🔍 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting)

• The session focused on discussing the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, specifically New Clauses 24, 25, and 26.

• New Clause 24 proposed that all hearings of the Immigration Tribunal should be held in public to increase transparency. The debate highlighted concerns about recent tribunal decisions being seen as absurd, and the need for public trust in the immigration system.

• Opposition to New Clause 24 argued that public hearings could expose vulnerable individuals and might overload the legal system. It was also noted that most hearings are already public unless deemed otherwise.

• New Clause 25 aimed to extend the qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain from five to ten years, limiting automatic eligibility and focusing on those who contribute economically.

• Critics argued that extending the period could deter skilled workers and investors, negatively impact the economy, and unfairly disadvantage certain migrants. The government emphasized a future White Paper to address immigration more comprehensively.

• New Clause 26 proposed mandating scientific methods for age assessments of asylum seekers and suggested these could be conducted without consent. The goal was to prevent adults from claiming to be children.

• Debates on New Clause 26 included concerns about the accuracy of scientific age assessments and the ethical implications of conducting them without consent. The government is currently assessing the effectiveness of such methods.

• Discussions revealed broader concerns about the effectiveness of the country’s immigration and asylum systems, with political parties presenting differing views on how to manage and improve these systems.

• Overall, the session showed a split between demands for stricter, more transparent immigration policies and concerns over fairness, accuracy, and the protection of vulnerable individuals within those policies.

The session exhibits a moderate level of disagreement, which is evident in several aspects of the debate. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements noted in the session:

1. Disagreement on New Clause 24 (Immigration Tribunal: hearings in public):
   • Conservatives’ stance: Matt Vickers advocated for this new clause, emphasizing the need for transparency in the immigration tribunal process to restore public trust. He cited multiple instances where tribunal decisions were seen as absurd by the public.
   • Opposition’s response: The Minister, Dame Angela Eagle, countered by noting that most hearings are already public and highlighted potential issues with the clause, such as the need for privacy in some cases. Labour members like Margaret Mullane argued against it, suggesting that making hearings public could deter genuine asylum seekers and expose vulnerable individuals.
   • Example: Matt Vickers referenced cases like the Albanian criminal avoiding deportation because of his stepson’s aversion to foreign chicken nuggets. In contrast, Dame Angela Eagle argued that the existing rules under the Tribunal Procedure Committee already allow for necessary flexibility and discretion.
2. Disagreement on New Clause 25 (Qualification period for Indefinite Leave to Remain):
   • Conservatives’ position: Matt Vickers proposed extending the qualification period for indefinite leave to remain from five to ten years, arguing it would ensure immigrants make a significant contribution to the UK. He cited potential financial burdens on taxpayers if this did not change.
   • Opposition’s opposition: Labour members like Tom Hayes challenged the proposal, questioning its practicality and demanding evidence. Chris Murray expressed concern that such a move could deter skilled workers and maintain a cycle of instability.
   • Example: Vickers argued the change would ensure immigrants could prove their commitment and integration, while Hayes pressed for more evidence, specifically criticizing the financial assertions and questioning their basis.
3. Disagreement on New Clause 26 (Age assessments: use of scientific methods):
   • Conservatives’ proposal: Matt Vickers supported the use of scientific methods for age assessments without the need for consent, arguing it would prevent adults from posing as children and reduce safeguarding risks.
   • Opposition’s critique: Dame Angela Eagle maintained that the government was already assessing the efficacy of such methods and was committed to exploring their use. However, she cautioned against premature implementation. Members like Pete Wishart from the SNP opposed the lack of consent requirement and advocated for more traditional assessments.
   • Example: Vickers stressed the urgency by citing recent cases where age deception led to serious incidents, while Eagle responded by explaining the ongoing evaluation process and the risks of implementing unverified methods too hastily.
4. General Political Friction: There was underlying political tension throughout the session, with members like Jo White and Pete Wishart criticizing the Conservatives for past failures in immigration policy and questioning the motives behind the new clauses.
   • Example: Jo White brought up historical promises to reduce net migration by previous Conservative governments, highlighting perceived inconsistencies and unfulfilled commitments.

Overall, while the debate contained significant disagreement, especially around the specific clauses, it did not escalate to high levels of animosity (which would justify a higher rating). The disagreements were articulated with a focus on policy implications, evidenced by interventions, counterarguments, and division votes. However, the level of disagreement and the structured nature of debate suggest a rating of 3, indicating a moderate level of discord without overt hostility.