LONDON — Andy Burnham voted for the UK government's immigration and asylum bill during its second reading in the House of Commons on November 18, 2024. The bill passed by a margin of 264 votes to 90, advancing a major piece of legislation that seeks to reshape the country’s approach to immigration and asylum claims.

The legislation aims to reduce small-boat crossings to the UK while expanding safe and legal routes for entry. It includes provisions to tighten the application of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to respect for private and family life. The bill would also replace immigration judges with a new system of independent adjudicators to hear appeals, a move intended to streamline the appeals process.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced amendments to the bill, including plans to remove legal protections that currently prevent the deportation of some long-term Commonwealth citizens convicted of serious crimes. In defending the legislation, Mahmood said, “This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution and I’m proud of that fact. But we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying.” She also stated that Labour had increased arrests of people smugglers by 55% since taking office, that asylum decisions were at a 24-year high, and that removals were at their highest level in almost a decade.

The government added that the number of people housed in asylum hotels had fallen by almost 30%. Despite Labour leadership’s support, 14 Labour MPs voted against the bill. Among them was Nadia Whittome, who said there was “little evidence” the bill would solve the problems it claimed to address. Stella Creasy, another Labour MP, questioned plans to reassess refugees’ status every 30 months under a proposed “core protection” route, which she described as a “Diet Coke version of refugee status.”

Tony Vaughan, Labour MP for Folkestone and Hythe, warned that poor Home Office decision-making, rather than the tribunal system, was driving the volume of appeals. His concerns aligned with broader skepticism about whether replacing immigration judges with independent adjudicators would resolve systemic delays or improve decision quality.

The Conservatives opposed the bill, with Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp arguing that leaving the European Convention on Human Rights remained necessary to curb irregular migration. Philp put forward an amendment to the legislation, but it was defeated during the second reading. The opposition’s stance contrasted with Labour’s unified front in government, though internal dissent was evident among the 14 Labour MPs who defied the party whip.

Why It Matters

The bill represents the latest in a series of attempts by successive UK governments to overhaul the immigration and asylum system, a recurring policy challenge with deep political and humanitarian implications. By seeking to limit judicial oversight, accelerate removals, and restrict the use of human rights protections in deportation cases, the legislation tests the balance between enforcement and legal safeguards. The debate also reflects broader tensions within Labour’s own ranks over how to manage migration while maintaining public and party support.

Academic research has long examined the interplay between immigration policy and public sentiment, including studies on neoliberal nationalism and the economic effects of migration. The current bill’s emphasis on curbing irregular entry while promoting legal pathways aligns with policy trends observed in other liberal democracies, though critics argue that structural issues—such as processing backlogs and inconsistent decision-making—remain unaddressed.