came to me after being told by an activist that I want to see them deported and deprived of their citizenship. This is despicable. I know why Members opposite and the Labour party do this—it is because they have nothing left to say.

I also rise to speak in support of amendment 12.

Citizenship is a fundamental right that speaks to our very sense of belonging and identity, which is why it is enshrined not just in law but in the UN charter, the universal declaration of human rights and the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons.

Under this Home Secretary, the Government have failed to treat citizenship with the reverence and respect it deserves. By removing the requirement to give notice, she has done away with due process and has expanded her already draconian powers that allow her to deprive anyone of British citizenship, provided she believes it is in the interest of the public good.

Reference has been made to powers that, according to the analysis of the Office for National Statistics, could affect 6 million people, many from a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Jamaican or Nigerian background. Let me be absolutely clear: that is the group of people the Bill will disproportionately impact, which is why this House must vote the clause down today.

Over the past fortnight since I originally raised this issue, I have had people telling me, much like some of the arguments we have heard from the Government Benches, “As long as you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear from the Home Office.” I absolutely disagree: working-class people from a black, from an Asian or from any ethnic minority background have everything to fear from this Home Office. Let us not forget that it is this Tory Home Office that presided over the mass deportations in the Windrush scandal; that it is this Home Office that continues to prosecute a hostile environment against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; and that it is this Home Office that uses Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” not as a warning, but as a guidebook. I therefore have no confidence, and neither do my constituents, that, based on its record, the Home Office will not further expand the scope of its powers to deprive someone of British citizenship on more spurious grounds.

The powers that the Home Secretary has even now to deprive someone of British citizenship already create two tiers in society based on foreign ancestry, but removing the requirement to provide notice takes things even further. An individual stripped of citizenship will not be told or given reasons and will therefore have no real right of appeal—and all this can happen even as they are being deported. Frankly, such a move should send shivers down the spine of anyone interested in upholding liberty and due process. I simply ask those who want to accuse me of sensationalising the situation to come walk for a day, for a year, for a lifetime in the shoes of someone the Home Office has decreed to be a second-class citizen, and then tell me that they honestly believe that these are not the real fears of those from ethnic minority backgrounds in our own country today.

I wish to focus on clause 9 but will refer to amendment 12.

Clause 9 amends the deprivation of citizenship powers in the British Nationality Act 1981. Currently, as Members have highlighted, section 40(5) of that Act requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of a deprivation order, the reasons for it and the person’s right of appeal. The power to deprive an individual of their citizenship has been available for more than a century, since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, and is currently also contained in the 1981 Act. Home Office powers to strip British nationals of their citizenship were introduced after the 2005 London bombings and broadened in 2014.

As we have heard, there has been some criticism of the clause in the House and outside the House. For example, the Runnymede Trust states that citizenship is not a privilege and that the Bill is

“a threat to ethnic minority Britons”.

I wholly disagree. Citizenship of any country is a privilege, not a right. We are all privileged to be British citizens. It is a privilege that comes with responsibility.

The deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. It is integral to the national security of this country that if an affected person cannot be contacted, or if knowledge of their whereabouts derives from sensitive intelligence sources, we can act in the best interests of this country and our citizens.

Removing someone’s British citizenship is a last resort against the most dangerous people who pose a risk to society, or those whose conduct involves very high levels of harm. It is rare and always come with a right to appeal. Deprivation of citizenship on fraud grounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently and so were never entitled to it in the first place.

The Bill does not change any existing rights, or the circumstances in which a person can be deprived of their citizenship. Decisions are made following the careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and always in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually. With regard to seeking to deprive an individual of their British citizenship on the basis that that is conducive to the public good, the law requires that this action should proceed only if the individual will not be left stateless.

The hon. Member is describing a textbook example of how the Home Office is supposed to work, but in the experience of many of my constituents, time and again its decisions are riddled with errors, mistakes and misjudgments all the way through, from top to bottom; and the Minister knows this well. Given that the Home Office makes so many mistakes, does the hon. Member agree that it needs to be a lot more careful with the people it is dealing with?

I agree, in that I, too, have constituents who have been waiting for five years for their asylum status to be decided. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Home Office officials who deal with people need to have proper and efficient processes in place.

More generally, although human migration has been going on for millennia, we face increasing global challenges caused by a range of complex climate, economic, social and political factors. Uncontrolled mass migration has caused a swing to nationalism in some European countries, and we must not let that happen here. This country has always welcomed immigrants; we have lived together in a tolerant society that welcomes immigrants. The developed world, including our allies in Europe, needs to take better measures to control migration, but also to help people thrive in their homeland, rather than facing the indignity and lack of worth that they face in Europe, where people are exploited or detained in facilities. No man, no woman, no Government, nor any faith should be upholding this new form of slavery.

I rise in support of amendment 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Before I speak to the amendment, let me put on record my complete and absolute opposition to this Bill in its entirety.

This Bill is a sham. This Home Secretary is intent on extending her predecessor’s hostile environment policies to ensure that migrants and asylum seekers feel unwelcome and unwanted in the UK. The legislation is not only atrocious, but poorly written, as is demonstrated by the fact that the Government tabled 80 amendments to their own Bill after it had undergone line-by-line scrutiny in Committee.

Let me turn to clause 9, which amendment 12 seeks to remove. The inclusion of this clause, which allows the Home Secretary to deprive a person of their British citizenship without any warning, is deeply worrying. In the last couple of weeks, more than 60 of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are concerned about the clause. The Government declare that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. They have got it backwards; citizenship is a right, not a privilege, and this clause represents a fundamental breach of the rule of law.

I secured my British citizenship in the ’80s, after nearly two decades in this country. It is people like me and those with migrant heritage who have the most to fear from this clause and this Government. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people—whether they are migrants or not—are frightened of what this Government could do to them, particularly in the wake of the Windrush scandal. Depriving someone of their citizenship is a serious undertaking; it should be subject to appropriate safeguards, which must include giving individuals notice. For this reason, I support amendment 12, which would remove the clause from the Bill.

I want to finish with the words of one of my constituents, who said:

“As an aunt to five children of mixed heritage, as someone with a sister-in-law who is Moroccan, as someone with friends who were not born in Britain, and as a human being who exists in this world, I believe this bill is inhuman, unconscionable, and evil in its intent.”

Order. I will reduce the time limit to just three minutes, because I want to try to get as many people in as I possibly can, and I will ask the Minister to respond to the debate no later than 4.30 pm.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The residents of Rother Valley warmly welcome the Bill. I will speak against new clause 12 and in favour of clause 9. I have been very disappointed with the tone of the debate, especially with regard to the poor victims of the Windrush scandal, which was an absolute tragedy for this country. Opposition Members are somehow equating this Bill with Windrush. This Bill is designed to strip citizenship from dual citizens who are a threat to this country—terrorists, hardened criminals and those people we do not want in this country and should not be part of this country. For Opposition Members to equate those sorts of reprobates with Windrush is deeply insulting and deeply troubling. It is no more than scaremongering and trying to wind people up.

The Bill is not about taking citizenship without notice; that will not happen unless it is not “reasonably practical” to give that notice. I want to hear from Opposition Members on how we could go to, say, an ISIS fighter in Syria and hand them a notice saying, “You’re being deprived of your citizenship”, or to some terrorist in Chechnya saying, “Excuse me, Mr Terrorist, please stop shooting people—I’ve been sent here by the Government to give you a notice.” That would be ludicrous and would put UK Government officials in danger.

The question for this House is whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the rule of law, British citizens and British officials, or do we want to send British officials into harm’s way—to the ISIS suicide bombers of Iraq and Syria to give them a piece of paper? I say no. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position. I am happy to take interventions from Opposition Members if they wish to challenge this, but none is forthcoming, because they know that this is the truth. They know that this Bill—

The hon. Member says that officials cannot go to some places to inform people about their citizenship. How did they notify Shamima Begum, I might ask, that she no longer had her British citizenship? There are clearly ways to do it. Opposition Members’ objection is that there are already mechanisms in law that allow the Government to deprive people of their citizenship. Why do they want to make that easier? Look at everything that has happened with immigration over the past number of years. That is why people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are afraid—because every time the Government change legislation, things are worse for people from those communities.

I thank the hon. Lady for that point, although I am a bit confused about it. Shamima Begum could be deprived of her citizenship first because she was found, as she was in a refugee camp, and secondly because she was a terrorist—and I say, good. It is good that her citizenship was taken away. Long may we continue taking citizenship away from terrorists.

Frankly, if people have done nothing wrong and are not terrorists or a threat to this country, they have nothing to fear. That is the message to put out there. This is about such a small minority of cases. Some would argue that we should take this measure against more of these terrorists and reprobates. I would definitely support that. This Bill is not about targeting minorities; it is about bad people. I am confused about whose side Labour Members are on. Are they on the side of upstanding, law-abiding British people, or the side of people who want to do harm to the country—to blow people up, cause damage and put us in harm’s way? I am very confused by their point of view.

Thousands of constituents in Ilford South are certainly not terrorists. What happens if they decide to go on a protest about their rights, or against something that the Government are doing to them? Would they then be deemed a terrorist, and at what point? Remember that some of the laws that the Government are looking to bring forward over the next couple of weeks extend the circumstances in which people can be accused of being terrorists. If someone is a climate activist, are they now a terrorist? What about someone who is campaigning because their family are Bangladeshis who are drowning in Bangladesh due to this Government’s inaction on climate change? Can it then be said, “You’re a terrorist—you’re going to have your citizenship removed”? The problem is that people in Ilford South do not trust this Government to take care of minority communities because their track record is so dreadful.

Order. We cannot have interventions that last longer than the speech that is being given.

I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). That seems to be Labour Members’ argument. They are creating a Windrush of victims, and talking about activists as terrorists. They are not actually on the side of British people, or on the side of victims or activists. They would rather put up these straw men and say, “Ah, but what happens if the evil hand of Government does this or that?” It is complete rubbish. This Bill is designed to allow us to take control of our borders and of who lives in this country. The people of Rother Valley fundamentally want good people in this country, and people who actually know what is going on. There is an appeals process and, as we have established, a tribunal. The Bill is not about arbitrarily taking away citizenship; it is about helping and looking after our country.

Labour is making a desperate bid to stir up, dare I say it, racial tension—and it is racial tension. As the grandson and son of immigrants, I find that deeply upsetting. It is encouraging division in our country when we need to come together to defeat the terrorists and the bad people. The Bill gives the Government no more power than they had before, except for when it comes to notification. I would say that that protects British officials from going into war zones to give notification. We are not talking about depriving people of citizenship in this way when we can trace them; we are not talking about people in the United Kingdom with a postcode, who we can go to, speak to, and deal with. We are talking about those we cannot get access to. I do not see why Labour is supporting those people who want to do harm to this country. It is telling that in order to, frankly, scam votes out of people, it is trying to appeal to the lowest base.

I have given way twice, and have already gained a couple more minutes, so I will not give way on this point.

I will briefly speak to new clause 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke in favour of. It is superb, and I hope that the Government have listened. Those Hongkongers who have given military or police service should be at the front of the queue, and the Government should look to my hon. Friend’s new clause and support it, because it is exactly what the Bill is about: looking after the good people, protecting those who have done good things and given service to our country, and keeping out the bad ones. That is why I support it.

I was proud to add my name to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), on the abolition of the excessive fees that children are being charged, and I hope that the Government accept it. Overall, this Bill is deeply flawed, driven by ideology and destined to have lasting catastrophic consequences. If it is intended to make our system of citizenship and asylum fairer and more humane, it does the opposite. If it is intended to smash the evil gangs who trade in human lives, it does the opposite. If it is intended to end the heart-rending tragedy of people dying in the icy waters of the English channel, it does the opposite. If it is intended to make our borders secure and make us safer, it does the exact opposite. Yet the Government plough on with their hostile environment, without thought for the devastating impact it may have.

Ministers have been warned by experts and academics that the Bill undermines the UK’s commitment to the 1951 Geneva refugee convention and much more besides. Given the weight of evidence against the Government’s approach, one might wonder why they persist. Why, indeed? The removal of ethnic minorities from these islands has been a long-standing fascist demand. On the streets where I grew up, it was translated into something more straightforward and visceral. Chalked up on walls or shouted through letterboxes was, “Send them back.” Now this Government are hanging the sword of Damocles over our head. If someone does something wrong, or something perceived to be wrong by the nation of their ancestral heritage, they could be stripped of their citizenship and ordered to “go back home.” This right-wing rhetoric has returned in the Nationality and Borders Bill that is in front of the House this afternoon.

Let us be blunt, Mr Deputy Speaker: the Bill will not affect your good self, because of the colour of your skin, but it will impact people like me, because of the colour of our skin and our ancestral heritage. What is even more galling is that the Prime Minister is getting someone with brown skin to do his dirty work with a Bill that could have disastrous consequences for black and brown people. No wonder there are accusations of tokenism from within the Asian, African and Caribbean British communities. What is the point of having black and brown people as Cabinet Ministers sitting on the Conservative Front Bench if they are going to directly act against the interests of black and brown people, just so that they can hold ministerial office?

When the military Government of Myanmar disempowered ethnic groups by removing their citizenship, many of us shuddered with horror, but people are now frightened that the Home Secretary can remove their citizenship at a stroke, retrospectively and without any notice.

It is better to move on from such an appalling speech.

Amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which would remove clause 9, is a quite straightforward legal matter. However, as I have listened to the debate, I have thought on occasion that hon. Members have been debating a clause that does not exist or is not in the Bill. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), the Labour Government, through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—as well as through further legislation in 2016—codified and ensured that a Home Secretary of whatever political party had the power to exclude or take away somebody’s citizenship in certain circumstances. If there was an objection to that principle, an amendment should have been tabled. Anyone in the House had the opportunity to do that. However, the only amendment tabled on this measure concerns the notice period—that is it. Let us therefore have a debate on the notice period. If the Labour party opposes in principle what the previous Labour Government did in 2002 and 2016, I am certain that its Front-Bench team would have tabled an amendment.

Let us get to the notice period and what we are arguing about, on which important issues were raised. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made a point that I hope the Minister will address. If an order is made without notice, does the appeal process start when the order is made or when the order is received, as is currently the norm and the law?

I could read out some of the scaremongering and appalling things said about the Bill, but I do not want to go down into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) gave a magnificent speech on that. I find it surprising, because if this or any other Government wanted to do things of which they are being accused, they could do them now. What does it matter whether people have notice or not? There was the genuinely unbelievable suggestion that the Bill could be used to address climate change activists. The Opposition are genuinely scraping the barrel when it comes down to that level. I am here to tell my constituents that that is scaremongering. There is a requirement for exceptional circumstances in clause 9, which are there to protect them, and no one has anything to fear from the clause at all.

I am deeply concerned by and opposed to the great majority of the proposals in this inherently authoritarian Bill. Much of it appears to be written to satisfy front-page tabloid headlines rather than to fix the broken asylum system. It amounts to a fundamental rejection of our international obligations under the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees and does nothing to resolve these complex issues at all. Even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that measures in the Bill could lead to an increase in unsafe journeys across the channel rather than a reduction in them. The Bill originally tried to criminalise not only asylum seekers but those who try to help and rescue them. I cannot recall a more immoral and wicked piece of UK legislation.

I am disturbed by clauses 9 and 10, which enable a Home Secretary to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice and restrict stateless children’s access to British citizenship. As a British citizen with dual nationality, I personally feel the ice-cold chill of those proposals. It looks and feels like a ramping up of the hostile environment. I will not support a set of clauses that create a hierarchy of British citizenship. The Government are trying to reframe citizenship as a privilege, not the right that it is. The message this sends is that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants, so that their citizenship and therefore all their rights are permanently insecure.

This Bill clearly disproportionately targets those of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other racial groups, regardless of their country of birth. The racialised nature of this tiered system is obvious: the citizenship of those like myself, many of my constituents and millions of others of minority and migrant heritage is less secure and less important than those who belong to majority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. It is a shameful piece of legislation that we should all be concerned about. Much of the Bill appears to be written to satisfy the front pages of tabloids, as I have said. It is not in favour of all the communities such as those of our parents, who came here years and years ago and worked hard to rebuild this country, and they are facing this because of this Tory Government.

There have been some powerful speeches, and I want in particular to pay tribute to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), whom Conservative Members would have done better to listen to rather than shout at.

I want to address the Government’s clause 9, which proposes removing people’s citizenship without notice and, in effect, removing their rights of appeal. When people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds raise concerns—deep concerns—about this proposal, the response from the Government is, “Trust us”. “Trust us”—the people who deported black citizens in the Windrush generation? “Trust us”—the people who sent “Go home” vans around working-class estates? “Trust us”—the people who authored the hostile environment? “Trust us”—the people who are talking in this legislation about offshore detention centres? “Trust us”—the people who have created an atmosphere in which others are trying to demonise those going into the waters off our country to try to save lives and prevent death? “Trust us”? It is no wonder that the people at the sharp end of this Government’s hostile environment and at the sharp end of this racist legislation do not trust this Government.

It is absolutely appalling that people are being made to feel as if they do not belong in their own country and as if they are somehow second-class citizens. Let me contrast that—[Interruption.] No, they are not being made to feel that because of Members of Parliament raising these concerns. It is because of the legislation—the racist, divisive, scapegoating legislation—that this Government are bringing in.

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am not going to give way. The hon. Member talked enough rubbish before.

I want to draw a contrast with a community event that I attended in the most ethnically diverse ward in my constituency, Gipton and Harehills, in Leeds on Friday. Young people were there reading poems about their experiences, and one poem read by a local resident was about how the community has welcomed asylum seekers and welcomed refugees. Rather than using the issue of migration as a weapon of mass distraction to distract people from the responsibility that the Tory Government and their policies have for the misery in their lives, this Government would do better to listen to the message of hope and unity from diverse communities and stop peddling this legislation of division, racism, scapegoating and hate—and I make no apologies for this speech.

I just want to put on record four things. First, this Bill is an appalling piece of legislation. It is designed to appease the most backward elements in our society and it is designed to chase headlines in the popular media. The attacks on refugees and the attacks on people who support refugees are nothing but appalling and disgusting. The idea that this country has always been a welcoming place for refugees is simply not true. Often, it has been very hostile towards refugees. If we were that welcoming, we would not have so many people who have legitimately sought asylum in Britain living in desperate poverty, because the Home Office cannot be bothered to process their applications, and they are living in penury as a result. It would not be criminalising people who are trying to save lives on our shores, or prosecuting people in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, or anything else. We should all be very proud of people who demonstrated in memory of those who died off Calais, including the 250 people who attended a demonstration at the Stade in Hastings a couple of weeks ago.

I wish to refer to three parts of the Bill. I absolutely support new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I have been a member, and in the past chair, of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party group for many years, and I worked with Olivier Bancoult, and many other Chagos islanders. We did wrong to the Chagos islanders in the 1970s and ’80s when they were driven off their land, and we have done wrong by them many times since then. The reason British nationality was offered was that the late Tam Dalyell and I tabled an amendment to previous legislation, to try to get recognition of the rights of Chagos islanders. Unfortunately, the Foreign Office and the Home Office collectively got it wrong, and the new clause corrects a mistake—let us be generous and call it a mistake—that was made many years ago, and will grant security to Chagos islanders living in this country.

I strongly support new clause 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Nationality fees should be based solely on the cost of processing, not on the Home Office making a vast amount of money out of that. The new clause would help to right what is an intrinsic wrong.

In my remaining 39 seconds, I strongly support amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), about the removal of British nationality. Many of us in the House—probably everybody—has at some point been to a citizenship ceremony at our town hall. They are nice; they are moving occasions. But all that could be for naught. The Home Secretary could simply remove the right of citizenship from someone who has gained it in this country or gained it through their heritage. Such a removal requires the agreement of another country, but people will not get that, and we will end up with stateless people as a result.

I wish to support new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). The “Barriers to Britishness” report was published a year ago this month, and in his foreword, the Conservative hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) pointed out that the cost of citizenship in the UK is the highest in the western world, and that

“the combined cost of applying to become a citizen in Australia, Canada, the USA and France still does not add up to the cost of a single application in Britain. The fee of £1,330 is almost four times the cost to the Home Office of processing an application.”

This is a hostile environment for hard-working, law-abiding migrant families, and that is why clause 9 provokes such anxiety.

I know many families on the so-called 10-year route to indefinite leave, which means that two and a half years’ leave to remain at a time needs to be obtained four times, before they can apply for indefinite leave. They pay extortionate fees every time. Sometimes people lose their jobs because they do not have leave to remain between one two-and-a-half-year period ending and the Home Office getting round to granting the next. No recourse to public funds applies throughout that 10-year period—that is the subject of a different amendment that we will debate later.

At the Liaison Committee last year I told the Prime Minister about a family I know. Both parents work, the mother as a teaching assistant and the father in a big international company. The mother’s job continued after lockdown, but the father was laid off. Lockdown happened in one of the gaps between two-and-a-half-year periods, and the father’s employer did not know whether it was allowed to furlough him under the new scheme, so it did not. That family had no recourse to public funds, and all they could do was turn to a foodbank to survive. At the Liaison Committee the Prime Minister said that hard-working, law-abiding families in that position should have help of one kind or another. I very much agree with him, but unfortunately they do not, and every two and a half years they have extortionate visa fees. How do people cope with massive fees? For one family I know, we are talking about £14,000 every two and a half years in order to stay in the UK. For 10 years, they get no child benefit, even if the children are British citizens; no universal credit if somebody loses a job; and, prior to the pandemic, no free school meals if the family hit hard times. That is the hostile environment for law-abiding, hard-working migrant families, which is why families are so worried about what is in this Bill.

It has certainly been an interesting debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) —I think he is moving on to pastures new after this debate—and I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), to his position.

The debate started with at least one positive point from an Opposition Member, when the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), referred to some of the changes we are looking to make to correct historical anomalies that have existed for far too long. The reforms we make in the Bill to British nationality law will finally address those anomalies, which will have a positive impact for a significant number of people. The Bill also includes measures for the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control.

Let me turn to some of the amendments. Government amendments 17 and 18, in relation to deprivation of citizenship, are minor and technical amendments to correct a drafting error in clause 9, so this is an appropriate opportunity to address amendment 12 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).

We heard some quite strong comments from Opposition Members about amendment 12, but let us really get into what clause 9 does. It amends section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow the requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship to be disapplied in certain limited circumstances, such as where there is no way of communicating with the person. For example, as was well pointed out by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, if someone is in a warzone, it is rather impractical to suggest that we should ask them to stop shooting so that we can pop up and serve them a notice. We heard some extraordinary comments from Opposition Members implying that we can simply pop a letter in the post and it will almost certainly get to someone.

To be clear, clause 9 does not change the circumstances under which a person can be deprived of British citizenship, nor does it remove the right of appeal against a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it preserves the right of appeal in cases where specified circumstances mean it is not reasonable to serve a person with a notice of a decision to deprive. The Government’s minor amendments to clause 9 clarify that the statutory right of appeal in deprivation cases is a right to appeal against the deprivation decision itself and not the deprivation order.

As was touched on, deprivation of citizenship is hardly a new concept; it has been in operational practice for many years, including under Labour Governments. The 1981 Act provides a statutory right of appeal against a decision to deprive. Clause 9 preserves that right of appeal in cases where the notice of a decision to deprive has not been served. Once a person makes contact with the Home Office, they are given a copy of the deprivation decision notice. They can then seek to exercise their statutory right to appeal against the decision.

Amendment 12 would remove clause 9 in its entirety, undermining the integrity of the immigration system and this Government’s efforts to keep dangerous people out of this country. To reiterate, there is no change in the scope of who could potentially be deprived, no change in the criteria, and appeal rights are still there.

It is important that we are completely accurate in what we are saying. It is true that the Bill actually does extend the role of the Home Secretary with regard to notices. Let us be clear: it places in the power of the Home Secretary the decision that they need not give notice if that is

“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or,”

breathtakingly,

“otherwise in the public interest.”

That confers a huge amount of discretion on the Home Secretary. The Bill takes our concerns about due process to another plane.

I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman did not throw a book at the Dispatch Box this time. Let me repeat what I just said: no one extra in scope, no change in criteria, and judicial oversight still there for an appeal. Let us be clear that we cannot simply allow someone who could cause high harm to this country, or who has gained citizenship via fraud, to avoid these provisions simply by hiding away—for example, in one of the repressive regimes that some Opposition Members seem far too supportive of—where we cannot reasonably issue them with a notice. We cannot be in a position where we could never deprive someone of citizenship just because it is not practical to pop a letter in the post to them.

I turn now to new clause 2, which I am afraid would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law dating back to 1915, under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories, creating quite a major precedent. However, I do hear the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and, to be fair, by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We will continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke powerfully to new clause 4. The Government remain extremely grateful to former British Hong Kong service personnel. He will be aware that under the British nationality selection scheme a limited number of personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. Additionally, because they were all adults at the time, all such veterans would have been eligible to acquire BNO status between 1986 and 1987. We therefore believe that most should hold BNO status and be eligible for the BNO route.

Granting the right of abode would set quite a precedent. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Home Secretary has identified an option that will enable our Government to treat this group of personnel in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel who were based in Hong Kong before handover. To be clear, that would be on top of the existing pathways they are already eligible for, including the BNO visa route and any other route. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the impacts of this policy and the practicalities of its delivery, and I will aim to provide further details to the House as soon as I am able to, with a view to a solution being provided before the end of the next calendar year. I hope that that is of reassurance to my hon. Friend, whose regular challenge to us is that it is not just about having an idea; it is also about having a timeline to deliver it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others spoke powerfully about new clause 5, which raises issues about eligibility for the BNO route and particularly about those who were too young to obtain BNO status before the handover to China and whose BNO parents or grandparents, with whom they form a household, do not wish to apply for that route—effectively, they do not wish to move from Hong Kong. There are issues with the new clause as it is drafted, given that it does not contain an age limit and its scope could extend even to those who have never set foot in Hong Kong. However, we hear the very strong points that have been made, and we very much recognise the importance of our close ties to the people of Hong Kong.

I emphasise that those who are not eligible for the BNO route have a number of other UK immigration routes available to them, not least the very expanded skilled worker route. Individuals from Hong Kong can also apply to come, for example, as a student. As my right hon. Friend referred to, there is the existing youth mobility scheme, which is open to those aged between 18 and 30 and which offers a two-year grant of leave in the UK, with scope to switch, once people are here, to routes that lead to permanent settlement. There are currently 1,000 places available each year, and the scheme is substantially under-subscribed.

We believe that those existing measures allow a lot of people to come, and we expect one or two of the new routes being created next year to also open up a pathway to this age group in Hong Kong, alongside others. However, my right hon. Friend asked me about two specific points. First, if the other side unilaterally enacted its provision, that would not automatically change the immigration rules here in the United Kingdom. That would be something we would have to do to close the route for applications by Hong Kong nationals. I must be clear that if unilateral action happened that further damaged the rights and abilities of people in Hong Kong, the Government would look closely at whether to maintain the scheme, to put something else in its place or to continue to allow it to go forward. I point out that we have a number of successful YMS schemes.

On the timeline for applications, whatever route we put in place—I would not want to disabuse my right hon. Friend—there would be a period of time between applying and getting a decision. In the context of our simplification process and the fact that we have moved to create, in some cases, wholly digital pathways for application to the BNO route by Hong Kong citizens, we are certainly happy to look again at whether some of those principles could be applied to the YMS in Hong Kong.

I noted the comments from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). We very much welcome and value the contribution of overseas workers in the NHS; that is why we introduced the health and care worker visa. However, making changes in one area would potentially require changes in others, including to routes that some other NHS staff are on. I should also point out that new clause 7 itself would see the applicant, if they left NHS employment within three years, having to pay the fee. I can understand why he sought to put his provision into the Bill, but it would be quite a novel approach that would be difficult for the Home Office to operationalise and would inevitably require enforcement. That is why we do not think it is the right approach.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate children registered as British citizens under new clause 8. However, I must be clear that we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to give its judgment on this issue, and we will then look to respond.

We do not believe we can accept new clause 33, as we believe all applicants for UK nationality should be treated the same in the tests applied, but we are considering how the issue could be picked up as part of our work on simplification—applying it not only to those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme, but potentially to ILR holders more broadly. Although we will not accept the new clause today, I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow North East will be pleased to hear that we are looking closely at that work. I emphasise again, as I have said many times before, that no one has been refused British citizenship purely on the basis of the CSI requirement in free movement regulations.

Turning to amendment 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which would remove clause 10, unfortunately we are seeing an increasing trend of applications for children whose parents did not take the step of registering their child’s birth with their embassy or high commission, leaving their child without a nationality. Given the request for data, concerns about the use of that route were confirmed by Home Office sampling.

Of more than 200 cases sampled, 96% of parents were Indian or Sri Lankan. Crucially, a child born in the UK to a parent from those countries can only access their citizenship if the parent registers the birth at the relevant high commission. To register the child’s birth they would need to comply with the requirements set. Within the sample, 90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had chosen to contact the high commission to obtain letters to show their child was in fact not a citizen, and so clearly had no problem in approaching their authorities. In many cases, the parents had, I think it is safe to say, a chequered immigration record, with only 16% of parents having permission to be in the UK at the time of the child’s birth. In 67% of the cases, the parents had obtained leave to remain in the UK as a result of the child’s applications. That points to why we believe this is a clear concern.

To deal quickly with amendments 110 and 111, amendment 110 would mean in practical terms that parents who had chosen not to register their child’s birth could argue it was not in their child’s best interest to have their nationality. That could raise some obvious issues and concerns and create quite an argument, when in reality that is not something they should be doing—certainly not for an immigration benefit.

Overall, the package of measures in the Bill is fair and proportionate. Again, I say, as many Members have done in their interventions, that the scaremongering about some of the provisions in the Bill and about people who would never be in the scope of the tight criteria for deprivation of citizenship is nothing less than shocking. The criteria applies to those who have committed the worst offences or who are literally overseas committing war crimes. This will never apply in the way that Opposition Members have suggested. I urge the House to reject some of the nonsense that we have heard and vote to support these measures, which will transform our migration system and make sure that we have a nationality system that is fit for purpose.

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Prescribed period under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—

‘(1) The Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) for “28” substitute “56”.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act.

(4) The Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) applies.’

When an individual is granted refugee status, their eligibility to Home Office financial support and accommodation currently ends after a further 28 days. This new clause would extend that period to 56 days or allow the Secretary of State to set a longer period.

New clause 9—Settled and pre-settled status under EU settlement scheme: certification—

‘(1) Within granting a person settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, the Secretary of State must require the provision of a physical certificate to that person.

(2) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) must confirm that the relevant person has the relevant status (settled status or pre-settled status).’

This new clause would require the Government to issue a physical certificate when granting settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, allowing all those with such status to provide documentary proof.

New clause 10—Asylum visa for persons in France—

‘(1) On an application by a person (“P“) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if he is satisfied that P is a relevant person.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), P is a relevant person if—

(a) P is in France on the date of application;

(b) P is not a national of a member State of the European Union or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland;

(c) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;

(d) P‘s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and

(e) there are good reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker shall take into account—

(a) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;

(b) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to France;

(c) P‘s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and

(d) any other matter that the appropriate decision-maker thinks relevant.

(4) For the purposes of an application under paragraph (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in paragraph (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.

(5) The requirements in this paragraph are—

(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and

(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under sections 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).

(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under paragraph (1).

(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall have effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under paragraph (7), that person shall be deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.

(9) The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(10) After paragraph 30(1)(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 insert— “; or

(c) are conferred by or under sections [Asylum visa for persons in France] and [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal] of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”

(11) In this section and in section [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal]—

“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);

“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;

“protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—

(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention;

(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or

(c) under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950.’

This new clause would provide for a person in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK in certain circumstances.

New clause 11—Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal—

‘(1) If an application by a person (“P“) for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] is refused by the appropriate decision-maker, P may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal.

(2) The following provisions of, or made under, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have effect in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as if it were an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act (right of appeal to the Tribunal)—

(a) section 84 (grounds of appeal), as though the sole permitted ground of appeal was that the appropriate decision-maker was wrong to conclude that P was not a relevant person;

(b) section 85(1) to (4) (matters to be considered);

(c) section 86 (determination of appeal);

(d) section 105 and any regulations made under that section; and

(e) section 106 and any rules made pursuant to that section.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the First-tier Tribunal—

(a) shall allow the appeal if it is satisfied that P is a relevant person; and

(b) shall otherwise dismiss the appeal.

(4) In an appeal under this section, in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the First-tier Tribunal shall apply section [Asylum visa for persons in France] (3) as though for the words “appropriate decision-maker” there were substituted the words “First-tier Tribunal”.’

This new clause would allow a person whose application for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] has been rejected to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

New clause 12—Residence permits: recourse to public funds—

‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that anyone holding a valid UK residence permit has recourse to public funds.’

Under this new clause, everyone holding a UK residence permit (many of whom currently have no recourse to public funds) would have recourse to public funds.

New clause 13—Undocumented migrants: access to work and services—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 20 to 47.

(3) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.

(4) Omit sections 1 to 45.’

This new clause would repeal the sections of the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts which sought to further restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services.

New clause 14—Immigration health surcharge: abolition—

‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 in such a way as to abolish the immigration health surcharge.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to abolish the immigration health surcharge.

New clause 15—Time limit on immigration detention—

‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) who is liable to detention under a relevant detention power.

(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.

(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—

(a) P shall be released forthwith; and

(b) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration](1) are met.

(4) In this section, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—

(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);

(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);

(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or

(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).

(5) In this section, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.

(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’

This new clause would prevent people who are liable to detention under a relevant power from being detained for longer than 28 days.

New clause 16—Initial detention: criteria and duration—

‘(1) A person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies may not be detained under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that—

(a) P can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;

(b) detention is strictly necessary to effect P’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and

(c) the detention of P is in all the circumstances proportionate.

(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—

(a) P has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings]; or

(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings] and that hearing has not yet taken place.

(3) Nothing in subsections (1) or (2) authorises the Secretary of State to detain P under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.

(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.

(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” and “relevant time” have the meanings given in section [Time limit on immigration detention].’

This new clause sets out the circumstances in which a person to whom NC15 applies may be held in initial detention, and the maximum duration of such detention.

New clause 17—Bail hearings—

‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.

(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—

(a) release P;

(b) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or

(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.

(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.

(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—

(a) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or

(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to P.

(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to P at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] are met and that, in addition—

(a) directions have been given for P’s removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;

(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of P’s removal or deportation; and

(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.

(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.

(8) In subsection (6), “a bail hearing” includes—

(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2); and

(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.

(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.

(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to P or to P’s legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.

(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—

(a) P consents to the documents being considered; or

(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).

(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—

(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—

“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail by the First tier Tribunal took place at an initial bail hearing within the meaning of section [Bail hearings] of the Sovereign Borders Act 2021.”.’

In respect of people to whom NC15 applies, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to either release them, grant immigration bail or arrange a reference to the Tribunal within 96 hours.

New clause 18—Illegal immigration: offences—

‘(1) Any person who is present in the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).’

This new clause would create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.

New clause 19—Illegal immigration offences: deportation orders—

‘(1) Any person who is convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State deems such a deportation order to be against the public interest.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a deportation order shall be deemed to be in the public interest unless a certificate to the contrary has been submitted by the Secretary of State to the Court.’

New clause 21—Nation of Sanctuary—

‘(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act may be exercised in a way that secures compliance with—

(a) the Welsh Government’s commitment to be a “Nation of Sanctuary”; and

(b) the plan published by the Welsh Government in January 2019 entitled “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan”.

(2) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—

(a) in collaboration with the Welsh Minister, prepare and consult on a draft; and

(b) publish a response to the consultation.

(3) In preparing the guidance, consideration must be given to the following matters as far as they relate to refugees and asylum seekers—

(a) conditions in asylum accommodation;

(b) access to public services;

(c) access to language support;

(d) access to education and training;

(e) employment opportunities; and

(f) access to health and social services.

(4) No guidance may be published under this section unless a draft of the guidance has been laid before and approved by Senedd Cymru.’

This new clause would require the UK and Welsh Governments to jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act can be exercised in a way which is consistent with the Welsh Government’s commitment of being a Nation of Sanctuary. No guidance can be published unless it has been approved by the Senedd.

New clause 23—Illegal immigration: offences and deportation—

‘(1) Any person who travels to the United Kingdom from a safe third country and attempts to remain in the United Kingdom without lawful authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

(3) A person prosecuted for an offence under this section must be held in secure accommodation until the trial and any subsequent appeal have concluded.

(4) Following conviction for an offence under this section—

(a) a person sentenced to a fine must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person;

(b) a person sentenced to imprisonment must be returned to secure accommodation immediately following the person’s release from prison, and must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person.’

New clause 24—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.’

This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.

New clause 26—Age assessments: restrictions—

‘(1) Age assessments under section 49 or 50 must only be undertaken if there is significant reason to doubt the age of the age-disputed person.

(2) A person conducting age assessments under section 49 or 50 must be a social worker.

(3) Age assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance or equivalent guidance in the devolved jurisdictions.

(4) When an age assessment is conducted, a process must be used that allows for an impartial multi-agency approach, drawing on a range of expertise, including from—

(a) health professionals;

(b) psychologists;

(c) teachers;

(d) foster parents;

(e) youth workers;

(f) advocates;

(g) guardians; and

(h) social workers.

(5) When making regulations under section 51, the Secretary of State must not specify scientific methods unless the Secretary of State receives written approval from the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies that the method is both ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt for assessing a person’s age.

(6) Any organisation developed to oversee age assessments must be independent of the Home Office.’

This new clause would place various restrictions on the use of age assessments.

New clause 27—Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from other countries in the European Union.

(2) The number of children to be resettled under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.

(3) The relocation of children under subsection (1) shall be in addition to the resettlement of children under any other resettlement scheme.’

This new clause introduces a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in the European Union to come to the UK.

New clause 28—Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers—

‘(1) Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 38, insert—

“38A Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers

(1) A charge under section 38 may not be imposed on persons who have leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom through a visa to work voluntarily for a period of no more than 12 months, or for such period as may be prescribed by regulations, for a registered UK charity advancing the charity’s primary purpose.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”’

This new clause would ensure that international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, will be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.

New clause 29—Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, under the power in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament rules making provision for the admission of persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.

(2) These rules shall make provision for admitting persons who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means a grandchild, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, uncle or aunt.’

This new clause would require the Government to make provision within the Immigration Rules for people to be admitted to the UK for the purposes of seeking asylum where they have a family member in the UK.

New clause 31—Route to settlement for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors—

‘(1) Within twelve months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules so that – for persons to whom this section applies – the requirements to be met for the grant of indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK are that—

(a) the applicant has been in the UK with continuous leave on the grounds of private life for a period of at least 60 months;

(b) the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules or, in respect of the requirements in paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) and (v) of those Rules, the applicant met the requirements in a previous application which led to a grant of limited leave to remain under paragraph 276BE(1) of those Rules.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) persons who have been granted limited leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK because at the time of their application—

(i) they were under the age of 18 years and had lived continuously in the UK for at least 7 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) and it would not have been reasonable to expect them to leave the UK;

(ii) they were agreed 18 years or above and under 25 years and had spent over half their life living continuously in the UK (discounting any period of imprisonment).

(b) persons—

(i) who were granted leave to remain outside the rules on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

(ii) who arrived in the UK as a minor.

(c) any dependants of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.’

Under this new clause, the route to settlement would be shortened from ten years to five years for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors and have leave to remain on the basis of having grown up in the UK.

New clause 32—Compatibility of Part 2 with the Refugee Convention—

‘(1) The provisions in Part 2 of this Act and any subordinate legislation made under Part 2 are, so far as it is possible to do so, to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention.

(2) Where a court is required to determine whether a provision of this part, or any subordinate legislation made under it, is compatible with the Refugee Convention, and is satisfied that it is not, then it must make a declaration to this effect.

(3) In this section, “court” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’

This new clause would ensure provisions of Part 2 were read as far as possible in a manner consistent with the Refugee Convention, and where that was not possible, this was declared by the Courts.

New clause 35—Refugee Family Reunion—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, rules must be laid down by the Secretary of State under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to allow any person (“P”) who has been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom to sponsor—

(a) any child of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum;

(b) any parent of P;

(c) any sibling of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum; to join them in the UK.’

This new clause would expand the range of family members who can apply to be reunited with a refugee in the United Kingdom.

New clause 36—Asylum dispersal – analysis of costs to dispersal authorities—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report analysing of the costs incurred by local authorities for undertaking the role of asylum dispersal authorities.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a summary of submissions made by—

(a) local authorities who act as asylum dispersal authorities, and

(b) organisations acting on behalf of the local authorities.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must set out the Secretary of State’s proposals for reimbursing the costs incurred by asylum dispersal authorities.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an analysis of the costs incurred by local authorities who host dispersed asylum seekers, and proposals for reimbursing them.

New clause 37—Independent Asylum Agency—

‘Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament proposals for an independent asylum agency with responsibility for deciding applications for refugee status, and related protection claims.’

New clause 38—Instructions to the Migration Advisory Committee—

‘Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must instruct the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake the following work—

(a) a review of the minimum income requirements for leave to enter and remain as a family member of persons who are British citizens or settled in the United Kingdom; and

(b) a report making detailed recommendations on the design of a work visa for remote areas.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to instruct the MAC to undertake work reviewing the minimum income requirements for family visas; and on the design of a remote areas visa scheme.

New clause 40—Immigration Rules since December 2020: report on effects—

‘(1) Before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

(2) The areas to be covered by the report must include but are not limited to—

(a) food supply;

(b) fuel supply;

(c) hospitality and tourism;

(d) NHS;

(e) social care; and

(f) construction.’

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

New clause 41—Asylum seekers’ right to work—

‘The Secretary of State must make regulations providing that adults applying for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.

New clause 42—Refugee family reunion—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.

(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.

(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.

(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.

(5) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—

(a) parent, including adoptive parent;

(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;

(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;

(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—

(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,

(ii) the best interests of a child,

(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,

(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—

(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;

(b) “best interests” of a child shall be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.’

This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.

New clause 44—Safe and legal routes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—

(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,

(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and

(c) details of the application process.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.

New clause 45—Asylum seekers: employment—

‘(1) The Immigration Rules, as laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraphs 360 and 360C (right to request permission to take up employment) for “one year” substitute “six months”.

(3) Omit paragraphs 360A and 360D (which place restrictions on the employment that may be taken up).

(4) After paragraph 360E insert—

360F (none) In paragraphs 360 to 360E, the terms “asylum applicant” and “individual” mean—

(a) a principal applicant, or

(b) an adult dependant of a principal applicant in accordance with paragraph 349.”’

This new clause would permit asylum seekers waiting for more than six months for a decision on their claim to take up employment.

New clause 46—Shortage Occupation List—

‘(1) Before a Minister of the Crown makes any changes to the Immigration Rules Appendix Shortage Occupation List as provided for by the Immigration Rules, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult each devolved authority on proposed changes, and seek their consent; and

(b) lay before Parliament an independent impact assessment of the proposed changes including, but not limited to, the submissions received from the devolved authorities under paragraph (a).

(2) If a devolved authority does not provide the consent sought under subsection (1)(a), the Minister of the Crown may not proceed with the changes.

(3) In this section “devolved authority” means the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult and receive the consent of the devolved governments before making changes to the Shortage Occupation List in order to ensure that it allows additional flexibility and reflects the different needs of each nation.

New clause 48—Family reunion and resettlement: unaccompanied minors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, amend the Immigration Rules in order to ensure that an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum in the EEA who has a family member present in the United Kingdom is entitled to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—

(a) a parent or guardian of the applicant;

(b) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant;

(c) a sibling of the applicant;

(d) the spouse of the applicant;

(e) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship; or

(f) any children of the applicant.’

This new clause would allow unaccompanied children to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.

New clause 49—Co-operation with European Union on family reunion arrivals and safe returns—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, produce a report setting out a negotiating mandate for an agreement with the European Union setting out protocols for identifying the state responsible for determining an asylum application using a hierarchy of criteria, including but not limited to—

(a) family unity,

(b) possession of residence documents or visas,

(c) irregular entry or stay, and

(d) visa-waived entry.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before each House of Parliament.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce a negotiating mandate setting out a proposed reciprocal arrangement with the European Union for safe returns and safe legal routes, to cover the issues previously covered by the Dublin III agreement which has now ended.

New clause 50—Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom—

‘(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.’

New clause 51—Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the terms of a resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens known as the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).

(2) There must be provisions within the ACRS to allow those who are fleeing persecution and have family members in the UK to apply for the Scheme.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—

(a) the spouse of the applicant;

(b) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship;

(c) any children of the applicant;

(d) a parent or guardian of the applicant;

(e) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant; or

(f) a sibling of the applicant.

(4) Regulations under this section must be made and the ACRS must come into force within 30 days from the date of Royal Assent to this Act.’

This new clause will place the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme on a statutory footing and ensure that it includes provisions for a family reunion route within it.

New clause 52—Non-UK service personnel: waiver of fees—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make regulations exempting relevant persons from the payment of fees in respect of the exercise of functions in connection with immigration or nationality under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant persons” are persons who—

(a) do not hold British citizenship and are serving or have in the past served in the UK armed forces for a minimum period of five years; or

(b) are dependents of persons identified in paragraph (a).’

Amendment 8, page 14, line 4leave out clause 11.

This amendment would remove clause 11, which provides for the differential treatment of refugees depending on their method of arrival in the UK.

Amendment 114, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—

‘(7A) Notwithstanding subsections (5) and (6), a person listed in subsection (7B) must not be treated differently from a Group 1 refugee and in particular—

(a) must not face a restriction on their leave to enter compared to any Group 1 refugee;

(b) must have access to indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as any Group 1 refugee;

(c) must not have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to any leave to enter or remain given to them; and

(d) must have access to family reunion on the same basis as Group 1 refugees.

(7B) Subsection (7A) applies to—

(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan;

(b) a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria;

(c) a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;

(d) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or

(e) other persons who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from treating Afghans, Syrians, Uighurs and Christian converts and other people who are refugees at risk of persecution, differently from Group 1 refugees.

Government amendments 19 to 25.

Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 27 to 39 and insert—

“(a) there are in law and in practice—

(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;

(ii) sufficient protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;

(iii) protection against refoulement and removal in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention;

(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure;

(vi) a refugee status granted to those who are recognised as refugees that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention for those found to be in need of international protection; and

(b) it is safe for the particular claimant, taking into account their individual circumstances.”

This amendment modifies the definition of a “safe third State” to limit it to States that are in fact safe, in law and practice, for the particular claimant.

Amendment 133, in clause 15, page 18, line 41, leave out “5” and insert “3”.

This amendment is consequential on a later amendment about the definition of “connection”.

Amendment 134, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 43 to 46.

This amendment removes subsection (6), which states that a claimant whose asylum claim has been denied by virtue of their connection to a particular safe third State may be removed to any other safe third State.

Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 19, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would clarify that under specific circumstances, an asylum claim that would otherwise be considered inadmissible must be considered under the immigration rules.

Government amendment 26.

Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 3 to 10 and insert—

“(a) in the absence of a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the State to which the person has a connection;

(b) as soon as the proposed State of readmission refuses to accept the person’s return or if the person’s readmission has not been agreed within three months of the registration of their asylum claim, whichever is sooner;

(c) if, taking into account the claimant’s personal circumstances, including their family ties to the United Kingdom and the best interests of any children affected by the decision, it is more appropriate that the claim be considered in the United Kingdom; or

(d) in such other cases as may be provided for in the immigration rules.”

This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider an asylum application, despite a declaration of inadmissibility.

Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 19, leave out line 21 and insert—

“(a) has been granted refugee status or another protective status in the safe third state that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”

This amendment would strengthen the safeguards in place before a “connection” can be relied on for the purposes of inadmissibility, so as to ensure that the right to seek and enjoy asylum is protected.

Amendment 138, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 32.

This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State by deleting the possibility of finding someone inadmissible on the basis of having been granted nothing more than protection against removal in a third State.

Amendment 139, in clause 15, page 19, line 33, leave out “3” and insert “2”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.

Amendment 140, in clause 15, page 19, line 37, leave out “4” and insert “3”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.

Amendment 141, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 43 to 45.

This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State so as to prevent a person being found inadmissible on the basis of a connection to a State to which they have never been.

Amendment 142, in clause 15, page 20, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

“for refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”

This amendment changes the definition of a “relevant claim” to a safe third State to ensure that inadmissibility is based on access to a protective status consistent with the Refugee Convention.

Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 21, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve an evidence notice on a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom.’

This amendment would remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on children and young people who arrived in the UK before the age of 18.

Government amendment 27.

Amendment 118, page 21, line 27, leave out clause 18.

Government amendments 28 to 30.

Amendment 119, page 24, line 30, leave out clause 21.

Government amendments 31 to 38.

Amendment 145, page 25, line 11, leave out clause 22.

Government amendments 39 and 40.

Amendment 146, page 26, line 7, leave out clause 23.

Government amendments 41 to 43.

Amendment 120, page 29, line 2, leave out clause 25.

Amendment 15, in clause 25, page 29, line 13, at end insert—

‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), “good reasons” include, but are not limited to, the claimant having been under the age of 18 years at the time of their arrival in the UK.’

Under this amendment, a claimant who was under the age of 18 at the time of their arrival in the UK would be regarded as having good reasons for providing evidence late.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 121, page 30, line 2, leave out clause 26.

Government amendments 46 and 47.

Amendment 11, in clause 28, page 32, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 9.

Amendment 150, in clause 28, page 32, line 4, at end insert—

‘(2) This section and Schedule 3 will have effect notwithstanding—

(a) the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom, including any Protocol to that Convention;

(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and

(d) the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.

(3) No law or requirement identified in subsection (2) shall affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this section, including restrictions on the actions or policies of public authorities.’

This amendment is to ensure that the provisions in clause 28 and Schedule 3 are not open to judicial interpretation or disapplication under the measures listed in subsection (2).

Amendment 144, page 33, line 21, leave out clause 31.

Amendment 147, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Government amendments 48 to 50.

Amendment 115, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 15 to 23.

This amendment would remove certain criminal offences relating to entering and arriving in the UK.

Government amendment 51.

Amendment 102, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 19 to 23.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, rather than ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, becoming an offence.

Government amendments 52 and 53.

Amendment 116, in clause 39, page 39, line 9, at end insert—

‘(F2) No criminal offence is committed under subsections (B1) to (D1) where a person enters or arrives in the United Kingdom for the purposes of making a claim for asylum or humanitarian protection, if the person is one of the following—

(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan; a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria; a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;

(b) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or

(c) other persons who are in need of international protection; or who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’

Clause 39 as drafted would involve the criminalisation of the arrival and entry of asylum seekers and refugees with an offence subject to up to four years imprisonment. This amendment would prevent this from happening.

Government amendments 54 and 55.

Amendment 103, in clause 39, page 39, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law being extended to include facilitating ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance in addition to facilitating ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance.

Government amendments 56 to 59.

Amendment 104, in clause 39, page 40, line 2, at end insert—

‘(10) In section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention), after paragraph (aa) insert—

“(ab) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences)”.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to extend the statutory defence based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention to offences of illegal entry under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.

Government amendments 60 and 61.

Amendment 105, in clause 40, page 40, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to maintain the current position that the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom can only be committed if it is carried out “for gain”.

Government amendments 62 and 63.

Amendment 1, in clause 40, page 40, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) In section 25A(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom), for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) aims to—

(i) protect lives at sea, or

(ii) assist asylum-seekers; and”’.

This amendment would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect lives at sea to those who are exempt for prosecution for helping someone seeking asylum to enter the UK, as long as those organisations do not charge for their service.

Amendment 106, in clause 45, page 43, line 12, at end insert—

‘(6B) Nothing in this section, or in sections 10A to 10E, permits a person to be removed from the United Kingdom if that removal would violate their common law right to access justice.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to make clear that the regime for providing notice to persons liable to removal remains subject to the common law right to access justice, which in the asylum context is mirrored by Article 13 ECHR.

Amendment 107, page 49, line 3, leave out clause 47.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent it being compulsory for decision makers and tribunals to take into account whether a person has failed to cooperate with any immigration process when making decisions on immigration bail.

Amendment 122, in clause 48, page 49, line 34, leave out

“has insufficient evidence to be sure of their age”

and insert

“has reason to doubt that the claimant is the age they claim”.

This amendment to Clause 48(1) would align primary legislation to current practice as set out in statutory guidance to ensure children are not subjected to age assessments if there is no significant reason to doubt their age.

Amendment 123, in clause 49, page 51, line 9, leave out “must” and replace with “may”.

Amendment 124, in clause 49, page 51, line 17, leave out subsections (4) to (8).

Amendment 125, page 52, line 1, leave out clause 50.

Amendment 126, page 52, line 22, leave out clause 51.

Amendment 13, in clause 71, page 69, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”

Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.

Government amendments 91 to 93.

Amendment 9, in schedule 3, page 82, line 36, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending).

Amendment 10, in schedule 3, page 84, line 2, leave out paragraph 4.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Government amendments 94 and 95.

Amendment 96, in schedule 6, page 95, line 25, at end insert—

‘(4) Authority for the purposes of subsection (3) may be given in relation to a foreign ship only if the Convention permits the exercise of Part A1 powers in relation to the ship.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to follow the drafting in the equivalent paragraphs of sections 28M, 28N and 28O of the Immigration Act, and ensure that enforcement action complies with international maritime law, similar to other enforcement action under Schedule 4A to the Immigration Act 11.

Amendment 97, in schedule 6, page 98, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—

“(a) every description of vessel (including a hovercraft) used in navigation, but

(b) does not include any vessel that is not seaworthy or where there could otherwise be a risk to the safety of life and well-being of those onboard.”

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that enforcement action such as pushbacks could not be taken against unseaworthy vessels such as dinghies.

Amendment 98, in schedule 6, page 98, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) The powers set out in this Part of this Schedule must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.

Amendment 113, in schedule 6, page 99, line 37, at end insert—

‘(13) Nothing within this Act or this paragraph B1 authorises any action or measure which is inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.’

This amendment seeks to ensure the consistency of Part A1 paragraph B1 (power to stop, board, divert and detain) with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, including under international refugee law, international human rights law and international maritime law.

Amendment 99, in schedule 6, page 102, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2) Force must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the use of force in maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.

Amendment 4, in schedule 6, page 102, leave out lines 35 to 40.

This amendment would remove the provision granting immigration and enforcement officers immunity from civil or criminal liability for anything done in the performance of their functions.

Amendment 100, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out “criminal or”.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the immunity from criminal proceedings for “relevant officers” for criminal offences committed whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.

Amendment 101, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—

“J1 The Home Office, rather than an individual officer, is liable in civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this Part of this Schedule.”

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the Home Office is liable, rather than immigration officers and enforcement officers being personally liable for civil wrongs that may occur whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.

I am conscious of the wide interest in a significant number of these amendments, so I will predominantly focus my remarks on the Government amendments in this first instance and address other matters in the wind-up.

Our asylum system must not reward those who enter the UK illegally from manifestly safe countries where they cannot possibly still be fleeing persecution and fear. People must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to, and making a secondary and unnecessary move to the UK puts lives needlessly in danger while pushing aside other vulnerable people, including women and children.

We must break the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration and exploit people. People who come to our shores illegally will be treated differently. Although we cannot resettle everyone who needs sanctuary, the large numbers we resettle in the UK will be made very welcome. We will be fair but firm in how we continue to embark on this landmark reform of our asylum system.

New clause 20 is a minor, technical amendment that will ensure a small number of references to justices of the peace in immigration legislation in the context of obtaining entry and search warrants in Northern Ireland instead become references to lay magistrates. This is a simple measure that tidies up the statute book.

The Minister makes a critical point about claiming asylum in the first safe country. People traffickers rely on the idea of selling a destination, regardless of where the person starts. The measures my hon. Friend describes will frustrate the people traffickers and do a great service both to this country and to their many victims.

Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly. It is fair to say that nobody needs to get into a small boat to reach safety. France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system, and the same applies to Belgium, Germany and countries across the European Union.

All people do by getting into a small boat is hand over significant sums of money to evil individuals who treat people as cargo and have no regard for human life. We have to bring it to an end, which is precisely what we seek to do with this Bill. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s support in the Lobby, as we have had throughout the Bill’s passage.

Government amendments 19 to 25 to clause 12 make small technical amendments to apply the provisions in the clause to asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers who are supported under existing legislation if and when uncommenced provisions come into force.

What my hon. Friend just stated is not unique to him but was stated by the former Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who said:

“It is simply not acceptable to destroy identity documents, use false passports, lie about your personal history, refuse to say how you reached this country or any of the other devices which the people-smuggling gangs employ to make their money. Asylum seekers who knowingly commit such acts should lose their right of asylum in this country and be returned as soon as possible to their country of origin.”

He was right, wasn’t he?

Any right-minded or fair-minded person would think it was entirely appropriate for people to engage with the immigration system in this country in an appropriate manner that complies with our evidential requirements. People should comply in the spirit of good will, because inevitably we want to provide sanctuary to those in need of sanctuary at the earliest opportunity possible. That is entirely what our reforms seek to achieve. We also think it is right and proper—as do, I think, the British people—to remove those who have no right to be here.

If the legislation is carried in the way the Minister wishes, what impact will it have on the awful, vile trade through small boats? Will it stop it? Is there a danger that the UK courts will overturn the intent?

The measures in the Bill are significant. We have recognised—the Home Secretary has consistently recognised this and I recognise it as the Minister responsible for tackling illegal immigration—that the asylum system in this country is currently broken. The length of time it takes to process claims is unacceptable and we need to improve the situation. The Government’s intention is clearly stated: to improve the way we process claims. We expect individuals who seek to claim asylum in this country to comply with the requirements, but of course safety nets are in place, for good reasons, so that it will be taken appropriately into account if people cannot meet the deadlines. We believe that progressing on the basis of processing claims more quickly and removing those with no right to be here will make quite a significant difference. Importantly, it is also about the work that we do not just with our nearest neighbours in, for example, France and Belgium—that collaboration is important and is delivering results, and we want to secure a returns agreement that will help to build on that—but further upstream in removing those with no right to be here back to source countries.

Yesterday, in a scathing attack on this Bill, Welsh Government Cabinet Ministers issued a statement saying that the Bill undermines Wales’s desire to be a nation of sanctuary, and will exacerbate inequality and harm. In their words:

“Wales is a welcoming nation and we will always stand with those who need us the most.”

Yes, Minister, we do keep a welcome in the hillsides and valleys of Wales. Will he scrap this inhumane Bill, end the hostile environment, put in place safe and legal routes, and stop undermining the responsibilities and aspirations of the devolved nations?

The short answer to that rather long intervention is no. It is not the first time that I find myself disagreeing with Labour politicians, and I am afraid that I disagree with the Welsh Government on this point. All parts of this United Kingdom have a proud record of welcoming to this country people from around the world who are fleeing persecution and conflict; that tradition will continue, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows.

This country has to have a system that is fair but firm, and that brings to an end the abuses in the system previously and to date. Those who are not acting in the spirit that I think all of us would like to see are actually making it more difficult for genuine asylum seekers who are seeking sanctuary, and there are inevitably considerable associated resource implications.

Would the Minister just think for a moment what it is like to get into a small dinghy and try to cross the channel, and imagine what sense of desperation people must have to risk their own lives to try to get to what they believe to be a place of safety? I am not defending people traffickers or criminal gangs. I am just saying that we have created a situation, in this country and across Europe, where we leave desperate people with no alternative but to turn to ruthless people to try to get to a place of safety and contribute to our society. I ask him: has he got any humanity?

I am afraid that the intervention is a disappointing one, in the sense that I would not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is doing anything that supports people traffickers—of course not. However, I think he is giving credence to their business model, and that is highly unacceptable and disappointing. He should reflect on his position on these matters. As I have set out, nobody needs to get into a small boat to seek to cross the channel to reach safety. The idea that anybody is in danger in France is utterly farcical. The bottom line is that France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system. That is a fact and he needs to reflect on it.

Of course, what the former leader of the Labour party was trying to say was that the French are failing to look after the people in their own country. In that regard, he is right, isn’t he?

It is probably fair to say that those on the Benches of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) quite regularly try to reinterpret his comments. In the end, it is highly unacceptable for anybody to get into a small boat for this purpose. I think it is fair to say that this House speaks with one voice in saying that people should not be making dangerous crossings, and we perhaps just disagree about how to render the route unviable.

The Government have brought forward a comprehensive Bill as part of the wider package of measures that we are seeking to introduce to address this issue. It is disappointing that some of us in the House seem to have quite a lot to say in complaining about our approach, but do not actually have a viable alternative to our policy.

I have sat through hours of this debate and have been shocked—although I should not be surprised—by some of the smearing and scaremongering that we have heard. Is it any wonder that we receive some of the communications that we do? There is much to support in the Bill. As the Minister says, the immigration system is clearly not working. I am struggling on one point around resettlement, on which we may be able to take more people with us. The Government have rightly promised that the Bill will provide new, safer routes that can help to address the channel crossings. Will the Minister tell us whether the Home Office now has plans, and can provide more detail on those plans, for more resettlement schemes through safe routes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the things we have been very clear about is that we want to expand community sponsorship in particular, but a number of schemes that are already being delivered are making a considerable difference. We should not forget that 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan over the summer. Nor should we forget that the BNO route in relation to Hong Kong is a valuable and important route that is helping to provide sanctuary to many individuals. That is an ambitious offer that we have made.

Is not the reality that there are people who come to France fleeing their country of origin with the desire to come to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister look at new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor and which puts forward a humanitarian visa scheme to enable people who are in France to start their application process off in France to come to the United Kingdom? We spoke about this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and the Minister said he was going to go away and verify whether that suggestion had ever been put to the French. Has he been able to verify that for me?

The hon. and learned Lady comes to this debate with ideas and suggestions about how we tackle this issue, but I disagree with her in terms of the suggestion she makes. In order to have a system like that in place, the French would have to agree to it. I think it is fair to say that there is considerable concern about the number of movements across France as things stand already. That is where, I am afraid, her suggestion, while offered in a spirit of co-operation and trying to be constructive, falls down.

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

Amendments 39, 40 to 43, 46 and 47 clarify the Government’s intention that appeals should remain in the expedited appeal process wherever possible. The revised text, which reflects wording in the primary legislation that sets the statutory framework for tribunal rules, specifies that judges should only remove an appeal from the accelerated or expedited process where there is no other way to secure that justice be done.

Amendments 48 to 50 are minor and technical amendments to clause 34 on internal relocation. They clarify the ambiguity in the current drafting that has the potential to be interpreted in an unintended way, where an individual could only be internally relocated within a country where they had previously been in that part of the country.

The purpose of amendments 51 to 59 is to increase the maximum penalty for the existing statutory offence of overstaying, which is currently six months’ imprisonment. That maximum penalty dates back to the original legislation—the Immigration Act 1971—and is no longer considered sufficient for the present day. Given how much the world has changed over the past 50 years, the existing penalty hinders our ability to deter overstayers, and we consider that raising it would encourage better compliance. Clause 39 introduces a new maximum penalty of four years to align with illegal entry and other similar offences that have already been amended during the passage of the Bill.

In Committee, I promised to bring forward amendments to protect Royal National Lifeboat Institution individuals rescuing persons at sea and those in charge of vessels who find stowaways on board. I am pleased to say that this is now set out in amendments 60 to 63. I am grateful to Members across the House who have raised concerns in relation to this matter, and I am delighted to be able to put it beyond doubt this afternoon.

My constituency may be landlocked but I grew up on the Kent coast, where many of those who cross the channel land, and I continue to donate to the RNLI, as do many of my constituents. We all know that those who volunteer to serve do so selflessly and often leave their place of work in order to go to sea or to provide support from the land. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those who volunteer for the RNLI from the Dungeness, Littlestone, Dover, Walmer and Ramsgate stations?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the case so eloquently for the RNLI, and sets out the incredible work that its volunteers and others do to protect life at sea, along with many other agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Coastguard, which works tirelessly around the clock, often in very difficult circumstances. I certainly join her in placing on record the Government’s thanks and appreciation for everything they do, and for the individuals in her area who do this tireless work, day in, day out, and week in, week out.

This Bill is a sham. It does nothing to create safe routes for resettlement, nothing to garner international support for breaking people-smuggling gangs, and nothing to support victims of modern-day slavery. Instead, the Nationality and Borders Bill creates unworkable policies, lets down victims who have been trafficked, and breaks our international obligations. The Bill is a smoke-and-mirrors trick, designed to deflect attention from the Government’s failings and incompetence in the area of asylum and refugee protection.

It is shameful that since the abandonment of the Dubs amendment, the UK has turned its back on unaccompanied child refugees and young people in need of protection. Young people are having to turn to people-smuggling gangs. We need to make sure that the model is broken. People have died during dangerous crossings, and it is important that we tackle the criminal people-smuggling gangs. To do that, we need international co-operation and greater security, and that is why Labour Members have tabled new clause 50, which would make advertising people-smuggling routes via social media an offence. If the Government are serious about tackling the gangs, we cannot see why they would have any problem supporting the new clause.

Smugglers and trafficking gangs are putting people’s lives at risk, and they use social media to promote, encourage, advertise and organise these dangerous crossings. Too often, when the National Crime Agency asks Facebook, TikTok and others to take down dangerous material, they refuse. We have to strike at the heart of this illegal and dangerous operation. That is why we propose a new, additional criminal offence; it would not replace existing offences. The new offence would make it clear beyond doubt that such material is illegal and dangerous, that we will prosecute those responsible for it, and that we expect social media companies to take it down.

It is well known that people-smugglers promote dangerous routes on social media platforms including Facebook and TikTok. They often promise easy journeys at an extremely high cost. Those who are interested may be told to send private direct messages to the smugglers, because they know that private conversations are encrypted and much more difficult for police and intelligence agencies to access. If the Government are serious about tackling the criminal gangs profiting from people’s desperation, they must take urgent action to tackle the problem online. At the moment, they talk tough, but the policing and intelligence response is failing to keep up. The Government should back Labour’s new clause 50 today. Those seeking to profit online from people’s desperation must be made to feel the full force of the law.

As everyone in the Chamber knows, the Dubs amendment was passed in May 2016 by David Cameron’s Government in the wake of an increase in refugees arriving from Europe. It required Ministers to relocate and support asylum-seeking children from the continent. It was initially envisaged that the Dubs scheme would offer settlement to 3,000 children, but the number of places was capped at 480. In May 2020, it emerged that the smaller quota had been filled, and the scheme was abandoned. Ever since, Members from across the political spectrum have warned that this bad decision would force hundreds of vulnerable children to turn to people-smuggling gangs for assistance in travelling to Britain, placing them at greater risk of trafficking.

The Government’s inaction has been deeply depressing. Ministers have shown a callous disregard for the plight of children. When debating these issues, Ministers have made the shameful claim that so-called pull factors for refugees are a reason not to help unaccompanied children to safety.

Does the hon. Member recognise that since 2015, the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK and going into the care of local authorities has doubled from an average annual run-rate of just over to 2,000 to significantly over 4,000, and that the Syrian resettlement scheme included an element of specifically identifying vulnerable children and bringing them to the UK as a place of safety? Does he therefore accept that it is simply not true that the Government have turned their back on refugee children?

At the moment, there are no safe routes for children to come to the UK. That is why there has been an increase in crossings and more unaccompanied children crossing.

I have heard a lot of attacks on what the Government are trying to do, and a lot about social media; now we are hearing about children. I have some sympathy with the Dubs scheme—indeed, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I previously tabled amendments in support of it—but I have not seen, in any of the amendments tabled, or heard of, in any of our debates, a single practical measure that Labour would take to deter adults from paying the people traffickers and taking to boats for these dangerous journeys. What is Labour’s plan for real solutions to a serious problem? I have not heard a single solution yet.

If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, he may be interested in what I will say on new clause 49, which addresses his point. I will try to make some progress; I was told off in the last debate for taking too long because I allowed interventions.

Labour believes that it is time that the Government showed global leadership, instead of shirking their commitments enshrined in the refugee convention. We urge them to support new clause 48, which proposes the reintroduction of Dubs.

In new clause 49, the Opposition ask the Government to produce a negotiating mandate that sets out proposed reciprocal arrangements with the EU for safe returns and safe legal routes. Such arrangements were covered by the Dublin III agreement, which has now ended. It is ridiculous that the Government are resorting to dangerous tactics such as push-backs in the channel, when we used to have civilised reciprocal agreements with our geographical neighbours.

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, because the Minister would not. The Government seem to think that the Bill will end small boats crossing the channel, but as he said, the ending of Dublin III has increased the number of small boats making that crossing. Does he not think that, because of the Bill, we will be back here debating this in three years, when there will be even more small boats and even more children and adults dying in the channel?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Bill will fail if there are not reciprocal arrangements, and that is deeply worrying. Not having those arrangements will encourage more dangerous crossings.

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

I will, but then I must make progress.

The hon. Member is making his speech in a quiet and reasonable way, but does he not think the problem is that the French are refusing to allow returns? It is not this country; it is the French.

I agree with the hon. Member, but that is directly because we no longer have reciprocal arrangements. That is the crux of the problem with the Bill. We need more reciprocal arrangements with our international partners to allow other measures to be put in place.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I will make progress.

The agreements we had previously, such as Dublin III, gave people who were eligible a safe route here, and they also allowed us to send people to other safe countries when that was appropriate. It is well known that family reunion leads to better outcomes in terms of the ability of people to integrate. It is also well known that it is only with international co-operation that we can expect other countries to accept the safe return of individuals, where appropriate. We believe that new clause 49 is a sensible and proportionate measure to tackle the issues we face.

This brings me on to new clause 51, which does two things. First, it places the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing to make sure that it is fully implemented. Secondly, it calls on the Government to draw up the scheme in a way that helps prevent people from being exploited by people traffickers and smugglers. The Government have accepted that safe and legal routes are important as an alternative to dangerous routes run by criminal gangs, but they have not implemented or designed safe and legal routes. That is why we propose that the resettlement scheme be designed in a way that allows those fleeing persecution in Afghanistan who have family in the UK to apply to be included in the resettlement scheme. There would be a specified opportunity for family members to apply under the scheme. The Government have already consulted on ensuring that these family members do not end up being exploited by criminal gangs, and have promised them a route to reuniting with their family members, so we see no reason why the new clause should be controversial, or why the Government would not open the scheme and allow family reunion within it.

It has been absolutely shocking to hear at first hand the stories of desperate people who are eligible to come here from Afghanistan being effectively abandoned. I have had Chevening scholars contact my constituency office who have been left without any support at all, and without any prospect of a safe route from that country. Other MPs have told me about people who have worked closely with the British but have also been left vulnerable—interpreters, women who worked as lawyers, and many others whose lives are under threat from the Taliban. Again, if the Government are serious about drawing people away from the people smugglers and offering them safe routes, then they need to get a grip of this situation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Does he agree that at the core of this is the poor quality of our relations with some of our nearest neighbours, and, indeed, our falling standing in the international community, which I am afraid—[Interruption.] If I may finish, I am afraid that that is a result of Government policy over the Brexit deal and a number of other matters. Does he agree with me on that point?

As I have previously said, international co-operation is at the root of dealing with the problems that this Bill will purportedly address.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way one last time, but then I really must make progress.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a point of clarification, the comment was made in the previous intervention that Brexit was a Government policy. Does he agree that the Government were fulfilling the mandate of the British people at a referendum?

We have already had that debate—in the last Parliament. As is proposed in the Dublin III amendment—new clause 49—our safe and legal routes need to be replaced now that we have left the European Union. That is absolutely integral to making sure that we have the measures in place to deal with the problems we face.

Ministers have talked a lot about the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but where are the results? We have been waiting since August for the scheme to be implemented, and it still has not been. People are dying. They do not have four years to wait. It is time for action, not words.

We should be looking after people who put their lives on the line by loyally serving the nation. It is nothing short of outrageous that visas for foreigners who served in the UK armed forces cost £2,389. In 2020, there were 5,110 Commonwealth citizens serving in the armed forces. Each year, about 500 of them choose to leave, and those who choose to stay in the UK are compelled to pay extortionate visa fees. A Government consultation has, as we know, proposed scrapping the fees for those who have completed 12 years’ service in the armed forces. Labour has campaigned long and hard for that change, but we believe the proposed qualification period is far too long, and we call on the Government to right that wrong and change the period of qualification. I am grateful to the two largest veterans charities, the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, for their campaigning work on this issue. They are clear that they believe the current situation is gravely unfair, and it is time the Government started honouring their promise to the armed forces.

I have met many Commonwealth soldiers in my constituency, including Fijians who have worked closely alongside Welsh regiments, and others from Commonwealth backgrounds who have come to our armed forces—indeed, I think they make up something like 11% or 12% of current Army recruitment. I have heard horrifying stories about how they have been treated in relation to visas and settlement, as well as with healthcare costs. It is completely wrong for that to be happening, and for them to be treated in such a way when they have served our country so bravely.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To ask servicemen and women to pay for the privilege of living in the country that they fought for and were prepared to defend is completely unreasonable. The current situation is embarrassing, and we ask the Government to do the right thing and waive fees for veterans seeking citizenship.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way one last time, but I must make progress.

The hon. Gentleman is generous. Does Labour think there should be any limit on the number of people we invite in each year as migrants, and if so, what should that limit be?

As I have made clear, I am speaking about Commonwealth veterans who are fighting for us, defending our country. We very much support waiving the fees for them to become British citizens.

I will move on. Clause 11 is a particularly pernicious part of the Bill. As well as creating two tiers of refugees, it seeks to criminalise some refugees according to how they arrive in the UK. Criminalising people who are seeking our protection is a clear breach of the refugee convention and our obligations under international law. Let us consider the implications of that. Under clause 11, it is possible that an Afghan national facing persecution from the Taliban, Uyghur Muslims facing persecution in China, or a Syrian national facing persecution in Syria, could be criminalised. They could be criminalised merely for the way they arrive in the UK, yet their claim for asylum due to the persecution they faced has not lessened because of their means of arriving in the UK—of course it hasn’t. While the Government do little to secure safe and legal routes for persecuted groups, it is cruel to criminalise people who are escaping torture or death. Moreover, no evidence has ever been produced to suggest that such a measure will deter those irregular journeys, as the Government claim.

As a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the Bill is littered with measures that are simply incompatible with human rights law and the UK’s obligations under international treaties. That is one reason why Labour believes that amendments 105 and 98 are necessary. By removing the term “for gain”, the Government are creating a situation where anyone in the channel who helps people in distress, as is their duty under maritime law, could be criminalised. That is clearly wrong, both morally and legally, and we strongly urge the Government to accept amendment 105. It is equally the case, as stated in amendment 98, that there should be safeguards against endangering life at sea. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended, it must be made certain that maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives.

This is a bad Bill, and we hope that the Government will take heed of the amendments we support. Only through international co-operation, safe and legal routes, and targeted measures against criminal gangs can we, with our international partners, improve the current situation.

I will not take too long in my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wish to make a couple of clear points about foreign and Commonwealth service personnel who serve in our armed forces and then have to pay to live in this country afterwards, and to use public services. There has been wide, broad, and deep support for action on this issue over the past few days, including from people who really do not like to get involved in politics. Whether it is the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the veteran community or beyond, in our communities up and down the country, people recognise the morality behind the issue of charging those who serve to live in this country.

I speak to all sorts of people in the veterans community. Last night, I had a conversation with Prince Harry about this. He has contributed hugely to the veterans debate and I wanted his view. He said to me, “It’s not only morally right but would mean so much to those who have given so much.” That is not a political intervention; it demonstrates the moral purpose of this measure. It is an almost “effortless change”, as he said, for this Government to make, for us to finally see through what we have said to these people for so long. We owe it to them. They are our brothers and sisters. They have served with us over many years. I recognise that there are things going around today saying how we should not be doing this in primary legislation, for lots of reasons. I will come to that in a minute, but this has been going on for 20 years for these people, and at some point we have to grasp the nettle and make sure that we look after them.

The money is meaningless. I will address the figures that have been put out by the Government and others. On Monday, I was told that the Government could not do this because it would cost £160 million. That is garbage. Do not take my word for it; look at the Royal British Legion, which has campaigned on this issue for many years. I pay tribute to Members across the House, including those on the Conservative side, who have been Defence Ministers and have tried to deal with this problem but have hit the same issues we are hitting at the moment.

On that £160 million, the Royal British Legion has studied the figures. If someone who served in the military in this country applies for a visa, all their dependants use a special code. Someone can only use that code if they have served or they are a dependant, so we can pull the data between 2016 and 2020. It has never cost more than £1 million a year, so the majority of those fees are profit—a charge on our service personnel to stay here.

Let me address the consultation issue and the 12-year period. I do not want to air dirty linen in public, but I was there when that 12-year figure was decided on. It was done on a visit. It was plucked out of the air. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up. There is evidence in the Department that someone from a foreign or Commonwealth country who serves in the military is likely to serve between six and seven years. Twelve years is well outside that. It is well beyond what our peer nations do, it is well beyond what our allies do, and it is incredibly unkind to these individuals who have worked and served for so long.

I have given the moral case and the financial case, but ultimately this decision comes down to Conservative Members. The whole country is aligned on this issue, and it has been for a very long time. All the political parties will support new clause 52 except the Conservatives, and we are the ones who made a promise that we would do something about this. That is unconscionable. Colleagues can of course take the calls from the Defence Secretary and others, with these figures that I have demonstrated are not true, or they can think about what they are here to do.

I am here to represent the Fijian family in Plymouth who left the military after nine years having fought in Afghanistan and Iraq; they may have been members of the United Kingdom Special Forces group—a relentless operational tempo. Finally they leave, their kids go to school and they save up for a house, but they have to pay a £10,000 bill to stay in this country that they fought for over so many years. Can colleagues really look that family in the eye and say, “No, you have to pay; we have to make a profit out of you for you to stay in this country, despite the fact that you were prepared to commit so much to the privileges and the freedoms we enjoy”?

Finally, I say to colleagues that the tide changes very quickly in politics. This issue has been around for 20 years now, and the tide changes. I know what it is like when people put the screws on and ask you to vote a certain way, but the tide changes. All we can do is what we think is right on the day. The moral and financial case for this measure has never been clearer, and I urge colleagues to consider it carefully before they cast their vote.

Rather than fixing the broken asylum system, the provisions in this part of the Bill risk breaking it all together, endangering, criminalising, delaying, warehousing, offshoring and depriving of their rights those who simply seek our protection. The Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian I spoke about on Second Reading, as well as the Afghans who are now in danger because of events subsequent to that debate, all face those bleak impacts despite our best efforts in Committee.

Contrary to the claims that the Bill is about safe routes, it actually does not add a single one, while threatening to restrict vital family reunion rights, pushing more people towards smugglers and dangerous crossings.

I thank my hon. Friend for his forensic work on the Bill in Committee. He correctly says that the Bill does not propose any new safe legal routes, but there is one provision that does—new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor. It proposes having a humanitarian visa that people could apply for in France so that they could start the process of coming to the United Kingdom there. Can my hon. Friend confirm that SNP MPs will support new clauses 10 and 11?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her intervention, and I am happy to confirm that the SNP will support them. Indeed, there are a range of new clauses from both sides of the House, from Back Benchers in particular, that seek to add safe routes, and they all have our support. For our part, we have tabled new clause 35, which would expand refugee family reunion in a way that this House supported in 2018 in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

Our other proposals try once more to limit some of the harm that the Bill will do at every stage in the asylum process. However, let me first welcome the amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others regarding the appalling maritime pushback clauses and the criminalisation of rescuers—provisions that risk serious harm even before an asylum seeker is able to enter the asylum process.

For those seeking asylum in the UK who do get here, is it not outrageous that they will be criminalised under an offence in clause 39 punishable by up to four years in prison? That is why our amendment 116 states clearly and simply that if Afghans, Syrians, Uyghurs, Christian converts or others are at risk of persecution in their countries of nationality, their mere entry or arrival for the purposes of seeking asylum is not a crime. Is it not extraordinary that that very idea has to be debated?

Clause 11 means that, having faced the criminal justice system, our Afghan and his colleagues will be stuck in one of the Government’s asylum warehouses. We say that we should not go down that path—a path that the Irish have just rejected as utterly failed and that brought shocking results at Napier Barracks—and that we should make community dispersal work. Our new clause 36 would ensure that dispersal authorities get the funding they need to undertake their vital role.

Clause 15 means that, stuck in that warehouse, the Syrian and his colleagues will have to wait for months on end before their asylum cases are looked at, because their claims will be deemed inadmissible under a ludicrously broad range of criteria that will allow the Home Secretary to say that another country should take responsibility—even if there is not the remotest chance of that actually happening, there is no real reason why it should happen or there are strong reasons, such as family ties, why the claim should actually be considered here. The Home Secretary could even insist that a human rights-abusing country that pays no more than lip service to the refugee convention should take charge, even when our Syrian or Afghan has absolutely no connection to that country whatever.

Amendments 132 to 142, drafted with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, seek to put the necessary safeguards and restrictions in place. We are not saying that it is never appropriate for other countries to be asked to take over responsibility, but crucial safeguards must exist, and they are absolutely nowhere in this Bill. Already this year, 7,000 or so people have had their claims put on hold through inadmissibility procedures. Just 10 were removed. The remaining 6,990 are either still waiting or have been moved into the asylum process. They have been waiting for absolutely no good reason at all and almost certainly at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. The whole set-up is absolutely ludicrous.

Having toughed out the additional delays, the Uyghur and his colleagues will find that it is the Home Office that finally considers their asylum claims, but we ask why. Time and again the Home Office has shown itself as not fit for purpose, which is why new clause 37 asks us to look to the Canadian model of an independent asylum decision-making body, to ensure that protection claims no longer suffer from political interference and politically motivated targets. Sadly, far from supporting independent decision making, a whole series of pernicious clauses in the Bill would see this Parliament telling decision makers what inferences to draw about evidence provided as part of a claim. We say, “Leave assessments of evidence to the decision makers who actually see it. We don’t get to see it.” That is why amendments 118 to 120 seek to remove clauses 18, 21 and 25.

Will my hon. Friend take an intervention?

Very briefly.

I have been told to be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware of Dr Nick Martin, a medical doctor who had been in the British Navy for a number of years and worked on Manus Island, one of the offshoring projects in Australia? He describes himself as “right of centre” and not a natural refugee supporter until he saw the vile way people were treated—[Interruption.] Well, we are modelling this on the Australian system. Does my hon. Friend agree we should listen to the voices of the people who have lived through this, rather than the people who tell us it will be all roses?

The evidence about how disgraceful the Australian system was is overwhelming. My hon. Friend adds helpfully to that.

Despite all that, our Syrian, Afghan and Uyghur will almost certainly be recognised as refugees, but let us say that the persecuted Christian convert is refused because the judge is only 49% that he will be murdered on removal. Of those who challenge refusals, around 40% have been successful on appeal in recent years, but in this Bill appeal rights are restricted yet again, and certain appeal processes are accelerated.

Our amendment 121 would delete the Government’s attempt to reinstate the detained fast-track process, which was previously ruled unlawful. Amendment 145 removes another expedited appeal process. It is the Home Office that needs to address delays, not our tribunals. The SNP is also fully behind cross-party attempts to place time limits on the use of detention.

Even if our persecuted Christian, after appeal, joins the others in being recognised as a refugee, the misery this Bill will inflict on them is far from complete. The group will now face all the discriminatory measures heaped on by clause 11, which empowers the Home Secretary to punish recognised refugees through the insecurity of temporary residence, through no recourse to public funds, through limited family reunion and any other form of discrimination or punishment she thinks fit. It is a truly astonishing and outrageous provision. Amendment 114 specifically exempts Afghans, Syrians, Uyghurs, Christian converts and other refugees from such disgraceful treatment, and we fully support amendment 8 to remove the clause altogether.

If our Afghan or any of the others happens to be a young person whose age is challenged, the Bill risks making life especially difficult for them, thanks to the provisions of part 4, rammed into the Bill in Committee against the advice of numerous organisations and experts. The clauses will ramp up the use of age assessments by altering established guidance on when assessments are required, requiring them even when there is no reason to doubt a child’s age. They will allow the Home Office to meddle in an area that should be a matter for child protection and safeguarding teams, and to introduce new, unsupported, inaccurate and unethical scientific methods of assessment. Our amendments 122 to 126 seek to undo the damage of those provisions and leave those with expertise, not an anti-refugee agenda, in charge.

Finally, our new clause 32 simply requires the Bill to be interpreted so far as possible in line with the refugee convention. If the Government maintain there is nothing contrary to the convention in the Bill, surely they will have no problem with that new clause? The reality is, as numerous published legal opinions show, that these provisions are a blatant assault on the refugee convention, and the most vulnerable in the world will suffer. Our amendments seek to ameliorate some of the most outrageous aspects of the Bill, but the truth is that the whole thing needs to be canned.

My amendment 150 to clause 28, using the “notwithstanding” formula, would exclude the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights, EU and retained law and the United Nations refugee convention from judicial authority and judgment. This is all about tackling illegal immigration, which our 2019 manifesto made clear that we intended to and must resolve.

The amendment is not against genuine persecuted refugees; this is about economic migrants who claim that they are within the legal framework of protected refugees. The illegal traffickers convince them to use our human rights laws to come over to our shores in the certain knowledge that they will be protected by our judicial system. Illegal immigrants have no right to enter our borders. Despite the difficult journey that they have made to the French coast, they have no greater right to come here than any other illegal immigrant. When they come, as the traffickers have promised them, they are almost all allowed to stay under Home Office guidance and are protected by the judiciary. They then bring their families across and, with the benefits that they claim—not to mention education and housing—they enter what they believe to be the land of milk and honey. The returns are negligible because of the human rights legislation, as it stands.

I strongly support my hon. Friend’s amendment. Did he note that when I asked the Minister for an assurance that the legislation, unamended, would be proof against human rights legislation distorting the intent, he was not able to give me that assurance?

Not only was the Minister not able to, but he did not want to.

This year alone, 26,000 have entered and, unless the legal loopholes are effectively stopped, they will continue to come in a tsunami of numbers next year. The Government have provided a remedy partially in this Bill but not yet regarding the full legal framework of the Human Rights Act, the European convention on human rights, EU retained law and the refugee convention of 1951, as amended with universal application in 1967 by a protocol. On EU retained law alone, I have found on the Government’s website in the National Archives that this amounts to as many as 123 directives and regulations, spelling out masses of laws relating to asylum and immigration that originated in EU law and are now on our statute book, although a few have been revoked.

The official Home Office policy guidance for asylum screening is still essentially based on the same law, and it makes for dismal reading. It is essential that that is changed. At present, an asylum claim must be registered where an individual fears persecution or serious harm of persecution for any given reason on return to their country. How to evaluate a fear varies with every individual and can in many cases be deliberately exaggerated.

To be recognised as a refugee under the UN refugee convention, the claimant can assert that they have a well-founded fear of persecution and be not only unable, but unwilling, to go back to their country of origin or habitual residence. That can be invoked on grounds which include mere political opinions. Furthermore, they can claim that they are within the judicial sphere of “the humanitarian protection policy”, and the discretion as to whether an asylum claim should be accepted is heavily weighted in favour of asylum, even if the claimants do not even use the term “asylum” when they arrive on our shores.

A paper by the highly distinguished former professor of law at Oxford, John Finnis, and Simon Murray explains in graphic terms the law and case law in more than 100 pages of detailed analysis. They conclude that the European Court of Human Rights has wrongly circumvented fundamental principles originated in the European convention on human rights and the 1951 refugee convention. They also argue that, properly interpreted, the UK and other signatory states have no obligation to let in refugees arriving at our borders en masse, have no legal or treaty obligation to accept refuges at all, and have no obligation to provide asylum for dangerous refugees, such as criminals and terrorists.

The European Court, by radical and unwarranted interpretation, has used the article 3 provisions on torture and inhuman treatment and the article 8 provisions on the right to private and family life to extend the ambit of claimants to encourage them to engage in unlawful immigration. That has been done through the formula of so-called living instruments and recent UK judicial rulings that have continuously expanded claimants’ rights within the judicial system. Claimants are granted repetitive appeals that bring the immigration system under intense pressure at monumental expense to the taxpayer, with grave political consequences on the doorstep.

We need to pull the rug from under the traffickers’ feet, save the lives of those who are exploited by them, and protect our own manifesto promises. Despite the Government’s good intentions in aspects of the Bill, we must solve the fundamental problems presented by the human rights legislation and the legal framework of the provisions that I have mentioned. We cannot continue, with unwarranted interpretation and judgments by the judiciary, to allow illegal immigration.

I seek robust assurances today from the Government to resolve the matter by legislation, and I will press my amendment unless I get them. We cannot go on kicking the can down the yellow brick road. The journey has begun, but the question is where it ends. The yellow brick road is not only in disrepair, as it was in “The Wizard of Oz”, but littered with political precipices.

I rise to speak to amendments 96 to 100 and 102, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. They arise from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords. We undertake legislative scrutiny of all Bills for their human rights implications. We have taken evidence on the Bill from many people—including the Minister, for whose evidence we are grateful—and we are advised by our own legal experts.

In our report, which we published on 1 December, we concluded that the proposed new measures to criminalise those who enter the UK without a visa or without leave will breach human rights law and the refugee convention; our amendment 102 would deal with that. We also concluded that there should be no immunity from prosecution if criminal offences are committed by border officials, particularly where they lead to loss of life; our amendment 100 would deal with that. I hope that the Government will accept both amendments.

Our amendments 96 to 99 would deal with the major issues relating to pushbacks. The Bill provides greater powers for Border Force to “board, divert and detain” vessels. The Government acknowledge that crossings are perilous; this debate takes place in the shadow of the 27 people who drowned in the channel. The Minister was clear in his evidence to the Joint Committee that he does not want Government action to be the cause of yet more lives lost. Of course not.

Our amendment 97 would circumscribe the new powers to ensure that they could not be used against unseaworthy vessels such as dinghies. Our amendment 98 would ensure that they could not

“be used in a manner…that could endanger life at sea.”

Our amendment 96 would ensure that they could be used only in a way that complies with international maritime law, which the Government say they want to comply with. The Minister said in evidence to us that that is the Government’s intention and that they would make that intention clear in operational directions—but if the power is in the Bill, so should the protections be.

Given the Government’s intention, what reason could they possibly have to oppose the amendments? The Government have a big majority and can whip to vote them down, but the amendments have been tabled by a cross-party Committee of both Houses, they have been expertly drafted by our legal counsel, and they represent what the Government say is their intention.

The Minister is new and enthusiastic in his role. He was very forthcoming in his evidence to our Committee, and he and I have spoken about the subject privately, for which I am grateful. I offer him a bit of advice: not to be the Minister who votes our amendments down just because he can, not to be the Minister who makes his Back Benchers vote against ensuring that lives are not endangered—that is not the right thing for him to do—and not to be the Minister who gives new powers to Border Force that cost lives at sea.

Our amendments allow for the new powers, but make them compliant with international law and make them safe. The Government have no reason to oppose the amendments, so I hope that the Minister will say to his colleagues and his civil servants that he wants to reflect on them because he does not want to stand in the way of putting the Government’s intentions on the face of the Bill. If the Government do oppose the amendments, we will seek to press amendment 98 to a Division, but I hope that that will not be necessary.

May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and how sad I am that she will not be standing in the next election? May I also say what a particular pleasure it was to hear my old friend the Minister make such a measured and balanced case? I was very proud of him. That does not mean that we are going to agree on everything, as he will hear in a minute, but I think that he put a very good case.

The current asylum system is broken not just for us but for most of Europe; we should understand that this is not simply a national issue. It rewards smuggling gangs who prey on the desperate, it punishes those with genuine needs through bureaucratic impediments and it pushes the most vulnerable into harm’s way. We know, of course, that thousands have arrived across the channel and dozens, at least, have died as a result. We must find a system that destroys the criminal network underpinning this crisis, vigorously pursues enhanced co-operation with the French and other European parties, and distinguishes properly between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution. At present, we do not do that properly.

I believe that the Home Secretary is entirely committed to these approaches but, unfortunately, while I think that this is a very good Bill in many ways, one element of it—offshoring—sacrifices our long-term values to short-term political expediency, with fairly little chance of success.

We agree on many things, but perhaps not on this. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, unless we get rid of the pull factor, we will never solve this problem? It is not necessary to go offshore. As my new clause 23 makes clear, it is possible to ensure that anyone who enters this country illegally from a safe country will be held in secure accommodation. The reason people keep coming here is that they know they will vanish in the community and will never be deported. Will my right hon. Friend, who is so good in so many ways, at least look at what we are proposing?

Of course I will look at it. I have said to the Ministers that much of the Bill is worth while. My right hon. Friend is right about the pull factor, and there are many other things we can do. I have had discussions with the Minister about, for example, improving our surveillance. The irony is that at the moment Frontex, using British surveillance operations, does a better job in the Mediterranean than the Home Office does in the channel. There are many things we can do, and yes, I will look at all available options, as long as they are humane.

Clause 28 and schedule 3 grant the Home Office the legal powers to create an offshore processing system. I am afraid I must say to those on this side of the House that it is based on something of a mythology. It is based on the Australian Government’s approach in 2013. Its scope would allow children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors to be detained offshore, in a place where we have little legal control. The Australian model of offshoring was seriously problematic on a humanitarian level, and the supposed deterrent effect of the policy was really down to an aggressive push-back policy. What the Australians did was push those ships back effectively into the middle of the Pacific, or Indonesian waters in the Pacific. That was the biggest impact. It relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend about the attractiveness of these things.

The Refugee Council of Australia has documented the gut-wrenching sexual, physical and mental abuse that has pushed vulnerable children toward suicide. A 14-year-old girl, held offshore for five years, doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight; fortunately, she was stopped. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. A 12-year-old boy, held offshore for five years, had to be medically transferred to Australia because he had tried to starve himself to death and had reached the point at which he could not even stand up because he was so weak.

Members might think that these are isolated cases, but tragically they are not. From May 2013 to October 2015, there were 2,116 documented assaults, sexual abuse cases or self-harm attempts. More than half of them applied to children. I say that more than half applied to children; only one fifth of the asylum seekers were actually children. So that is an astonishing humanitarian record for that policy.

I know there is a lot of doorstep politics involved in this, but if this were to happen on our watch, just imagine how the public would respond to serious harm being done to a child nominally in our care. Remember what happened when the Iranian Kurdish child of four was shown drowned on a Greek beach? It would be something like that, but in our own control. I do not want to see any British Government of any persuasion facing that.

I thank the right hon. Member for everything that he is doing on this. He will be aware of Madeline Gleeson, the Australian lawyer, academic and author of the book “Offshore”, who is an expert on offshoring. She said that, once we commit to something like offshoring, there is no going back, and she asked me to tell any Members who were tempted to vote for it that, even for those in Australia who opposed it, the burden on their consciences is to this day a heavy one. So will the right hon. Member join me in urging those Members tempted to vote in favour of offshoring to search their consciences and not do this to themselves or to those children?

I think everybody in this House wants to do the right thing by our own country and the right thing by vulnerable people too. I do not except anybody from that. What I am trying to do here is to let people know what will happen, before we are fixed with the system and then find ourselves defending something that may turn out to be indefensible. That is my real concern about this element of the Bill, and in my view, the biggest argument is on humanitarian issues.

Also, as Conservatives, we should think about the cost. By any measure, this will be eye-wateringly expensive. At the moment, we spend £1.4 billion annually on asylum costs. That is about £11,000 per asylum seeker. Australia has spent £4.3 billion on just over 3,000 asylum seekers. That is about £1.38 million per person. As an ex-Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I looked rather askance at that and went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and I can tell the House that it is right. If we applied that cost to our asylum situation, we would be talking about something like £34 billion or £35 billion, which is the size of the Government Department. Let us imagine that we were twice as effective as that: the cost would still be £17 billion. Are we really talking about doing something like that? The reason for this is, of course, that we would effectively have to bribe the country that would take the asylum seekers.

Is my right hon. Friend not overlooking the deterrent effect that this would have?

I hear lots of cheering. That was the argument with respect to the Australian system, but the real deterrent effect of the Australian system was the pushback. The fact is that nobody got to Australia. That was the main effect.

In the past, we have had an argument within our own party about the hostile environment. Remember the hostile environment policy that we lived with for a long time? It did not work. We tried it and it brought our reputation down, so thank you for that. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the pull effect and the deterrent effect. They are all important, but we have to do this in such a way that we can stand by and be proud of it at the end of the policy. That is why I am saying to the House now: this is what it will look like, come the day, and it is not something that I will be proud of. For that reason, I urge the House to support my amendments.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It includes a cross-party group of MPs who, to follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), absolutely seek to take the toxicity out of this debate, to find consensus, to be careful in the language we use, and to find agreement and, indeed, pragmatic solutions. When it comes to crossing the channel in small boats, we certainly need pragmatic solutions.

My right hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this issue, and I am grateful for the constructive way in which she has gone about raising concerns in this policy area. I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing. It is also important to say that we will not split family units, because that would be contrary to our international obligations.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my instantly picking up on the fact that he very specifically said that “unaccompanied” asylum-seeking children would not be sent offshore, and that we would not split families. I also seek his assurance that we will not send whole families to have their claims decided offshore, and a further assurance that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have been accepted into the asylum process will not fall out of it again once they turn 18. To me, it is absolutely imperative that if somebody’s claim is to be decided here, it should be decided here, not diverted midway through the process because they pass an arbitrary age.

I have real concerns about the creation of two tiers of asylum seeker. I tend to use this illustration. We saw horrific scenes in Afghanistan when female judges and female Members of Parliament sought to flee that country. We have put in place some schemes—it is important to emphasise that they are not yet up and running—around the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Let me draw for the House the image of one female judge who comes to this country under that scheme when it is up and running. She is accepted into our country and is promptly given indefinite leave to remain and the right to work. A second female judge arrives on a small boat, but otherwise the circumstances are the same, in that she would be at risk if she returned to Afghanistan. We seek to offshore her. It causes me real concern that we will create a two-tier system in which people with identical claims to safety—at identical risk from the Taliban—are treated very differently.

I wish to raise concerns about where we might send people. I do not presume to know which countries the Home Office is in discussions with, but they might include Albania, which is in mainland Europe and not part of the European Union. There is already a well-established route from Albania to this country in the back of a van. We could be in a situation where we pay a third country a significant amount of money to accept someone into their asylum system—this is different from the model outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—but they are then refused. At that point, what is there to stop that person seeking to come back to this country immediately? There could be some sort of circular trade, in which people end up back on our shores, whether in the back of a van or a small boat, and so the cycle goes round and round.

I have some experience as a former Immigration Minister, so I know full well that at this time of year, there is a very popular journey using the return flight to Tirana. [Interruption.] I can see that you want me to hurry up, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will. There is the question of whether people might see an opportunity to head off to a different country, and then end up back here, whether their claim was accepted or denied in that third country.

We must get the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme up and running, and make it effective. We should also fulfil the commitment we made to vulnerable people when the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme came to their conclusion. We cannot talk about safe and legal routes unless we actually have some, and it is imperative that we have them.

I am now stretching your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finally address the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about push-back. I was the Immigration Minister who rejected that idea because I thought that it was too dangerous to do in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the country, with vulnerable and overladen boats carrying women and children, in choppy seas. We should think very carefully before going down that route, because no Minister at all wishes to be responsible for more loss of life in the channel.

Order. I will have to implement a three-minute limit; otherwise, we simply will not get people in.

This Bill is literally inhumane: it dehumanises asylum seekers, puts lives at risk and turns people into criminals for simply attempting to exercise their basic human rights. But the UK Government are not going to let small matters such as fundamental human rights, the rule of law and natural justice get in the way of their hostile environment, and their attempts to exclude practically anyone who is not a tax-dodging billionaire from settling on these shores. We keep hearing, “The asylum system is broken” from those on the Government Benches. Well, how did that happen? The Government have been in power for 10 years, and the environment has only become more hostile. Perhaps a different approach is needed.

It is for that reason that I support the right to work outlined in new clause 45, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The right to work is a human right. It is in the universal declaration of human rights, and although it might be denied, it cannot be taken away. Lots of us heard that last week from people who had travelled from Glasgow and the Maryhill Integration Network to speak to us about the issue. They want to work, contribute and share their skills.

Instead of people being a cost to the system, we should let them contribute to the system. Instead of them receiving meagre, insulting support payments from taxpayer, we should let them become taxpayers, but that is not something that the Government are interested in. I do not know when a Government Minister last had to sit in a constituency surgery and look at a biometric card that says, “No right to work” or “No recourse to public funds”. It is one of the most heartbreaking things that Members of this House have to do, and it is a complete insult, because being able to work is a human right.

I also support new clause 9 on EU certification, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because it would correct another historical wrong. I have constituents who have had emails saying, “Congratulations, you have your settled status. By the way, this email is not proof of your settled status.” Quite how they are supposed to prove that status if they do not have the documentation is beyond me, but it is all part of a Home Office agenda that does not want people to make the United Kingdom their home.

The Government want to close borders, shut down routes to citizenship and send a general message that says, “Unless you have lots of money, you’re not really welcome here.” How can the UK ever be the first safe country of arrival? We are surrounded by water. It is simply not possible. That approach would mean that practically everyone turning up here to claim asylum—whether on a ship or small boat or at an airport—would become a criminal. That is rejected by people in Glasgow North and across Scotland. I look forward to the day when we can have an open, generous, accessible pathway to asylum and citizenship, for those who want to take it up, in an independent Scotland.

It is not just the asylum system that is broken; it is also the immigration enforcement system. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee reminded us that the immigration enforcement directorate has 5,000 staff and costs £400 million a year to run, but that every year for the last several years, there have been fewer enforced removals and fewer voluntary returns. In 2019—the last year for which figures were available—there were only 55 convictions for all immigration offences, yet we know that there are probably 1.2 million illegal immigrants in this country. I therefore ask the Minister: what is happening to the published aim of the immigration enforcement directorate, which is,

“to reduce the size of the illegal population and the harm it causes”?

The reason why I tabled new clause 18—I much appreciate the support of the 17 colleagues who have signed it—it is that it would make it clear that it is a criminal offence to be in the United Kingdom illegally. Most people find it amazing that it is not already a criminal offence. It is a criminal offence to watch a television without a television licence, but not to be in this country without authority. My new clause would change that and address the issue of all the people who are here unlawfully.

Sky News has suggested that there may be about 87,000 new illegal immigrants coming in each year. Very few of those, relatively speaking, are failed asylum seekers. There is a much bigger problem of clandestines—those arriving without documents—and there is a very large number, estimated to be 66,000, of people who stay beyond any visa entitlement. We have to deal with the wider issue of illegal migrants and enforce it properly.

I will be prioritising people who have tabled amendments.

Before I speak to my new clause 9, I want to associate myself fully with the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). In normal times that might surprise people, but I think she put very eloquently the real challenges and issues of offshoring and pushing back.

New clause 9 calls on the Home Office to fill the gap between the digital-by-default proof of status under the EU settlement scheme and the reality of people’s lives. It is typical of the Home Office to have set up a system that does not understand the interactions that people will have to have while proving their status. I thank the Minister for speaking to me about this, and for his letter of today.

Let me give some facts. I represent over 10,000 EU citizens in Hackney South and Shoreditch; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) represents many thousands more. In my constituency, they are 8.5% of the population. Some 60% of Roma people are unable to access digital proof, and there are other groups who have real problems with digital access. Let me mention just some of the cases in my case load. An EU citizen living in my constituency who visits France weekly for work is interrogated by Border Force every time she arrives back in the UK. Another constituent has parents in their 70s who struggle to understand the complex process of proving their status digitally. Another case involves a freelancer who has had to prove his identity to every new employer, which can be every five or six weeks. The website is sometimes down, and many employers just do not want to engage, so he has lost money.

Another constituent works for a charity working with the Roma; it gave the figure of 60% of Roma people finding it difficult to access digital proof. I thank the3million, which has written to me since I tabled the new clause and explained many of these situations, which I do not have time to go into, but I reiterate the concerns of my constituents.

I say to the Minister, whose job I did just over a decade ago, that we are not so far apart on this. I, too, support methods that take us away from the old Immigration and Nationality Directorate letters, which many of my constituents still come to surgeries with in their wallets, folded up until they are falling apart. They are not a great way of proving one’s status in the UK. People lose passports. There are gaps in the system. We have seen with the covid app how we can make a difference by combining digital and paper.

An app-based solution was helpfully suggested by the3million. Having held my role, the hon. Lady will know the usual sorts of security caveats that we would add, but it is certainly something we will look at.

I thank the Minister for that—it is a bit of a breakthrough. It is important that the Home Office remembers that people will lose records. When they are travelling, they will be in places where there is no wi-fi through which they can access information. A time-limited document that they at least have the option to have on paper would be a very welcome move.

On the basis of what the Minister has said—I will watch him like a hawk on this—I will not press my new clause to a vote, but the hon. Members who signed it have a very strong interest in this. We are talking about EU citizens who have made their life in this country, and we need to give them the comfort that they deserve, so that they can go about their ordinary lives easily and effectively.

I rise to comment on new clause 52. This is important, because in April 2019, I wrote a letter with the former Member for Bridgend, Madeleine Moon, to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), and then to his successor a few months afterwards. In that letter, we called for a waiver of fees for Commonwealth servicemen and women. The new clause rightly amends that to all non-UK citizens in the new clause, which is effectively the core of what the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) calls for. It is good to see him in his place this evening and back in the House. I welcome that.

It goes without saying that if colleagues can take less than three minutes, we will get more people in.

No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11 and amendment 8 in my name. I do not say this lightly, but there is a deep wickedness at the heart of this Bill, matched only by its stupidity, because of its reliance on a bogus narrative that we are being—whatever the language used—“swamped” by asylum seekers.

Let us have some facts that might help Back Benchers on the Government Benches. First, 2% of the world’s population lives in the United Kingdom, and 0.65% of the world’s refugees are in the United Kingdom. We are not taking our fair share; we are not overwhelmed. We take fewer the half the number of asylum seekers we did 20 years ago. We are 17th in the league table—lower mid-table—of countries in Europe when it comes to taking asylum seekers per head of population. Germany takes three times more and France takes two and a half times more than we do.

We hear from the Minister that our asylum system is broken. Yes, it is, but not because it is deluged by too many asylum seekers, because evidentially that is not true; it is broken because of incompetence on the part of the Home Office. The Government’s argument is the equivalent of blaming patients for NHS waiting lists. It is unacceptable and it is wrong.

The numbers crossing the channel are tragic and awful, and it is obvious why it is the case. It is because we have seen a clampdown, because of covid and security, on people crossing the channel through other unsafe routes, such as the channel tunnel and ferries. As the narrower routes across the channel have been more heavily policed, what have we seen people doing? We have seen people taking more dangerous routes. The evidence shows us that when a route is closed off, people find further, more unsafe routes, so the Government’s policy will see more people dead in the channel. That is clearly what will happen unless they introduce safe routes. [Interruption.] There is a whole lot of rhetoric about safe routes and no action whatever.

Order. I think all this shouting across the Chamber is not doing anybody any favours.

Members on the Government Benches can shout, but they are literally voting for something that will see more people dead in the channel. This Bill is a charter for the people traffickers, and the only answer is safe routes. If we offer them the humanitarian visa as a safe route, we offer them the opportunity to do something that is not just morally right, but would actually solve the problem we are seeking to solve. The reality is that we have here a room full of comfortable people creating a two-tier asylum system that will decide between the deserving and undeserving asylum seeker. That is not just morally wrong but against international law. It is undermining Britain’s international standing and weakening our position on a range of issues while doing something morally shameful and undermining everything it is to be British.

I rise in support of amendment 150 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), to which I am a signatory. Before I turn to that, I welcome Government amendments 60 to 63 and pay tribute to the Border Force, coastguard, RNLI and search and rescue organisations operating in Dover and Deal and across east Kent who, day after day, month after month and year after year put their lives on the line to save those at peril on the sea.

It is an uncomfortable truth but a truth all the same—and one on which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is wrong—that every person put in peril by the people smugglers is already safe on land in France and in many other countries before France. When we remember the 27 people who recently died, as well as the many other lives lost, we must be united in this place to do whatever it takes to stop more lives being lost in the English channel.

The second uncomfortable truth is that, whatever Opposition Members way wish to say, there are safe and legal routes to come to this country. The Bill shows compassion to those most in need of assistance and prioritises them over people who choose unsafe and illegal routes of entry. Clauses 29 to 37 make it clear that refuge will always be available to people persecuted by reason of their religious, political or other beliefs, their race, their ethnicity or their sexuality. It is right to prioritise protection of those most in need of it.

The third uncomfortable truth is that it is possible to have help for those people in greatest need and to have strong borders. It is possible to have help for those who need it and to ensure that our country has strong and secure protection. It is vital that that is supported in the Bill.

Finally, I turn to the refugee convention, which is now 80 years old and out of date. With some 80 million displaced across the globe, we need a new global compact —a COP26 for the migrant crisis—to ensure that we finally work together globally to put an end to the migrant crisis and the small boat crossing routes that are leading to lost lives in the English channel.

I am sorry, but I am going to put a two-minute limit on speeches. I know that will not be popular, but I will not get everyone in anyway. I am sure that our next speaker, who will be the last on three minutes, will try to stick to two.

I will do my very best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to new clause 44 on safe and legal routes, which is tabled in my name, and new clauses 15 to 17 on a statutory limit on immigration detention, which I tabled with the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I pay tribute to him for his work on the issue.

New clause 44 goes to the heart of the Bill’s supposed objectives, which are predicated on stopping irregular arrivals of asylum seekers by encouraging those fleeing war and persecution to access safe and legal routes. However, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme announced as urgent in August is still not operational, the Syrian scheme has closed, the gateway scheme is not operational and the UK resettlement scheme that opened in February with a commitment to resettle 5,000 people in year one has taken just 770 people. It is a cruel deceit to say that the Bill’s measures encourage the use of safe and legal routes if we have no such meaningful routes.

There is much in the Bill to be concerned about, such as differentiation of refugees in contravention of international law, offshoring of processing claims away from protection, pushing back rubber dinghies and risking lives. Importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment says that the evidence base for such measures is “limited” and that they

“could encourage…cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”

However, that is all justified in the name of encouraging safe and legal routes. The Government must face up to their responsibility and deliver those routes.

On new clauses 15 to 17, we are seeking to place a statutory limit on immigration detention and to respond to a missed opportunity in this Bill. I was the vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry over eight months in 2014, with parliamentarians from both sides of the House and all main parties—there were more Government Members than there were Opposition Members—as well as a retired Law Lord, a former chief inspector of prisons and, of course, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. Our recommendations, which included the limit on detention contained in new clauses 15 to 17, were endorsed by this House in September 2014, so it is disappointing that we are still debating them seven years on.

This is not a particularly controversial proposal. We are unusual in this country in having no limit. During our inquiry, we spoke to a young man who had been trafficked from the Cameroon-Nigeria border. He had been beaten, raped and tortured, and he had made an irregular route to this country on a false passport. He had been detained for three years in contravention of the stated aims of the Home Office that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, that those who have been tortured should not be detained and that detention should be for the shortest possible period. Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison someone knows when they will get out, but that sense of hopelessness and despair leads to hugely deteriorating mental health.

Order. I am sorry, but time is up.

The Pope was recently in Greece, and he criticised European Governments for their lack of humanity to migrants. Normally I agree with the Pope, and it is his job to stand up for the poor and the dispossessed of the world, but—leaving aside the fact that if Greece accepted 100 a day, 1,000 would come tomorrow, and that if it accepted 1,000 the next day, 2,000 would come the day after that—there are countries in the world in such an appalling mess, such as Syria, Iraq, Libya and Somalia, that there is no limit to how many people would want to come here.

The people crossing the channel are not the world’s poorest. They are paying £6,000 or £7,000 to get here. They are not the world’s poorest people; they are economic migrants. If we are weak as a Government, we are actually being inhumane. We are putting people’s lives at risk because more and more people will come to our shores and risk the channel. So to be kind, it may be a cliché, but we have to be tough and we have to get rid of the pull factor. There is no point in going on blaming the French. Of course, we would like them to take people back, but they probably will not.

We have to get rid of the pull factor, and that is why I have put forward new clause 23. The only way we are going to stop this is if we put economic migrants who enter this country illegally in secure accommodation. They know that they can vanish in the community, there is a minuscule chance of their being deported, and they have better chances and better job prospects here than in France and elsewhere, so the Government have to get firm and tough on this. By the way, according to the law of the sea, it would be perfectly legal for them to escort economic migrants back to the shores of France with Border Force vessels. I say to the Government: act now, get tough, or people will die.

I have to say there were a lot of myths and misunderstandings in that last contribution.

I want to speak to amendments 113 and 13 in my name, and to endorse new clauses 10, 11 and 28, of which I am a co-sponsor. Amendment 113 prohibits the UK from acting in breach of the UK’s international obligations. In particular, the notions of pushback and offshoring are the most extreme manifestations of the hostile environment, and there is the scapegoating and dehumanisation of those fleeing war and persecution.

Amendment 13 is on an entirely different issue that has not been touched on in the debate, nor indeed was it much in Committee. It relates to electronic travel authorisations, and in particular what is going to happen about movement on the island of Ireland. These authorisations will be required for all non-Irish visitors who wish to enter the United Kingdom, including via the land border.

While the Government insist that there will be no routine immigration checks on the land border on the island of Ireland, these requirements will nevertheless create new bureaucracy and legal uncertainty for thousands of EU citizens—and, indeed, other non-British and non-Irish residents south of the border—who cross the border often on a daily basis, whether for family visitation, to work, to shop, for healthcare, for education or for leisure. Indeed, there are some circumstances where the straightest route between two points actually involves crossing into Northern Ireland, sometimes on several occasions.

The Government might say that they are committed to no new checks, but people will be placed in legal uncertainty and, if there is any interaction with the UK state, major consequences may flow from that. The potential repercussions could be as severe as people going to prison. This is not practical on the island of Ireland, and I urge the Government to reconsider what they are doing in terms of electronic travel authorisations.

The UK has a long-standing reputation as a beacon of human rights, but we in the House must recognise that we have enormous discretion under international law, and indeed under domestic law, regarding how we exercise our responsibilities. Many of the controversies around the Bill are about the operations, rather than the legislation itself. Having sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights as we took evidence on a number of these issues, it is clear that there are matters of opinion about whether pushbacks, for example, which are freely used by Frontex, the European Union border agency in the Mediterranean, are for or against and within international law.

I share the concerns expressed about the methods currently available to science, and I agree we would not wish to see those used at present. I agree, however, that it should be open to the Home Office, should effective scientific methods be developed, to use such methods for the purposes of age assessments. I welcome the engagement of the Minister, and other Ministers, on those issues.

I will conclude with two points. First, I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on the point about needing a new COP26 on the issue of global migration. The world is changing, and the challenges faced by asylum seekers and the numbers on the move mean we must update the way we respond, in partnership with our allies. Finally, I will comment on some of those international obligations, which are often heavily criticised. The UK is rarely referred to the European Court of Human Rights for any breach of our laws, and we are rarely criticised. Indeed, the findings of that Court are not binding on the United Kingdom. As a champion of human rights we should be proud of the UK’s record in that respect, and we should renew our dedication to being a beacon of human rights in the future.

The asylum system certainly is broken, and this is not the Bill to fix it. On the Afghan resettlement scheme, where is it? How can we trust the Government to deliver any of these programmes, or anything to fix our asylum scheme, if we cannot even come up with that scheme, after many months, and after all of us in the House having received desperate emails from people in Afghanistan who were under threat? I agree with new clause 52, which would waiver visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. We ask them to put their life on the line as members of our country, yet we do not pay their pensions, and we do not allow them and their families visas to say that they are citizens of this country. What more can we ask?

I really want to focus on family reunion. I have stood in the camps of Calais and seen people smugglers wandering around, very maliciously. I have seen the people smugglers about whom so much is made, but it will not be measures in this Bill that sort them out. One missing area is that of family reunion. One of those 27 men, women and children who tragically died in the channel was Harem Pirot. He was fleeing for his life from Iraq, to reach his brother, Anwar, a Sheffield graduate living in Cambridge, who then had to go to Calais to identify his brother’s body. We could cut so many smuggling routes if we were to allow family reunion, yet there is nothing in the Bill about that. Such a measure was promised after the EU Withdrawal Bill, and I talked about it in my maiden speech. It was promised when we discussed the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, and it was promised in the new plan for immigration that there would be a safe and legal route for refugees, and for people fleeing for their lives to whom we can offer safe harbour. Family reunion needs to be put back into the Bill for it to work in the way it is intended.

Order. I will now call the Minister, but I am sure he is aware that there may be people who might like to intervene.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the way in which most of those contributions were expressed. We are dealing with difficult matters, on which Members have strongly and deeply held convictions.

As I have said, it is vital that we do everything in our power to break the business model of evil criminal gangs and reform the broken asylum system. I am conscious of the time constraints, but I will address a number of amendments that have sparked a lot of today’s debate.

Let me start by addressing amendment 150 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on removal to safe third countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) also raised that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has been following it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right in the sentiments that they have expressed in the amendment. I thank them for their full support on the policy intention, including on third country processing of asylum applications.

There is a recognition that certain existing laws may prevent the Government from achieving our aim to remove those with no legal basis to remain in the country. The legal barriers associated with the removal of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders are well known. That is why there is work under way across the Government to look at the further legal barriers to removal.

I therefore reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, and colleagues more widely, that there are no insurmountable domestic legal barriers to transferring eligible individuals overseas under an asylum processing arrangement. Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 allows the Secretary of State to remove an individual with a pending asylum claim from the UK to a safe third state if a relevant certificate is issued. The Bill amends section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to make it easier to remove someone to a safe third country without having to issue a certificate.

Obviously, the Bill complies fully with our international obligations, but the Home Secretary fully agrees with the sentiment that is expressed through amendment 150 about the challenges that frustrate the will of the British people in terms of our ability to remove people with no right to be in the UK. I can therefore confirm that the Government have imminent plans to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act, which will be announced imminently in Parliament.

The Home Secretary also recognises my right hon. and hon. Friends’ concerns about aspects of the ECHR and other international agreements. I can therefore confirm that we are committed to reviewing and resolving these issues with the urgency that the situation warrants.

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. He says that the Government are committed to resolving these difficulties. Can he confirm that by “resolving” these difficulties, he means that the Government will be legislating so to do?

I refer my right hon. Friend back to the point that I have already made. We intend to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act and will set out our plans imminently in that regard.

Work is under way to develop a new phase of measures to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are not undermined and that legal processes cannot be instrumentalised to circumvent the will of the British people. As we have said, the Government have imminent plans to consult on reform to the Human Rights Act, which are under consideration as we speak. Likewise, work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law.

It sounds like the Minister is announcing something a bit more radical than perhaps we had anticipated in relation to the Human Rights Act. Can he confirm that the Government are still committed to remaining a signatory—a full signatory—to the European convention on human rights?

The point that I would make is that the Government will set out their intentions in due course. I think it is right not to pre-empt. It is important to make sure that this House is kept updated as to that work, and we will be very clear in our intentions.

It is extremely encouraging news that the Government are going to—at last, I have to say—consider the Blair legacy of the Human Rights Act, but to substantially reform it will require legislation. That much is implicit, is it not?

As I say, Ministers will come to the House with further details in due course.

Work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law, led by Lord Frost, with input from the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice. For these reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to withdraw their amendment 150.

I turn to new clauses 18 and 19 on illegal immigration offences, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). I hope that they and other hon. Friends supporting the new clauses will recognise that, as part of our groundbreaking new plan for immigration, the Government have sought robust changes to the law around illegal entry and similar offences through the very Bill we are discussing today. The Bill, which my hon. Friends seek to amend, already addresses and indeed exceeds the changes proposed in new clause 18.

Let me turn now to new clauses 24 and 52, tabled by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). As both new clauses regard settlement fees for non-UK members of our armed forces, I would like to debate them together. It is a fact that our Government and our nation highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal.

I am pleased to hear how valued members of our service community are. This is a good opportunity for the Government to give way on new clause 52, tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will support it?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his case in the eloquent way the House is so used to. Members will be aware of the measures that the Home Secretary and the Defence Secretary announced in the summer for Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK, both here and overseas. We also remain extremely grateful for the contribution made by former British Hong Kong service personnel. That is why the Ministry of Defence, together with the Home Office, ran a public consultation between 26 May and 7 July 2021 regarding a policy proposal to waive settlement fees for non-UK service personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces. A response to that consultation is coming out shortly, but I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman’s feelings and those of the Royal British Legion on this issue. To that end, I thank him and other colleagues for raising these matters, and I invite him and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View to meet Ministers and the legion next week to make sure that the concerns and realities of non-UK service personnel dealing with the immigration system are fully understood. I am under no illusions about how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, in particular, feels about this issue, along with colleagues on both sides of the House.

Many Ministers before my hon. Friend—many Defence Secretaries and many Prime Ministers—have said, “We feel”, “We value” and “We are adamant that we are proud of our armed forces.” However, a Fijian family in Plymouth is still being split up because the visa fees have not been sorted out. Tonight is an opportunity to go beyond meetings and words and to actually waive visa fees, which everybody, irrespective of party, knows is the right thing to do. Whether the Government will do that will test their character.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and note the conviction with which he speaks about these matters, and I reiterate the offer that we have made to meet next week to discuss them. He will appreciate that the consultation has been ongoing and that we would expect to hear more on that in short order.

I would like to pick up on the proposals tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) presented to the House—I would like to say how sorry I was to hear that she will be standing down from the House at the next general election. It is fair to say that the Committee has raised important matters, and I would respond by saying that we have always acted in accordance with our international obligations in relation to matters at sea. On the international convention for the safety of life at sea and search-and-rescue operations, that has consistently been, and will continue to be, the position in the work that we do.

I want to conclude by again thanking hon. Members for their proposals and the lively debate we have had today. Following the tragic events in the channel over the last few weeks, I know that all Members take this debate with the seriousness and concern it deserves. However, the only way we will solve these long-term problems is by delivering a long-term solution. Ultimately, that is exactly what this Bill delivers.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50

Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom

“(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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