If you would like us to monitor this bill for you, and you have not
already done so, please select it in your keywords, or contact
us and we will do it for you. Illegal Migration Bill The Secretary
of State for the Home Department (Suella Braverman) With
permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the
Government’s Illegal Migration Bill. Two months ago, the Prime
Minister made a promise to the British people that anyone entering
this...Request free trial
If you would like us to monitor this bill for you, and
you have not already done so, please select it in
your keywords,
or contact us and we will do it for you.
Illegal Migration
Bill
The Secretary of State for the Home Department ()
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement
about the Government’s Illegal Migration Bill.
Two months ago, the Prime Minister made a promise to the British
people that anyone entering this country illegally will be
detained and swiftly removed—no half measures. The Illegal
Migration Bill will fulfil that promise. It will allow us to stop
the boats that are bringing tens of thousands to our shores in
flagrant breach of both our laws and the will of the British
people.
The United Kingdom must always support the world’s most
vulnerable. Since 2015 we have given sanctuary to nearly half a
million people, including 150,000 people from Hong Kong, 160,000
people from Ukraine and 25,000 Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
Indeed, decades ago, my parents found security and opportunity in
this country, for which my family are eternally grateful.
Crucially, these decisions are supported by the British people
precisely because they are decisions made by the British people
and their elected representatives, not by the people smugglers
and other criminals who break into Britain on a daily basis. For
a Government not to respond to the waves of illegal migrants
breaching our borders would be to betray the will of the people
we were elected to serve.
The small boats problem is part of a larger global migration
crisis. In the coming years, developed countries will face
unprecedented pressure from ever greater numbers of people
leaving the developing world for places such as the United
Kingdom. Unless we act today, the problem will be worse tomorrow,
and the problem is already unsustainable.
People are dying in the channel. The volume of illegal arrivals
has overwhelmed our asylum system. The backlog has ballooned to
over 160,000. The asylum system now costs the British taxpayer £3
billion a year. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally
entered the United Kingdom by small boat—45,000 of them in 2022
alone. All travelled through multiple safe countries in which
they could and should have claimed asylum. Many came from safe
countries, such as Albania, and almost all passed through France.
The vast majority—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of
40, rich enough to pay criminal gangs thousands of pounds for
passage.
Upon arrival, most are accommodated in hotels across the country,
costing the British taxpayer around £6 million a day. The risk
remains that these individuals just disappear. And when we try to
remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to
prevent removal. The need for reform is obvious and urgent.
This Government have not sat on their hands. Since this Prime
Minister took office, recognising the necessity of joint
solutions with France, we have signed a new deal that provides
more technology and embeds British officers with French patrols.
I hope Friday’s Anglo-French summit will further deepen that
co-operation.
We have created a new small boats operational command, with more
than 700 new staff; doubled National Crime Agency funding to
tackle smuggling gangs; increased enforcement raids by 50%;
signed a deal with Albania, which has already enabled the return
of hundreds of illegal arrivals; and are procuring accommodation,
including on military land, to end the farce of accommodating
migrants in hotels.
But let us be honest: it is still not enough. In the face of
today’s global migration crisis, yesterday’s laws are simply not
fit for purpose. So to anyone proposing de facto open borders
through unlimited safe and legal routes as the alternative, let
us be honest: there are 100 million people around the world who
could qualify for protection under our current laws. Let us be
clear: they are coming here. We have seen a 500% increase in
small boat crossings in two years. This is the crucial point of
this Bill. They will not stop coming here until the world knows
that if you enter Britain illegally, you will be detained and
swiftly removed—back to your country if it is safe, or to a safe
third country, such as Rwanda.
That is precisely what this Bill will do. That is how we will
stop the boats. This Bill enables the detention of illegal
arrivals, without bail or judicial review within the first 28
days of detention, until they can be removed. It puts a duty on
the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and will radically
narrow the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend
removal. Only those under 18, medically unfit to fly or at real
risk of serious and irreversible harm in the country we are
removing them to—that is an exceedingly high bar—will be able to
delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely,
after removal.
When our Modern Slavery Act 2015 passed, the impact assessment
envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. Last year, 17,000 referrals
took on average 543 days to consider. Modern slavery laws are
being abused to block removals. That is why we granted more than
50% of asylum requests from citizens of a safe European country
and NATO ally, Albania. That is why this Bill disqualifies
illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules to prevent
removal.
I will not address the Bill’s full legal complexities today.
[Interruption.] Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been
and continue to be involved in its development. But I must say
this: rule 39 and the process that enabled the Strasbourg Court
to block, at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts
had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to
control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process,
conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even
appeal decisions. That is why we have initiated discussions in
Strasbourg to ensure that its blocking orders meet a basic
natural justice standard, one that prevents abuse of rule 39 to
thwart removal; and it is why the Bill will set out the
conditions for the UK’s future compliance with such orders.
Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice
of our position. Our approach is robust and novel, which is why
we cannot make a definitive statement of compatibility under
section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Of course, the UK
will always seek to uphold international law, and I am confident
that this Bill is compatible with international law. When we have
stopped the boats, the Bill will introduce an annual cap, to be
determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees the UK will
resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly
system, considering local authority capacity for housing, public
services and support.
The British people are famously a fair and patient people. But
their sense of fair play has been tested beyond its limits as
they have seen the country taken for a ride. Their patience has
run out. The law-abiding patriotic majority have said, “Enough is
enough.” This cannot and will not continue. Their Government—this
Government—must act decisively, must act with determination, must
act with compassion, and must act with proportion. Make no
mistake: this Conservative Government—this Conservative Prime
Minister—will act now to stop the boats. I commend the statement
to the House.
12.45pm
(Normanton, Pontefract and
Castleford) (Lab)
A record 45,000 people crossed the channel on dangerous small
boats last year, up from just 280 four years ago. In that short
time, the Government have allowed criminal gangs to take hold
along the channel and along our border. At the same time,
convictions of people smugglers have halved; Home Office asylum
decisions have collapsed, down 40%; the backlog and costly,
inappropriate hotel use have soared; removals of unsuccessful
asylum seekers are down 80% on the last Labour Government; and
legal family reunion visas for refugees are down 40%. That is
deeply damaging chaos, and there is no point in Ministers trying
to blame anyone else for it. They have been in power for 13
years. The asylum system is broken, and they broke it.
We need serious action to stop dangerous boat crossings, which
are putting lives at risk and undermining border security. That
is why Labour has put forward plans for a cross-border police
unit, for fast-track decisions and returns to clear the backlog
and end hotel use, and for a new agreement with France and other
countries. Instead, today’s statement is groundhog day. The Home
Secretary has said:
“Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and
either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third
country.”
[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Only that was not this Home
Secretary: it was the last one. And that was not about this Bill:
it was about the last one, passed only a year ago and which did
not work. As part of last year’s Bill, the Home Office considered
18,000 people as inadmissible for the asylum system because they
had travelled through safe third countries, but because it had no
return agreements in place, just 21 of them were returned. That
is 0.1%. The other 99.9% just carried on, often in hotels, at an
extra cost of £500 million, and it did not deter anyone. Even
more boats arrived.
What is different this time? The Government still do not have any
return agreements in place. The Home Secretary has admitted that
Rwanda is “failing”, and even if it gets going it will take only
a few hundred people. What will happen to the other 99% under the
Bill? She says that she will detain them all, perhaps for 28
days. Can she tell us how many detention centres the Government
will need in total and how much they will cost? Even if she does
that, what will happen when people leave 28-day detention? Will
she make people destitute, so that they just wander the streets
in total chaos? They will include torture victims, Afghan
interpreters and families with children. Or will she put them
into indefinite taxpayer-funded accommodation? Never returned
anywhere because the Government do not have agreements with
Europe in place, never given sanctuary, never having their case
resolved—just forever in asylum accommodation and hotels. She may
not call it the asylum system, but thousands of people are still
going to be in it.
What will the Bill mean for the promises we made to the Afghan
interpreters who served our country but who were too late to make
the last flight out of Kabul as the tyranny was closing in upon
them? The Government told them to flee and find another way here,
and they told us to tell people that as well. But the
resettlement scheme is not helping them and, if they finally
arrive in this country this afternoon, perhaps by travelling
through Ireland to get here, they will only ever be illegal in
the eyes of a Government who relied on the sacrifices they made
for us.
If the Government were serious, they would be working
internationally to get a proper new agreement in place with
France and Europe, including return agreements, properly
controlled and managed legal routes such as family reunion, and
reform of resettlement. Instead, this Bill makes that harder,
unilaterally choosing to decide no asylum cases at all, but
expecting every other country to carry on.
If the Government were serious, they would be working with Labour
on our plan for a major new cross-border policing unit to go
after the criminal gangs. Instead, the deputy chairman of the
Conservative party, the hon. Member for Ashfield () said yesterday that we
should not go after the gangs because they have existed for
“thousands of years”. That is the disgraceful Tory attitude that
has let the gangs off of the hook and let them take hold. One
smuggler told Sky News yesterday that three quarters of the
smugglers live in Britain, but barely any of them are being
prosecuted and the Government still have not found the hundreds
of children missing from asylum hotels who have been picked up by
criminal gangs.
The Government could be setting out a serious plan today. We
would work with them on it, and so would everyone across the
country. Instead, it is just more chaos. The Government say “no
ifs, no buts”, but we all know that they will spend the next year
if-ing and but-ing and looking for someone else to blame when it
all goes wrong. Enough is enough. We cannot afford any more of
this—slogans and not solutions, government by gimmick, ramping up
the rhetoric on refugees and picking fights simply to have
someone else to blame when things go wrong. This Bill is not a
solution. It is a con that risks making the chaos worse. Britain
deserves better than this chaos. Britain is better than this.
I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks, but—forgive me—after
five minutes of hysteria, histrionics and criticism, I am still
not clear: I have no idea what Labour’s plan is. I will assume
that the shadow Home Secretary is still committed to scrapping
our Rwanda partnership, as she said last year, and I will assume
that the Leader of the Opposition still wants to close
immigration removal centres, as he promised during his leadership
campaign. The shadow Home Secretary talks about safe and legal
routes; I wonder what number Labour would cap that at. Would it
be 500,000? A million? Five million? She should be honest with
the House and with the British people: what she really means is
unlimited safe and legal routes—open borders by the back
door.
The right hon. Lady says get serious, so let us look at the
facts. The British people want to stop the boats. It is one of
the five promises the Prime Minister made to the British people,
but stopping the boats did not even feature in the Leader of the
Opposition’s five big missions. Is it because he does not care or
because he does not know what to do? We all know why, and I think
the British people know why: it is because, deep down, the Leader
of the Opposition does not want to stop the boats and he thinks
it is bigoted to say we have got too much illegal migration
abusing our system. It is because Labour MPs would prefer to
write letters stopping the removal of foreign national offenders.
It is because the Labour party would prefer to vote against our
measures to penalise foreign national offenders and to streamline
our asylum system.
Those are the facts. Labour is against deterring people who would
come here illegally, against detaining people who come here
illegally and against deporting people who are here illegally.
That means that Labour is for this situation getting worse and
worse. Perhaps that is fine for the Leader of the Opposition and
most of those on the Labour Front Bench, but it is not their
schools, their GPs or their public services, housing and hotels
filling up with illegal migrants.
Perhaps that is why, even before seeing the Bill and engaging on
the substance, Labour has already said it will not support its
passage through Parliament. Is the Leader of the Opposition
committing that the Labour Lords will block it? The British
people want to stop the boats. The Conservative Government have a
plan to stop the boats. This Prime Minister will stop the boats.
If the people want closed minds and open borders, they can rely
on Labour.
(East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Never have I heard such fabricated rage against genuine attempts
to come up with practical solutions for this problem, from a
Labour party that has consistently been a policy vacuum on any
practical solutions at all. I support this Bill, particularly the
provisions for sustainable safe and legal routes for genuine
asylum seekers.
My specific question for the Home Secretary is this. When the
Home Affairs Committee visited Calais recently we were told that,
when the Rwanda scheme was announced, there was a big upsurge in
migrants in France approaching authorities asking about staying
in France, because there was a deterrent factor. That has not
happened because the Rwanda scheme has not got off the ground.
When she sees her counterparts in France on Friday, can we
suggest that the French might like to join us in a joint
Rwanda-type scheme, since they face the same problems? Can they
do more? We have safe and legal routes to stop people getting in
the boats: to arrest them and stop this illegal trade at source
on their side of the channel.
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Deterrence is the key theme
running through these measures. We want to send the message
loudly and clearly to people smugglers and people thinking about
crossing the channel: do not do it. Do not hand over your life
savings, do not get in to that flimsy dinghy and do not risk your
life, because you will not be entitled to a life in the UK.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
(Cumbernauld, Kilsyth
and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The SNP stands proudly behind the refugee convention and the
European convention on human rights. We believe that all who seek
asylum and refugee status deserve a fair hearing and we are 100%
behind the clear statement from the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees that there is no such thing as an
illegal asylum seeker.
Despite the dreary dog-whistle rhetoric, the Home Secretary’s
Bill will not lay a solitary finger on people smugglers or people
traffickers, but it will cause serious and devastating harm to
those who have already endured incredible suffering. Afghans let
down by the Government’s utterly failed relocation schemes will
be locked up and offshored. People who have fled persecution in
Syria, Eritrea or Iran will remain blocked from the asylum
system. The policies that have seen hundreds of children go
missing from hotels will be enshrined in her Bill. The
world-leading modern slavery legislation piloted through by one
of her predecessors is about to be ripped to pieces without a
single shred of justification. That is what this appalling Bill
looks set to deliver, and that is why we will oppose it every
step of the way.
If every country followed the Home Secretary’s example, the whole
system of refugee protection around the world would fall to
pieces. It is not just that system that will be trashed by this
Bill, however, but the UK’s reputation as a place of sanctuary.
She spoke about an overwhelmed asylum system, but the only thing
that has overwhelmed the asylum system is the Conservative
party’s incompetence and mismanagement. One of her own
ministerial colleagues described the Rwanda plan as
“ugly, likely to be counterproductive and of dubious
legality”,
and that beautifully encapsulates what is in this Bill.
I have two questions for the Home Secretary. First, what happens
if an Afghan arrival cannot be removed to Afghanistan, France,
Rwanda or anywhere else? Will he or she eventually be admitted to
the asylum system? If so, after how long? Secondly, when the
Prime Minister meets President Macron, will he be telling him
that the UK is prepared to leave the European convention on human
rights?
A lot of passion and fury and fire—I only wish the Scottish
Government would bring so much passion to their approach to
accommodating asylum seekers, when Scotland currently takes one
of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in our United Kingdom.
Our measures set out a comprehensive and coherent plan, combining
fairness and compassion.
(Ashfield) (Con)
Now then. When asked by a reporter if foreign rapists and
murderers should be deported to the country they came from, the
lawyer of the Opposition replied that it depends. Well, I say get
rid. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will indeed get
rid of foreign rapists and murderers?
My hon. Friend is right to point out the shameless position that
the Labour party has adopted. We have passed measures to make it
easier to remove foreign national rapists, drug dealers and
murderers. What does the Labour party do? It writes letters to
stop us.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
(Kingston upon Hull North)
(Lab)
In the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings, which
was published last summer, we found that small boats have not
overwhelmed the asylum system as the Home Secretary is claiming.
The backlog has been allowed to grow since 2013, and is now at
over 160,000. We said in that report:
“Poor resourcing, by successive governments, of staff and
technology in the Asylum Operations function in the Home Office,
has been a significant factor in this collapse.”
Our report also found that the Government should deal with the
backlog, expand safe and legal routes and negotiate a returns
policy with the EU. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what
progress has been made on expanding safe and legal routes and on
a returns policy with the EU?
I think it is clear for everyone to see that our asylum system
has been overwhelmed by unprecedented numbers of people arriving
here and by the very high numbers being processed currently. We
have made good progress, both with the EU and with our
counterparts in France, and that is why I am very much looking
forward to the Anglo-French summit this Friday, which our Prime
Minister will be leading with the French President, to discuss
this issue in more detail.
(Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The balance of creating a strong enough deterrent to cripple the
gangs and render the routes unviable, and being fair, is
absolutely key, so I appreciate the needle that the Home
Secretary is trying to thread and the effort that she has put
into this solution. Could she confirm that, under this plan, as
the deterrent measures kick in and the asylum backlog is worn
down, safe and legal routes will reopen from countries outside
Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, and could she give an
estimate of when they will reopen?
We have several schemes open to people from all nationalities to
come here via safe and legal routes. We will, thanks to the Bill,
have a more comprehensive discussion and a decision endorsed by
Parliament—one that has more legitimacy in how we go forward on
allowing safe and legal routes into this country.
(Hackney North and Stoke
Newington) (Lab)
As a child of migrants, can I tell the Home Secretary how much I
deplore her seeking to smear migrants as a whole as criminals and
rapists? Can I also assure the House that I will never vote for
legislation that would have led to my parents being detained and
dumped in Rwanda?
The Home Secretary talks about detention and deportation. Where
is she going to detain these people? There is not the capacity to
detain these numbers of people. In terms of deportation, the only
arrangement we have is with Rwanda, which has told us that it can
take only 200 people. Her tone, her legislation and her proposed
actions are deplorable and unworkable. Even at this late stage,
will she reconsider?
With respect to the right hon. Lady, it is wrong, naive and
inflammatory to conflate people who come here legitimately, abide
by our laws and come here on a legal basis with those who come
here illegally, break our laws and put themselves and others at
risk. I urge her to choose her words carefully.
(Cannock Chase) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the measures that
she has set out. What would be her key message to my
constituents, who are angry about the use of hotels to house
asylum seekers in and around Cannock Chase?
The message I would send to my right hon. Friend’s constituents
is that we need to stop the boats coming here in the first place.
Once we succeed with that objective, through the measures in the
Bill, we will be able to stop them being accommodated in
hotels.
(Liverpool, Wavertree)
(Lab)
The Rwandan Government have said that they are able to take only
200 people. Can the Home Secretary tell the House what will
happen to the 44,800 others who are waiting in the system? Does
she believe that the £120 million that has gone to Rwanda is
value for money? Will she confirm that an additional £12,000 per
refugee will be added to the Rwanda bill for processing
costs?
I am incredibly proud of what the Conservative Government
achieved in securing the agreement—the ground-breaking,
world-beating agreement—with our friends and allies in Rwanda. I
put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for
Witham () for leading that work. Our
scheme with Rwanda was upheld by the High Court at the end of
last year. That is a big step forward in our litigation, and we
look forward to working with our friends in Rwanda to deliver the
agreement.
(Gainsborough) (Con)
Although it has been all over the press this morning, West
Lindsey District Council has still not been officially informed
that the Home Office is planning to place migrants at former
Royal Air Force Scampton. We announced just yesterday, after two
years of work, a £300 million scheme to have the best ever
handover of a Ministry of Defence base—the Home of the
Dambusters: business, tourism and heritage. Will the Home
Secretary assure me that if she overrides our objections and
places migrants there, she will work closely with me and the
council to ensure that that is strictly temporary and in no way
upsets the best deal that has ever come to north
Lincolnshire?
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is working
intensively to secure bespoke, appropriate
and—importantly—sustainable asylum accommodation around a range
of locations within the United Kingdom. We are working with local
authorities and Members of Parliament. We want to make the right
decision for communities, and that is why all dialogue is
welcome.
(North East Fife)
(LD)
Torpiki Amrakhil, an Afghan journalist and former announcer on
Radio Afghanistan and on the radio station of the United Nations
assistance mission in Afghanistan, drowned in Italian waters on
the way to Europe. Given the brutality of the Taliban regime and
precarious security situation in neighbouring third countries, it
is shocking that there is no specific safe route for at-risk
Afghan women and girls. We have failed the people of Afghanistan
at every stage, and the UK is an outlier in that regard. What
steps is the Home Secretary taking to create a specific safe
route or to at least ensure that existing promises are kept?
Unspeakable tragedy is occurring in the channel and through all
maritime routes around the world because of the global migration
crisis. That is why it is absolutely essential that the UK takes
a robust but compassionate approach. That is at core a
humanitarian package of measures that sends the message to
people: “Do not come here illegally.”
(Chingford and Woodford
Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement. Once we
strip away the rhetoric, of course, the key to all this is how we
save the lives of the people who are dying while trying to get
across the channel and are abused by the traffickers. I listened
very carefully to her statement, and I understand all the other
features—although we may have a debate about the numbers that she
quotes on modern-day slavery problems—but could she expand a
little on the issue that stopped the migrants being taken to
Rwanda last time, which was the intervention of the European
Court of Human Rights? I did not really hear anything in the
statement to suggest that anything has changed on that
matter.
My right hon. Friend is right to identify the difficulties that
we had in effecting flights to Rwanda in the summer of last year.
As I mentioned, the Strasbourg court issued a rule 39 order
pursuant to an opaque process at the last minute without UK
representation or right of challenge. We will introduce some
detail in the Bill to address that scenario and inject some
conditions upon which we will deliver the measures in rule
39.
(West Ham) (Lab)
Empty slogans, chaos and broken promises are all we have heard
from the Home Secretary today. Return of failed asylum seekers
has collapsed by 80% since Labour left office in 2010. Is that
not an extraordinary level of incompetence by this
Government?
What I find to be irresponsible and, frankly, incompetent is the
Labour party voting against our measures to remove foreign
national offenders, to streamline our asylum system and to take a
firm line on illegal migration.
(Broxtowe) (Con)
I broadly welcome the announcement today and measures being put
in place to prevent dangerous crossings of the channel, but how
precisely will they affect the migrants who are living in hotels
near my inland midlands constituency and move them to more
appropriate accommodation, perhaps on military land, as the Home
Secretary mentioned?
Our 10-point plan announced in December deals with the issue of
asylum accommodation. It is unacceptable that over 40,000 people
are being accommodated in hotels all over the country, at a cost
of £6 million a day. My right hon. Friend the Minister for
Immigration is therefore working intensively with other
Departments and local authorities throughout the country to
identify and procure sustainable and appropriate asylum
accommodation.
(Edinburgh South West)
(SNP)
The Home Secretary has often said that she would be quite happy
if the United Kingdom left the European convention on human
rights, and when the Justice Secretary gave evidence to the Joint
Committee on Human Rights last year, he said that the Government
were not ruling out leaving the convention. The Home Secretary
said in her statement that she cannot make a definitive statement
of compatibility with the ECHR under section 19 of the Human
Rights Act 1998, which comes as no surprise to most of us. Is the
plan behind the Bill simply this: the legislation will go through
in the certain knowledge that the domestic courts of the United
Kingdom will find that it is incompatible with international law
and the ECHR; and then the Tories will fight the next general
election on a promise to take the United Kingdom out of the
European convention on human rights? That is the whole point of
this, is it not?
I refer the hon. and learned Lady to her comments on the Rwanda
partnership about a year ago. Many people here denounced it as
unlawful, cruel and illegitimate, yet not very long go we had an
exhaustive and authoritative judgment from the High Court saying
the exact opposite—that it is compliant with human rights,
compliant with the refugee convention, and lawful.
(Thurrock) (Con)
The House will remember that in October 2019, 39 illegal migrants
were found to have perished in the back of a lorry in my
constituency. Following that incident, Essex police and their
counterparts in Belgium tracked down and prosecuted a number of
people in connection with those crimes. Will the Home Secretary
confirm that in the dialogue with France this week, lessons will
be learned from that case, and that tracking down the traffickers
is very much a part of how we tackle this problem?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to alight on the issue of the
criminal gangs and people smugglers, and the importance of the
pan-European criminal work that is ongoing to break their
business model. We have had about 500 arrests and closed down 50
or so gangs, and work continues intensively with our French
counterparts to stop this criminal and evil activity.
(Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Home Secretary told the House earlier that she is confident
that these proposals are compatible with the UK’s international
obligations. Does that extend to articles 31, 32 and 33 of the
1951 refugee convention?
The Bill introduces measures that we consider to be compliant
with all our international obligations—in fact, we are
certain.
(Stone) (Con)
The Bill is very much in the right direction. As my right hon.
and learned Friend has just indicated, she needs to consider
disapplication of parts of the Human Rights Act that would
otherwise enable judges to water down the legislation and the
Government’s proper objectives. If we do not deal with Strasbourg
judgments and orders, these new proposals cannot work. I am sure
that my right hon. and learned Friend will expect amendments to
be tabled in Committee. Will she discuss these with us, including
aspects of the European convention on human rights and the
refugee convention?
As we embark on the process of parliamentary scrutiny, my right
hon. Friend the Immigration Minister and I will engage fully with
all Members of Parliament to hear their concerns and ideas about
the Bill. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 1 and the specific
disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which is an
interpretive clause; that will help in this regard.
(Hayes and Harlington)
(Lab)
I have nearly 2,000 people, I think, who have exercised their
legal right to claim asylum living in hotels in my
constituency—probably more than any other Member of Parliament. I
welcome them into my constituency. I have toured the hotels, met
many of them and held advice sessions. They come from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Kurdistan-Iraq, Iran and Eritrea, and many
come from Syria. Some of have shown me their wounds from torture;
many are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They have
been in the hotels for 12 to 18 months.
I am amazed by the range of skills and qualifications these
people have. They just want employment. They want to be able to
contribute. They want a job and to contribute to our society and
our economy, but they are trapped in this system because of the
lack of processing. I take up their cases and get sheets of the
same three or four-sentence responses, and the cases move no
further. Could the Home Secretary at least provide the House with
a monthly report on how the processing of their cases is
proceeding?
May I say one final thing, Mr Speaker? Will the Home Secretary
please tone down her inflammatory language? It is putting these
people and those who represent them at risk.
We are making good progress in bearing down on the legacy backlog
in our asylum system. We have increased the number of decision
makers and streamlined the decision-making process, and we are
increasing productivity. We will continue to bear down on that
because it is a big factor in the hotel accommodation issue.
(Torbay) (Con)
This is always one of the toughest issues in government, but we
are not the only country facing it. Look at the transformation
Greece has effected of the situation in the Aegean over the past
six or seven years. Although the Bill will change many of the
legal aspects, ultimately it is about how we make the system work
in practice. What reassurance does my right hon. and learned
Friend have that we will be able to create the relevant amount of
detention capacity and the necessary amount of removal capacity
without affecting other vital immigration and removal work, such
as the removal of foreign national offenders?
May I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend? As an
excellent Home Office Minister, he shepherded through many of the
measures in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that are now
being implemented to combat this challenge. We are building on
the achievements of that legislation.
We will roll out a programme of increasing immigration detention
capacity, and we are working intensively on that now.
(Arfon) (PC)
Safaa, a Syrian refugee, escaped from Daesh to save her life. She
thinks the Government’s plans will make others in her situation
feel suicidal. She told me:
“With the UK Government policy, when you arrive, the dream is
broken, it is gone. Still, my family have settled in Wales and
contribute to society.”
I want to say to Safaa that she is welcome and that we want to
her to stay as long as is necessary. What does the Home Secretary
have to say to Safaa?
I am proud of our track record of welcoming people through
humanitarian routes who are fleeing war, persecution and other
conflict, whether from Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong. That is a
record of which I am proud.
(Gillingham and Rainham)
(Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s renewed commitment to
dealing with illegal migration. I am a Kent Member of Parliament,
and we are at the frontline of illegal immigration. We are
repeatedly told by Government that tough measures will be taken,
yet the numbers have gone up. My constituents want tough,
decisive action. The Home Secretary says we will be having
discussions with our French counterparts. In 2010, we signed the
Lancaster House agreement with France on defence and security.
How will these new measures address the challenges to ensure that
we have tough, decisive action to deal with illegal
migration?
We struck a new deal with France at the end of last year. That
saw an increase in the number of French personnel patrolling the
French beaches. It saw a new development, with British Border
Force officers being located in France, working side-by-side with
French police officers. It has led to greater collaboration and
intelligence-sharing, so that we can clamp down on the
people-smuggling gangs.
(Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
My grandfather, his brothers and his cousins came to this country
in boats, but they came through the British merchant navy and
were proud British mariners. They came in, set up in Newcastle
and helped the war effort. I am a descendant of them, and this
Home Secretary is bringing forward legislation that she knows is
not workable. She will not be able to achieve any of this. If we
look at the record, she does not have any return agreements. If
we look at the policies for what she is going to do with people
who are here, she cannot do anything. Is it not the truth that
the Bill is purely to do with her political agenda to get votes
in red wall seats, but that the expense of doing so is xenophobia
and racism, which is not conducive to the interests of our
constituents or the country?
It is irresponsible to suggest that someone who wants to control
our borders and who says that the numbers are out of control and
that we need a firm but compassionate line on migration is
racist. That is irresponsible, it is wrong, and it should not be
put forward.
(Rayleigh and Wickford)
(Con)
I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill, not least because the
whole House knows that the people traffickers are immoral and
utterly heartless, but the elephant in the room, as has already
been alluded to, is the ECHR. Unless we can somehow face it down,
we will remain tied up in legal knots in our own domestic courts
and ultimately in Strasbourg. Can the Home Secretary assure the
House that when we see the Bill, it will contain specific
measures to do that, so that the Bill will achieve its
purpose?
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the legal complexity
of this issue. There will be measures relating to rule 39 orders,
and I refer him to the disapplication of section 3 of the Human
Rights Act. That sends a message to the judiciary about how
Parliament intends the Bill, when it becomes an Act of
Parliament, to be interpreted in the courts.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent risked his life working for the British forces in
Afghanistan. He and his family were invited to the Baron hotel,
but because of an explosion, they could not make it, and his
family now live in fear in the region. We have been told that
because he is a British citizen, his children are not eligible
for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme. When it
comes to splitting up families in that way, Russian war
protesters, Iranian democracy protesters or the Afghan judges we
have heard about, this Government are failing to provide any safe
or legal routes. Is that not what is pushing people into boats
and into the arms of the smugglers?
The hon. Lady is wrong. We have welcomed almost 500,000 people to
the UK who are fleeing persecution, fleeing conflict and fleeing
war, from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong and Ukraine. She should
acknowledge that great achievement that this country has
secured.
(South Dorset) (Con)
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and
Shoreham (), who proved that deterrence works—of course
deterrence works. I commend the Home Secretary and the Prime
Minister for tackling this difficult issue. Does my right hon.
and learned Friend agree that, particularly when it comes to
economic migrants, there is plenty of room for the wealthy west
to do more in their countries to prevent them from coming here in
the first place?
My hon. Friend is right, as usual. This is where those on the
left just go wrong. They naively believe that everyone on a boat
is always fleeing persecution, war and conflict. The reality is
that many of these people are young, fit and healthy men. Many
have paid thousands of pounds to come here and many of them are
economic migrants, abusing our asylum laws and our
generosity.
(Edinburgh East) (SNP)
This is a most foul and shameful policy, which depends on
dehumanising and criminalising some of the most vulnerable people
on this earth, and it is most certainly going to be in
contravention of the European convention on human rights. The
European Court of Human Rights is overseen by the Council of
Europe, and if this Government are determined to break the
European convention on human rights, I am certain it will lead to
a challenge of the credentials of the delegation from this
Parliament to the Council of Europe. Will the Government confirm
that their policy is to face suspension or exclusion from the
Council of Europe in pursuit of this plan?
The package of measures I have brought forward represents a
humanitarian set of measures that will, above all, deter people
from making a dangerous and sometimes fatal journey in the wild
hope that it will lead to a better life in the UK. People must
not take the journey, they must not risk their lives and they
must not come here illegally.
(Wolverhampton North East)
(Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s strong statement today, which many
of my constituents will fully support. It is a perverse system
that while the small boat crossings continue, someone’s ability
to claim asylum is reliant on their physical fitness or ability
to pay. I thank her for being absolutely clear that many tens of
millions more people would want to and are entitled to claim
asylum than we could ever hope to welcome. In contrast to the
calls for open borders from those on the Opposition Benches, we
have to be pragmatic and fair. Does she also agree, as my hon.
Friend the Member for South Dorset () said, that the western world
has to unite and deal with poverty in developing nations? Until
developing nations are assisted to develop with education,
business and trade links, we will see an acceleration of this
problem.
My hon. Friend talks about pragmatism and fairness, and
ultimately we are seeing a global migration crisis in which more
than 100 million people will be displaced throughout the world.
Many of them will want to come to the United Kingdom. The simple
truth is that we will not be able to take in everyone who wants
to come here, and we therefore need to develop a system that is
fair, compassionate and pragmatic.
(Brentford and Isleworth)
(Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington
(), I have hundreds of asylum
seekers living in hotels in my constituency, and I have met many
of them. They have fled war and terror. They want to work and
their children are in school. They are living in shocking
conditions, while murky layers of contractors and subcontractors
are skimming off significant profits. Why is there nothing in the
Bill to address the collapse of immigration decision-making that
leaves these people in limbo?
Our 10-point plan has many elements. We need to introduce
legislation to stop the boats coming in the first place. We then
need to bear down on our asylum backlog, so that the number of
people accommodated in hotels and in limbo is dramatically
reduced. That is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate
thing to do.
(Wellingborough) (Con)
People coming across in small boats are smuggled. They spend
thousands of pounds to get here. People who are trafficked come
here without paying any money or are duped and forced into
exploitation. However, many coming across in small boats claim
exemption under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Has the Home
Secretary taken that into account? I am emphatic that this abuse
is damaging the genuine victims of human trafficking.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It used to take 100 days to
consider a modern slavery claim. It now takes more than 500 days,
because there has been a massive influx of people claiming to be
victims of modern slavery, which impedes our ability to help
genuine victims of modern slavery, which is not good for
anyone.
(Brighton, Pavilion)
(Green)
Does the Home Secretary recognise that it is positively
Orwellian, as well as morally repugnant, to seek to ban people
from seeking asylum unless they use safe and legal routes, as
those routes barely exist and, where they do exist, they do not
function? One of the very few legal routes is the Afghan citizens
resettlement scheme pathway 3, which is a total shambles. As of
January this year, according to the House of Commons Library, not
one person has arrived in the UK via that pathway. Instead of
this shameful, divisive, dog-whistle legislation, will she
urgently open and make work safe and legal routes as the only way
to stop the small boats?
The hon. Lady’s faux outrage is commendable, but the reality is
that that is not borne out by the facts. We have accepted nearly
500,000 people through safe and legal routes for humanitarian
reasons. That is a track record of which I am proud—I wish she
would be, too.
(Middlesbrough South and East
Cleveland) (Con)
We have heard a great deal from Opposition Members setting out
precisely what they think of my constituents, who believe that we
need to control illegal immigration and that the issue of small
boats in the channel is a top priority that needs to be brought
under control, precisely because it demonstrates that the
Government are listening to their priorities and are making sure
that this country can control its borders. That being the case,
we all hope that the legislation will succeed. Will my right hon.
and learned Friend promise that, if it is frustrated by the
European convention on human rights, we will commit to leave the
convention because, in the end, leave it we must if the
legislation is stalled?
As we saw last year, the fact that the Strasbourg Court issued a
rule 39 order pursuant to an opaque process in which the UK was
not represented was deeply regrettable. We are addressing that
issue in the Bill to avoid that scenario playing out again. In
our view, the Bill complies with our international obligations
and we must take these measures promptly.
Dame (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has just said that, when she stops the boats,
the Bill will introduce an annual cap on the number of refugees
the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. That is really
putting the cart before the horse. She knows perfectly well that
the legal routes are barely there and are failing, so will she
consider immediately piloting more and better safe and legal
routes from countries such as Afghanistan, where people’s lives
are in constant danger?
Forgive me, but that question displays the Labour party’s naivety
and lack of realism. It is not right to say that everyone coming
here is doing so for genuine asylum or humanitarian reasons,
which is why we need to take a measured, compassionate and
pragmatic approach.
(Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
My constituents are concerned about the number of boats coming
across the channel, and they and I welcome the Government’s
measures to resolve the problem. The Rwanda scheme remains
unenacted and is mired in court action. Some of my constituents
are wondering why the democratic will of the Parliament that they
have elected is taking so long to be realised. How will my right
hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Bill that she has
announced today will not face the same fate?
The Rwanda partnership has been tested rigorously in the High
Court, which is why I welcome the judgment of senior judges, who
upheld the partnership as being lawful and compliant with human
rights laws and the refugee convention. It is a big step forward
in vindicating the decision on the partnership that we struck
with our friends in Rwanda, and we will wait for the outcome of
further litigation.
(Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Between October and December last year, one in three people
making the journey came from Afghanistan. The Government say that
Afghans should use safe and legal routes to get here, but by
their own figures only one Afghan was relocated in the month of
December through the Afghan relocations and assistance policy
scheme. Those left behind include people who sacrificed
everything in support of the UK’s mission in Afghanistan. Many of
them have been brutally murdered by the Taliban and many more
will undoubtedly be killed. Can the Home Secretary say that she
will honour the commitments made to those who served alongside us
in Afghanistan and, if she will honour those commitments, how
will she ensure that they receive safe passage?
As I have mentioned quite a few times, but it bears repetition,
we have been proud to welcome 20,000 people from Afghanistan who
have fled the troubles and the Taliban. We have a family
reunification scheme to enable family members to join their
family here. That is a record of which we should be proud and I
encourage the hon. Gentleman to support it.
(North West Leicestershire)
(Ind)
Can the Home Secretary reconfirm that the Bill will stop illegal
entry being a route to our asylum system, and what effect does
she think that it will have on the number of people willing to
pay evil people traffickers to cross the channel?
Deterrence is a core aim of these measures. We need to send the
message that, if someone comes here illegally on a boat, paying a
people smuggler, they will not have an entitlement to life in the
UK. That is why I urge everyone here to get behind the Bill.
(Belfast South) (SDLP)
Like many who are genuinely interested in supporting those who
want to solve these problems, I have concerns about this
approach, both in principle and in practice. The issues in
communities that the Government uses as a straw man are, in fact,
the result of a decade of systematic underfunding and neglect in
health, housing and education. Instead of scapegoating the
vulnerable, encouraging conspiracy and aggression, when will the
Home Secretary get a grip on the chaos in her Department, whose
processing rates have collapsed, along with conviction rates for
people smugglers? When will she stop scapegoating and start
solving?
Far from scapegoating the vulnerable, this is about protecting
the vulnerable. This is about empowering our authorities properly
to support genuine victims of modern slavery. This is about
enabling a swifter resolution of genuine asylum claims. This is
about enabling greater, safer and legal routes. This is not
scapegoating—this is about protection.
Sir (North Herefordshire) (Con)
If moving people to Hereford is the solution, may I welcome
everything that my right hon. and learned Friend has said? We
British people have rights as well, so can she put her shoulder
to the wheel for my constituents, too?
This is about our humanitarian approach, but it is also about
fairness. My hon. Friend is right—the British people’s famous
sense of fair play and generosity has been tested beyond limit,
which is why it is necessary to go further than we have gone
before and make sure that we have a robust scheme in place that
actually stops the boats.
(Westminster North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary must have been shocked to discover that she
and her party have been in charge of the Home Office for the past
13 years, during which time the backlog of asylum claims has done
nothing but mushroom. The number of children who have been
waiting more than a year for their asylum application to be
considered has risen twelvefold. Rapid decision making is part of
the effective deterrence which she claims to want. Why was this
allowed to happen, when will she get a grip and why does passing
the same piece of legislation yet again make a difference?
If we go down the path of comparing backlogs, the Labour party
will be found wanting. The backlog with which we are dealing
bears no comparison whatsoever with what the Labour party left us
with in 2010.
(Bury North) (Con)
I warmly welcome the legislation. Will the Home Secretary confirm
that running through it is the central theme that the only route
to asylum in the UK is a safe and legal route, with an annual cap
on the number of refugees? The annual cap is the crucial point.
This is democratic accountability. Migration must be based on the
country’s capacity and capability to house and support people. We
cannot have open borders, whatever the other side pontificates.
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend when we will vote on
the migration cap? I welcome her statement, as it is exactly what
my voters want—well done to the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend speaks a lot of sense. The British people did not
vote for 40,000 people to arrive here on small boats. They did
not vote for our immigration laws to be broken. They voted for
representatives to serve in this place to speak up for them. That
is why I urge every Member of this House to get behind this Bill
and stop the boats.
(Inverclyde) (SNP)
According to the statistics quoted by the Home Secretary last
year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to consider.
Among those were the asylum seekers staying in a hotel in my
constituency. I have engaged with them, along with my MSP
colleague , on an ongoing basis since
they arrived. The Home Office has not. It has not talked to those
guys; it has not stopped the process. Would the Home Secretary
consider expanding the shortage occupation list to allow them to
work? Those young men want to contribute to the society in which
they have been welcomed.
Aside from humanitarian routes into this country, we also have an
extensive points-based system, which we developed post Brexit.
Thanks to our freedom on migration, we have issued a record
number of work and study visas in the last year alone. People who
want to come here for legitimate reasons should go through our
points-based system.
(Folkestone and Hythe)
(Con)
My constituents on the south Kent coast have seen with their own
eyes the rapid increase in small boat crossings in the past few
years. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that our
priority must be to stop these dangerous journeys, and that the
most effective way to do that is to demonstrate that they cannot
be a shortcut into the asylum system and will not lead to
permanent residency in the UK?
Getting into a flimsy dinghy wearing a thin polystyrene excuse
for a life jacket, paying thousands of pounds, breaking our laws
and putting one’s life at risk is not the way to come to the
United Kingdom. That is what this Bill is all about.
(Brent North) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware that the bulk of the 500,000
people she says have come through safe and legal routes are from
Ukraine and Hong Kong. Regarding Afghanistan, she will also know
that, in the whole of the last year, since the new safe route was
put in place, only 22 individuals from Afghanistan have been
accepted through that route. Is it any surprise to the Home
Secretary, then, that 8,500 Afghans made a small boat crossing to
the UK last year? Having rendered meaningless any safe and legal
route from Afghanistan, where does the Home Secretary believe she
derives the moral authority to criminalise those 8,500 people
simply because of their mode of travel?
Madam Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. It is really important, if we are going to get everybody
in, that the questions are very short, as the answers have been.
It is really important for colleagues to remember that.
Regarding Operation Pitting, we have received 20,000 people from
Afghanistan—fleeing the Taliban, fleeing conflict and fleeing
persecution. I am very proud of Britain’s track record. That is
one among many safe routes through which people have come to the
UK.
(Don Valley) (Con)
The people of Doncaster and Don Valley have welcomed people from
all around the world, including recently through the Ukraine
scheme, but they also now realise that we are full. Will the Home
Secretary confirm to the House and to the people of Doncaster
whether an illegal immigrant who arrives on our shores would ever
be granted leave to remain?
My hon. Friend is right. We are at unsustainable levels of people
coming here illegally. It is putting unsustainable pressure on
our accommodation, our public services and our resources. That
cannot continue. That is why we need to adopt a different
approach when it comes to dealing with asylum cases.
(Gower) (Lab)
The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box last week and
committed that the Government
“will remain a member of the ECHR”—[Official Report, 27 February
2023; Vol. 728, c. 594.]
because leaving it would break the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Does the Home Secretary agree?
We are clear that the measures in the Bill comply with our
international law obligations. We are pleased to be proceeding
with it and I encourage the hon. Lady to back it.
(South Basildon and East
Thurrock) (Con)
I hope the whole House will welcome and support my right hon. and
learned Friend’s proposals, because my constituents have rightly
been frustrated by our inability thus far to tackle illegal
migration and control our borders. This is not about demonising
genuine refugees or turning our back on those in need, but about
stopping illegal activity and ensuring that our long tradition of
offering safe haven to those who are truly persecuted is not
undermined by those who abuse our hospitality and break our
laws.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Making progress on stopping
illegal migration will enable us to better support genuine
victims of modern slavery or human trafficking with asylum. That
is what this country is about, and I am very proud of that.
(Glasgow South West)
(SNP)
The Government will shortly be announcing their sixth immigration
Bill since I arrived in the House in 2015, which tells us
everything we need to know about their failures on immigration
policy. However, I want to ask about the content of the Bill.
Will the Home Secretary tell the House that she will not seek to
revisit ouster clauses to prevent judicial review and that she
will be mindful of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling that the
presence of such clauses does not prevent a judicial review
challenge based on an error of law?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman, on closer inspection of the Bill,
will see what we have put forward. We will dramatically reduce
the avenues and options for legal challenge, which are often used
to thwart removal. It is important that we do that—within the
law—to ensure that our operations can be delivered
effectively.
(Clwyd West) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the
introduction of this legislation. She has made it clear that she
intends to secure that the only route to asylum in the UK is a
safe and legal route with an annual cap on the number of
refugees. That is the correct and humane approach. Does she agree
that those who advocate another approach are doing no favours to
the migrants or indeed to their own constituents?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having safe and legal
routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament,
is the right way to support people seeking refuge in this
country—not perpetuating an evil trade in people smuggling.
(Hammersmith) (Lab)
Afghan refugee children who were about to take their GCSEs in
schools in my constituency have been forced to move 200 miles
from the hotel they have spent the last 18 months in to other
hotels. No school places were arranged for them in the places
where they were going, and the Home Office initially denied that
they had been moved at all. Is that the level of competence the
Home Secretary is happy with? Will she look at those cases and at
her whole policy on immigration, which is just failing?
When we introduced measures to streamline our asylum process and
hasten decision making, the Labour party voted against them.
Seriously, the hon. Gentleman cannot now complain when there are
challenges with accommodating people, because they are waiting
for an asylum decision and they are being housed in hotels.
(Scunthorpe) (Con)
My constituents are rightly proud of this country’s historic
record of providing sanctuary to those in need, but they are
deeply unhappy about the numbers of small boats crossing and the
economic migrants. They are also deeply distressed to see men,
women and children losing their lives in the channel at the hands
of people traffickers. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do
all she can to ensure that these plans strike the right balance,
ending these illegal and dangerous crossings, but also ensuring
that we can provide sanctuary to those who arrive here
legally?
Yes, these measures make it clear that if someone is going to be
exploited by people smugglers to embark on a treacherous and
illegal journey so that they can come here to make a spurious
asylum claim, they will not be able to settle here and will not
have a life in the United Kingdom. Safe and legal routes will be
available to them.
(Coventry South) (Lab)
It is the oldest trick in the book. When poverty is rising and
the rich are getting richer, when wages are falling and people
are struggling, the powerful say that the problem is not really
bosses or Government cuts, but migrants and refugees. That is
what is happening when the Home Secretary whips up fear about an
invasion on the south coast and announces this pledge to cut up
our commitment to the UN refugee convention. She is demonising
people who come here by boat while refusing to create new safe
and legal routes for refugees. How many refugees will she lock up
before she accepts that we need a compassionate approach, not
this callous and cruel policy?
I refuse to take lectures from a Member of Parliament who wrote a
letter to the Home Office to ensure that a foreign national
offender, who had been convicted of serious and heinous crimes,
was not deported from this country. That person then went on to
murder—a shameful stain on the Labour party.
(Devizes) (Con)
I am reassured by what I have heard from the Home Secretary: that
the operation of this excellent Bill will not be frustrated by
the European convention on human rights. As we have heard,
however, Opposition Members will be encouraging their friends in
the activist lawyer community to do everything they can to use
Labour’s rights framework to obstruct the law. I hope that she
will work with us to strengthen the Bill and defend it from that.
On safe and legal routes, which we absolutely need, I encourage
her to make more use of the community sponsorship scheme, which
has been useful for Ukrainians.
The community sponsorship scheme is a good scheme that enables
the settlement of people who are seeking refuge in this country.
My hon. Friend talks about activist lawyers. I will tell hon.
Members who the biggest activist lawyer is: he is leading the
Labour party.
(Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is not being done in our name. We did not vote to leave the
ECHR, we did not vote for Brexit, and we did not vote for
refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors to be detained and deported
to Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary not have a shred of compassion
for what people—children and families—are going through? Will she
create more safe and legal routes so that people can actually
access safety, rather than being stuck rotting in war zones?
The hon. Lady talks about what people did or did not vote for.
The British people did not vote for 45,000 people to come here
illegally or for £6 million to be spent every day on hotel
accommodation. The British people did not vote for the abuse of
our generosity. The compassionate thing that we need to do is
pass this Bill.
(Bolsover) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and intent. We
have had a policy of housing illegal migrants and asylum seekers
in hotels up and down this country, which has caused massive
community tensions and put strains on public services. Can she
confirm when that will end and how much that will save the
British taxpayer?
We are spending £3 billion a year on supporting the asylum
backlog and £6 million a day on hotel accommodation, which is
valuable taxpayers’ money that should not be diverted to those
purposes. We need to stop the boats, bear down on the backlog and
save the British taxpayer valuable money.
(Lewisham, Deptford)
(Lab)
My office deals with outstanding asylum cases week in, week out,
as I am sure do those of many MPs up and down the country.
Despite promises that the situation would improve, we are still
waiting an unacceptably long time for updates from the Home
Office. Why is there nothing in the Bill to address the fact that
160,000 people are currently awaiting a decision—a 60% increase
on the previous year?
We are making good progress on bearing down on the asylum
backlog. We have increased the number of decision makers, we have
improved the levels of productivity, we have streamlined the
guidance, and we are making sure that we are processing the
claims individually, on a case-by-case basis, more swiftly. That
is how we will remove people from hotel accommodation and bear
down on the costs.
(Clwyd South) (Con)
I strongly support the Illegal Migration Bill, which is a major
step forward in stopping the small boats. Can my right hon.
Friend provide more details on how it will radically narrow the
number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal?
We have made it clear that there will be a duty on the Home
Secretary to make arrangements for a removal, and that removal
will be suspended only in the event that the claimant can
establish that they face a serious risk of irreversible harm
should they be removed. In all other instances, that person will
be removed and they can make their claim from the safe country or
the country to which they have been removed.
(York Central)
(Lab/Co-op)
York is England’s only human rights city and we have welcomed
asylum seekers. It is a privilege to provide a safe haven for
them, but this legislation is a real affront to those values. Can
the Home Secretary publish the legal advice on how her
legislation is compatible not only with international law but
with the European convention on human rights?
As a former Attorney General, I know that the Government abide by
the Law Officers’ convention, which means that neither the fact
nor the content of legal advice is disclosed. That would be a
decision for the Attorney General. We are very clear, however,
that our Bill complies with international obligations, so we urge
all hon. Members to support it.
(Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for listening
to me and many people in Hinckley and Bosworth and across the
country who want illegal immigration and the boat crossings to
stop. Can she tell us practically how long she expects it to take
to bring the legislation forward? More importantly, will Border
Force have the resources to implement it?
We are introducing the Bill today and we hope that the
parliamentary authorities will allow us to move swiftly on its
progress. We want to start scrutinising and voting on the
measures put forward as quickly as possible, because we want to
get them on the statute book and operationalised as soon as
possible. It is an urgent challenge and we need to move
quickly.
Mrs (Birmingham, Erdington)
(Lab)
I am the daughter of immigrants. My parents’ generation faced
injustice through the mistakes made by the Windrush scheme, which
are taking years to unravel. Last year set a record high for
small boat crossings, with 46,000 arrivals. Why on earth should
our constituents trust the Conservative Government, when under
them, small boat crossings are going up rather than coming
down?
I am glad that the hon. Lady mentioned Windrush, because I am
proud of our achievements to date to right the wrongs that were
committed. More than £60 million has been offered or paid out to
the claimants and we are resolving many of the outstanding cases.
I have engaged closely with members of the steering group and
with Bishop Webley, and I am encouraged by the progress that we
are making to resolve the issue.
(Gloucester) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill will prevent
illegal migrants, especially the 80,000 from EU accession
countries, from abusing our modern slavery laws to prevent their
return home? On supporting the most vulnerable, will she confirm
that she will create more legal migration routes, alongside an
annual quota, and encourage the Department for Work and Pensions
to do more to provide skills to refugees who have the right to
work so that they can contribute to our country in the way that
they want to?
One of the benefits of the measures in the Bill will be an
enhanced ability to support genuine asylum seekers and genuine
victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. Our ability is
severely impeded at the moment, because of the overwhelming
number of claims in our system, many of which are illegitimate
and spurious. They are clogging up our system so that we are
unable to properly support those who genuinely need it.
(West
Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
When the people of Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven
contact me, they wonder why the Conservative and Unionist party
is creating a new Bill of dubious moral and legal standing when
it could just continue the long-running strategy of driving
public services into the ground, making Britain poorer than all
of our northern European neighbours and therefore decreasing the
pull factors of migration. Finally, they wonder about the Home
Secretary’s incredible—and I think absurd—claim that 100 million
people are ready to come to the UK, and they want to say to the
Home Secretary that it is going to take a lot more than a Bill
copied and pasted from the Policy Exchange paper to make a
difference.
The hon. Member’s so-called absurd claim is actually backed up by
the United Nations. More importantly, it is frankly naive to
suggest that everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum
seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many
of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum
system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop.
(Orpington) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford
() said that we need solutions,
not slogans, so could my right hon. and learned Friend please
tell me of a single proposal the right hon. Lady has made that is
anything more than an empty slogan? Does my right hon. and
learned Friend agree with me that Labour Members do not have a
plan, and they do not really want one either because they simply
do not take this issue seriously?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition
made a grand show of his five great missions to fix the country.
Tellingly, he omitted stopping the boats. Either he does not care
about illegal migration, or he does not know what to do about
it.
(Newport West) (Lab)
The people in my constituency were outraged by the fact that last
year there were just four prosecutions for people smuggling a
month, while 46,000 people crossed the channel. Why is there
nothing in this Government’s widely trailed plans to tackle these
criminal gangs?
Tackling the criminal gangs at the root of this problem is
absolutely essential. That is why we have increased our funding
to the NCA to ensure that there is better operationalising,
better intelligence sharing and better co-operation with European
partners, and that is why I am very pleased that many criminal
gangs have been shut down and 500 convictions have been
secured.
(Boston and Skegness)
(Con)
The Ukraine and Afghanistan schemes clearly show the enormous
compassion of the British people, but the reality is that the
abuse of the system, particularly the use of hotels for people
seeking asylum, saps that compassion. Does the Home Secretary
agree with me that we have to end the use of hotels and that this
Bill will be a crucial part of that? Can she say when she hopes
to be able to lay out a plan to put a timetable on ending the use
of hotels?
I know from my hon. Friend’s representations that in his
community there are particular challenges with people in hotels.
We are using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers because there
are too many people coming here illegally. Once we stop the
business model of people coming here illegally, we will be able
to stop the use of hotels.
(Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
There has to be a strong deterrent when these criminal gangs are
found people smuggling. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport
West () has said, there were only four
prosecutions per month against 46,000 crossings last year. How is
the Home Secretary going to target the criminal gangs? When they
are caught, they have to know that they are going to be punished
for their evil trade.
I actually joined a dawn raid with the National Crime Agency a
few months ago as it was going to arrest a people smuggler. There
is a huge programme of work ongoing to ensure that there is
proper intelligence sharing, proper resource and adequate funding
to take a tough line against the criminal, evil people-smuggling
gangs.
(Southend West) (Con)
Constituents in Southend West will warmly welcome the fact that
this Government are taking a clear stand against illegal
immigration, breaking the business model that the vile
people-smuggling gangs depend on and stopping the boats. However,
one of the most common complaints I hear on the doorstep is about
expensive hotels housing asylum seekers while homelessness,
sometimes including our armed forces veterans, is on the rise.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that that is
not just unfair on the British taxpayer, but deeply unfair on
those genuinely in need who are waiting patiently and legally for
a roof over their heads?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak for the good people
of Southend West in the way she does. The reality is that we have
far too many people coming here. They put pressure on our
accommodation, and therefore we are now forced to accommodate
them in the expensive hotel estate. That cannot continue. It is
costly, it is inappropriate and, frankly, it is unfair on the
asylum seeker, because it is no fit place to stay for an
indefinite period of time.
(Dundee East) (SNP)
Imagine being a Tory Home Secretary whose party is supported by
barely one in five people having the arrogance to stand up in
this Chamber and talk about a patriotic majority being taken for
a ride. Imagine having the absolute audacity to stand up in this
Chamber and tell this House that there are 100 million people
around the world and they are all coming here. No, they are not.
The only way this Minister can prove that this is anything other
than crass, dog-whistle politics is to answer the question asked
by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and
Kirkintilloch East () from the Front Bench:
if she was serious, why would she be bringing forward legislation
that barely lays a glove on the people smugglers?
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you what is audacious. It is for
SNP Members to naively claim that everybody coming here is a
genuine refugee or asylum seeker, and then to fail to take their
fair share of accommodation. They have wholly failed to properly
accommodate asylum seekers, demonstrating a paltry number
compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
(Stoke-on-Trent North)
(Con)
I always enjoy crossing swords with the Opposition. The people of
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will warmly welcome
what the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have delivered
today, although they would be even warmer if we at the very least
said we would be derogating from the ECHR in this particular
case. However, while Labour Members use their confected outrage
on the Opposition Benches here in Westminster, Stoke-on-Trent
Labour members keep their heads buried in the sand, with
councillors and candidates refusing to make any comments on
immigration policy, because they know what the people of
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke think. They refused to
sign a petition to empty the hotels in Stoke-on-Trent, which I
started and brought to this House. Will the Home Secretary tell
me when the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke
can expect to see their hotels cleared and emptied, and will it
be as soon as possible?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure by
the Labour party to properly address this subject. The Leader of
the Opposition does not mention it in his five big missions,
because he does not care and he does not know. Labour Members
vote against every measure we put forward to deport foreign
national offenders and streamline our asylum system. They would
scrap the Rwanda partnership. They write letters to stop our
deportation of serious foreign criminals. That is what today’s
Labour party is like. Colleagues, the fight-back starts now.
(Plymouth, Sutton and
Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Britain is and should remain a beacon for LGBT rights, so can I
ask Home Secretary a particular question about LGBT asylum
seekers who are coming to the UK, fleeing persecution because of
their sexuality—who they love and who they are—and who do not
come from a country where there is an existing safe route? Will
they be deported back to that country where they are being
abused, or will they be deported to Rwanda, where the FCO’s
travel advice says:
“LGBT individuals…experience discrimination and abuse, including
from local authorities”?
Can the Home Secretary reassure a gay MP here like myself that we
are not turning our back on LGBT asylum seekers who are fleeing
appalling abuse simply for being themselves?
What I would gently say to the hon. Gentleman is that the
fundamental objective in this legislation is to stop people
leaving safe countries to come to the United Kingdom and claim
asylum. That is the fundamental principle running through our
international obligations, whether it is the refugee convention
or other conventions. If people are coming here from a safe
country, they really should not be claiming asylum in the first
place.
(Mansfield) (Con)
I was horrified to hear that those on the Opposition Benches feel
that this is about xenophobia and racism, scapegoating and
dog-whistle politics. This is a simple matter of
fairness—fairness for my constituents, who work hard and do the
right thing, who see other people who arrive here illegally able
to access the taxpayer-funded housing and support that they
themselves struggle to access. They have been frustrated by
delays and problems in implementing these measures to prevent
that from happening, so can my right hon. and learned Friend give
her absolute assurance that she is willing to do whatever is
necessary to get the outcomes that my constituents deserve?
My hon. Friend is right. His constituents deserve fairness,
pragmatism and compassion in controlling our borders. It is not
racist to say there is too much illegal migration. It is not
racist to say we cannot go on spending £6 million on hotel
accommodation. It is not bigoted to say people should not be
breaking the law to come here. It is fair, it is pragmatic and it
is compassionate.
(Wythenshawe and Sale East)
(Lab)
I represent an airport seat and have a number of hotels currently
in use in my constituency, but for 19 months one hotel in
particular has since the fall of Kabul been used by Afghans. Is
it a competency issue that we cannot process their claims, or is
it a confidence issue? I think it is a confidence issue, because
the civil service has lost confidence in this Administration
carrying out any effective policies whatsoever.
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to keep in mind the global and
indeed European dimension to this problem. Other EU nations are
grappling with unprecedented levels of illegal migration. Some
countries are saying they are going to stop accommodating people
and instead let them abscond willingly. Some countries are
accommodating migrants in sports halls and inappropriate
accommodation. This is a global challenge and we have to take
measures to deal with it.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
This Parliament and this nation must be sovereign when it comes
to controlling our borders. It is completely unacceptable that a
foreign court can seek to inhibit the wishes of the elected
Government of the day. Although I strongly welcome the measures
outlined by the Home Secretary, what assurances can she give to
the House that these new measures, and indeed our Rwandan policy,
can be implemented without interference from foreign judges?
My hon. Friend is right to highlight concerns about the process
to which we have been subject from Strasbourg. That is why there
is a clause in the Bill relating to rule 39, and we will be
closely specifying the details of what we are going to propose.
In the meantime, I greatly welcome the vindication by the High
Court of our Rwandan partnership in December. We now proceed to
the Appeal Court and we wait to see what the courts and their
justices decide.
(Putney) (Lab)
Wandsworth is proud to have welcomed refugees for hundreds of
years and to be a borough of sanctuary. This Bill sounds like a
charter for lawyers. This retread of failed policies relies on
returns to third countries; that was in last year’s Nationality
and Borders Act 2022, but 99% of people were not returned because
the Government do not have return agreements. Will the Home
Secretary give us a list now of the return agreements currently
being negotiated and the deadline for reaching those new
agreements, because we will need to know before we vote on this
Bill?
We have been in negotiations with several countries, which is why
I welcomed the agreement the Prime Minister struck with Albania
at the end of last year. Let me be clear: we welcome the
contributions of Albanians who come here lawfully, but we need to
work together with the Albanian Government to properly relocate
back to Albania those who do not have a legal right to be
here.
(Stoke-on-Trent South)
(Con)
People in Stoke-on-Trent are fed up with being ignored and having
their generosity taken for granted, and I fully support the
measures being introduced today. Will my right hon. and learned
Friend confirm that these actions will be taken swiftly and we
will see deportations of those here illegally as soon as
possible?
The matter is now urgent and we need to move quickly. That is why
we have brought the Bill forward today. We hope to proceed with a
swift timetable in Parliament. I urge all Members of Parliament
to support this Bill; we must scrutinise it effectively, but we
want to get on and get the powers on to the statute book and
deliver them in material terms as soon as possible.
(Stockton North) (Lab)
Every week I have more asylum seekers asking for my help to
progress their claims. Some have waited for up to a year; most
have waited several. They are left languishing at home, awaiting
an appointment or a decision and are desperate to get on with
their lives; many are now blighted with mental and other
illnesses. Is this latest stunt by the Home Secretary not yet
another attempt to direct attention away from her failure to deal
with the escalating backlog, which has grown constantly for years
on end?
The challenges the hon. Gentleman describes that are faced by
asylum seekers are exactly why he should support the Bill. We
want to reduce the number of people coming here illegally. We
want to reduce the number of people waiting for a decision in the
asylum backlog. Only by supporting this Bill will we be able to
support the genuine asylum seekers in this country.
(Carlisle) (Con)
I welcome the proposed legislation, but the reality is that we
need the confidence of the British people in our immigration
system. To give additional confidence to local residents in
Carlisle and other provincial towns and cities, will the Minister
agree to an immediate moratorium on the use of hotels?
When someone is waiting for an asylum decision, there is a duty
on the Home Office to accommodate them and provide them with
appropriate support. Therefore, we have been forced to use hotel
accommodation in many towns and cities across the United Kingdom.
It is important that appropriate support is provided to asylum
seekers to avoid destitution and homelessness.
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
I have the situation in my constituency where businesses are
unable to recruit staff yet living upstairs are asylum seekers
who are unable to work. The Home Secretary has talked about the
cost to the UK of housing asylum seekers; when is she going to
get realistic about this and allow people waiting for their
asylum claims to be decided to access the world of work?
Many people, such as those who have come here under the Afghan
relocations and assistance policy, the Afghan citizens
resettlement scheme or the Ukrainian scheme, are able to work in
this country, and many of them do. I encourage all Members to
support people in those communities to find work through their
local jobcentres.
(Peterborough) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that, despite the noise and howls
from Opposition Members, we are forgetting that these measures
will save lives—that people would otherwise be drowning in the
channel or suffocating in the backs of lorries? Stopping the
boats is the compassionate thing to do, and the only thing
Labour’s open border policies would do is enrich people smugglers
and risk death in the channel.
Fundamentally, these are human-itarian measures that we are
bringing forward with precisely the goal my hon. Friend sets out.
We need to stop people dying in the channel. We need to stop
people being exploited by criminal gangs. We need to stop the
criminality. That is why I encourage everybody to get behind the
Bill.
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(LD)
As of September last year, the backlog of asylum applications
stood at 115,000 and might include some economic migrants. The
average waiting time for an initial decision is 20 months. Does
the Home Secretary recognise the moral hazard here: economic
migrants coming here in small boats have no incentive to guard
against the risk of entering those boats, because others have
been protected by her Government against the consequences of
being returned when they get here, which damages the protections
for genuine asylum seekers?
The vast majority of people arriving via small boats have chosen
to make that journey of their own free will. They have paid
money, and they are largely young, healthy men. There is no good
reason in many instances for them to claim asylum, and they
should not be abusing our asylum rules to do so.
(Gedling) (Con)
On behalf of all the residents of Gedling who have raised the
issue of small boats with me, may I warmly welcome the Home
Secretary’s statement? Will she confirm that the forthcoming
legislation will end the morally reprehensible practice whereby
smugglers are a de facto part of the asylum process, and does she
agree that, given the dangers of cross-channel smuggling, a
robust approach is right, fair and humane?
One of the root causes of this problem is the proliferation of
sophisticated, well co-ordinated and well-resourced criminal
gangs operating across transnational boundaries on the continent.
That is why we have increased resources for the National Crime
Agency and increased co-operation and intelligence sharing with
the French. Only by working together with our European partners
will we be able to smash the business model of the people
smugglers.
(Strangford) (DUP)
For myself, for the Secretary of State and for many there is a
need to help and protect the vulnerable. Does the Secretary of
State acknowledge that with the better weather there will
undoubtedly be a rise in the numbers making illegal crossings?
Does she believe that we should engage further with the French
authorities to facilitate legal migration in a more structured
way? Will the Bill enable those who seek asylum legally to be
processed efficiently, while sending the clear message that if
they come here illegally, asylum will automatically be
denied?
We institute in the Bill some procedural requirements and
limitations on legal claims, and time limits for bringing those
claims. The aim is to reduce attempts to thwart removal and
detention, and it strikes the right balance between fairness and
compassion.
(Bassetlaw) (Con)
On behalf of the people of Bassetlaw, I warmly welcome the Bill
introduced by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, which we
have been crying out for. The Opposition often speak of safe and
legal routes, which of course we already have, but does my right
hon. and learned Friend agree that what they actually mean is
that they support open borders, blanket approvals and amnesties
for those who want to want to cheat our system, cheat our
constituents and cheat genuine refugees?
My hon. Friend puts it very well. Labour’s policy on this issue
is indeed open borders. A former Labour Home Secretary did grant
an amnesty to asylum seekers. It is about ensuring that illegal
migration continues through the back door. That is not what the
British people voted for; that is not what this Parliament will
vote for.
(Glenrothes) (SNP)
It will not have escaped the Home Secretary’s notice that despite
what I have no doubt have been the best efforts of her Government
Whips, they have not found a single Member of Parliament from a
Scottish constituency to have a single good word to say about the
Bill. The fact is that Scotland’s MPs, Scotland’s Government,
Scotland’s local authorities and Scotland’s people speak as one
in saying that our biggest complaint about the UK asylum system
is that her Government will not allow us to welcome as many
refugees and asylum seekers as we want to. May I make a
suggestion to the Home Secretary? Will she agree, even on a
temporary pilot basis, to allow the Scottish Government to take
control of our asylum system? We will see whether the best way to
deal with asylum seekers is to treat them like human beings or to
treat them in the way she wants to treat them.
All the Scottish National party can point to is a track record of
failure when it comes to discharging its humanitarian duties to
asylum seekers. It totally failed to support Ukrainians and had
to hand over responsibility to the UK Government. It totally
failed to take its fair share of refugees in comparison to other
parts of the UK. It is failure, failure, failure from the
SNP.
(Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it is fair to deduce
from today’s debate that the Labour party thinks it is totally
fine to turn up here illegally and stay here for as long as you
want? Does she think it is fair to assume that it opposes any
kind of cap on refugee numbers? Does she agree that that is
hardly surprising, bearing in mind that the leader of the Labour
party, in a different guise, said that there is a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”?
That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was a human rights
lawyer. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that
the Labour party should just be honest about what it is: pro open
borders, anti any control on immigration and completely out of
step with the majority of people of this country? It will be
exposed.
My hon. Friend puts it very powerfully. That is what Labour’s
policy is: uncontrolled immigration, open borders, an amnesty for
asylum seekers and a total disregard for what the British people
want.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
How can we know if someone is a genuine asylum seeker or not,
unless they are allowed to make a claim and that claim is fairly
and independently assessed? When was the last time the Home
Secretary actually met another human being who had come here on a
small boat? Has she ever listened to their stories of what they
have gone through and what their hopes for the future are? Or
does she just look them in the eye and tell them they are not
welcome here?
The reality is that we need to all work together now to find a
pragmatic, compassionate and fair solution to this problem. That
is why I have introduced these measures today and why I encourage
all Members to support them.
(Carmarthen East and
Dinefwr) (Ind)
Last week, we saw with the revised Northern Ireland protocol deal
what progress can be made when we work collaboratively with our
European partners. Rather than the sabre-rattling content of this
statement, is not the reality that the most effective way to deal
with the issue of small boats crossing the channel is to work in
full collaboration with our European partners? Is it not the case
that the number of small boat crossings has increased
substantially since Brexit?
The reality is that we have developed much closer co-operation
with our French partners on this very issue. That is why I am
pleased that we struck a good deal with them at the end of last
year. The Prime Minister is heading to Paris—I will be
accompanying him—later this week to talk further with our French
partners on how to tackle this issue, among many others.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for responding
to questions for an hour and 50 minutes
|
