Asylum Policy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

I welcome the rhetoric in the Home Secretary’s announcement. In fact, I recognise her rhetoric. We have our plan for restoring justice, and she has announced a plan to restore order and control. However, before she puts in her application to join Reform UK—and I would very much welcome her doing so—may I just draw out the difference between our parties?

Unlike the Government, we do not propose to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here for two and a half years after arriving; we do not propose to give them the right to study and work here; we do not propose to allow them to bring their families here; and, crucially, we are not going to contort our law to comply with and fit into the European convention on human rights. The derogations announced by the Home Secretary will not work to stop the lawfare, just as the derogations announced in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 would not have stopped the lawfare, which is why I opposed that Bill as well. She talks about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think there was a question in there, Madam Deputy Speaker. As for the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to join his party—hardly any of whose Members appear to be present—let me say to him, “Over my dead body.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members will have seen how many Members are on their feet. I will need to finish this statement by 8 pm, so please bear that in mind, because I want to get everybody in.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

I welcome a sizeable amount of what the Home Secretary has said and is trying to do. Earlier this year the immigration and asylum chamber of the upper tribunal in the case of IX reiterated the established administrative law requirements that Government decision making in asylum cases be proportionate and reasonable and not expose individuals to prolonged or indefinite uncertainty—something that the Home Office used to criticise, under the Tories in fact, as a lengthy limbo period. Can the Home Secretary clarify how her proposal to require a 20-year period before someone granted asylum may obtain a permanent right to remain complies with these fundamental principles?

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)]

Sivanandan warned:

“What Enoch Powell says today, the Conservative Party says tomorrow, and the Labour Party legislates on the day after.”

Seizing valuables belonging to asylum seekers, making refugees wait 20 years before they can apply to settle permanently, and deporting entire families, including children who have built new lives here, because their country of origin is deemed safe—these measures are straight out of the fascist playbook. The Home Secretary has described herself as a child of immigrants, so I ask her: is she proud to introduce measures that punish and persecute desperate and vulnerable people seeking sanctuary? How does it feel to kick away the ladder and be praised by fascist Tommy Robinson? I must add—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. [Interruption.] Order!

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will clarify a point of fact. The hon. Member said that I describe myself as a child of immigrants. It is not a description; it is just a statement of fact. Everything else she said is beneath contempt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Denyer]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State accused one of my Green colleagues of hypocrisy when in fact she had been objecting to the warehousing of asylum seekers in military barracks, which is a position in line with Greens in the Chamber and, in fact, all major refugee rights organisations. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would like to withdraw her grossly misleading remarks and baseless accusation of hypocrisy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Adnan Hussain, who I understand also has a point of order that relates to remarks made by the Home Secretary.

[Mr Adnan Hussain]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. After my earlier intervention, the Home Secretary stated that she “should not be surprised to see the hon. Gentleman indulging in misinformation” in here. I take my responsibilities in this House extremely seriously. I am confident that every point I have raised was made in good faith, based on publicly available information, and was neither misleading nor inaccurate. May I therefore seek your guidance on how a Member may respond, or have the record clarified, when a Minister makes such characterisation without providing any evidence, clarification or correction, in particular where it risks implying dishonesty on the part of a Member who had no opportunity to respond further at that moment?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that it was not misleading; it was just wrong, so I can clarify that for the record.

I say to the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) that I think it is a fair point of debate to point out that the Green party often indulges in hypocrisy. I shall look carefully at what her colleague has said in relation to the large military sites, but I say to her that the Green party never seems to offer any solution, only commentary that does not work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank both Members for their points of order. Their comments are now on the record.