Immigration Reforms

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration reforms.

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. What an extraordinary few weeks we have had in the area of home affairs and immigration. It has been quite breathtaking. It is difficult to grasp the scale and ferocity of the Home Secretary’s assault on immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in the past few weeks. It is simply astonishing that in a few short weeks she has turned nearly all our assumptions about refugee status and asylum totally on their head. She has embarked on one of the biggest set of reforms on asylum and immigration that we have witnessed in the past few years, and all without one Government-sponsored debate on the Floor of the House and without one single vote for Members.

We had barely caught our breath from the outrageous changes to indefinite leave to remain and its associated earned settlement restrictions when there was an almost daily blitz of further cruel and restrictive measures. In case the House has forgotten, I will refresh Members on what has been announced, because it is totally extraordinary. First, at the beginning of March the Home Secretary arbitrarily announced that refugee status was to be completely redefined, from something that had always been akin to a permanent status to something that would be temporary. It was to be reduced from five years to 30 months, with the proviso that people may be returned to their countries of origin if the Home Secretary, exclusively and on her own, deemed those countries to be safe.

Let us think about what that will do to people and families. It will lock people into years of insecurity, denying them the opportunity to rebuild shattered lives. It will prolong uncertainty for refugee families, making it almost impossible to make decisions about education for children and for these poor souls to find positive employment. What employer is going to spend money hiring, training and investing in people if there is a chance they will be booted out of the country within the next two and a half years?

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. Is he concerned, like me, about what the reforms will mean for the survivors of abuse who have fled persecution abroad? Does he agree that perpetrators already weaponise immigration status against their victims, and that removing refugee protection will lead only to survivors having even less access to support and being too scared of deportation to leave?

The hon. Lady is spot on, and entirely right to raise those issues. The changes will effectively retraumatise so many asylum seekers and refugees who have already experienced of all sorts of abusive arrangements. I am glad the Minister is here to listen to the hon. Lady’s remarks.

Only a couple of days after the announcement on refugee status, the Home Secretary announced what she called an “emergency brake” on visa applications from nationals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. Those are some of the most dangerous countries in the world, where conflict, oppression and human rights abuses are an everyday feature and continue to drive people from their homes. The Home Secretary says she wants to expand safe and legal routes, but at one stroke she took away meaningful safe and legal routes from some of the most dangerous countries in the world.

Not content with that, the Home Secretary then went on to announce a pilot scheme offering financial inducements for failed asylum seekers to return to their country of origin. It was a voluntary scheme, but only in the context of, “If you refuse that inducement, you may be forcibly removed.” The proposal is chillingly reminiscent of what we are seeing in the United States, where Trump’s paramilitary Immigration and Customs Enforcement force is forcibly evicting people who are on the wrong side of the refugee and asylum system there.

The Home Secretary actually said—I could not believe it when I heard it—that she is currently consulting on how removals can be carried out “humanely and effectively”, particularly where children are involved. Let us pause and think for a minute about the forcible removal of families in the United Kingdom where children might be involved.

Even after that—this was in only one week—it went on. Next, the Home Secretary announced changes to the law that will mean it is no longer a legal duty to provide financial support to asylum seekers. Payments will stop for anyone working illegally, anyone convicted of a crime or anyone with independent financial means. I am sure people listen to that and think, “That sounds fair enough and pretty reasonable. If people are in any of those categories, it’s quite right that they shouldn’t receive Government support.”

Care workers such as Grace Reji work hard to provide an invaluable service to the most vulnerable people in my constituency. She has a family, but when faced with a possible five-year increase in the qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain, carers like her worry that they will be forced to leave. Coleg Elidyr, an education and care setting in my constituency, looks after young people with special needs and also relies on migrant staff. Does the hon. Member agree that we cannot underestimate the long-term damage of the Government’s ill-thought-out immigration policies on workforce stability and services for the most vulnerable in our society?

I absolutely agree. I am really pleased that the hon. Lady raised that issue, and she is right to do so. I have received countless briefings from a number of organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, that are genuinely concerned about where this leads. Scotland is in the early stages of depopulation; just wait till they get it down here. If the Government think immigration is a bad thing, just wait till they get to the negative consequences of emigration. We are starting to get there, because it looks like immigration this year will be net zero. The rest of the UK is about to experience the end of population growth, which will put all sorts of strains on demographic issues throughout this country. The hon. Lady is right to raise that point.

It is not only that people are being forced out; I have high-value constituents from Sri Lanka who are just going home. They have had enough. They cannot be bothered dealing with a Government who treat them so shabbily and shoddily and do not see any value in what they do. That is what the Government are doing with the immigration changes.

All this essentially delivers prolonged uncertainty, fear and anxiety in the asylum system. It will undermine every and all positive efforts towards integration. It will leave a generation of people living permanently in limbo, constantly looking over their shoulder and fearing that, at any moment, they may be forcibly removed. Whole communities that have already been traumatised by having to leave their home, sometimes in the most extraordinary conditions, fleeing oppression, with their own lives sometimes at risk, feel they are being traumatised all over again.

But do not worry—the Home Secretary tells us this is the plan. She says we have to make the UK an unattractive country for people who want to come here, as if they could make hostile-environment UK even more unattractive. That is the Government’s mission, and by God are they making a good go of it! They are not just making the UK an unattractive place for asylum seekers; they are making it an unattractive place for all of us who have to live in this country—all of us who care deeply and passionately about community harmony, consensus, building communities and giving honourable people a break and an opportunity to get on with their lives. Well done, Minister: you have managed to make this place even more unattractive than the Conservatives did, and I did not believe that would be possible for a minute.

That’s not true!

Does the hon. Lady want to intervene? Sorry; I thought she was making weird gestures at me, but obviously she is just looking at her phone. That is what is actually happening.

As I have said to the Government at every opportunity —and I will say it again and again—they cannot beat Reform by emulating them. Reform can be beaten by challenging its agenda and dismantling its toxic ambitions. Reform cannot be beaten by marching on to its territory and fighting on its ground. All that does is legitimise its arguments and embolden its ambition.

You would think, Mr Stringer, that after their absolute hammering at the by-election a couple of weeks ago by my colleagues in the Green party, the Government might just think, “Is this working for us? Is there a problem with the way we are positioning ourselves on the spectrum of UK politics?” They might have taken a cursory glance at what happened in Caerphilly, where my colleagues from Plaid Cymru hammered the Government and stood strong against Reform, and were rewarded by a stunning by-election victory.

The Government’s strategy seems to be going on to Reform’s territory and trying to beat them. I say ever so gently to the Minister: regardless of how hard he tries—and he seems to be trying his utmost and damnedest—he will never out-Reform Reform, which is possibly to his credit. Reform are the absolute masters of sinister, poisonous right-wing ideology and, regardless of how hard the Government try, they will never beat Reform on that territory.

The Government are chasing Reform down that road but not noticing something profound that is happening in British politics. In Scotland, we have a particularly sharp divide in our politics, based around the constitution, and a divide seems to be opening up in English politics. Let us look at who came first and second in the by-elections. On one side, it is the parties of the progressive ideals of unity, consensus and wanting a compassionate immigration system. On the other side stand the parties of the right—the authoritarians and those who believe immigration is a bad thing that has to be controlled and defeated.

On the question of being on the right side, I say to the hon. Member that the Manchester Refugee Support Network, through its specialist services, helped almost 3,000 people last year to find stability, security and belonging in our community. It requires £60,000 per year to operate, but its funding runs out in August 2026. Does the hon. Member agree that such organisations must be provided with long-term, sustainable funding to support our most vulnerable constituents?

Absolutely. We cannot praise those organisations enough, because they are working in Labour’s hostile environment, where everything has been made harder for them to operate, so of course they should be supported. I am shocked to hear of the difficulties that organisation is having; I am sure that, with the hon. Member’s support, it will be able to address them and turn it around.

We are at an important juncture in UK politics, one that we have never seen or experienced before. A new dividing line is emerging. It looks like the conventional parties of the old times cannot meet and respond to this new agenda, and we are seeing something dramatic and profound happening in our politics.

I used to work with Labour Members when they were in opposition. They were the easiest and greatest people to work with—high values and high ideals. What has happened to them? They had better find their mojo. They had better regain their true intentions and find their values, or it could be a long, hard race to the bottom. I say to them, “It’s up to you now.” They can continue with the decline, or they can come and join us, and ensure that proposals like this are defeated.

Order. Members who wish to speak should bob. I have taken a rough count of those who have, and we will start with a four-minute limit, which I might have to reduce later.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. My appreciation goes to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. He has been consistent in defending human rights in his decades of service to this place, and he has my respect for that.

When the country elects a Labour Government, it does so with certain ideas in mind: to lift people out of poverty, to improve public services, to offer genuine left-wing solutions for the problems the country is facing, and to show compassion to the most vulnerable people, both domestically and from across the world. That is why I vote Labour, and one of the main reasons why I joined the party.

No one ever votes Labour with the desire to be tough on the weak and weak on the tough. But with its immigration reforms, the Home Office is being tough on the very weakest—the most oppressed people. The reforms do not represent the values of the Labour party that I joined, and that I am still proud of. We should always stand up for oppressed people at home and all over the world. That really should be a given.

The feeling of perpetual review and assessment will cause no end of uncertainty. The change from five years to 30 months will negatively impact people’s ability to integrate and contribute to Britain. What a barrier to building a new life for people who have fled war, oppression and persecution—the sort of traumas that, personally, I cannot comprehend. This is most certainly not the route to making the country a more caring and more tolerant place.

I honestly do not know why the current leadership seems to think there is mileage in copying the far-right ideals of Reform. Thinking that that is the route to gaining electoral success is incredibly misguided and in no small measure wrong. No one voted Labour thinking that we would make social media videos bragging about deporting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is beyond distasteful and it is dangerous, because this is a huge political and moral moment, not just for this Labour party but for this country.

There has been too much immigration into this country for too long, and that is certainly the view of the vast majority of the people I speak to in my constituency. I suspect it is a widespread view among law-abiding, patriotic Britons from all kinds of backgrounds.

Three myths have been perpetuated to sustain the level of immigration that we have endured. The first is that it is necessary for our economy—that we need labour. What migration has actually done is to displace investment in domestic skills, to perpetuate a labour-intensive economy at a time when we should have been automating and taking out labour demand, and to feed the greed of those employers who, rather than paying a decent wage for employees who understood their rights, were happy to take cheap labour. Those have been the effects of the arguments about the economy.

The second myth has been about multiculturalism: this curious notion that we can absorb all kinds of people into our country without a shared sense of belonging, a common sense of what being British is all about, and that these co-existing subcultures would somehow cohere. In fact, as Trevor Phillips, himself of course the child of migrants, argued long ago, we have ended up with the ghettoisation—his words, not mine—of large parts of our country, with co-existing subcultures, without the bonds that bind us together in the shared sense I have described.

The third myth is that migration would not have a detrimental effect on some of our public services. Just imagine the figures for a moment—I am speaking now of legal migration. Between April 2022 and March 2023, the number of people entering Britain was 944,000—944,000 people extra in a year—yet when we debate housing, transport infrastructure, the health service, the availability of dentists and GPs, we never consider the effect of population growth at that scale on the demand for all those services.

The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely eloquent speech. Of course we understand that the more people come into our country, the more the pressures on our public services will be exacerbated. The numbers he cited are post Brexit, under his former Government. If I remember correctly—I apologise if I get this wrong—net migration before Brexit was around a quarter of million people, mostly skilled labour or for specific work. After Brexit, the Europeans had to return, and we ended up allowing thousands of people to work in our care sector, in our NHS and in service industries that had too many vacancies. How does he explain the policies of his Government, which led to net migration rising from a quarter of a million to 900,000-plus, and what would he do differently today?