(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:41 - The House divided: - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government’s plan to place illegal migrants in MoD Bicester; and calls on the Government to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights in order to deport illegal migrants.
Those on the Government Benches would not go and meet the women of Piddington and hear their concerns, so today the Opposition have brought the women of Piddington to them. They are in the Gallery today. The Minister for Women and Equalities, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), and her colleagues on the Government Benches have nowhere to hide. The women of Piddington have written to all female Labour MPs and are still awaiting a response. How those Members vote today will be seen by the women of Piddington and by the women in towns, cities and villages across the country, so let me start with a simple question to Labour MPs: today, will they put the interests of women before those of the Labour party?
I have been to Piddington twice. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), have also been there to speak to the women at first hand. We all could see clearly that the safety of women and girls in that small village is at risk. That village of 350 people is shortly to have 1,300 migrants imposed on it—men who have already broken the law by coming here illegally.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this motion to the House and for opening this debate in her customarily powerful way. Piddington has the headlines, but it is not just about Piddington; it is also about the women in Oakley, in Marsh Gibbon, in Ludgershall, in Brill, in Boarstall, in Long Crendon and in many other villages just over the Buckinghamshire border that are within walking distance of MOD Bicester site A.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This issue is not just in that area, either, but across the country. It is affecting women and girls in constituencies everywhere across the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
To reiterate the point that the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) has just made in his intervention, illegal immigration and illegal migration are a massive issue in my constituency. My constituents tell me that every day that I am on the doors. Illegal migrants are a problem not just on the UK mainland but in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. My concern is that illegal migrants use the European convention on human rights system to bypass the system and to be an obstacle. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is time for the ECHR to be abolished and for those illegal migrants to be sent back home?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and when we are back in government, we Conservatives will vote to leave the ECHR. We believe that we should deport illegal immigrants the moment that they arrive.
The village of Piddington has a population of only 350, and the 1,300 migrant men will be a blight on their small village—men from cultures where women are treated worse than animals; men who the Government have decided need a leaflet asking them not to rape women and girls.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Lady’s efforts to raise the voices of all people across the country. Under the Conservatives, about 1,400 migrants were living and dispersed in my city, but that number has fallen significantly under this Government. Can the hon. Lady tell me which Conservative Ministers visited Stoke-on-Trent in their Government time—perhaps she did so herself—to listen to the voices of that community? Or is it only now that she cares about those voices, when it is politically expedient?
Joy Morrissey
Actually, I went as the Prime Minister’s parliamentary private secretary. We held a Cabinet meeting in Stoke-on-Trent. I was therefore able to see at first hand the developments that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is good to remember that, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it.
I raised the issue of the safety of women and girls a few weeks ago, during my first oral questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). I asked two questions, very directly: did the Government agree that men entering this country illegally from countries such as Eritrea, Afghanistan and Sudan pose a direct threat to the safety of women and girls, and did the Government agree that men who enter Britain illegally and need a leaflet telling them not to rape women and girls should instead be deported immediately?
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend has listed some of the countries involved. Pakistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan are the top five. Of course it is right to talk about national security, and we have heard a lot about that over the last few days, but today we are talking about personal security: the personal security of women, young girls and indeed young boys. Not everyone who comes here illegally would seek to attack, but too many do, and even when they go to prison we are not able to deport them because of the European convention on human rights. We need to leave the ECHR, we need to secure our borders, and we need to have a deterrent. We are a fair-minded country, but enough is enough.
Joy Morrissey
I agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said, and I will echo his comments later in my speech. When we asked legitimate questions about women and girls being under threat, the Minister at the time could not find the answer. Perhaps this Minister can do so today.
The women of Piddington deserve our thanks in this House because they have made their voices heard, but they are far from alone. The women of Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire are worried about the 1,200 men who are about to descend on their community. The women of Barnham in Suffolk are facing 1,250 illegal migrant men in their midst. The women of Crowborough in Sussex have been working closely with their excellent local Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani), to deal with illegal migrant men who are already in their community. I pay tribute to their very hard-working local MP, who has been battling a coalition of Greens, Liberal Democrats and Labour. The Home Office, interestingly, made an application for housing for 540 asylum seekers, who moved in last January, and has now extended that application to 2030. My hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald has been single-handedly battling against the council and the Home Office. She is on the frontline of this issue, and I thank her for raising the voices of women and girls.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech in defence of right and decency, and in defence of my constituents and hers. The problem that we face, to which she has just alluded, is that the whole of the liberal establishment either cannot see this or will not see it. The root of the problem is their failure to recognise that cultural equivalence does not exist. Some of these people are coming from countries whose values are entirely different from ours, where people regard as acceptable things that we see as either unpalatable or frankly horrendous, and the failure to accept that fact underpins the unwillingness to do anything about what my hon. Friend has just described.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend has made an excellent point, but it is not just a case of their values being different from ours; it is a case of their taking advantage of our nature, our culture and our values.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady talks about values and culture. She has already mentioned that she served in the last Government. I wonder what the culture of that Government was when boat crossings were at a record high, when the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was opening hotels as though they were going out of season. What was the culture in that Government when it came to attempting to combat this issue?
Joy Morrissey
Luckily we are under a new leadership. I am waiting to hear—and I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman—why not one member of the Labour party has responded to the women of Piddington who have written to them about this issue. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is one person speaking at this moment, and that is the only voice I wish to hear.
Joy Morrissey
The Government have said that middle-class areas need to bear their share, using class as a new weapon to silence concerns. It is a dangerous, lazy approach from a Government who are supposed to unite our country. This is not about class, or race, or anything else that the Labour party wants to use to silence those who are speaking up. That technique was used to silence rape gang victims in our cities and towns, and it is appalling that Labour has not learnt from that scandal. This is about women speaking up about fears for their safety and that of their children. The Prime Minister should listen, and Labour Members should listen. They know that these women and their communities will suffer: they know that because we already have the proof. Communities across this land have seen the lives of their women and girls ruined—ruined by the fundamental failure of this Government to protect them from the threat posed by men who come here illegally.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating this Labour Government on shutting down the Brook asylum hotel—which is just 200 yards over my constituency border, and was opened on 28 September 2022 by the Conservative Government—thus ensuring that the constituencies of South Norfolk and Norwich South took into account the concerns of women, girls and all other constituents within our area?
Joy Morrissey
I would ask the hon. Gentleman why the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum accommodation has increased by 12% since this Government took over, why there has been this movement from hotels to HMOs, and what the long-term solution is.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The fact is that the hotels have been closed down because HMOs have been opened up, and the Government will not even specify how many HMOs are involved because they conglomerate the data, so we cannot even obtain transparent answers for my community. That puts my community at risk, and it puts at risk the people who are housed in the HMOs. Does my hon. Friend not agree with that?
Joy Morrissey
I do agree. You have made an excellent point, which I will bring up later in my speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Because this is going to be a long debate, I must say that we should be hearing no “you” or “yours”.
Joy Morrissey
In respect of this issue of asylum accommodation, let me give a few examples of men who have raped and assaulted women and girls. Muhammad Sheikhi, a Syrian asylum seeker, came here illegally by boat. He was placed in asylum accommodation, and then sexually assaulted two women in Falkirk. He told police that he was just roaming around. The judge sentenced him to four years, saying that he had
“treated these women as though their autonomy, dignity, and bodily integrity counted for nothing.”
Three asylum seekers from Iran and Egypt were convicted in April of raping a woman in Brighton. They travelled from their asylum accommodation in Horsham. They kicked her, grabbed her throat, raped her and filmed it.
Mohammed Abbas, an illegal migrant claiming to be Palestinian, was put up in a taxpayer-funded house in Cardiff. He broke into a nearby property and exposed himself to two girls, aged 16 and 13, in their bedroom.
An Afghan illegal migrant raped a 12-year-old girl in Nuneaton just four months after he arrived here by boat. He abducted her, raped her and filmed her. These are just a few examples.
Dr Luke Evans
That happened in my neighbouring constituency. Does my hon. Friend understand why my community is so upset when we see people moving into HMOs, given the risk posed and the evidence base that she has just announced?
Joy Morrissey
Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes that point very eloquently. It is very important that we stand up for our local communities to protect them from illegal migrant men.
I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets and forever change the lives of young women and girls, and who will pay no notice to a gently worded leaflet that encourages them to understand our cultural values. These men do not care about our values. They are here to take advantage of our welcoming culture.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The proposal from the Government is to open large sites far from town centres, where there can be resources, such as Home Office officials, and where the police can be informed. Before I was elected, I worked in asylum accommodation. The hon. Lady’s Government would open hotels in city centres without telling local authorities, and without even telling the police. Why is she proposing that her system is safer for local communities than this alternative?
Joy Morrissey
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to Piddington to see that there is a very small village right up against what is going to be a very large asylum camp, which has no additional police protection and no additional provision. The men will be allowed to roam free through the village. It will create a safeguarding issue for young children, for girls, and there is no reason why this community should have to suffer just like communities in York and across the country. They are suffering because we are not deporting illegal migrants, and that is why we need to leave the ECHR.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that those on the Labour Benches have entirely missed the point? Dealing with the problem once it has arrived in our communities will not do. We need something fundamental that deals with the problem, which, admittedly, did not arrive in 2024—it is of relatively long standing. We need a solution, just like the Rwanda solution, which was on the cusp of being implemented at the general election. The first thing that the Labour party did on coming into office was to can that.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. friend makes an excellent point: we did suggest Rwanda. We Conservatives are committed to leaving the ECHR, so that we can deport foreign nationals who come here illegally within a week. That is why we want to leave the ECHR.
Joy Morrissey
I will give way after I make some progress.
I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets. These cases show that the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse and Barnham are right to be concerned. Let me be clear to those on the Labour Benches: when their only political response to hearing of these crimes, and to the legitimate fears raised by women and girls, is to shout “weaponisation”, it says more about them and their priorities than it does about their political opponents. When their only policy response is to launch a talking shop on misogyny, they should recognise how weak that makes them look. When they refuse to meet concerned women, it speaks volumes about their commitment to women and girls.
It is not hard to see why such a commitment is lacking. I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer to work cross-party and to facilitate a meeting with the women of Piddington. I have not had a response, but I heard in the media that it was a no. She is chair of the Labour party first and Women’s Minister second.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady has mentioned the ECHR a couple of times, and her motion refers to the UK’s exit from the convention. I know that she is all over her brief, so can she tell me what that exit would mean for the devolved settlement? What implications would it have for the Scottish Parliament?
Joy Morrissey
None at all, but I do not want to go into that. I have talked about the asylum seeker in Falkirk; it is not just women in England, but those in Scotland and Wales, who have raised concerns about illegal migrants in their midst who are roaming the streets. There is a problem. There is a difference in how these men are treating our women and girls, and people are genuinely afraid.
I am sure that lurking somewhere in the Whips-briefed speeches for Labour Members are some of the tired old tunes, so let me save Labour Members some time by engaging with the substance of those points. When they trot out, “14 years!”, I say that they have had two years, and the British people are already desperate for them to stop there. When they say, “Illegal migrant men are not a threat to women and girls; men known to them are”, I say that both things can be true, and I want to tackle both. Why don’t they? Why will they not give us the data on crimes committed against women and girls by men with active asylum claims?
The truth is that this Government have a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach to this issue. Labour Members do not want to hear the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse or Barnham because of the uncomfortable truth that they will speak. Labour Members do not want to see the data on how significant the problem of illegal migrant men committing crimes against women and children is, for fear of a Pandora’s box being opened. They do not want to speak about this issue because of the ideological capture of their party. It has been captured by people who have placed an obsession with multiculturalism above a cohesive British society. This is about the choices we make as a country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech, and it is a reminder of why there are no Conservative MPs or councils led by the Conservatives in Oxfordshire anymore. I absolutely commend the women of Piddington for speaking up, and I commend the young women in Oxford who have come to me to say that their voice has not been heard. However, there are women in all parts of this country, and in all sorts of circumstances, for whom that is true. The violence against women and girls strategy was criticised by the National Audit Office in January 2025. It was written by the Leader of the Opposition when she was the Minister for Women and Equalities, and she should have tackled this issue. Will the Leader of the Opposition apologise to the women of Piddington, and those across this country?
Joy Morrissey
There may be some buyer’s remorse across Oxfordshire; I could not possibly say. I will say that we Conservatives have a very different view from the Liberal Democrats on open borders, immigration and welcoming migrants. That is perhaps coming home to roost across the country, but it is not for me to comment on that; it is for the voters to decide.
We have let in men, and we have lost control of them. They have roamed around our streets to rape and assault women and girls, and we have placed them in British jails at our expense. Enough! It is time to be clear that if you come here illegally, you have already broken the law, and you will be deported. The ECHR should no longer be a weapon that left-wing lawyers can use to keep you here, if you arrive illegally. The Government are placing British women and girls in harm’s way. They refuse women even the common courtesy of listening to them when they speak up about their concerns. They just want to be heard. Can the Government please take the time to listen to these women?
The Conservatives have listened to the women who are concerned about their safety, and to the British people. They want action on illegal immigration, not gimmicks and TikTok videos. Our border plan will deliver the control needed and the protections that British women and girls deserve. Our plan is built on clear values and the detailed hard work needed to make it work. If people come here illegally, they cannot claim asylum, and they will be deported within a week. We will take Britain out of the ECHR, and we will establish a removal force to remove illegal immigrants.
The choice for the Government and Members across the House is clear: do they believe that thousands of illegal migrant men from cultures that treat women so badly pose a direct threat to the safety of British women and girls, and if not, how many more appalling stories of crimes against women and girls do they need? The Conservatives have heard about enough of these crimes to know that it is time to act. We must not house immigrants who come here illegally. The ECHR has stood in our way for far too long for common sense and for the good of the British people. It is time to leave the ECHR. It is time to put the rights of British people first.
Dr Murrison
Lord Wolfson has put that beyond fear of peradventure in his report—we have to leave the ECHR—but does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is not enough? Some of the countries to which we want to send people back will not take them, particularly Pakistan. Do we not need to get real with the Government of Pakistan and say, “If you refuse to co-operate with this, you can forget about visas and foreign aid”?
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The shadow Home Secretary has already made the point that we need sanctions and proper ways of enforcement for countries that refuse to take back those claiming asylum here, and he will speak about that later.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
Four years ago, I was the first Conservative Minister to say publicly that, to stop the boats and protect women and girls, we needed to leave the European convention on human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been advocating for departure from the ECHR for many years. Will the shadow Minister take this opportunity to apologise to the nation, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, for refusing to support my policy proposal when her party had the opportunity, power and, indeed, duty to stop the boats and deal with the invasion?
Joy Morrissey
I would point out that when the right hon. and learned Lady was Home Secretary, in charge of all of these things and making these key decisions, immigration was at record levels. I commend her for calling out many of these issues, but she had the opportunity, while at the helm, to do something. I leave that there; enough said.
Finally, let me say this to the women in the Public Gallery, those I met in Piddington and elsewhere, the women who have written to me, and women and girls across Britain who are worried about their safety: I hear you; my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary hears you; the Leader of the Opposition hears you; and the Conservative party hears you. We are here for you, and we will act.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for calling this debate. I place on record my thanks to all hon. Members in this House who have engaged with me in the few weeks since I took on this role about asylum accommodation in their constituency. It is really important that we continue that powerful dialogue, including with you, Madam Deputy Speaker; you have engaged with me often on this issue, and I appreciate that engagement.
I particularly thank the shadow Minister because I really do welcome this opportunity to update Members on the Government’s work to fix our country’s broken asylum system. The system was in a state of absolute chaos and disarray when we took office two years ago. We are dealing with the legacy left by the hon. Lady and her team today. I will shortly come on to the action that we are taking to restore fairness, order and control, but it is really important to put any debate on asylum in its proper context, and that means recognising the situation that we inherited. It was this Government who picked up the pieces after the general election, following years of inaction and ineptitude. There has been mud-slinging, finger pointing and blaming from the Opposition today, but we are getting on with fixing the mess, and fixing the flow that the Conservatives allowed. The hon. Lady referred to their 14 years and our two years; I look forward to setting out in my speech the difference between those 14 years and the last two years.
In 2018, about 300 people arrived here by small boat. In the years that followed, an entire criminal industry built up along our borders, on the Conservatives’ watch. Ruthless smugglers sent people on dangerous, unnecessary and—far too often—fatal journeys, making a fortune in the process. The consequences of all this are well known in the House, but they bear repeating. Between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people came here by small boat. Meanwhile, the asylum system ground to a halt. Decision making collapsed, leaving thousands in limbo for years at the taxpayers’ expense, and so did the return of those with no right to be in the UK, while a further 175,000 people claimed asylum by other routes. As the numbers rose, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support under the Conservative party was £4.7 billion. That is an incredible cost to the taxpayer—money that we could and should be spending on the other priorities we debate in this place.
Chris Murray
Over the last two years, we on the Home Affairs Committee have looked into the cost of this to the taxpayer. Does the Minister share my outrage that huge amounts of public money have gone to private companies, some of whose owners entered The Sunday Times rich list while our communities suffered? Does she also agree that the author and signer of those contracts was the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), on the Reform Benches?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Under the last Government, £9 million a day was spent housing people in 400 asylum hotels. That was costly and inefficient. The evidence has shown that it was part of the draw that people knew they could come here and be put in a nice hotel. It was one of the pull factors that we are trying to deal with and tackle today. As we have heard, all we had in response to this people smuggling on an industrial scale was the farce of the Rwanda scheme, in which £700 million was spent on sending four volunteers to Rwanda.
Dr Murrison
The Minister is talking about Rwanda, but she did not give the scheme a chance to generate results. On day one, the previous Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, canned it, without any prospect of it showing demonstrable results. Looking back, does she think that was wise?
Anna Turley
I do not know how much good money the right hon. Gentleman wants to throw after bad, but £700 million on four volunteers was an incredible waste of money.
The British people have a natural sense of fairness. We are a nation that has benefited from centuries of facing outwards towards the world, both reaching out across the globe and welcoming people in. There can be barely a Member here who does not have some historical migration in their family, or family ties to other nations. The British people will always accept those who are genuinely fleeing peril. They will welcome those who come here legally and who contribute. They know we are a place where people can come to build their life and aspire to do great things. Even this House, its representatives and their stories reflect that; we have seen that in the last week or so.
However, the British people will not accept chaos at our borders. They will not accept a lack of control over who comes in. They will not accept the unfairness of a broken system, in which those who break the rules are the ones who benefit from our welcome. Nor will they tolerate expensive and often iconic hotels across their communities being used to house asylum seekers at vast expense to the taxpayers.
Anna Turley
I will make a bit of progress, if I may.
The British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services, while efforts to remove them are frustrated. There is no quick fix, but the task of ending the chaos and, crucially, of restoring fairness falls to this Government, and we embrace it. It is only a Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control at our borders and bring back fairness to our public services. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is chuntering from the Opposition Benches, but I am coming to the exact subject of our progress so far, which I hope she will see contrasts nicely with what happened in the previous 14 years.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I thank the Opposition spokesperson for this debate today, but can I also say how grateful I am that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) is in her place? More than 20 years ago, she and I worked in the Home Office, where we inherited another Tory mess on asylum. With a great Home Secretary and a brilliant team, we reduced the backlog, made appeals much more difficult and made the country a much safer place. Will she bring some of her experience from 20 years ago to this job, after the mess the Tories left have us?
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing attention to that. It was a privilege—in, I think, 2003—to work for the now Lord David Blunkett to close the Sangatte refugee centre, put juxtaposed controls on French shores and end the situation of people coming through as clandestines in the back of lorries with the Bill that we took through at that time as civil servants. It was a privilege to play that role. Here we are, yet again, fixing the legacy of the previous Government.
As I said, the British people will not tolerate illegal migrants placing pressure on our public services while efforts to remove them are frustrated. It is only the Labour Government who will fix the broken system, restore control and bring back fairness, but we will do so without performative cruelty, without the deliberate fomenting of grievance and without destroying our international reputation. Thanks to the action the Labour Government are taking, the picture today is improving, with crossings down, removals up and the system now finally on a more stable footing.
Over the last two years, this Government have acted to restore fairness and control to our asylum system, first by taking the fight to the criminal gangs and bearing down on illegal crossings. One of the first steps the then Home Secretary took following the general election was to establish Border Security Command. The command has had a significant impact, especially in its efforts, alongside a strengthened National Crime Agency, to ramp up law enforcement action on organised immigration crime.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman raising the point about deterrence. It is extremely important but, as I said, the Rwanda deterrent was not effective. [Interruption.] Millions of pounds and a handful of volunteers. It has been disproven and clearly did not have any impact. I will come on to the deterrent that is actually working.
We have also given our agencies counter-terror style powers via the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025. In the last financial year, organised immigration crime was disrupted on over 3,700 occasions, up by 46% over the same period. This includes organised immigration crime arrests, which were up 74%, as we took down the criminals behind this vile trade. For example, just in June, two men became the first to be jailed under the new “endangerment at sea” offence for piloting dangerously overcrowded small boats across the channel—that is a deterrent, that is working. We are also denying gangs the equipment and infrastructure they rely on. In May, an operation involving the National Crime Agency and German, French and other international partners seized more than 30 boats, over 20 engines, 360 pumps and more than 9,000 life jackets. Since entering office, we have seized over a total of 1,100 boats and engines.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for setting out her arguments. I am just wondering whether she will actually come on to Piddington and the impact on the residents there—we have people in the Gallery today. This issue is about the impact on women and girls there. I would be interested to know how many Ministers have actually been to Piddington and spoken to the residents themselves directly.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Lady. Of course, I will come on to Piddington—that is the content, the subject and the title of this debate—but it is really important to understand the people we are talking about having to house, how we are having to house them and the issues we are dealing with. I am proud of the steps we have taken to reduce that number so that we can hopefully reduce the number of people dependent on asylum accommodation as we go forward.
In partnership with French law enforcement, we have now stopped more than 50,000 attempted channel crossings. As a result, small boat arrivals are down around 40% on last year and asylum claims are down by 20%—real action, real results.
The task of responding to large-scale movements of people is one that we share with many Governments across the globe. It is, without question, one of the defining challenges of our age and to meet it we must work with source, transit and destination countries alike. That is why the Government have made it a priority to strengthen our co-operation with a range of international partners, striking new agreements and strengthening existing partnerships.
Just last month, the Home Secretary signed an agreement with her Belgian counterpart to intensify UK-Belgium co-operation and tighten the net around criminal gangs behind small boat crossings. We are taking our partnership with France further, following the new deal signed in April. French boots on the ground have already increased by 24% and a further 50 specialist officers will now be deployed on high-risk red days when conditions indicate crossings are likely, doubling the size of the current unit. First, by disrupting the movements of goods and infrastructure, tackling the gangs across borders and working with our international partners, we are reducing the flow of people heading towards our borders. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) flagged, we are addressing the pull factors that fuel illegal migration, and we are enforcing the laws of this land.
To live in this country is a privilege, but it comes with responsibilities. When people abuse our hospitality, staying for longer than they are entitled to or committing criminal offences in our communities, the public rightly expect every effort to be made to remove them from British soil. That is why the total failure to remove illegal migrants and foreign offenders in the years before the general election was so damaging, and why the Government are putting right the wrongs of the past.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is of course right that international co-operation matters in terms of dealing with these things, particularly channel crossings, but the point made earlier was that where countries refuse to take back their nationals who have committed crimes here, we should take further action, should we not? Part of that might be cutting aid or dealing with visas, as has been suggested. There are all kinds of other levers that can be used by Government to tell those countries, “You’ve got to take them back, because they’re not our responsibility and we’re not going to pay for them any more.”
Anna Turley
I think we are in danger of having a rare moment of cross-party consensus and agreement, because that is something the Government are already taking many steps towards. We are looking at visa enforcements. We have already had a number of successes on that front and will continue to use that, because where we see countries refusing to take people back, we have those levers within our power and we are using them.
Dr Murrison
Would the Minister like to look at the way the previous Government dealt with illegal Albanian migrants? It was hugely successful, yet this Government do not appear to have learnt any lessons from that. They are persisting with allowing illegal migrants to remain here indefinitely without any realistic prospect of being returned, and there is no meaningful pressure on Governments, particularly Pakistan, to take people back.
Anna Turley
I am afraid that one moment of consensus has already broken down. I disagree. We are undertaking a range of consultation and engagement on measures with those partners. The Albania agreement was important, but the Home Secretary is making a number of arrangements, and we look forward to announcing them. I hope hon. Members will be patient with us, but I look forward to making more announcements in the weeks and months ahead.
Anna Turley
I am going to move on. Forgive me.
We have driven up removals to the highest level in a decade—an important point to stop and reflect on—because of the progress we are making, with 80,000 individuals returned since the general election, including immigration offenders, people in the country illegally and foreign criminals. We know, too, that the ability to melt into the illegal economy too often lures people here, so we have raised illegal working enforcement to record levels.
As we rebuild our shattered asylum system, we are also lightening the burden on local communities. The Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament and we will do so. Two years in, we have already emptied one in three, reducing the hotel population by 50% in the last year and by 71% since the peak under the previous Government. We have cut asylum costs from hotels by £1 billion. That is £1 billion that we can spend on the other priorities of the British people and I think that that should be recognised.
We have made significant progress on the chaos we inherited two years ago, but we know there is more to be done to restore fairness to our asylum system: fairness for genuine refugees, who deserve our sanctuary and wish to contribute to our society; and fairness for British citizens, our constituents, who shoulder the current burden in their taxes and in their communities. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to prevent people from coming here illegally in the first place, dismantle the criminal networks that facilitate dangerous and unnecessary crossings, remove those who break our laws and have no right to be here, and ensure that this country maintains its proud tradition of helping the world’s most vulnerable people where it can, but in a secure and orderly way through new safe and legal routes.
That is why we have introduced the new Immigration and Asylum Bill. It will cut the asylum backlog by making decisions faster and fairer, close loopholes so that those with no right to be here can be rapidly removed, and ask those who have benefited from public support to contribute to their costs where they are able. I thank the Members who are currently scrutinising the Bill in Committee.
I turn now, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) implored, to the issues around MOD Bicester. For too long, the way in which we house asylum seekers has not been fair. Billions of pounds have been spent putting them up in hotels, while communities have seen those hotels, often at the centre of their towns or cities, become a symbol of a broken asylum system. Areas where housing costs were low and that already felt left behind were asked to bear more than their fair share, which has been a source of anger and frustration for many people—and understandably so.
As well as reducing the backlog, we are working with local authorities on a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the country. That means ending the use of costly hotels, and instead, moving asylum seekers into more appropriate accommodation.
Anna Turley
I am going to make some progress, because I have detained the Chamber a little too long.
That appropriate accommodation includes former military sites, which are basic, safe and self-contained by their nature. As I have said, that approach has already saved the taxpayer £1 billion. But, of course, we recognise the concerns of certain communities.
While the Home Office has submitted a planning application to use the MOD Bicester site for asylum accommodation, no final decision has been made. As part of that planning process, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided members of the public and local organisations an opportunity to give their views, ensuring we can fully understand the impact on the local community. I want to pay tribute to the campaign in Piddington. It has been an incredibly imaginative and forceful democratic campaign, which I recognise and respect.
There are many facets to the process and a lot of different considerations to take into account, but I am clear that public safety is and always will be at the forefront of our thinking. If the site is taken forward, there would be specialist security onsite 24/7, supported by CCTV. Everyone must sign in and out, and we would work closely with the police, the council and other local organisations to address concerns.
It is important to note that this is not the first proposal of its kind. Similar sites such as Wethersfield have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributable to the operation of that site. In fact, in September this year, the chief constable of Essex police confirmed that crime linked to the Wethersfield site is very low, and that there is no reason for the public to be concerned about possible criminality in the area associated with the site.
I emphasise that I fully understand the important desire of Members across the House to press for what they see as the best outcome for the areas and people that they represent. That is their democratic duty, and it is right that any Government are held to account for the decisions that they make. At the same, it is the duty of Government to act in a way that reflects the needs of the whole country. The approach we are taking is in the national interest, and it is the fairest way to restore order and control to our asylum system: ending the use of hotels; reducing the numbers in the system by addressing pull factors; removing those with no right to be here; and opening safe and legal routes, underpinned by community sponsorship, so that those with genuine claims can come to this country in an orderly and controlled way.
Finally, I will address the reference in the Opposition motion to the European convention on human rights. As I have set out, removals of those with no right to be in this country are at the highest level in years. That is thanks to the work that this Government have done and continue to do. But there is much more to be done. The idea that leaving the convention is the way forward is not born out by reality. Not only is it unnecessary to restore effective control of the immigration system, but it would be counterproductive given the risk of undermining crucial co-operation with European partners—something we are already dealing with as a consequence of Brexit.
Let us be clear: the convention delivers for people in this country too. It guarantees their right to privacy, a fair trial, free speech—permanent privileges that cannot be chopped and changed. In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world in which conflict and cross-border crime present shared challenges, a close relationship with our European allies has never been more important. It is for those reasons that we remain committed to the ECHR and those relationships.
Of course, commitment does not mean complacency. This Government have worked hard to listen to the concerns of the public with respect to the ECHR and the immigration system. That is why our focus is on reforming the domestic application of article 6 and restoring the proper balance between individual rights and public interest. The UK is proud of the role that we played in drafting the convention, and now it is our responsibility to ensure that it is strong and relevant for today’s world. That requires honest conversations and continued evolution, not turning our backs when it matters most.
We have ahead of us what I expect will be a wide-ranging debate. I conclude by recounting the central facts about our record. Crossings: down. Asylum hotel use: down. Removals: up. Order and control: returning at last. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) has chuntered from a sedentary position for a while, but I remember that when he was in the Home Office his Government began the use of many similar large sites, such as Wethersfield. [Interruption.] I am just reminding him that Wethersfield was opened under his watch.
Let us remember the “why” as well as the “what.” The reason underlying all that we have done, are doing, and will do in this area is fairness—fairness to those in genuine need of sanctuary from tyranny, conflict and persecution; and fairness for the British public, who rightly expect their Government, not criminal gangs, to determine who can come to this country, and who expect asylum seekers to be fairly housed across the country. Fairness is the principle on which our progress to date has been built, and the work continues relentlessly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Unfortunately, the Front Bench speeches went on for quite some time, so Back Benchers will begin with a six-minute speaking limit. I call on the Liberal Democrat spokesperson also to respect the amount of time that we have for the debate.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I will indeed respect the amount of time for the third party, which I understand is 10 minutes. Thank you for giving me that time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Ten minutes is a guide, not a target that the hon. Gentleman has to reach.
Max Wilkinson
Your advice is noted, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Of course it would be inappropriate to house 1,200 asylum seekers on a military base next to a village of a few hundred people, and of course it would be inappropriate to house them on a site that has never previously been used for residential accommodation. That goes without saying. The Liberal Democrats can back that element of the motion, even if we do not agree with the wording deployed by the official Opposition. I will allow my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) to deal with the specifics of the local matter when he contributes later.
What must be disputed, however, is the second part of this deeply harmful motion. Brexit has made us all poorer. It has reduced Britain’s standing in the world and made it more difficult for this country to run a safe and controlled asylum system. So why on earth are the Conservatives suggesting leaving the ECHR, which would be Brexit 2.0? Not only would that make the UK a pariah state, but it would likely result in the end of the Brexit deal that they negotiated. The Conservatives often tell us that the Brexit settlement must not be reopened, but that is exactly what they are suggesting.
Once again, the Conservative party is arguing that this country should pursue what would basically amount to a no-deal Brexit, except this time it is not a fringe argument being contested among factions in the Conservative party, but the position of the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition, backed by all Conservative MPs. Indeed, their leader has told them that they will be barred from their party unless they adopt the position, which is why so many of them have now changed their mind on the issue.
The drift of the Conservatives away from the centre-right to the hard-right is a dereliction of duty. It runs counter to many of the traditions in British Conservatism. But we know why they are doing it: they are terrified of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) so they chase after him. They increasingly make his arguments as they prepare for their grubby deal. We all remember what happened in 2019, when the hon. Member for Clacton stood down his candidates in alliance with Boris Johnson. People up and down the country are more than aware that those two parties would engage in the same sort of stitch-up again without a second thought, no matter how much Tory MPs and their leader plead the opposite in public.
Max Wilkinson
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel.
The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it.
What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
Pete Wishart
It would also have huge implications for settlements across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not know this, but there would be a massive implication for Scottish devolution, for all our legislation is predicated on a commitment to being compliant with ECHR regulations. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Conservatives exactly what this would do to our internal arrangements across the UK?
Max Wilkinson
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.
There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.
Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
The Minister spoke fondly before of working for a former Home Secretary who, on one occasion after 9/11, disapplied part of the European convention on human rights using article 15. Does the hon. Member recognise that there is a difference, perhaps, between leaving the European convention and suspending elements of it while we deal with a crisis?
Max Wilkinson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Of course, the second part of the convention does tackle those sorts of derogations. It is important that we see the convention in its entirety.
As I said earlier, all of this is before we consider the implications for Northern Ireland, which have been well rehearsed in this Chamber. When British people up and down the country hear Conservative and Reform politicians pledging to erase those rights, we must all ask ourselves whether we trust those politicians to give us back those rights when they no longer exist. The answer is, of course, that they will not give us those rights back. [Interruption.] And do not argue with me about the Wolfson report, because that is nonsense.
Leaving the ECHR will mean that we have even fewer opportunities to work on agreements with the EU—the place small boats set off from—to prevent those crossings, and that goes to the nub of the matter that we are discussing today. If we have learned one thing over the past decade, it is that the concept of the UK becoming more successful and prosperous while distancing itself from its closest allies is a total fiction. It was a lie in 2016, and it is a lie today. The only way to move towards an asylum system that works is by working with our European allies, and that means that this Government must first drop their self-defeating red lines, and secondly apply to join the EU migration and asylum pact.
While the media is excited that the Prime Minister has been more expansive in his wording on relations with Europe, it is important to note that he is pledging to retain all his red lines. He is not promising to remove any of them, even though he knows that those red lines are making us poorer and scuppering our chances of an asylum system that could, in future, command public trust, look after genuine asylum seekers and create a fair system, as this country has always had. It will also cost UK taxpayers more and more money.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Member will know that the framework within which signatories to the EU migration and asylum pact work is different from the Dublin agreement.
Today we renew our calls for Ministers to drop their red lines on Europe and to join the EU asylum pact. We also renew our calls for the Conservatives to recognise the reality that the first Brexit they gave us has failed this country. Do not pretend that giving us Brexit 2.0 will be any better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back Benchers are on a speaking limit of six minutes.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I will begin by saying that I respect the right of hon. Members across the House to come here and give voice to their constituents. I respect the voices of the women of Piddington who are in the Gallery today, making their presence known to Government. That is their democratic right, and I respect that.
In office, the Conservatives designed an asylum accommodation programme that took over much-loved hotels in some of the most deprived parts of our country, including the Crewe Arms Hotel and the Royal Hotel in the centre of Crewe. Local services and community cohesion were put under severe strain, and people were forced to cancel weddings and other events of sentimental value in their lives.
Of course, it is not only the Tories who are up to their necks in that policy, because who designed it? Who championed it on the airwaves, boasting that more and more hotels were being brought on stream in deprived towns like mine? It was, of course, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), now Reform’s Treasury spokesperson, aided and abetted by former Tory Ministers who “betrayed our country”—not my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the words of Zia Yusuf.
In opening this debate, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said that this should not be about class, and I think she is right. But why were places like Crewe chosen by the Conservatives when they were in government? It is precisely because such places were deprived and because land values were lower in those places.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Connor Naismith
I will not give way, because I do not want to take time away from other people.
I do not think that approach is fair. I was delighted when I was informed that, after much campaigning, the Crewe Arms Hotel would be closing as an asylum hotel. I hope to see the Royal Hotel also closed for such purposes in the coming months, and I urge the Minister to say more, if she can, about when we might see progress in that regard.
It is important to say that such outcomes are possible only if the Government continue to make progress with small boat crossings coming down, which they are, and the processing of claims going up—in stark contrast to the previous Government, under whom numbers collapsed—as well as deporting people who have no right to be here. But crucially, with regard to this debate, we will also see those outcomes only if accommodation for asylum seekers is spread more fairly across our country, using appropriate disused military sites.
The proposition that the Tories have put in front of us today seems to be that my constituents have to accept more of the burden of asylum accommodation while other parts of our country do not, and that is simply not fair. I know where my constituents will stand on that question, and I am with them, not with the Opposition.
As for the European convention on human rights, it blocks just 3% of total removals from this country, and underpins relationships—including the Good Friday agreement—with other countries around the world. Even the Tories’ much-loved Rwanda deal was contingent on compliance with international agreements on human rights and refugee law—not because a UK or European court said so but because the Rwandan Government insisted, as any third country that we might want to work with would.
By seeking to tell my constituents that they should continue to do more than their fair share in response to the phenomenon of small boat crossings, the motion signifies the official Opposition’s retreat from being a serious national party of government. I will not be supporting it.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I sought to intervene on the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) because I agree with his point about the unfairness of asylum dispersal. For my constituents, two thirds of whom are in Hillingdon, which, because of Heathrow airport, has the highest number of asylum seekers per capita of any local authority in the country and has borne for decades the consequences of the asylum dispersal policies, the issue is of huge importance.
I invite the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the Minister to call to mind the name of the Member of this House who created the asylum dispersal system, which placed asylum seekers in accommodation in the cheapest parts of the country to make taxpayers’ money go further. I worked with that Member of Parliament when I was involved in local government. When he introduced it, he was the hon. Member for Leigh. Now he is the right hon. Member for Makerfield.
Members who criticise that system might like to reflect that their party, like ours, has been hearing for many years that the British people expect us to do better on this issue. Nobody has a monopoly on virtue when it comes to dealing with the asylum system, particularly the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who I hope will reflect, now that he is Prime Minister, on the importance of rebuilding the system that had so many flaws when he first put it into effect many years ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is hugely important to you. The relentless campaigning you have done on behalf of your constituents around Crowborough reflects the campaigning that many of us have needed to do. In my case, lessons have been learned by my constituents about the consequences of the huge numbers arriving at Heathrow. In more recent years, the asylum system has become even more overloaded with new applications, as people are driven on coaches from Dover and Kent to Home Office asylum accommodation in close proximity to Heathrow airport, placed there by the then Minister, now Prime Minister. More recently, that pressure has been added to by the significant number of Chagossians in Mauritius fleeing the consequences of the Government’s deal and needing to be supported by the local authority. This really matters to constituents.
Following the murder of Wayne Broadhurst, killed while walking his dog in nearby Hillingdon about a year ago by Afghan refugee Dawood Safi, the community has done marvels to come together and show its hospitality and welcome for people who are genuinely vulnerable. But there is exasperation, and we need to see serious progress. In the spirit of holding the Government to account, I have some questions for the Minister. It is clear from a number of Members’ points that this is about not just the ECHR but the refugee convention and, in particular, the Human Rights Act 1998. Having visited the court in Strasbourg, I know that in the last 16 years only one case there involving immigration matters has gone against the British Government, but we have cases day after day within our own courts.
The ECHR has no jurisdiction over borders; it covers immigration, but not borders. Every day at Heathrow, people arrive as undocumented migrants—without a visa or whatever is required—and are turned away, unable to access the process, which causes such frustration and leaves them stranded in our system for many years. That sovereignty of decision making at the border is an asset that we have not used sufficiently.
The Opposition’s borders plan has set out the much broader range of initiatives that we need to take, but will the Minister, given the pressure on my constituents, consider a different approach to sovereignty? It would be a case of simply saying to those who arrive on small boats, “We will not let you cross our border. You have no documentation. You will not be allowed to access that system at all, and we will not accept that continued pressure on our courts, local authorities, health services and the other parts of the system.”
At the same time, the Government should consider, as I have advocated previously, introducing an asylum visa and simply saying, “If you arrive to work, get married or for family reunion, you have to have a visa to cross our border,” with asylum as the sole exception. We are an island. People who come to our country know in advance that they are going to make that journey. There is ample opportunity for them to seek permission. I have total sympathy, having been on the French beaches and seen the footage that the French police have. We need to ensure we deal with this robustly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that this issue is something that you and I share. Given the way the system operates, we need to ensure full consultation and planning. Some communities are playing host to thousands of people who may be stuck in some sort of limbo for a long time and who will acquire through that process rights to housing locally, so we need a more effective system in place for planning, and it needs to be addressed by this Government. We need a much more robust approach to borders, but there are things this Government could do today that would make the situation for my constituents and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much better.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Today we are being asked to support a motion calling for the United Kingdom to leave the European convention on human rights. I am going to do something slightly unusual and speak about the detail of a law that we are considering in Committee. While the Conservatives are busy demanding that we tear up an international agreement—an agreement written by one of our greatest wartime Prime Ministers, Winston Churchill—this House is already considering substantive reforms to how human rights law is applied in immigration cases.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently being scrutinised in Committee. That is where we should be having serious discussions about how the system works, what needs to change and how we ensure the law serves the public interest. Clauses 17 to 20 are central to that work. They are not cosmetic changes or empty promises; they are detailed legislative provisions designed to change how courts and tribunals consider human rights claims in an immigration case.
Ben Goldsborough
I am a proud member of the Public Bill Committee, and at the moment we are looking at things such as the ouster clauses that are included in the Bill. We are giving the detail that is needed for the Law Lords and everyone else involved in this process to integrate what needs to be done.
These are not cosmetic changes that we are looking at. Clause 17 addresses sponsor human rights claims. It creates a route for a person based in the UK to appeal the decision refusing entry clearance to an overseas family member where the decision engages their right to family life under article 8. That is a specific change to the operation of the appeal system, with clear rules about how such claims are considered.
Clause 18 goes further by establishing a clearer statutory definition of “family life” for the purposes of article 8 in immigration cases. It provides that “family” would normally be limited to core cohabiting families, partners, and in relevant circumstances children and parents living together. Where someone seeks to establish family life beyond those core relationships, the legislation sets out the circumstances and evidence that courts should consider.
For relationships between adults, that includes whether there are additional elements of dependency beyond normal emotional ties between them. It also makes it clear that the courts must first determine whether article 8 is engaged before going to consider the public interest. That is an important distinction. The existence of a human right does not automatically determine the outcome of an immigration appeal. The court must consider the circumstances and apply the relevant legal test.
Clause 19 strengthens the public interest consideration that courts and tribunals must take into account. It reinforces the importance of financial independence and being able to support and house oneself and one’s family without relying on state support. It also introduces further considerations relating to criminal convictions, co-operation and immigration processes and good character. It clarifies the weight that should normally be given to a private and family life established by people who are in the UK unlawfully having obtained permission through deception or are in serious breach of the conditions of their immigration status. It also strengthens the considerations that apply when decisions could affect a child, including whether removal would have a
“very significant and long-lasting adverse effect”
on them. Those are important changes to a framework within which immigration decisions are made.
Clause 20 addresses cases involving foreign criminals and others liable to deportation. It strengthens the statutory framework for considering deportation, making it clear that the public interest in deporting those liable to deportation must be given significant weight, particularly when such offending is serious. It also sets out exceptional circumstances in which a deportation may be disproportionate, including the impact on qualifying partners and children, and cases involving very compelling circumstances.
Those provisions matter, because the public rightly expect a system that takes criminal offending seriously, enforces immigration rules and makes decisions that reflect the interests of our country. I ask the Conservatives again: if they believe that the law needs to change, why are they not engaging seriously with the changes already before Parliament? If Conservative Members do not think those clauses go far enough, they should explain why, table amendments, test the legislation and make a case using evidence and legal arguments—that is what parliamentary scrutiny is for. Instead, we have a motion before us calling for full withdrawal from the convention as though leaving an international agreement—Brexit, anyone?—would somehow make every difficult question disappear. It would not.
Leaving the ECHR would not by itself clear the asylum backlog, it would not automatically speed up decisions, it would not make every removal straightforward and it would not erase the consequences of years of Conservative mismanagement. The Conservatives had 14 years in government to get a grip on immigration and the asylum system, and they had 14 years to improve decision making, tackle backlogs and ensure that public money was spent effectively, yet they left behind a system beset by delays, mounting costs and a reliance on asylum hotels. Now they want to present themselves as the people with the answers—it is truly extraordinary.
The Conservatives created the conditions of many of the problems the Government are still dealing with; now, they want to distract from that record with another dramatic announcement. Our constituents deserve far better than political theatre. They deserve an asylum system that makes decisions promptly, removes people who have no right to remain, tackles criminality and treats people fairly. They deserve effective enforcement and value for taxpayers’ money. That requires practical solutions, competent administration and legislation that works. It requires a Government who will get on with the job rather than pretending that one grand gesture can solve everything.
A practical example is the Brook hotel in Bowthorpe just outside my constituency: it opened under the previous Conservative Government and closed under a Labour Government. That is what effective management of the asylum system does when a Government are serious, instead of making large grand gestures.
The convention is not beyond reform—there is so much we are doing and so much more to be done—but leaving the convention altogether would be a much wider step than reforming how article 8 is applied. We have already heard about the impact that would have on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. We cannot just singly pull ourselves out of the ECHR.
Sadly, the Conservative party that we all knew when growing up is no longer with us. The action that we are taking in government is what we must do.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The concerns and worries of women in Piddington about the sorts of people being placed alongside them are shared by women up and down the country. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, know better than many exactly what those concerns are, because of the camp in Crowborough. The Government have placed more than 500 young men in Crowborough, in your Sussex Weald constituency, and they are pledging to keep them there all the way till 2030. Madam Deputy Speaker has had to do her best in the face of a Green, Lib Dem and Labour council that has totally failed in its responsibilities to support those residents. The contrast in scale at Piddington, where there are just 350 residents, is even greater.
At the heart of the debate is whether women have a legitimate, reasonable concern to be worried about the people being placed in their communities. I am not afraid to say that I think the culture of the people often placed in these communities is inferior to ours when it comes to women’s rights and attitudes to women. Let us be clear that more than 72% of the people crossing in small boats are men, and the vast majority of them are aged between 18 and 39. They come predominantly from countries like Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. What do the people of those countries—men primarily—think about women and women’s rights? This is not speculation or stereotyping; it is evidence from social surveys and reports of third parties.
In Syria, more than 70% of women report that they are severely restricted in their ability to leave their homes. In Afghanistan, more than 90% of the population think that spousal physical abuse is justified. In Iraq, more than 46% of currently married women are exposed to at least one form of spousal violence and eight in 10 women have suffered some form of sexual harassment. In Pakistan, the UN estimates that between 70% and 90% of Pakistani women experience some form of domestic violence in their lifetime. In Eritrea, misogyny is embedded so deep that over half of women aged 15 to 49 think it is entirely justified for a husband to beat his wife.
Layla Moran
Misogyny exists in many cultures; I would point out that it does in ours, too, and that is well recognised. Did it ever occur to the hon. Gentleman that perhaps some of those people are leaving those countries because they do not agree with those values and that, notwithstanding the issues that we have too, they would rather come to a country that better respects the rights of women? Is he suggesting that every man in those countries holds those views?
Dr Mullan
I wish we had a system in which we could test the hon. Member’s proposition, because at the minute, we have absolutely no idea about the attitudes and values of the people coming from those countries. She is correct to say that we have issues of misogyny in this country, but for our country the equivalent figures to those I have just mentioned are significantly lower. That is the point: these cultures are worse than ours on the many issues we care about in relation to women and girls.
On the one hand, the Government are pledging action on women and girls and driving improvements in that area—we have done so in our society for many decades—but on the other hand they are pretending that the citizens of those countries, which have done none of that work, are exactly the same as us and will come over and treat our women exactly the same. I am afraid that flies in the face of common sense and the clear statistical evidence I gave about rates of crime and the social attitudes of those people.
I am not afraid to say that there is a lot to do when it comes to women and girls in our culture, but we have a significantly better culture towards women and girls than countries such as Eritrea, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a whole range of others, so it is perfectly reasonable for women being asked to live alongside huge numbers of unvetted people from those countries to be concerned and to have worries.
We should not be afraid to call that out, and it has nothing to do with racism. We have a culture of football hooliganism in this country, and it is predominantly white people who engage in that football hooliganism. I am happy to say that; it does not make me racist towards white people. It does not make me racist towards other cultures when I point out the issues and problems that they have, which we should not be afraid to call out.
Max Wilkinson
I think the hon. Member mentioned that 80% of women in one country said they had been sexually harassed in public. What is the rate of women in the UK who report being sexually harassed in public?
Dr Mullan
It is around one in four. It was 80% in the country I referenced, which is significantly more. The equivalent figure for this country is much, much too high—I would want it to be zero—but that makes the exact point, which I think the hon. Member did not want to draw out, that those countries are worse than we are. We should not be importing large quantities of unvetted young men from those cultures without a proper way of dealing with that. We do not have a way of doing that.
The Government inadvertently admitted that, as they have had to actively tell those people not to rape women. That is because they know the things I have said about the differences in attitudes towards women in many of those countries. The question is: what do we do about it? I am clear that it should be up to us to decide who comes here from what countries and on what basis. We should decide asylum policy—not the people smugglers—and the routes on which people come. The Conservatives have been clear and admitted that we should have been quicker in bringing in our own deterrence policy, but we are committed to doing that now and have a plan for it. That is what actually counts.
The only country that has successfully dealt with this issue is Australia. It saw a decrease of more than 90% in the number of people crossing the sea and entering illegally by saying, “If you come here illegally under that method, you don’t get to stay—end of story.” That worked, and we should do exactly the same thing. The Government like to talk about the failure of the Rwanda plan and the four people sent as volunteers. They know that those people went voluntarily. It is clearly not a deterrent if someone goes voluntarily, but we were never allowed to use the scheme as a deterrent to deport people whether they wanted to go or not.
The Government can do everything they want to reform and tweak the operation of human rights laws in this country, but there are two ways in which that approach is fundamentally flawed. First, it does not matter if a claim can be successfully rejected if someone cannot be deported to the country they came from. It is completely futile. Unless the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) thinks that we will deport people en masse to Afghanistan or some other third world, war-torn country, clearly, whatever we might want to do around the validity of their claim is worthless if we cannot send them to another country or back to the country they came from. Secondly, we have talked about the nature of the claims and how we might tweak them. The European Court of Human Rights is a precedent-setting Court. If it makes a ruling and sets a precedent, ultimately, that will hold sway.
I asked the hon. Member for South Norfolk to comment on article 3, which he failed to do. That is just one example of how the European convention on human rights has become totally distorted. Article 3 was originally envisioned to prevent people from being deported to a country where they might face torture. That was the aim of the article. It is now used to say that when someone comes to our country and commits horrendous crimes such as rape, but they have a psychiatric illness, it is torture if the country we seek to deport them to does not have adequate healthcare provision. Under article 3, that is not allowed. Who can reasonably argue that that was envisioned by all the people the hon. Member referenced when they created a set of rights which, at the time, were appropriate and applied appropriately? Does he really think that those people envisioned that, 50 years later, that would mean we could not deport a rapist because he would not get adequate healthcare in the country that we were deporting him to?
The article has been totally distorted from its original purpose, and the question of whether we can operate a safe and decent framework of rights in this country without the use of the ECHR is quite clearly scaremongering. Canada manages it, New Zealand manages it, Australia manages it. They all manage to have a framework of rights and international agreements, and that includes Canada, which is seeking a closer relationship with the EU, which is not part of the ECHR.
Ben Goldsborough
What solution would the hon. Gentleman come up with? It has been stated by the Republic of Ireland Government and Governments around the world that by pulling out of the ECHR, we would be fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement, which means that we cannot operate a safe country and borders.
Dr Mullan
I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Lord Wolfson’s report, which makes it clear that we can engage in international agreements. To make the point valid, the hon. Gentleman has to suggest that no other countries in the world manage to enter into complex legal arrangements without both being part of the ECHR. Of course they do. Agreements will be subject to renegotiation. This country is absolutely right to respond to what our people want us to do, which is to protect our borders and put them first, and not the sorts of people we are putting up at taxpayers’ expense in Crowborough.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is good that we are having this debate in the House of Commons today, because this is an issue the public care about profoundly and they want to see substantive action to address their concerns. To understand how to do that, we have to understand how we got here.
I do not propose to relitigate the disastrous asylum system that this Government inherited, under which huge numbers of asylum seekers were housed in hotels across the country. That was terrible for local communities, where hotels were opened in town centres with no support and often without even telling the police or local authorities. It was terrible for genuine asylum seekers and it was terrible for the taxpayer. The only ones it worked for were the private companies, which extracted massive profits. The Prime Minister has talked about the scandal of outsourcing and privatisation in modern Britain. The most glaring example of that is the asylum accommodation sector. The public are right: we cannot tolerate that and we must fix it, so it is good to see the Government putting in the hard yards to achieve that.
There are three components that we have to tackle as a country. First, we have to drive down the number of asylum seekers coming into the system. That is why it is good to see small boat crossings down by 40% and the French preventing 48,000 crossings. Obviously, more must be done. We need to prevent people from coming in, but secondly, we also have to increase the number coming out of the system. There has been a big increase in decisions and an increase in removals of more than 80,000. Again, there is more to be done, but it is good to see the hard yards starting to be put in.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks about how it is important to deter people from coming to this country illegally. Does he share my concern at the Reform party’s notion, put forward by its chairman, that Royal Marines commandos could be encouraged to use “lethal force” against unarmed civilians? As a Royal Marines commander, I can say that that is completely unacceptable across the military. There are real concerns about that in Plymouth and across the wider military. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?
Chris Murray
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. Whenever I have spoken to law enforcement or the military, that is exactly the issue they raise. Moreover, making gestures that we know are never realistic is what the traffickers want us to do, because it encourages them to encourage people to come here.
The third component of what we must tackle is that of dealing with people while they are in the asylum system. That means we have to drive down the costs, deliver the economies of scale required, mitigate the impacts that infuriate communities and increase safeguarding for communities. We need to do that if we want to close the hotels, and we cannot close the hotels without dealing with people in the system.
Let me make a defence of large sites in the asylum system. In 15 years working on immigration and during two years on the Home Affairs Committee, I must have visited more asylum accommodation than anyone else in the House of Commons. Large sites have an important role to play, particularly in alleviating the issues that local communities find challenging. First, on cost, they are much cheaper than hotels. On efficiency—
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Murray
I will get to the end of my point and then I will give way. Secondly, on efficiency, having people in one place, where Home Office officials and the relevant people can be brought in, can speed asylum seekers through the process and get them out of it faster. Thirdly, on community engagement, yes, asylum seekers are free to come and go, but short of imprisoning them, such sites are as much as we can contain them in British society.
Chris Murray
Let me make some points and then I will take interventions.
Charities and groups can go to large sites, which are far away from town centres, unlike hotels and HMOs, and the authorities, by providing things such as transport, can practically organise when people will be in one place, stopping the issues of hotels and people hanging around town centres late at night.
Finally, on safeguarding, one of the issues with hotels is that the police were not informed. At larger sites, we can have trained professionals who can spot depression, isolation, re-traumatisation or worrying behaviours, understand the dynamics in groups, and find opportunities to observe, supervise and intervene. Engaging with police and social services is how we tackle those risks.
Let me share what persuaded me about that. I was sceptical of large sites until I went to Wethersfield, which opened under the previous Government—I think it was opened by the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). There, they told me that the work they can do around mitigation and safeguarding is far more effective at a large site than a small site.
Chris Murray
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and then I will come back to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).
Calum Miller
The hon. Gentleman led his arguments in favour of large sites on cost grounds. I am sure that he is aware that the Home Affairs Committee looked at that matter and identified that, bed by bed, large sites were more expensive than hotels. Will he acknowledge that, because the site that we are talking about today has never had residential accommodation, the cost and capital terms of setting it up and building a village will greatly outstrip the cost of any alternative provision?
Chris Murray
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument at all. My argument to the Minister would be that large sites vary. Wethersfield did not work until it was reformed; Northeye did not work.
I am going to do something unusual and say something positive about the Scottish Government for a second—I know the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) is going to have a heart attack over there. [Laughter.] When the Scottish Government opened large sites for asylum seekers from Ukraine on two cruise ships, they were very cost effective compared with the Bibby Stockholm. The argument is not about the principle, but about whether the Home Office can orchestrate it and achieve it through public procurement.
Chris Murray
I absolutely understand why people say that; it is a perfectly reasonable response to risk. However, the role of Government is to mitigate risk. The role of Government is to intervene through public policy and deploy public resources and capacities. That is the best way to mitigate risk. That is normal across policing and all kinds of Home Office security, but in this case it is quite right. The Government of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle placed asylum seekers in hotels without telling anybody in the local community—without social workers, the police or anybody else knowing. The local women had no clue. Most of the cases quoted by the shadow Minister came from that system. He cannot say to the women in Piddington that will leave the ECHR and it will solve everything. That is not realistic and it is not treating them with respect. Far better to say we will try to solve this problem, mitigate the risk and do the stuff required to actually deal with it.
I should have expected to hear what we have heard from the Tories and Reform in this Opposition day debate. These are the people who broke the system and let it spiral, yet they are somehow arguing that leaving the ECHR can happen tomorrow and will solve any issues in Piddington and Bicester—that is for the birds. But I am particularly disappointed in the Liberal Democrats and their amendment. They say that they oppose asylum hotels and they want a better public debate on immigration, but whether it is in Cameron barracks, in Crowborough or now in Bicester, they oppose every large site. They say we should welcome asylum seekers and have a humane system, but it is “not in my back yard” the minute there is one near them. Are they really saying that is for the working-class communities of Britain to tolerate asylum seekers in hotels and in HMOs, but not their constituencies in secure, well-resourced, large public sites? I think that is wrong. The public are fed up of posturing, point scoring, pointless gesturing and nimbyism on this. They want the issue solved, they want it gripped, and if the Government can get large sites to solve the problem, that could be a big part of solving this country’s asylum accommodation challenges.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We have had so many interventions that I am going to have to drop the time limit on Back-Bench speeches to five minutes.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I was honoured to visit Piddington a few weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin), representing my party, Reform, as one of the first female MPs to respond to the women of Piddington when they wrote to all female MPs in this House. It is interesting that there are no female Labour Back Benchers sitting in on this debate. That is how seriously the party in government takes this issue.
When I met the women of Piddington, I was staggered. They are scared, they are angry and they feel like no one in government is listening to them. The people there are not far-right thugs. Many of the women—and, indeed, the men—that I met are elderly pensioners. Some of them are widowed and living alone. Many are parents speaking on behalf of their children. This small rural village is right now fighting against the British state right in order to protect itself. It is a scandal that no one in this Government is willing to listen to the women and girls of Piddington.
Unfortunately, this is not confined to Piddington; it also involves the people of Waterlooville. Last year I led a campaign with 10,000 local people to fight the Home Office and the Labour-Lib Dem plans to house asylum seekers there. We were successful on that occasion. Now I am supporting people in Gosport and in Portsmouth who are taking to the streets in peaceful protest against illegal migrants arriving on their shores.
Suella Braverman
I will not, because I want to respect the direction given by Madam Deputy Speaker.
This issue is extending across our country, and it is out of control. The Government say it is getting better, but the boats are getting bigger, the people are coming in higher numbers, and British people are more scared than ever. And they are right to be scared, because the facts are that Afghan and Eritrean migrant men are 22 times more likely to be convicted of sex crimes than Brits, and 40% of sexual assaults in London over the last five years were committed by foreign-born men. I am not making that up. That is data. These are not irrational fears, but they are being treated with contempt.
The tragedy of all this is that it is caused by the ECHR. People come here on the boats illegally. They claim to be victims of persecution and to have family rights here—all gaming human rights laws against us. I saw this as Home Secretary, as Attorney General and previously as a barrister working in the field. I wrote a paper about it last year, which was dismissed by the Conservative party. The truth is—we have got to be honest about this—that we might not even have had to be here talking about Piddington or Gosport or Fort Blockhouse or Waterlooville. This problem could have been fixed.
The tragedy is that the last Conservative Government utterly refused to do the right thing—[Interruption.] I will come to that. I was the first Conservative Minister who said publicly that to fix this crisis we needed to leave the ECHR. I said it as Attorney General and as Home Secretary. What happened? The Leader of the Opposition said that I was having a nervous breakdown. The Conservatives said that I had mental health problems. They demonised me, isolated me and blocked me from doing the right thing. I have asked them to apologise today. They have refused to apologise to the nation for causing this crisis and I will not let them off the hook. I have just published a book setting out the painful battles I had with my Conservative party colleagues to fix this, so I will not take any lectures from anyone in the Conservative party about their promises to leave the ECHR. Do not believe them.
What do we need to stop this invasion and fix this national security emergency that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has been talking about for years? We need to leave the ECHR, with credible leadership. We need to suspend our asylum system now, void all those grants of asylum, deport all those people who are applying for asylum—deport 90,000 people—and, yes, deploy the Royal Navy into the channel to ensure that we properly secure our borders. This Labour Government will not do it. The last Conservative Government did not do it. This Conservative party cannot be trusted. Only Reform will stop the invasion and stop these boats.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think that is a no—the right hon. and learned Lady has finished her speech.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his response to a question at Prime Minister’s questions earlier, the Prime Minister said:
“Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe”.
He did not say the individual “accused of” her murder; he spoke of the individual “responsible for” her murder. A man is innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence goes back to Magna Carta and it applies without exception, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has just publicly spoken as though a man awaiting trial has already been convicted of murder. It is directly contrary to the rule of law, it is a breach of the presumption of innocence, it is misleading to the House and in any other forum it would be a contempt of court, which could be used to suggest that the defendant had been prejudged on the merits of a case. The Prime Minister needs to apologise. May I ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether the Prime Minister needs to apologise, to withdraw the statement and to correct the record immediately?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. Given that he is so experienced, I assume that, within protocol, he has also mentioned to the Prime Minister that he was going to raise this matter—or I will accept that as something he will be doing incredibly quickly. The content of Ministers’ speeches and answers are not a matter for the Chair, but those on the Treasury Front Bench will have heard that point; I am sure that they will do everything they can to make sure that it gets to where it should, and that the appropriate action is taken. The right hon. Member can, of course, take more advice from the Clerks if needed.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Can I start by also acknowledging the concerns of the women of Piddington who are viewing this debate today up in the Gallery? Those concerns are not limited, of course, to Piddington. They also include my constituency of Glasgow South West, which has historically had the highest number of asylum applications of anywhere in the United Kingdom. It is a matter of record that I have asked the Home Secretary to look at this urgently to see whether my city of Glasgow and my constituency of Glasgow South West can be afforded some extra breathing space as they contend with their own issues of housing and social cohesion. I have made similar pleas to the Scottish Government in relation to priority housing rules and local connection rules.
Both sides in this debate have acknowledged that day zero of this issue is not today and that it did not start two years ago. It started long ago, or perhaps 14 to 20 years earlier. We are not where we would wish to be, but we must be careful about the tenor of the debate, because legitimate concern about safeguarding and about how we tackle asylum and the backlog can quickly bleed into issues of multiculturalism—that has already been spoken about today—of ethnonationalism and of immigration more widely.
I can tell you for a fact that after this debate, some very uncharitable comments will be made on my social media because of my background. Therefore, I think it is an important moment to also put on the record that, largely, over the last 100 years, this country has been the most successful at integration and immigration possibly in the history of mankind. I am an example of that. My immigration story began 100 years ago when my grandfather took a boat from Calcutta, went to Hong Kong and became a member of the British Hong Kong police force, and then in 1963, when my dad took a journey by road to come from Pakistan into Glasgow to drive buses and then taxis, and he still does so today in his 80s. We must always remember, once this debate starts to bleed out into other issues, to stand firm against those who would wish to use it as an instrument for championing deplorable ideas like ethnonationalism that, unfortunately, have also been espoused at times by Members of this place, either intentionally or unintentionally.
The issue itself does need to be gripped because when it is not gripped, it is precisely minority communities that are first and foremost in the firing line for abuse and attack.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. He draws attention to the wider issues that result from this debate. Does he agree that it is precisely the current Home Office policies that are creating the environment in which paradoxical effects are being felt? In my constituency there are shortages of labour in fishing, farming, social care and health care, and hospitality? That is exactly the point I think he is trying to make.
Dr Ahmed
I am afraid that it is not the point that I was trying to make, but I will take on some of the hon. Member’s arguments. In Scotland, we have some of the highest levels of unemployed young people anywhere in the United Kingdom. We should first and foremost start by addressing their issues and getting them into employment before we start opening up a wider debate about immigration, illegal migration and numbers. I also say to him that in the city of Glasgow, it is bad enough that the right wing manipulates immigration and migration issues to march masked men down the streets of my constituency, but also on the other side, politicians must also take responsibility, including those in the Scottish Government, who pay lip service to social cohesion and anti-racism rhetoric but never follow through by funding the infrastructure that fundamentally relies on social cohesion to be a successful endeavour.
Let me get back to the point I was trying to make. We must address this issue because we are placing minorities in the firing line if we do not. I am so glad that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is bringing forward a Bill that will do precisely that, because what is missing right now in this debate is trust and confidence in the asylum and immigration system. The Immigration and Asylum Bill, currently in Committee, precisely serves to restore that trust and confidence by ensuring that we can regulate and produce an independent authority that will fast-track asylum applications, and that we can reinterpret components of human rights legislation to make sure that they are fit for the present and not the past.
On that, I must note that the ECHR is not some kind of foreign construct, as some have tried to outline today in this place. It is a British construct. It is a Churchillian construct. It is the fabric of what it means to be British. It is what made my grandfather and my father serve the British and come to this country. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom of religion. It is because of the ECHR that we have freedom from torture. It is because of the ECHR that we are able now to extricate ourselves from things like corporal punishment. And, actually, it is because of the ECHR—we are talking about women’s safety today, and rightly so—that women who are victims of domestic violence are protected from their housing benefit being cut.
I ask hon. Members from both sides of the House to remember that when we have this debate, it has consequences for people from many communities up and down the country. It has consequences for people who are legitimately here, many for generations, and who are caught in the net by people who wish to exploit this debate and question their legitimacy in this country—and often to question the legitimacy of people like me to be in this place. That is something we must never forget.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am afraid that we have further time constraints. Back Benchers are now on four minutes—and, Mr Jopp, I do not wish to hear you speaking from a sedentary position.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
MOD Bicester site A is but a stone’s throw over the Buckinghamshire border into Oxfordshire. While Piddington has captured the headlines, the communities that are concerned and that feel threatened by this proposal, many of which sit in my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire—small villages and hamlets such as Boarstall, Oakley, Brill, Ludgershall, Marsh Gibbon, Long Crendon, Twyford, Charndon, Poundon, Worminghall, Honeyburge and many others—are all walking distance from MOD Bicester site A.
While I have absolute confidence that the real answer to this challenge is the Conservatives’ borders plan, where those who illegally enter the United Kingdom by small boat would be deported within a week, I want to use my time to focus on why the use of MOD Bicester site A simply does not stack up. It is the wrong plan.. It is the wrong site. That goes straight to some of the arguments that the Minister made about cost and location, none of which stack up in reality.
This site has to be built entirely from scratch. There is no accommodation there at the moment. This is an entirely modular build on a site where there is no fresh water supply. There is no ability to take the sewage away by anything other than road. If the Government want to look at environmental concerns, we hear that generators will have to burn some 6,000 litres of diesel a day to provide electricity to this site. There is no grid connection to MOD Bicester site A. It is situated along a busy, fast-moving road but we are told, “It’s okay. Those who are housed there will wear high-vis jackets as the HGVs zoom past them.” It is just not a credible site.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Diesel is obviously very much in the public mind at the moment. Has my hon. Friend seen any sort of impact statement as to what the daily cost of the Bicester site would be, given the increase in diesel prices?
Greg Smith
Indeed, we heard the Minister and Labour Back Benchers trying to say that this will be cheaper than hotels. Let me tell my hon. Friend and the House what the modelling actually says on the cost of MOD Bicester site A as an asylum camp. If that site persists for five years, the cost will work out at £235.34 per night. If it goes for 10 years, it will be £185.17 per night. The comparator for asylum hotels is £144 a night. The use of MOD Bicester site A is intrinsically incredibly more expensive than using hotels, so this does not offer value to the taxpayer as the Government and the Labour party want us to believe. That is an absolute nonsense that we cannot allow to persist.
Of course, from a Government that like to talk about wanting to follow all the rules all the time and so on, they ruled out doing an environmental impact assessment, saying that it was not going to have much of an environmental impact. That is a statutory requirement that anyone wanting to build something should go through. They cannot argue that it will have a minimal environmental impact. There were munition stores on this site, and it is absolutely riddled with asbestos which will be released into the local environment.
The wonderful campaign groups—not least “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.”—have done an incredible amount of work, where they have found rare breeds of bats and newts. I know the Government like to pooh-pooh this, but in reality, the need to pay attention to and do these environmental impact assessments is set down in statute. It is the rules and the law we have, and for the Government to ride roughshod over that is purely unacceptable.
I urge the Government to stop, to look at the cost, the environmental impact and the unsuitability of this site on practical grounds, and to withdraw it immediately so that the communities in my constituency, as well as those of our neighbours in Oxfordshire, can breathe once more and live in the peace that they deserve to live in, free from the fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) set out in her opening speech, and that we can move on and stop this nonsense.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I appreciate your efforts to regulate our debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but might I seek your dispensation to speak for slightly longer than the limit you have imposed, given that my constituents are in the Gallery and the Opposition chose to cite a motion mentioning my constituency, without any reference to me?
The Government want to build in my constituency a portacabin village to house male asylum seekers, not in former military accommodation but in a derelict storage depot at MOD Bicester. That is totally inappropriate—on that point I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). From the moment that the Government published their proposal, with no prior notice, I have opposed it. The scheme is wrong for local communities in my constituency, wrong for asylum seekers, and wrong for the taxpayer. For three and a half months I have worked closely with local campaigners to stop the scheme, raising it here with the Prime Minister, and with the Ministers for Border Security and Asylum, and for Defence Readiness and Industry. We will continue that campaign until the Government see sense.
Allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to welcome my constituents from Piddington to the Gallery today. I hope it will be possible to meet them after the debate. I further welcome this chance to set out what is wrong with the proposal, because Piddington is not an appropriate site in which to house 1,256 people. Back in 2005 when the last Labour Government proposed a scheme there, a planning inspector rejected the proposal to house 750 asylum seekers—men, women and children—on site A, which he said was isolated, unsuitable and unsafe, and that the proposal would create excessive community tensions. All those things are still true today, and they apply even more to a larger site exclusively housing male asylum seekers.
I second the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who laid out the arguments that have been articulated so clearly by campaigners from, among other groups, “Wrong Plan. Wrong Site.” Given the legal challenge presented by that group, will the Government pause their planning application and commit to conducting a full environmental impact assessment of the site before proceeding, as required under their own policies?
I know the area very well. Before entering this House I served as county councillor for the villages of Otmoor. I spent many evenings at Piddington, Arncott and Ambrosden parish councils—I am sure other Members will be jealous of that. Since this proposal, I have visited Piddington many times, meeting members of the campaign group, knocking on the doors of my constituents, and speaking with women and men about their concerns. Local residents are worried that the site would take away stretched local resources, not only water and power, which are scarce, but also health services and policing.
Women and girls in the area have raised concerns with me about their safety. As someone who has spoken repeatedly in this House against violence against women and girls, I understand why they are fearful. As a society we are failing to protect them from predatory men, and when the worst happens, the justice system is not delivering them swift justice. No wonder they lack confidence that they will be kept safe. In that context, any proposal to house over 1,200 men in a new site adjacent to small villages would be a cause for fear and concern. I have spoken with the police and crime commissioner, with Home Office Ministers and with local police leaders about that, and I will continue to seek assurance from Ministers that the Government will provide sufficient additional police resources.
However, let us be clear: the Conservatives and Reform UK are trying to turn this into a race issue. It is not a race issue; it is a man issue. Women and girls are at risk from the behaviour of men, and tragically, nine in 10 assaults are committed by men they know. I will continue to fight for more police and court resources to keep women and girls safe.
Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield, I condemn the Government’s proposal, but I deeply regret that today the Conservatives have sought to link that with their policy on the European Court of Human Rights. We could have united on this issue, as I have sought to do at local level with local Conservative councillors and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, but instead the Conservatives have sought to divide rather than unite. I will continue to work with all those in my local community who oppose this wrong-sited proposal, and to ensure that the Government think again.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The first duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, and nowhere is that duty more important than across our communities and in the protection of women and girls, who have a right to feel safe, and a right to expect the Government to do everything in their power to protect them. Today’s debate is an opportunity to send a clear message that we will not accept policies that put our communities at risk, and that we are prepared to take the difficult decisions necessary to restore control of our borders.
The grooming gang scandal is a national disgrace. Girls, some as young as 11, were raped, abused and trafficked by organised gangs, and when they cried out for help, too often they were ignored, disbelieved or dismissed. Those in positions of authority, whose first responsibility was to protect them, failed them appallingly. We must never allow that to happen again. That means putting victims first, listening to their experiences, and having the courage to confront uncomfortable truths, however difficult they may be.
In July, I raised the case of Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale grooming gang ringleader, directly with the then Foreign Secretary. She agreed that every possible lever should be explored to secure his deportation, yet three months later, he remains in the UK. When the law protects the man who raped a child rather than the child he raped, something is profoundly wrong, and this House must have the power, and the determination, to put that right. Our rights in this country long predate the ECHR. Under our Conservative borders plan, we will leave it, with illegal arrivals removed within a week, every foreign criminal deported, and an end to the cycle of last-minute claims that let dangerous men run down the clock.
What is this Government’s answer? It is to house over 1,200 single men at MOD Bicester, next to Piddington, which is a village of just 350 people, with limited local infrastructure and services. The way these plans have been imposed on a small rural community has left many others fearing that they could be next. In villages such as Audlem in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, residents have raised serious concerns about the future of the old grammar school site. When I asked Ministers whether any site in Audlem had been approved for asylum accommodation, the Government failed to give me a straight answer, and when I asked about the suitability of rural locations, I was told that the Home Office does not even record asylum accommodation according to whether it is in a rural area.
Many of the concerns raised in Piddington are equally relevant to Audlem. Small rural villages simply do not have the infrastructure to accommodate what would realistically be an influx of young men. My constituents deserve clarity. They deserve straight answers about the future of that site, and above all they deserve an immigration system that tackles illegal arrivals in the first place. That means a credible deterrent, and that is delivered by leaving the ECHR. That is why I wholeheartedly support the motion, because whether it is Piddington, Audlem, or communities across the country, people deserve to feel safe in their homes and communities. Above all, we owe it to every woman and girl in this country to do everything in our power to protect them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Our hearts go out to the people of Piddington. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and we of course agree with everything that he says on that.
Perhaps I may share with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my own experience of the unsuitability of large military bases to house migrants. After failed projects for former RAF bases in Lincolnshire, we worked for years to get massive regeneration into RAF Scampton. The whole scheme was ready to go to raise perhaps £300 million of investment. Then I received an invitation from the then Home Secretary, my personal friend, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman). She summoned me into her grand office and she said to me, “All this regeneration is going to vanish, and I am going to put 2,000 migrants in there.” That was right next to hundreds of people who had bought their home next to that site, 100 yards away.
I fought that battle for two years, and the right hon. and learned Lady was followed by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) who, as his enemies might say, was even more ruthless. He was even more determined to put the migrants in. I am now looking at the Minister, and I have to thank this Government, and particularly my personal friend the right hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), because Scampton is only five miles from Lincoln. They realised, following the National Audit Office report and after £64 million had been wasted on trying to convert a hundred buildings, including listed buildings, and a runway on an 800-acre site, that the scheme was rubbish. It was condemned by the NAO as a complete waste of money and we have seen them off, so I thank the Minister for the latest deal that has been announced to try to get a world-class defence company in there.
These large military bases simply do not work for this purpose and they are no deterrent. If someone is in some hell-hole like Eritrea, are they really worried about whether they will end up in Piddington, Scampton or Bicester? Of course not, so as a deterrent it simply does not work. Frankly, it would be better to find some isolated place, to surround it to make it secure and to detain people there in portacabins. The trouble is that we cannot do that, because of the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. That is the problem that we have always faced: we cannot detain these people. There is no deterrent unless we follow the Opposition’s policy to detain people as they land and deport them within a week. For all that we have heard about the ECHR—I am on the Council of Europe—it simply stops us dealing with the problem. The only solution is offshoring. Everybody knows that and nothing else works.
May I end on a positive note? Although we are right to hold the Government to account, they are never going to listen to us about the ECHR, but as I have said, I am on the Council of Europe. Why do we not have a return agreement to countries that are in the Council of Europe but are far distant, such as Armenia, Moldova, Azerbaijan or Serbia? I give this free advice to the Government. No court would ever stop that. Something must be done. This is destroying our political system and it is driving people mad that we cannot control our own borders. The Government must act, and if they do not act, then they will reap the whirlwind.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I had to look twice as I was absolutely certain that it must be a Reform motion, but then I remembered that they do not get Opposition days. The motion is indeed in the name of the Conservative party. For all this “I will never work with Nigel Farage” and so on that we hear from the Conservative leadership, they are now literally indistinguishable from Reform, with their antipathy towards asylum seekers, immigration and human rights now defining these new “Reformatives”.
The Conservatives are responsible for the crisis that we are currently confronting in the asylum system, having created huge, outstanding backlogs from their time in office that required the use of facilities such as those at Bicester. I know very little about the situation in Bicester, so I am not going to comment on the particularities, but when the Government are dealing with asylum seekers, they are absolutely right to try to ensure that there is equity across the whole of the United Kingdom, so that towns and cities like those in my constituency are not left to accommodate the masses of asylum seekers that we currently have. It is right that every constituency must play its part in trying to clear up the mess that was bequeathed by the Conservatives. The last place where this “not in my backyard” principle should apply is when we are dealing with real people’s lives.
There is blanket opposition to accommodation for asylum seekers right across the United Kingdom, and that has been created by the culture, climate and the language that is used just now when we come to describe asylum seekers. Some of the language that I have heard from Members on the Conservative Front Bench and in some of the contributions by Conservative Members is simply appalling: demonising, othering and trying to present whole communities as deviants—sexual deviancy and the rest. I find that absolutely unacceptable. It is no wonder that communities are really upset about the prospect of people coming into their constituencies.
Seamus Logan
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything he says. I note that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), chose not to use the word “illegal”. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is anathema to see the word “illegal” in this motion, because there is no such thing as an illegal migrant?
Pete Wishart
No one in this world is illegal—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Conservative Front Bench as usual. People are fleeing for their lives from situations across the world. They are fleeing from oppression—
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) says they are fleeing from France, but where does he think they have come from? They come from some of the worst war-torn countries. I challenge him to go there and live for six months just to see how he would get on—[Interruption.]
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Look at them! The appalling behaviour from the Conservatives on sensitive issues such as this and the language that they have used today is an absolute and utter disgrace. No wonder communities up and down this country are concerned about their very safety, given the language that these Conservatives use.
The issue that most concerns me is the Conservative proposal to leave the ECHR. That would send a deeply troubling message to communities across the country and to our partners internationally. It would deprive our citizens of valued and essential human rights and diminish our very sense of ourselves. The new Reform and Tory hostility towards human rights is well established. Their disdain for international co-operation and consensus is now a defining characteristic. Yet the fact that they would drag us out of the ECHR tells us something reassuring about the ECHR, because when the likes of the new right Tories and Reform want to do that, that shows that the ECHR is doing its job properly and defending us from the likes of them. That tells us why we actually need it. Let us remind ourselves of the company we would keep if we were to leave the ECHR: Russia and Belarus—bastions of human rights and freedoms. Let us remind ourselves about this document.
The ECHR was born from the ashes of the second world war, when the horrors of the Holocaust still cast a shadow over the world. The UK was at the heart of its creation. It was Winston Churchill, a giant of a Prime Minister—a Conservative Prime Minister—who was the designer and who ensured that we got it in place.
Leaving the ECHR, as the Conservatives suggest, would do absolutely nothing to stop the boats coming to the UK, as it would do absolutely nothing to end irregular immigration. However, what it would do is put a huge statement to the rest of the world that Britain is closing down, does not value international co-operation and has become more insular. I loathe the idea of a world that is going to be run under that type of culture and language under a Conservative-Reform coalition.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
A friend of mine recently told me about her mother, who is British born but is a person of colour, who now feels unsafe on the streets of Britain. Does the hon. Member agree that despicable rhetoric like this contributes to making certain individuals feel unsafe?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. Whole communities across the United Kingdom are now concerned about their safety. They are very anxious about the type of culture that is evolving and developing in every constituency and community. They are right to be concerned, because I hear it in my constituency myself.
On the subject of the small boats, the truth is that there are more National Lottery millionaires each year than there are foreign nationals who have won human rights appeals due to the ECHR in the United Kingdom. If the ECHR were removed, it would deprive us in Scotland of our basic fundamentals in the Scottish Parliament, which is that every part of our legislation has to be ECHR-compliant. It is not just the devolution process in Northern Ireland that will be compromised; it will be my Parliament and our democracy in Scotland, which the Conservatives care not a jot about, and they would pursue our leaving the ECHR without giving it a second thought.
For all of these reasons, this is a thoroughly bad motion—an abhorrent motion—and I despair of the language that has been used. I hope when the Conservatives sum up we will hear a little bit more about decency and the common values that we could all buy into, but I doubt that very much—
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
We all understand that the protection of women and girls is a matter that transcends party politics. Today’s debate is not about point scoring, but it is an important conversation that we need to have. The current direction of this Government’s immigration policy is harming our women and girls. In communities across the country, those who are most vulnerable are put at risk by hordes of single men who do not understand basic human rights, including the right not to be raped. Why are we allowing individuals into our country who do not have the capacity to function as part of British society?
Small boat crossings surged by 50% between the 2024 general election and the end of 2025, reaching nearly 65,000 people. I know that Government Members will have their fair share of statistics to deploy in this debate, but we must focus on the situation right now and how to address it. The impact of that vast influx is felt right now by teenage girls who are too scared to walk to school alone, and by young women who are filled with fear when travelling home after an evening with friends. That fear is felt by our mothers, sisters, daughters and friends. I have felt that fear myself. Promises from those on the Government Benches to smash the gangs are hollow and empty. The Prime Minister is enjoying his new-found rhetoric of hope, but I encourage him and his ministerial colleagues to visit communities such as Piddington and Crowborough and see the reality that confronts the women and girls there.
Let us not make the mistake of thinking that we do not have a choice in this matter. In the first instance, I suggest to Government Members that a rural village of 350 people is not a suitable site for more than 1,000 single men. Beyond that, we in this House have the power to make policy decisions that will protect our women and girls. Our Conservative borders plan details just some of the measures that we could take to tackle illegal immigration, including leaving the ECHR and repealing the Human Rights Act, removing it from all immigration-related matters.
As it stands, the ECHR is a barrier to common sense. Why are Government Members so resolutely committed to remaining part of a treaty that prevents the deportation of foreign rapists and paedophiles? Lord Wolfson’s review confirmed that the UK Government are significantly constrained by ECHR membership. As long as we remain bound by these foreign court regulations, we cannot carry out the core duties that we owe to the British people. Any notion that we would lose fundamental rights upon leaving the ECHR is simply false. Advanced democracies such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand function effectively without the constraints of the convention, and it is naive to believe that the birthplace of parliamentary democracy cannot do the very same.
I agree that our country has been built on legal immigration, but we must be crystal clear that the doctors, nurses, builders, engineers and teachers who come here to contribute to our country and strengthen our economy are not the same as single men sitting in asylum camps and living off taxpayer money. My constituency is a testament to that distinction. It is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country and one of the most entrepreneurial, with more than 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises driving Leicester’s economy. Making that distinction is crucial. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration undermines everyone who seeks to come here legally—those who want to integrate and spend thousands of pounds on visa applications and work tirelessly to build a better life for their families. That is who we as a Conservative party stand up for.
In closing, I encourage Members of this House to talk to women who now fear leaving their homes. They should listen to their fathers, brothers and husbands and hear how little hope they feel under this Government’s plans. They should go to Crowborough and see how the Home Office’s occupation of the training camp there is bringing hope to residents in Wealden. When we force more than 1,000—
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Although the MOD Bicester site is outside my constituency, it is approximately 11 km from my nearest settlement. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 1 September on behalf of not only female constituents, but Piddington women, who I am so pleased to see in the Gallery today. They contacted me to express their concerns for their safety, and I reiterate that the guidance entitled “Understanding behaviour and expectations in the UK” reinforces their concerns.
I have a migrant hotel in my constituency, and we know the issues that come from having migrants in the area. One big question is what they will do with their time. Rural crime is already an issue, and they could be exploited by existing criminal gangs. I ask the Minister: why have stab vests been issued to security staff working at the base in the last month, when they have never been needed before? The site was deemed unsuitable for an open accommodation centre by the Planning Inspectorate and the local authority more than 20 years ago, and little has changed since then. In the early 2000s, the High Court ruled that no more than 750 people could live there, but now the figure is 1,250. The Home Office argues that not using hotels is ensuring the “better use of public money”, but these large accommodation sites could cost £46 million more, according to the National Audit Office.
All that could be avoided if only the Government would take a robust approach to our asylum system, which means reviewing our position on the ECHR. As Lord Wolfson’s excellent report highlights, the ECHR places significant legal constraints on the Government’s ability to address issues such as immigration. Other countries across Europe are reconsidering their relationship with the ECHR in the light of immigration issues—countries such as Belgium, Italy, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and Austria. We are not alone.
Sarah Bool
I will make progress, because we are very close to the end of the debate.
Max Wilkinson
Can the hon. Lady tell us which of those countries are considering leaving the ECHR?
Sarah Bool
All those countries have looked at reforming the ECHR.
The European Court of Human Rights has expanded the interpretation of human rights. For as long as the Court regards the ECHR as a living instrument such that its decisions—and, in consequence, the decisions of domestic courts—are not constrained by the actual wording of the ECHR, we will have problems.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The growth in population in this country has been fuelled by mass migration. When I was a boy, the population was regularly cited as being about 57 million or 58 million people; the ONS now estimates that by 2035, the figure is likely to be 72.5 million people. Leaving aside the pressure that that places on public services and the economic damage it does, the truth is that the character of our country is being changed beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly the British people resist and resent that change, which has happened without their consent.
Ministers know that there is a cultural problem. In August, the Home Office published a book for newly arrived asylum seekers that said:
“If you have sex with someone”
who does not want to,
“this is called rape. Rape is a serious crime”.
The fact that the Government believed that those arriving were so primitive that they did not know that is extraordinary, but the truth suggests that they were right. There have been numerous cases.
Just this week—I am not going to get the pronunciations right—we saw the sentencing of Hossein Mohmoudi, a 36-year-old Iranian man who came to Britain. He was convicted of raping a 43-year-old woman and has been sentenced to 11 years in jail. Karin Al-Danasurt came to Britain on a small boat after fleeing Egypt, where he had been convicted of a murder. In the UK, he has been convicted of gang-raping a woman on Brighton beach. There is the Turkish asylum seeker convicted in Stafford Crown court in January for raping an 18-year-old girl. There is case after case of those coming here without our values, with no loyalty to Britain, no intention of making a positive contribution to this country, and committing serious and violent crimes, very often against women and girls.
We are now in a position where one in eight prisoners is a foreign national offender, with a total of more than 10,700 foreign nationals in our prisons. A large contingent come from Albania, whose countrymen make up 10% of foreign nationals in jail. The number of foreign nationals in UK prisons for drug offences makes up 20% of all offenders. The number of foreign sex offenders in prisons went up by 10% last year. Analysis from the Ministry of Justice last year confirmed that foreigners are convicted of up to 23% of all sex crimes. We hear from the Liberal Democrats that this issue is not about race, but it is certainly about culture.
Sir Julian Lewis
My right hon. Friend will have noticed that some Liberal Democrat Members seem to think that there is no such thing as a bogus or illegal asylum seeker, but recently there have been a number of attempted terrorist attacks, including one against a Manchester synagogue, which was fortunately foiled, but which was planned to be carried out by people who came in illegally on small boats. Are we to wait for an atrocity to occur before the appropriate remedial measures will be taken?
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend—a former chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I am proud to serve—will know that this is a national security issue, as well as an issue of profound concern to our constituents. The Government should see it through that prism as well as through a number of others.
It is certain that there is a cultural mismatch between these people’s understanding of what is right, good, just and decent, and the understanding of the British people. Very often, their way of life is simply not compatible with ours. Foreign nationals are 71% more likely than Britons to be responsible for a sex crime conviction. The rates based on convictions per 10,000 of population put Afghans, with 77 convictions, at the top with a rate of 59 per 10,000, 22.3 times greater than that of Britons. This is a cultural crisis. We are admitting people to this country who do not share our values and, frankly, do not really want to share our values, so the Government need to get real and do so quickly.
There is a huge gulf here. There is the assumption of the liberal establishment, who believe in cultural equivalence, that there is no such thing as western civilisation. We heard from the Liberal Democrats’ Front Bench, with an extraordinary paucity of understanding, that human rights began in 1947. They have never heard of the English common law, it would seem. They do not know about habeas corpus. They do not understand that free and fair elections existed long before the ECHR, or indeed that the lawful entitlements we call rights did not originate with that document.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Nor will you give way to a Member who has just come into the Chamber.
Sir John Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
This is an urgent matter, because the failure of successive Governments to deal with it has created a belief among the population that Governments do not care and Parliament does not understand. Until we address that, we will undermine the very character of our democracy.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
No case more powerfully illustrates the gravity of this matter than that of Rhiannon Whyte. I met Rhiannon’s mum Siobhan a few weeks ago and heard her story. Rhiannon was 27 years old. She worked in an asylum hotel, and one night after leaving work, she was followed by a Sudanese illegal immigrant who entered the country by small boat in late July 2024. This man murdered Rhiannon by stabbing her 23 times. He left her for dead on a station platform, and was later filmed laughing about it.
This terrible crime is by no means isolated. Many other illegal small boat migrants living in asylum accommodation have committed terrible offences against women and girls. A 31-year-old woman on a Brighton beach was gang-raped by two Iranians and an Egyptian who entered the country by small boat. A 12-year-old girl was abducted and raped by an Afghan illegal immigrant. A woman was abducted and raped by an Egyptian asylum seeker—again, an illegal immigrant—in Hyde Park, barely a mile from where we now stand. It turns out that that man also had criminal convictions for Islamist terrorism in Egypt. An Ethiopian illegal immigrant sexually assaulted a young teenage girl in Epping. Two Iranian nationals—again, illegal immigrants who entered the country by small boat—have now been charged with preparing terror attacks against Manchester’s Jewish community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not talk about cases where people have just been charged or have not been sentenced, because it is sub judice. I ask the shadow Home Secretary to be incredibly careful with the words he uses in his closing speech.
Chris Philp
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact that they have been charged is a matter of public record; I will not say anything beyond that.
In another case, an illegal small boat migrant who entered the country is fighting extradition back to Germany, where he is wanted for rape. He is also linked to ISIS. In case after case—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. If somebody is fighting a case, it is still a live case. Can I ask the shadow Home Secretary to revisit his words before he speaks them out loud in the Chamber?
Chris Philp
I am repeating what has been publicly reported today, but I will of course take account of your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In case after case, we have seen women and girls attacked by illegal small boat migrants. The data, I am afraid, is very clear: two of the three most predominant nationalities are Afghan and Eritrean. The data that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) referred to—data produced using freedom of information requests to the Ministry of Justice—shows that Afghan males are 22 times more likely than average to commit sex assaults, and for Eritrean men, the number is similar. That, of course, is why just a few weeks ago, the Government felt it necessary to produce a leaflet asking these illegal migrants to kindly not rape women and girls. The Government themselves know it is a problem, which is why they produced those leaflets. It is why mothers and grandmothers in Piddington are so concerned about the safety of their daughters and granddaughters. It is why parents in Crowborough are so concerned as well, because these threats are real, these crimes have happened, and these convictions have taken place.
The data is clear. What my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings says is true: these men come from cultures that are alien to ours, where women are not respected. This is an immigration crisis, a border security crisis, a public safety crisis, and a crisis for women and girls. The Government are allowing 92% of small boat migrants to stay; only 8% have been deported. Yes, there are slightly fewer asylum hotels, but only because the Government are moving the illegal immigrants into flats instead—they are up by 12% since the election.
To save places such as Piddington, Crowborough, Linton-on-Ouse and Wethersfield and towns and villages up and down the country, the solution is not, as the Prime Minister said, to distribute illegal immigrants equitably across the country. It is instead to deport people who enter our country illegally, and to do so within a week of their arrival. If we did so, we would need no accommodation anywhere, whether in flats, hotels or military sites, because we would not be accommodating illegal immigrants at all. It would also deter the crossings. If the people who are leaving France—which, by the way, is a safe country; nobody needs to flee war in France—knew that they would be rapidly deported, either to their country of origin or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, the crossings would soon stop. When Australia did something similar in September 2013, its illegal maritime crossings, which had been running at levels similar to ours, stopped within about three months. It is a solution, if only the Government would grasp it.
To do that, though, it is necessary to leave the ECHR. What started in 1950 as a very well-intentioned piece of human rights legislation has subsequently been stretched and distorted beyond all recognition. Clauses that were originally intended to prevent the horrors of the second world war are now expansively interpreted to mean that rapists cannot be sent back to their country of origin because of their supposed family rights. Under article 3, which is unqualified and cannot be amended in domestic legislation, a Zimbabwean rapist was not sent back to Zimbabwe because he might face hostility there. An Iraqi drug dealer was not sent back to Iraq because he had apparently become too westernised. What started off as a sensible set of protections has been stretched beyond recognition—beyond anything common sense would recognise—and it is preventing successive Governments, the last Government as much as this one, from deporting people who cannot be here. That is why there are 21,000 serious foreign criminals still in this country. It is why the Home Office knows of 412,000 people with no right to be here who cannot be deported.
Leaving the ECHR is a necessary, but not sufficient, step. We need to do it in order to control our borders, but on its own, it is not enough. We would also have to amend domestic legislation—for example, to ban asylum claims by illegal immigrants, abolish the immigration tribunal and immigration legal aid, restrict judicial review of immigration matters to all but the narrowest grounds, and end modern slavery claims being used as a basis to oppose deportation. All of these measures would need to be taken as well as leaving the ECHR, but without leaving the ECHR none of those measures is possible.
Chris Philp
I am just going to just finish. I know that Ministers are trying hard with their Bill, but they are essentially tinkering at the edges. That was tried by the last Government and to be honest it did not work, because these legal structures prevent robust action to defend our borders.
Before concluding, I will just say that were we to leave the ECHR, which I fervently believe we must do to save places like Piddington, to protect our women and girls and to protect our borders, we would not be returning to the dark ages. Rights existed in this country long before the 1998 Human Rights Act and long before the 1950 convention was entered into. Common-law jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada have perfectly respectable human rights records without needing to rely on the ECHR. Indeed, this Parliament can legislate to protect human rights in whatever manner it sees fit.
What is true is that we cannot protect our borders and we cannot deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals while we are inside the ECHR. If we are serious about border protection and protecting Piddington, Crowborough and other similar places up and down this country, we need to take that necessary step. We must leave the ECHR, reform our domestic laws and restore border control to this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
This has been an important debate on one of the defining challenges of our time. Our constituents rightly expect immigration to be fair, controlled and free from abuse. For too long, it has been none of those. When this Government entered office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos, with criminal gangs deciding who could come to this country and hundreds of hotels being used to house vast numbers of illegal immigrants at immense cost to the public. It was unfair to the genuine refugees left waiting more than a year to have their case heard and unfair to the British people being asked to shoulder an ever-increasing burden in their taxes and their communities.
From day one, we began the hard work of fixing our asylum system and restoring order and control to our borders. The statistics show that we are making progress. Asylum decision making is up and returns are up, while small boat arrivals are down, and we remain on track to end the use of asylum hotels in this Parliament, although we know there is a long way to go. That is why we continue to work relentlessly at home and abroad to tackle the people smugglers who value profit above human life and to remove those who have no right to be here.
At the same time, we are ensuring that asylum seekers are housed in the fairest, most cost-effective way. We have seen the stress and strains of hotel usage. We are ending that scandal and we are moving asylum seekers to more appropriate accommodation. Former military bases, which are secure and contained, provide one of the best solutions. They allow us to minimise the impact on the local community with services brought on-site, 24/7 security and CCTV. We will always listen to concerns and work with the community, but existing sites, including Wethersfield, have operated for years with no evidence of any significant increase in criminality attributed to their operation.
We do not need to leave the ECHR to restore order to our immigration system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
No, I will not give way.
Winston Churchill proposed the establishment of the European convention on human rights at the 1948 Congress of Europe, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. It came from Churchill’s experience of dealing with the Nazis before and during the second world war. Some 13 million people were murdered, unprotected. The European convention on human rights defines what we mean by never again. How those rights are interpreted and applied is important, and that is why the Home Secretary committed last year to oversee reforms to bring the ECHR into the modern age.
The ECHR includes freedom of assembly, freedom to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the right to life, including the right not to be murdered in your own state. That is what the Nazis did and that is where the ECHR comes from. These principles remain essential. Which two countries have chosen to stay out? Russia and Belarus. Perhaps we should ask opposition leaders in Russia and Belarus about that. They have been falsely imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the state. That is what we are talking about. By leaving the ECHR, we would throw away protections against show trials and political persecution. We will not hand over our freedoms to the whims of tyrants and dictators.
Jo White
No, I will not. Sit down.
Instead, we stand with Churchill. We will build a fair, controlled immigration system that is free from abuse. We will focus on matters abut which people are rightly concerned.
The issue is not the existence of the convention, but the way in which it has been applied over time. We do not fix a fault by walking away; we sort it out by restoring the right balance and ensuring that the system works as intended. That is why all 46 members of the ECHR adopted the Chiinău political declaration in May, creating solid foundations for reform. The Government are now translating that into practical change, and we will see reform of the domestic application of article 8, restoring the proper balance between maintaining individual rights and protecting the public interest. This is a binary choice: reform the ECHR and have greater control over our borders, or leave and lose our ability to return illegal migrants or foreign criminals. I choose the powers that the ECHR gives us, which protects all our individual rights and freedoms. It also provides us with responsibilities, and when people have been subjected to torture or the risk of torture, we have rightly provided them with a place of security and safety.
I now come to some of the points made by hon. Members. [Interruption.] I respond appropriately to Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) wanted a timeline for the closing down of hotels in places such as Falkirk which were approved by the Tories when they were in power. The ambition is to end hotel use by the end of this parliamentary term. The number has fallen from 400 when we came into power to fewer than 160, and I will celebrate with my hon. Friend when we are in a position to close down the remaining hotel in his constituency.
In response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), the introduction of electronic travel authorisations at the borders and ports and the use of visa penalties have given us much greater control over our borders. Disincentivising crossings through the introduction of new, strong control methods, including those employed by Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working and introducing safe and legal routes for genuine asylum cases from some of the most dangerous countries in the world has also given us more power over our borders. The change in the way in which the ECHR is applied is critical to bringing back order and control.
This Government share the concern on women’s safety, and I acknowledge the concerns of the women who are here today. No woman should live a smaller life, and this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within this decade. Ours is a cross-Government response, and we will work as hard as we can to achieve that aim. Home Office representatives have met the chief executive and the leader of Cherwell district council to discuss cohesion challenges linked to people’s concerns about the site, and they are listening to the concerns raised by women.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jo White
This is an imperative for the Home Office. The proposal contained in the planning application includes on-site 24/7 security and CCTV. We have already introduced those measures on other large sites such as Wethersfield, which has operated in that way for years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) identified, safeguarding for the local community is an imperative. It is important and drives the management of the site. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) raised concerns about the planning process. It already includes an environmental impact assessment.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Jo White
The hon. Gentleman has only just walked in.
There were no objections from Natural England. The final cost of the site will only be known following the outcome of the procurement process.
Concerns were raised about article 3. The Government accept that there will be genuinely exceptional medical healthcare cases in which article 3 prevents removal, but they must be exceptional. Article 3 was never intended to guarantee—
Jo White
Cases are inherently fact-sensitive and must always be assessed on their individual circumstances. It is absolutely not for me to say in this House.
Following the recent political declaration on article 3, we are working to secure stronger instant decisions, better prepared litigation and more consistent application of article 3. Further operational policy or legislative reform remain available where persistent barriers are identified.
I say in response to the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) that she was in the Home Office when she approved large sites, including the one that was proposed for RAF Scampton. She knows that in-house services, 24/7 CCTV and security provide a greater level of protection for communities.
This country is proud to offer sanctuary to those fleeing conflict or persecution. It is the right thing to do, and it is a fundamental part of who we are, but that generosity depends on the support of the British public. They must believe that our asylum system is fair. For that, it must be capped and controlled, with decisions and appeals that are fast and fair, and those with no right to be here must be promptly removed. That is the imperative behind every decision this Government take. We are restoring order to our borders. We are making our asylum system faster and fairer, and in doing so, we will ensure that this country can continue to provide protection to those in need—today and for generations to come.
Question put.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft ACAS Code of Practice on Time Off for Trade Union Duties and Activities, the Ayes were 328, the Noes were 114, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Code of Practice on the Right of Trade Unions to Access Workplaces, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
On the draft Trade Unions (Right to Access Workplaces) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 326, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
On the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (Calculation of CBAM Rate and Determination of Carbon Price Relief) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 319, the Noes were 115, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]