On July 13 2026, I spoke in the debate on the government’s proposed new immigration and asylum legislation.
What has become clear is that a significant number of people in this country – around 50–60%, according to polling – believe immigration and asylum policy is in need of reform. That includes a more robust approach to people-smuggling gangs, faster processing of asylum claims, quicker removal of those whose claims fail and a reduction in the use of asylum hotels.
Some of that concern is rooted in fact
Case backlogs, continuing boat crossings and the sheer scale of numbers are real, and they play their part. This is legitimate criticism of a system that is failing everyone: those who rightfully seek to be here, those seeking sanctuary and those who live here and want a democratic say over the scale and pace of immigration. That isn’t racism. That’s giving people a real say over their own community.
But other forces have played their part too. Structural racism, dog-whistle politics, media sensationalism and the mainstreaming of racist tropes by the main political parties are all bound up in the complex equation that has brought us here.
Responsible progressives must confront this reality as humanely and responsibly as possible. Failure to act will simply drive more people into the arms of extremists.
So what should reform look like?
An immigration system that is responsive, democratic and flexible: alive to the needs of the economy, balancing genuine labour shortages sector by sector with re-skilling and training programmes for those already here, and matched by investment in public services and housing. Alongside it, an asylum system that is fair, provides safe routes, fosters integration and sees us take our fair share of the world’s dispossessed. Both must be rooted in clear but strict rules and, critically, in public support. Anything else simply isn’t sustainable.
Judged against that standard, the government’s new legislation is not humane, effective or responsible. Aside from one or two proposals, the bill is a smorgasbord of political signalling to a reactionary gallery that will never be sated, and of punitive measures that will do little to reduce case backlogs, cut the numbers in hotel accommodation or speed up integration.
It also opens the door to the hard right on human rights. They have long sought, for a variety of reasons, to undermine these universal protections. Indeed, the Tories saw the opportunity a Labour government presented with this bill. Not content with it watering down human rights protections for all of us, they attempted to go further and remove us from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) altogether. That is not a door we should be opening in an attempt to placate the hard right.
European Court of Human Rights (Strasbourg). Image by CherryX via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Lest we forget
Human rights legislation was forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of the concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. It has protected hundreds of millions of people across the world.
Yet the Tories, Reform and many others across Parliament, glibly talk of throwing it away. Labour should not be following them down this path.
The reason they are called “human” rights is that being human is the universal condition. The day we forget that is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history.
For this reason and others, I voted against the government’s proposed new immigration and asylum legislation bill at second reading. The bill is at the committee stage so there is the potential for changes there, in the Lords, and third reading amendments.
With new leadership, I hope we can finally grasp this issue in a practical, effective and humane way: striking a balance between protection and enforcement, and rebuilding trust with the majority of voters on secure borders.
More from East Anglia Bylines
