The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
I wish to make a statement on our new plan for immigration. The
Government have taken back control of legal immigration by ending
free movement and introducing a points-based immigration system.
We are now addressing the challenge of illegal migration head-on.
I am introducing the most significant overhaul of our asylum
system in decades—a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term
plan—because while people are dying we have a responsibility to
act. People are dying at sea, in lorries and in shipping
containers, having put their lives into the hands of criminal
gangs that facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. To stop the
deaths, we must stop the trade in people that causes them.
Our society is enriched by legal immigration. We celebrate those
who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build
Britain. We always will. Since 2015, we have resettled almost
25,000 men, women and children seeking refuge from persecution
across the world—more than any other EU country. We have welcomed
more than 29,000 close relatives through refugee family reunion
and created a pathway to citizenship to enable over 5 million
people in Hong Kong to come to the UK. Nobody can say that the
British public are not fair or generous when it comes to helping
those in need, but the British public also recognise that for too
long parts of the immigration system have been open to abuse.
At the heart of our new plan for immigration is a simple
principle: fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be
based on need, not the ability to pay people smugglers. If
someone enters the UK illegally from a safe country such as
France, where they should and could have claimed asylum, they are
not seeking refuge from persecution, as is the intended purpose
of the asylum system; instead, they are choosing the UK as their
preferred destination and they are doing so at the expense of
those with nowhere else to go.
Our system is collapsing under the pressures of parallel illegal
routes to asylum, facilitated by criminal smugglers. The
existence of parallel routes is deeply unfair, advantaging those
with the means to pay smugglers over those in desperate need. The
capacity of our asylum system is not unlimited, so the presence
of economic migrants, which these illegal routes introduce, limit
our ability to properly support others in genuine need of
protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately
waiting to be resettled in the UK. It is not fair to the British
people either, whose taxes pay for vital public services and for
an asylum system that has skyrocketed in cost—it is costing over
£1 billion this year.
There were more than 32,000 attempts to enter the UK illegally in
2019, with 8,500 people arriving by small boat in 2020. Of those,
87% were men and 74% were aged between 18 and 39. We should ask
ourselves: where are the vulnerable women and children that this
system should exist to protect? The system is becoming
overwhelmed: 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. Some
52,000 are awaiting an initial asylum decision, with almost three
quarters of those waiting a year or more. Some 42,000 failed
asylum seekers have not left the country, despite having had
their claim refused.
The persistent failure to enforce our laws and immigration rules,
with a system that is open to gaming by economic migrants and
exploitation by criminals, is eroding public trust and
disadvantaging vulnerable people who need our help. That is why
our new plan for immigration is driven by three fair but firm
objectives: first, to increase the fairness of our system, so we
can protect and support those in genuine need of asylum;
secondly, to deter illegal entry into the UK, breaking the
business model of people smugglers and protecting the lives of
those they endanger; and, thirdly, to remove more easily from the
UK those with no right to be here. Let me take each in turn.
First, we will continue to provide safe refuge to those in need,
strengthening support for those arriving through safe and legal
routes. People coming to the UK through resettlement routes will
be granted indefinite leave to remain. They will receive more
support to learn English, find work and integrate. I will also
act to help those who have suffered injustices by amending
British nationality law, so that members of the Windrush
generation will be able to obtain British citizenship more
easily.
Secondly, this plan marks a step change in our approach as we
toughen our stance to deter illegal entry and the criminals who
endanger life by enabling it. To get to the UK, many illegal
arrivals have travelled through a safe country such as France,
where they could and should have claimed asylum. We must act to
reduce the pull factors of our system and disincentivise illegal
entry. For the first time, whether people enter the UK legally or
illegally will have an impact on how their asylum claim
progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is
successful. We will deem their claim as inadmissible and make
every effort to remove those who enter the UK illegally having
travelled through a safe country first in which they could and
should have claimed asylum. Only where removal is not possible
will those who have successful claims, having entered illegally,
receive a new temporary protection status. This is not an
automatic right to settle—they will be regularly reassessed for
removal—and will include limited access to benefits and limited
family reunion rights. Our tough new stance will also include:
new maximum life sentences for people smugglers and facilitators;
new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children; and
strengthening enforcement powers for Border Force.
Thirdly, we will seek to rapidly remove those with no right to be
here in the UK, establishing a fast-track appeals process,
streamlining the appeals system and making quicker removal
decisions for failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign
criminals. We will tackle the practice of meritless claims that
clog up the courts with last-minute claims and appeals—a
fundamental unfairness that lawyers tell me frustrates them,
too—because for too long, our justice system has been gamed.
Almost three quarters of migrants in detention raised
last-minute, new claims, or challenges or other issues, with over
eight in 10 of these eventually being denied as valid reasons to
stay in the UK. Enough is enough. Our new plan sets out a
one-stop process to require all claims to be made upfront—no more
endless, meritless claims to frustrate removal; no more stalling
justice. Our new system will be faster and fairer and will help
us better support the most vulnerable.
Our new plan builds on the work already done to take back control
of our borders, building a system that upholds our reputation as
a country where criminality is not rewarded, but which is a haven
for those in need. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts to
success, but this long-term plan, pursued doggedly, will fix our
broken system.
We know that Members of the Opposition would prefer a different
plan—one that embraces the idea of open borders. Many of them
were reluctant to end free movement, with Members opposite on
record as having said that all immigration controls are racist or
sexist. And to those who say we lack compassion, I simply say
that while people are dying, we must act to deter these journeys,
and if they do not like our plan, where is theirs?
This Government promised to take a common-sense approach to
controlling immigration, legal and illegal, and we will deliver
on that promise. The UK is playing its part to tackle the
inhumanity of illegal migration and, today, I will press for
global action at the G6. I commend this statement to the House.
12:57:00
(Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for
advance sight of it. She said in her statement that the asylum
system is broken, and she talked about a persistent failure of
the rules. They are stark admissions for a Conservative Home
Secretary whose party has been in power for 11 years.
The truth is, we have seen Conservative failure across the board.
The Home Secretary mentioned the Windrush generation, while this
Government presides over a compensation scheme that their own
figures show has helped only 338 people. Then there is the asylum
processing system, which is appallingly slow. The share of
applications that received an initial decision within six months
fell from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. There is no point
blaming others. This is the fault of Conservative Ministers and a
failure of leadership at the Home Office, and there has not been
the progress we need on the promised agreement with France on
dealing with appalling criminal gangs and rises in the horrific
crime of human trafficking.
Yes, the Government policy is defined by a lack of compassion and
a lack of competence, and I am afraid that the plans outlined by
the Government today look like they are going to continue in
exactly the same vein. No wonder the plans outlined have been
described as “inhumane” by the British Red Cross. They risk
baking into the UK system the callousness, frankly, of this
Government’s approach. No wonder, either, that the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concerns about the
Government’s understanding of international law.
The Home Secretary spoke today about the importance of safe and
legal routes, yet the resettlement scheme was suspended, and the
Dubs scheme was shamefully closed down after accepting just 480
unaccompanied children rather than the 3,000 expected.
[Interruption.] The Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for
Torbay (), continues to shout at me; he cannot hide from the
Government’s record of the last 11 years. And the Government
looked the other way last summer; rather than help children stuck
in the burning refugee camp of Lesbos, they turned the other way.
At the same time, these changes risk making the situation even
worse for victims of human trafficking, as it would be even
harder to access help in the UK, helping criminal gangs escape
justice. Ministers have abolished the Department for
International Development, the very Department that helped
address the forces that drive people from their homes in the
first place—war, poverty and persecution.
Not only are Government plans lacking in compassion, but the
Government do not even have the competence to explain how their
plans would work. A central part of the measures briefed out by
the Government relies on new international agreements, yet the
Home Secretary could not mention one of those agreements that
have been concluded this morning. Sources close to the Home
Secretary have briefed out ridiculous, inhumane schemes such as
processing people on Ascension Island, over 4,000 miles away, and
wave machines in the English channel to drive back boats. When
the Government recently briefed out plans for Gibraltar and the
Isle of Man, they were dismissed within hours.
The proposals also show that the Government have not woken up to
the urgent need to protect the UK against the pandemic and
support our health and social care system to rebuild. We have
heard the Prime Minister this week be dangerously complacent
about a third wave of covid from Europe, and the threat of new
variants continues to grow, yet none of the UK Government plans
includes measures desperately required to protect the UK. We need
world-leading border protections against covid, including a
comprehensive hotel quarantine system, yet throughout this
pandemic the Government have done too little, too late. The
proposals do nothing to address the recruitment crisis in the
health and social care system, where urgent changes are needed to
help recruit the medical and social care staff to deal with covid
and NHS waiting lists.
The reality is that the measures outlined today will do next to
nothing to stop people making dangerous crossings, and they risk
withdrawing support from desperate people. The Conservatives have
undoubtedly broken the immigration system over the last 11 years,
but the reality today is that they have absolutely no idea how to
fix it.
First, let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s distasteful
comparisons to Windrush head-on. Members of the Windrush
generation came to the UK lawfully to help rebuild Britain, and
they were wronged by successive Governments, including Labour
Governments. It is simply insulting to attempt to draw parallels
between them and those entering our country unlawfully.
Not only are this Government ensuring that Windrush victims
receive compensation—the compensation that they deserve—but today
I am announcing new measures to fix historical anomalies in
British nationality law to ensure that members of the Windrush
generation can receive British citizenship more easily. That is a
Conservative Home Secretary, and a Conservative Prime Minister
and Government, righting these wrongs. As I have set out
previously in the House, the Home Office is absolutely committed
to supporting victims of the Windrush generation, and that is why
today I have launched the biggest and most wide-ranging
consultation when it comes to this new plan for immigration.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the record of
Conservatives in government, so let me just set out some facts
for him. From the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, such as my own
family members, from a repressive regime; to proudly resettling
more refugees than any other EU country, as he heard me say in my
statement; to supporting campaigners fleeing political
persecution in Hong Kong—that is the record of Conservatives when
it comes to humanitarianism. Under the Conservative leadership of
this Government, the United Kingdom will always provide sanctuary
to people who are having the light switched off on their own
liberty and personal freedoms, and this new plan will build on
that.
Thirdly, I am quite astonished by the tone of the right hon.
Gentleman’s comments, repeatedly suggesting that we just turn a
blind eye to people attempting to come into our country
illegally—people being smuggled in small boats and in the back of
lorries. He will well know that we in this House have stood too
often to hear about the tragedy of people who have died, whether
in the channel or the back of refrigerated lorries. I will not
apologise for being abundantly clear that an illegal journey to
the UK is not worth the risk. That is what this plan is about:
tackling illegal migration, protecting lives, and, of course,
alongside that creating new routes.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Government
of lacking compassion. He accuses me of taking an inhumane
approach. I suggest politely to him that he should not resort to
personal attacks of that nature. I, and my own family in
particular, understand what oppression is like and, after fleeing
persecution, sought refuge in the United Kingdom, just like
millions of others who have successfully rebuilt their lives.
That lack of substance is not surprising, because the Labour
party has no plans to fix the broken system. In fact, I
understand that last night, the Labour party’s response to my
plan was very much to look at my plan. As long as Labour Members
are devoid of a plan of substance, they are defending a broken
system that is encouraging illegal migration and supporting
criminality. They are defending a system that is enabling an
established criminal trade in asylum seekers, and causing human
misery. It is a system that disregards the world’s most
vulnerable, elbowing women and children to the side. It is a
system that all too often, as I have seen, results in the tragic
loss of life.
A family of five drowned on their way to this country—our
country—only last year; in 2019, 39 victims were found dead in
Purfleet in the back of a refrigerated lorry. That is inhumane.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are prepared to
be associated with that criminal trade in asylum seeking and
human misery, he is the one who lacks compassion. That is not a
position that we will take, and I will not be complicit in
defending the indefensible on that basis.
Finally, it is extraordinary to hear lectures about our border
from the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, when it is
still official Labour party policy to maintain and extend free
movement rights, as per its party conference motion. In effect,
that is to have open borders. We are the only party that is
prepared to tackle illegal migration, show compassion to those
who have been trafficked in the world, and create safe and legal
routes, so that we help to save lives.
(West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement because, just like my
constituents, I am angry at the images we are seeing of small
boats coming into the channel, and the skyrocketing costs of our
asylum system—resources that could be used to tackle inequalities
in areas such as the “lost city” in Tipton, and give kids on that
estate the chances to succeed. The broader issue is this: our
European neighbours need to step up. It is as simple as that.
Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Wednesbury,
Oldbury and Tipton, who have put their faith in her, that she
will continue to make the point to our European neighbours that
they have got to step up? It is not fair on the United Kingdom to
take the lion’s share of protecting some of the most vulnerable
people in our society.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a compassionate
nation, and we stand by everything we do when it comes to
providing humanity and protection to individuals who are being
persecuted. He has made the point incredibly well on behalf of
his constituents, and we will continue—as I will today with the
G6, our international counterparts, and across European Union
member states—to say that they also need to do more. Until they
do, people will continue to die. We all have this collective
responsibility.
(Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
There is so much wrong with these proposals that distilling it
into two minutes is impossible. What person and what Government
with an ounce of compassion or respect for international law
would even consider casting vulnerable people off to an island
using an offshoring system that, in Australia’s case, has been
described by the UN as an affront to “common decency”? Who, with
any regard to the rule of law, would limit the right to appeal?
The high success rate of asylum appeals clearly shows that the
Home Office is getting these decisions wrong too often.
Are we or are we not still a signatory to the UN refugee
convention? Is the Home Secretary aware of article 31, which
prohibits penalising someone for the way in which they reached a
country or, for that matter, arriving so-called illegally? Does
she know that nowhere in there does it say that someone cannot
transit through another country to get here? That was never the
intention of the convention, and to say it is is simply untrue.
Does she remember that Nicholas Winton—rightly hailed as a hero
for rescuing hundreds of children from Nazi refugee camps—was
reported to have forged documents because the Home Office was too
slow? Those children would today be classed as illegal and he
would be a criminal, but he was a hero, because he recognised
that desperate people have no choice, and the same is true today
for many who reach our shores.
The Home Secretary should be ashamed to make this statement
today. There is nothing pretty about this—it is ugly dog-whistle
politics, and I can tell her that the SNP wants no part in it.
More importantly, Scotland will not live with the associated
shame of this. Scotland recognises its international and moral
obligations, but we also recognise that we are prevented by the
UK Government from living up to them. I despair for those having
to live under this toxic environment, and I will always offer my
solidarity, but I will also work even harder to ensure that
Scotland votes yes to independence, so that we at least can
continue to treat vulnerable people with compassion and dignity.
First, I refer the hon. Lady to my statement. If she had bothered
to listen to it, she would have heard a compelling case for
stopping people trafficking, stopping illegal migration and
creating safe and legal routes—something that I would have
thought she would warmly welcome.
Secondly, it seems to me that the nationalist party in Scotland
needs to do much more to walk the talk when it comes to
resettling refugees and working with the Government to house
individuals who are fleeing persecution. Sadly, that work is not
taking place—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Lady is
making some gestures towards me. If she would like to come into
the Home Office and have discussions about resettlement schemes
and routes in constituencies, I would be more than happy to look
at that. Our Ministers would be delighted to welcome her into the
Department for that conversation.
Finally, the hon. Lady speaks about our plans not being in line
with the refugee convention. Again, I would like to correct her.
Our new plan for immigration is in line with our international
obligations, including the refugee convention. She will know that
the refugee convention does allow for differentiated treatment
where, for example—[Interruption.] she can shake her head, but
perhaps she would like to listen—refugees have not come directly
from a country of persecution.
(Henley)
(Con) [V]
I welcome particularly what my right hon. Friend is proposing to
deal with people smuggling, but this is a bigger problem than
simply the EU. Council of Europe members are dealing with this
right across the Mediterranean and from the middle east. Will she
join me in sharing her approach with members of the Council of
Europe as an example of what can be done?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for the
work that he has been doing with the Council of Europe. In the
past, we have had many conversations about this issue and about
people, ways of working and upstream issues around illegal
migration. He is right to highlight the issue around the
Mediterranean. Too many people have died, tragically, under the
most appalling circumstances. I would be more than happy to work
with him on how we pursue this further.
(Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Safe Passage reports increasingly long waits for child and teen
refugees in camps in Greece and elsewhere to be able to reunite
with family in the UK who could care for them since the Dublin
and Dubs schemes were ended. Ministers promised us that they
would put in place safe legal routes in replacement, but they
have not done so, and things are not working. Talking about safe
legal routes is not good enough if they do not materialise in
practice. Does the Home Secretary not accept that, especially
when it comes to vulnerable children and teenagers, a lack of
safe legal routes to rejoin family will drive more of them into
the arms of dangerous people traffickers and make the situation
much worse?
If the right hon. Lady had heard my statement, she would have
heard some figures about those who are being trafficked right
now. They are predominantly single men. She makes a very valid
and important point, which supports the case for safe and legal
routes, around children in particular. This is not just about
camps in Greece, and let us not forget, of course, that we have
been in a pandemic, which is part of the reason, as the right
hon. Lady knows—we have discussed it at the Home Affairs
Committee—and as many hon. Members know, having been reminded of
it again and again and again, the Government are absolutely
committed, as the record shows, to resettling children, and to
family reunion rights.
That is absolutely right, and we are doing that. We are committed
to that, but through safe and legal routes. We need to create new
routes, and not just from the camps in Greece. The right hon.
Lady will know as well—I have been to many myself—that within
regions, where there are wars and conflict, we need to create
safe and legal routes, and not just from the Mediterranean. Too
many people have been smuggled to that Mediterranean route. We
need to do much more in-country, and in some of those terrible
zones. I hope that she would support this work on that basis.
(Kensington)
(Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, many asylum seekers are being
housed in hotels in central London, and many hundreds in my
constituency. Will she assure me that today’s announcement will
speed up the asylum process, that those who are successful will
be resettled and those who are not will be quickly returned, and
that we can get the numbers in hotels down to zero?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is well versed in this,
in fact, and I thank her for the way she has worked with
Ministers, and with me and the Home Office, on this issue of
accommodation in her constituency. She and other Members will
know that the hotel policy is very much linked to the pandemic,
because we have not been able to utilise regular accommodation
and dispersal accommodation, and so, along with contingency, we
have been using hotels.
There is another point to make here, which is about the processes
that we have to look at cases. We are going to change the
end-to-end system. There is a reform package in place, including
digitalisation of caseworking, faster assessments, and all sorts
of work on that basis, so I can give my hon. Friend that
assurance.
(Orkney
and Shetland) (LD)
Can the Home Secretary tell us when the first refugees will be
allowed to enter the UK under her new scheme, and how many will
be settled each year?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that today’s paper, the new
immigration plan, is a consultation document. It is a Command
Paper, so we are consulting and we will work with everybody who
wants to work with us constructively on this. It will be subject
to new legislation, and he will know the processes, but we as a
Government are absolutely committed. We are already in discussion
right now with partner organisations that we can work with on
safe and legal routes. That is essential, because 80 million
people are displaced in the world, seeking refuge. We have a
moral responsibility and an obligation to do the right thing and
stand by those who are fleeing persecution, while at the same
time working not only other with partners but with other
countries to ensure that they raise the bar too.
(Redcar) (Con)
This is a fantastic plan to fix our broken asylum system. The
plan prioritises help to those most in need with safe and legal
routes. It will stop the deaths in the channel and in lorries of
people attempting illegal entry, and deter those who abuse the
system and jump the queue, particularly with a new age assessment
process. It also introduces new life sentences for the real
criminals in all this: the people smugglers. However, my
constituents will rightly ask, “When?” Can she outline the
timetable for the implementation of the plan, and how they can
get involved?
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive tone and comments.
The plan is subject to consultation. It should be a people’s
consultation. The British public, with the publication today,
should absolutely join the consultation, and I encourage all
Members to get their constituents on board. At the end of the
consultation, we will obviously draft a Bill and bring it to
Parliament for a second session.
(Streatham) (Lab) [V]
The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its
1967 protocol state that anyone seeking asylum should be able to
claim in their intended destination or another safe country, but
the Government’s new plan discriminates by distinguishing between
people fleeing the same persecution based on their route or on
their mode of transport. Does the Home Secretary realise that,
under the new plan, trafficked women, LGBTQ people, and those
fleeing political and religious persecution will be left with
limited options? Rather than expanding safe and legal routes, the
plan could actually leave more of those seeking family reunion at
the mercy of people smugglers. The plan does not meet the needs
of the most vulnerable, so can she explain how she reconciles
this obvious misrepresentation of our obligations under
international law?
First of all, I advise the hon. Lady to actually read the
immigration plan, because she will see that it is in line with
international obligations, including the refugee convention.
Secondly, she has spoken about categories of individuals—people
seeking to flee who will be persecuted for who they are and for
their values. They will, of course, be covered under our safe and
legal routes scheme, so she is completely wrong in her
misrepresentations.
(Rother
Valley) (Con) [V]
My constituents and I in Rother Valley welcome strong action in
tackling illegal, dangerous migration. I know that my right hon.
Friend and her Department are working tirelessly to bring the
criminals facilitating the illegal channel crossings to justice,
and to tackle this exploitative crime. Does she agree that there
is no justifiable reason for migrants to be making this crossing,
and putting themselves and our Border Force in danger, when
staying in France remains a perfectly safe and right option for
them?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I thank him for his question.
People should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive
in. That is the point that we are making again and again. They
are currently in the hands of people traffickers and smugglers,
and are, quite frankly, being duped into false promises and false
hope. There is no doubt whatever that we will be working with our
counterparts—I have already mentioned the G6—to pursue this with
greater vigour. The principle that my hon. Friend raises is
fundamentally correct.
(Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
This cynical announcement is built on the availability of safe
and legal routes. This morning, the Home Secretary claimed, “We
have safe and legal routes, and we have a programme called the
Syrian refugee resettlement scheme”. But she will know that the
Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme actually finished
at the end of February, as its quota was filled. There are no
details of how the new UK resettlement scheme will work, so could
the Home Secretary tell us how many people it will take, explain
how it will operate and outline, for example, the process
available to a refugee from what is currently the world’s worst
conflict, in Yemen?
I will not take any lectures from hon. Gentleman about
resettlement schemes, when this Government have successfully
resettled 25,000 people through that resettlement
scheme—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is true. I have
made it quite clear that we are in discussion with partner
agencies already. That work is under way. He can shake his head
and be as dismissive as he chooses to be, but if he bothered to
read the new immigration plan, he would see the details of
exactly how we will start to introduce new safe and legal routes
through legislation.
(North East
Bedfordshire) (Con)
Yarl’s Wood detention centre in my constituency was set up under
a Labour Government in 2001, and is a manifestation of the
historical weaknesses of our immigration processes and, in
particular, how they have failed women. As my right hon. Friend
knows, women asylum seekers are more likely to be individually
targeted as victims of gender-based violence, forced
marriage—sometimes to very powerful people—or rape as an
instrument of war. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me
that her reforms will provide a fairer and more effective
assessment of such cases?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is why we have to
fix the system. We are currently not able to safeguard and
protect those who absolutely need that help and support. The
categories that the plan covers include women—women who have been
treated abhorrently, quite frankly, in conflict zones, as well as
those who have been trafficked and who have had had the most
awful crimes undertaken against them. Some of these women are
also used in modern-day slavery; how we protect victims of that
is also a feature of the new immigration plan. My hon. Friend is
absolutely right and we will definitely be looking at all of
that.
(Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
Now that the Home Secretary is planning on deporting even more
asylum seekers than previously, will she address the lack of
transparency in the content and scope of the UK Government’s
existing returns and readmission agreements, as well as those
under negotiation? Will she give an undertaking to remedy that
lack of clarity and to publish the agreements for scrutiny? Will
she also confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to
send people back to countries where there is a real risk that
they will face torture or inhuman, degrading treatment or
punishment?
I am always interested in the hon. and learned Lady’s comments,
particularly in the light of the way in which she caucuses and
campaigns against flight removals, for example, as we have seen
previously when we have tried to remove foreign national
offenders—some of the most murderous people, with awful criminal
records—from our country. Of course I can guarantee that we will
not be removing people to the parts of the world to which she has
referred, but I would also say that we are clear on the removal
processes that we have, the categories of individuals we remove,
and the reasons why we remove them from the UK. They are
predominantly those who have failed in their claims, but
alongside them are many foreign national offenders, who simply
should not remain in our country.
(Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
May I start by saying that I, along with the people of
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, warmly welcome this
new plan to fix our broken system? Currently, the UK is one of
the only countries in Europe not to use scientific age assessment
to determine a person’s age when they enter the country. I am
sure many hon. Friends and Members from across this House will
have heard the stories of fully grown adults coming to the UK but
claiming asylum as children. Does my right hon. Friend therefore
agree that this statement will solve a very serious safeguarding
risk for our young people?
My hon. Friend raises such an important question. It is sobering,
because over the years we have seen too many cases of adults
posing as children. That is unscrupulous behaviour, and I say
that because of the safeguarding risks that my hon. Friend
highlights. He is right about the UK being one of the only
countries; in Europe, they use scientific age assessment methods
to determine a person’s age. Between 2016 and 2020, where age has
been disputed and resolved 54% of the people involved were found
to be adults, which presents a very serious safeguarding risk to
our young people.
(Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
This Government have form for lack of compassion towards those
who have fled horrors that we can only imagine, from abandoning
the Dubs child refugee scheme to the broken system that is
leaving asylum seekers in limbo for months, if not possibly
years, and their having to go to food banks because even the
minimal support they are entitled to often is not arriving. So
how can my constituents have any faith in this Government and
whether they have one iota of compassion?
As I have said, I am simply not going to take lectures about the
lack of compassion from the hon. Lady or the Labour party at all.
I have been abundantly clear about the reasons we have to tackle
this system. She may be interested to know that there is not a
single solution here; this is about end-to-end reform of the
system. I know it might be an uncomfortable truth for her, but
this does actually mean tackling the backlog of cases, tackling
the people smugglers and stopping the criminal trade in human
misery. I am only sorry that she cannot see that, because the way
in which we demonstrate compassion is by fixing the system and
supporting those who are in desperate need to come here.
(Mansfield)
(Con) [V]
I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has laid out today,
which will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, who just want
to see a fairer system, both for people in genuine need and for
UK taxpayers. The most obvious example of that unfairness is the
exploitation of people who are paying human traffickers just to
be pushed out into the channel in a dinghy, particularly when
they are coming from a safe country. Will she confirm that these
measures are intended to ensure that these crossings are no
longer worth the risk and that she will be t increasing penalties
available to law enforcement to be able to tackle people
smugglers head on?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as I have said in my
statement, we need to break this trade. That is vital, because
people are being used in such an appalling way and human misery
is being created. I have outlined already the increases in
sentences that we will be looking at—not only sentences for
facilitators and people smugglers, but the new powers we will be
looking to give Border Force.
(York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Immigration is the most defining issue of a Government’s
character: do they reach out to protect the most challenged
people on earth or turn in on themselves? When a Government do
not secure safe passage for people seeking asylum to come to the
UK, criminal gangs will exploit them. Will the Home Secretary
update the House on what steps she is taking to ensure that her
policy is not just about building higher walls for people to
climb over, but opening safer doors for people to walk through?
I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the “New Plan for
Immigration”, because it is spelt out in there.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
Our present asylum system is a complete joke. Every young man
living in misery in a failed state knows that if he manages to
reach our shores, the chances of his being deported are virtually
zero. There is no point in introducing more and more penalties
and laws unless we are prepared to deport people. Is the Home
Secretary prepared to do what Prime Minister Abbott of Australia
did? He ensured that all arrivals were put in a secure location
and left there until their claims were assessed and then either
deported or allowed to stay, and there are now no unsafe arrivals
in Australia, no deaths and no criminal gangs. That policy works.
Is the Home Secretary prepared to be really tough in order to be
kind?
As I have outlined already for my right hon. Friend, this
proposal is a long-term plan and it needs to be addressed in the
component parts that I have outlined. For example, the legal
system that we have here, which frustrates deportations and
removals, is a very different system from the one in Australia.
This is a fair but firm system because we have to be firm in
terms of removing those that have exhausted all their rights and
should not be here. This equally applies to foreign national
offenders, which is part of the reason that I have outlined
already in the new immigration plan.
(Rutherglen
and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Home Secretary has spoken of efforts to strike agreements
with countries outside Europe, with the intention of returning
legitimate asylum seekers simply because of their method of
arrival in the UK. It is likely that those countries will be the
same ones that we will seek trade deals with in the post-Brexit
environment, so will the Home Secretary tell us what discussions
she has had with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and
Development Office and the Department for International Trade
about how those third-country agreements will impact on trade
negotiations?
Let me assure the hon. Lady that this is not just a Home Office
policy. This is a policy across Government. She will already have
heard me speak about the Ministry of Justice and resetting the
judicial framework, and we will work with the FCDO on removals.
That is always something that we have done in the Home Office,
and we will continue to work with them when it comes to our
bilateral agreements on returns and removals.
(North West Durham) (Con)
Like the overwhelming majority of my North West Durham
constituents, I want to see genuine refugees protected with safer
legal routes so that we do not see people dying in the channel or
in lorries, but my constituents also want to see the vultures—the
people smugglers who peddle in human misery and the lawyers who
spin out cases at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to
the taxpayer every year—stopped. Can my right hon. Friend confirm
that this plan will help genuine refugees and also take on those
who seek to abuse the current system?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When he looks at the new
plan, he will see a chapter in the policy paper on the judicial
reset that is required when it comes to the immigration tribunal,
immigration bail and the appeals process. We will streamline that
and we will also deal with the wasted costs that British
taxpayers are paying for. We want to use that resource to ensure
that the money is going to those who are in need and not just to
those who are gaming the system.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I agree that those
seeking asylum must do so in the appropriate way and that those
who smuggle illegal immigrants must face the full extent of the
justice system. However, I have a concern over the role of
children in these situations. A child has no say over whether
they are brought over legally or illegally, so will the Home
Secretary outline what special circumstances will be in place
when it comes to children and minors, who are totally innocent of
deceit or of trying to play the system?
The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point about
vulnerability, and children in particular. We need to find the
right way in which we can safeguard them, and that is exactly the
work that we are going to undertake with partner agencies to look
at bringing them not just from camps in Europe, because Europe is
a safe continent, but in particular from those parts of the world
where we are seeing the most appalling levels of conflict,
instability and persecution.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome the package of measures that my right hon.
Friend has brought forward today, particularly the maximum life
sentences for people smugglers. So that there can be no wriggle
room in the justice system when these abhorrent criminals face
justice, will she also look at introducing a very high minimum
sentence so that the message goes out loud and clear that this is
unacceptable and that those people will face the full force of
the law in this country?
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because we have to have the
right sanctions and deterrents in place so that these people
smugglers’ model is broken up. Of course, that will be part of
the consultation and I will absolutely work with my hon. Friend
and others on the whole proposal.
(Central
Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
It is shocking to see some of the overcrowded and squalid
accommodation, including in military barracks, that is used to
house asylum seekers. Safe accommodation for vulnerable people is
critical in any compassionate and effective asylum system, but
particularly in the middle of a pandemic. How does the Home
Secretary plan, in her reforms, to improve the quality of housing
for people seeking asylum?
The hon. Lady will absolutely know that in terms of the
contingency accommodation that we have had to use because of the
pandemic we have looked at all sorts of options. On accommodation
going forward, we use dispersed accommodation, and I come back to
the point about working with local authorities, which will be
part of our discussions and consultations going forward. It is
vital that we grow that footprint and I would be more than happy
for the hon. Lady to work with us in coming up with alternative
proposals on accommodation.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the proposals announced today, as will, I know,
my constituents and those of the other south-coast constituencies
in particular. I especially welcome the distinction between those
people who are wealthy enough to pay to be illegally smuggled
into this country and those genuine refugees who go through the
right processes.
On safe and legal routes, will my right hon. Friend assure me
that the successor to Dublin will be at least as generous as
Dublin in respect of the relatives it covers, and that the
process will be much more speedy in getting people who are deemed
to have a place in the UK here as soon as possible? Will she also
consider a Dubs II scheme? The Dubs scheme was so successful in
rescuing genuine endangered children from danger spots around the
world—it worked so well.
I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that
further. We need to get this right in terms of safeguarding
children, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not only
that, but we need to learn the lessons of previous schemes and
look at how we can strengthen some of the aspects around
resettlement, for example, that may not have been strong enough.
I would be more than happy to have a conversation with my hon.
Friend about it.
(Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
Instead of taking action to fix a broken and uncaring immigration
system, the Government seem intent on abandoning their
long-standing humanitarian obligations, including the 1951 UN
refugee convention. Does the Home Secretary accept that the
Government’s failure to improve the range of safe and legal
routes to the UK will in fact push more people into the hands of
people traffickers and increase the likelihood of tragedy in the
English channel?
I am quite surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s statements and
comments, bearing in mind that he has not even had a look at the
plan itself—that is quite clear to see—because to do nothing is
not an option, because people are dying. The proposals are in
line with the refugee convention, within international law and
within the ECHR, so I recommend that rather than shaking his head
the hon. Gentleman reads the proposals and joins us in wanting to
stop illegal people smuggling and to save lives.
(Stockton South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to prevent illegal
crossings and tackle the scourge of people smuggling. Does she
agree that there is no justifiable reason for migrants to cross
the channel and put lives at risk when France remains a perfectly
safe option for them?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is absolutely the point:
France and other countries across the EU member states are safe
countries. People are not fleeing persecution in those countries
and they should and could claim asylum in those countries. That
is effectively what we need to work harder to achieve.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD)
In her statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have
helped to build Britain.”
Will she assure us that while those people are awaiting the Home
Office processing their claims, they are enabled to contribute to
the economy of the United Kingdom by working and paying income
tax and national insurance, rather than having to subsist on the
meagre handouts that barely allow them to eat?
The hon. Lady will be well aware of the rules in place for asylum
seekers currently in the UK. If I may say so, I remind the House
that we are in a pandemic, so there are restrictions in terms of
accommodation, movements and things of that nature. If the hon.
Lady would like to be refreshed on those rules, I would be more
than happy to drop her a line.
(Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
One of the most common things that I hear on the doorsteps in
Carshalton and Wallington is frustration about an immigration and
asylum system that simply does not work, so I know that people
will warmly welcome the firm but fair plan set out by my right
hon. Friend. Will she assure me that this plan will both tackle
the criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people and help to
reduce the dangerous attempts to cross the channel in small
boats, in favour of safe and legal routes?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know he has raised
concerns about this issue in the past. We have to break up the
criminal trade in human misery. We will continue to do everything
possible through the reforms that we are proposing today, which
will go to public consultation, and then we want to bring in new
legislation to achieve the outcomes that we are outlining.
(Denton
and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I have always believed that we have a duty to meet our
international obligations in a fair, firm and humanitarian way,
but the current system is failing on all three of those. It is
important that we draw the distinction between legal migration,
refugees, victims of people trafficking, and illegal immigration:
they are all very different things. The Home Office has announced
plans to introduce tougher age assessments. Can the Home
Secretary confirm to the House that these new assessments will be
sensitive to disabilities, trauma and medical needs, as well as
being carried out with dignity and respect?
The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about not just age
assessments, but the categories of vulnerability that we are
speaking about. We are launching a consultation today that he
will be aware of, and it is absolutely right that we give all due
consideration to the different needs of individuals, as well as
the circumstances and the situations that they are fleeing.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
Never before have we had a Home Secretary who has shown such
determination to finally get a grip of our failed and broken
asylum system, and she deserves immense credit for this
statement. The residents of Blackpool are sick and tired of the
delaying tactics used by left-wing human rights lawyers to
prevent the lawful removal of failed asylum seekers. As a nation,
we need to do far more to ensure that those who do not have a
right to stay in the UK are deported. Can my right hon. Friend
reassure me that the measures outlined today will help to achieve
that?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. This is a very
significant part of the frustrations with the system, and in
fact, far too many predecessors in the Home Office have spoken
about this as well. The reforms that we are outlining will mean a
reset of the judicial framework around not just illegal
migration, but immigration: courts, bails, tribunals, and legal
aid. We absolutely need to grip this and bring about changes that
will give justice to individuals who need the protection and
support that we want to give them.
