Immigration

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I want to start by being very clear about what I believe and what I know my constituents in Hartlepool believe. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is far too high. There is nothing right wing or indeed racist about being worried about immigration and its effect on our communities. We as a party and as a Government will absolutely be judged on our ability to solve this problem over the coming years. I know that the Minister agrees with this wholeheartedly, and we will stand by it. We will be judged on our ability to solve this problem.

The Conservative motion before us feels rather like the arsonist turning up and complaining that we have not yet put out the fire. It is a motion that I am sure the Reform party will support, if any of its Members can be bothered to turn up, given its entirely vacuous nature and total absence of any policy solutions.

I want to talk briefly about legal migration, because that hugely exercises me and many of my constituents.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Brash]

I will give way in a moment. The last Conservative Government put construction workers on their points-based immigration system. They wanted to import construction workers—the people we need to rebuild this country—while my further education college that trains local Hartlepudlians in construction skills had its funding cut by 10%. That is nothing short of economic vandalism—vandalism that for far too long threw my constituents on the scrap heap. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member just referred to the Government as equivalent to the fire brigade turning up to put out a fire. Given the Government’s track record since coming into office, does he agree that it would be fair to say that they brought petroleum to put out the fire, not water?

[Mr Brash]

Again, after 14 years, the Conservatives turn up demanding to know why nobody has done anything about the issue in 10 months. Frankly, it is hypocrisy of the highest level.

I turn to the comments made about the Conservatives’ much-touted Rwanda scheme and illegal migration. Time and again we hear the same tired lines—“It was just about to work”, “If only we’d had a little longer, it would have solved all the problems of the small boats.” Well, they had the time. They chose to call the early general election; they could have waited. If they had truly believed in the scheme—this totemic flagship of theirs—they would have backed themselves, but they did not, because they knew it was a busted flush. They knew it was going to fail, and they rushed to the country before that failure could be fully exposed.

How did we get to this point in the small boats crisis, which is central to a lot of what we are talking about? There were no small boat arrivals recorded before 2018. Why? It was because at that time the UK had a returns agreement with the EU—anyone making that dangerous crossing could be returned—but the Conservative Brexit deal did not have a returns agreement in it. The same Brexit deal championed by Reform is the reason for the numbers we are seeing. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place, championed that deal and now uses the numbers it caused as a weaponised political choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It does not matter how many times the Prime Minister repeats and repeats his vacuous election slogan of “smash the gangs”, there is no plan to do it, it is not happening and nobody out there believes him. The Government had an opportunity when they came to office. The Rwanda scheme was on the brink of becoming operational, which would have given them one of the most robust deterrents in Europe. As we saw in Australia, when a scheme similar to Rwanda was set up in the Pacific, it only had to deport the first few thousand and it had the impact of largely stopping the boats arriving—but in a callous, irresponsible and purely political move, Labour cancelled the Rwanda scheme. It is a political calculation that the Government have got entirely wrong, as without a deterrent everything else they announce or say is just words.

The Government have had nearly a year to show us they had more up their sleeve on immigration than buzzwords and crocodile-tear outrage about the scheme—so, how is that going? Since the election, almost 36,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel, a 30% increase on the same period 12 months prior. To date, 2025 has been the worst ever year for small boat crossings, with around 12,000 arrivals. That surge in numbers has led to Labour already breaking its manifesto promise to end the use of asylum hotels. Figures show that on 31 December 2024, there were 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when the Conservatives left office.

The Government have been clutching at straws for good news. They started off by holding a press conference to celebrate the arrest of one member of just one gang—out of the thousands of criminals involved in the illegal immigration trade—to show they were smashing the gangs. If that was not enough of a laughable spectacle in its own right, the investigation had mainly been undertaken before they came to office and such arrests are a matter of course anyway. More recently, they have switched to triumphantly claiming 24,000 deportations. Time and again, even at Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister has refused to outline how many of those are just routine and voluntary removals, rather than enforced deportations of people who have illegally crossed the channel.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Snowden]

I will give way to the hon. Member from Lancashire.

[Oliver Ryan]

I thank the hon. Member. Speaking of voluntary removals and laughable schemes, does he accept that the four people his Government sent to Rwanda were in fact volunteers, and that the whole scheme was laughable and hideously expensive?

[Mr Snowden]

It did not start. The scheme was not even operational. That is like buying a car, waiting until it gets to the showroom and then claiming that only the showroom manager is driving it, so it is not worth the money. It is a ridiculous thing to say.

We hear vacuous slogans, empty words—quite apt—cooked up stats and a Prime Minister unable to answer the most basic of questions; he is now not only reduced to begging other countries to give him options to provide a safe country to deport to, but he is publicly getting slapped down by the leaders he is asking. The return hubs he is now so desperately trying to set up are only a watered-down version of the Rwanda scheme. Even more worryingly, not only have they shot themselves in the foot by cancelling Rwanda; in launching their new border security Bill, they have not realised that without a deterrent it is all just words.

[Mr Brash]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can address the point I made in my speech. Repeatedly, Conservative Members, including him, have said, “If we had only waited a little bit longer, Rwanda would have worked.” Why do you think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) called the general election—

[Mr Brash]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Why does the hon. Member think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton called the general election when he did, when he was apparently so close to the Rwanda scheme working?

[Mr Snowden]

The hon. Member would have to ask my right hon. Friend.

The only tangible elements of the Bill are: a Border Security Commander with no powers other than writing a report and setting some objectives; and new powers to confiscate phones from people who arrive illegally, missing the fact that most of the them discard their phones to hide their identity anyway. Notably, the Bill repeals lots of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, lifting the requirement for the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally and allowing illegal migrants a path to citizenship.

Let us be clear: there should be no route to citizenship for anyone who arrives in this country illegally. France is a safe country, and to get to France—let alone the UK—people will have had to pass through many other safe countries. Everyone who arrives in small boats across the channel or in lorries from the continent is arriving from a safe country and should therefore qualify for immediate deportation. These are not asylum claims; it is illegal immigration.

As much as I would like to take up all the time in this debate—and more—talking about the ludicrously weak and counterproductive policies of this Government, by the time I finished, many more small boats would have crossed the channel. I would rather spare the Minister the time, and hope the Government spend it instead correcting some of their mistakes.

We have outlined some provisions in our Bill that would help, including: disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters; a requirement to deport all foreign criminals regardless of human rights claims; the introduction of a scientific age assessment technique when an illegal immigrant is trying to pretend they are over 18; a requirement to impose visa sanctions on countries that do not take back their own citizens; and increasing the period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10.

I live in hope, though—for the sake of our national security, the confidence of the British public in our immigration system, and to reduce the strain on our public services—that the Prime Minister picks up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda, apologises for the disrespectful way he treated their country and begs to get the deal back on the table. However, I think it will take a few more years of repeating empty slogans, dodging difficult questions, and holding press conferences every time there is an arrest of a single person out of the thousands involved in the illegal immigration trade, before the Prime Minister realises that instead of smashing the gangs, he is making everything worse, and that it is time to pick up the phone to Rwanda again.

Prevent: Learning Review

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation of Sir David and his work ethic. I also take this opportunity to join him in paying tribute to those brave police officers who step forward under the most exceptionally difficult circumstances for the service they perform. I thank my hon. Friend for his service, too.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I remember the day Sir David Amess was tragically murdered very well. I was serving as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner at the time, and I remember having initial conversations with serving Members of this House, including the former Member for Hyndburn, Sara Britcliffe, who, along with her dad, had been lifelong friends of Sir David. I learned an awful lot about the sort of man he was and how much he meant to people in Parliament from the reactions of the Members I spoke to that day.

I will turn to the Minister’s statement. The reviewer identified six issues. I will not read them all out in full, obviously, but they include not tackling all the vulnerabilities identified, problematic record keeping, the rationale for certain decisions not being explicit, responsibilities between police and local authorities being blurred, the tools used for identifying the individual’s vulnerability to radicalisation being outdated, and so on. These words and phrases could have been taken from the statement about the tragic incident in Southport—something else that is incredibly important to us, as a fellow north-west MP—but they could also have been taken from many inquiries, reviews and statements over many years on similar cases.

The shadow Home Secretary’s point about the differential between the number of murders that have Islamist terrorism at their heart being over 90%, while only 13% of the casework is linked to Islamist ideologies, was also quite stark. For me, the issues here are around process—the quality of following process and quality of work—and the interlinking between different public services, but also around culture and how our public services in different ways have danced around the issue of Islamist extremism, and whether Prevent has delivered in identifying the threat and effectively dealing with it. I echo the suggestion that it is time to take a step back from all the individual reviews, inquiries and statements and take a look at the bigger picture.

I am not going to press the Minister for a specific answer right now; in line with the tone all Members have taken this afternoon, I do not think this is the time for point scoring or trying to secure individual commitments at the Dispatch Box. I would just like to ask the Minister, as he goes forward, looking at this issue, Southport and others, to step back and ask whether Prevent is serving its intended purpose and offering value for money, whether it is keeping the public safe from terrorism, and whether it is time to take a broader, more strategic look, rather than a case-by-case look.

[Dan Jarvis]

As a former police and crime commissioner, the hon. Gentleman brings a weight of experience to the House that we appreciate hugely. He is right that the learning review identifies a number of points that cannot just sit on a shelf; they have to be actioned. We have to ensure that the processes that are in place are as effective as they possibly can be. I agree with him on the disparity between the number of Islamist attacks and the number of Prevent referrals; I will repeat my earlier point that there was a 17% increase in those specific referrals in the year ending 31 March 2024, but I agree with his analysis. He makes some important points.

What I can say to him is that there are a number of measures—including measures I have referenced today, as well as others in my Southport statement last week—that I think will go a significant way towards addressing the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has rightly raised. I will have to ensure that the House has confidence on that. He made a particularly interesting point at the conclusion of his remarks about stepping back and taking a strategic look at whether the processes and resources that are in place are appropriate. I will do that. I will also work very closely with Lord Anderson, who will bring a huge amount of analysis and value in this area. I very much welcome the opportunity to work with him, and with all Members, including the hon. Gentleman, as we accept this as a shared endeavour to ensure that these attacks never happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes an important point; I can tell him that we have already provided Met Police with an initial £30 million this year to fund the police pay increase that was not funded by the previous Conservative Government. We are also supporting neighbourhood policing right across the country and much stronger action, not just on shop theft, but on assaults against shop workers—a truly disgraceful crime.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

As a former police and crime commissioner for Lancashire, I worked very closely with the last Government on Operation Centurion, which was about really focusing in on antisocial behaviour through more visible patrols and better partnership working. We know that a lot of antisocial behaviour is egged on by a very small minority, and some of the most serious crimes related to antisocial behaviour are driven by that small minority. Without restricting freedoms, banning orders do not work and engagement with youth offending teams does not work, because they are all voluntary. What measures do the Government intend to bring in as part of their new zero tolerance zones that will be different from what currently exists, to make it really zero tolerance?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member is right that sometimes it is a small minority who are making life a total nightmare for everyone else. The current antisocial behaviour injunctions just are not strong enough, because very often they do not come with a power of arrest. That is why we are introducing respect orders, which mean that repeat perpetrators can be banned from town centres. They will have a power of arrest so that swift action can be taken if they are breached.

Small Boat Crossings

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Yes, but the House has to have patience. There are no magic wands to wave in this policy area, and there are no fantasy policies now that we have got rid of the Rwanda scheme. There is hard, day-to-day operational work to try to get the system that we inherited—which is in complete chaos, with huge backlogs—back into some kind of order, so that we can run it properly, fairly and efficiently. That is what we are focusing on.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I recently listened to an interview with a retired former inspector of borders and immigration, who was responding to the Government’s announcements. He outlined his concerns about the impact of the measures on their own, without an effective deterrent, and about how the Government will measure their success—the percentage or volume by which they want to see small boat crossings reduced after the announcements. What percentage reduction in small boat crossings would the Government view as success?

Immigration and Home Affairs

Andrew Snowden Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

It is truly an honour to rise as the new Member for Fylde to give my maiden speech in this historic House, the global seat of democracy for centuries before us. I have chosen to make my maiden speech today because, having served as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner until May this year, it felt incredibly poignant to speak in the home affairs debate. It gives me the opportunity to thank the police officers and staff I worked with for their bravery, their sacrifice and their service.

During my term of office, I was truly inspired by so many people at Lancashire Constabulary. I threw myself into a job I loved, spending as much time on the frontline as I could. I learned the most about policing when there were no cameras around, sat in the back of carriers on the way to drug raids, walking the beat on a cold, wet evening, or taking part in training side by side with officers. They seemed to make the most of the commissioner being there with them, not sparing me the newbie treatment just because of who I was. I have been set on fire twice, had drainpipes sawn off my arms and, despite doing all the videos people would expect from a politician, the most-watched video from my whole term of office was the one in which I got bitten by three different police dogs. With hindsight, given that the public appeared to enjoy the video of me getting bitten by dogs more than the ones about my budget, I suppose I should have seen my election defeat coming in that particular election.

In all sincerity, though, I place firmly and proudly on the record my gratitude to everyone I have worked with at Lancashire Constabulary and in the office of commissioner. As this House debates the future policy and funding of policing in the UK, we should never forget those at the heart of it, on the frontline, working and making sacrifices to keep us safe every day.

I am able to give this maiden speech today only because the people of Fylde have given me the honour of serving as their Member of Parliament, and it truly is an honour. Being elected to represent an area where my family connections go back before I was even born, that we as a family love, and where my two-year-old son Walter will grow up and call home, is an incredibly special and humbling moment.

Fylde is a proud and beautiful area, steeped in the history of Lancashire and our country, nestled on stunning coastline with many towns and villages across the countryside, each with their own history. Might I add that it is also an area that we intend to fight to keep green and beautiful for generations to come?

Fylde is far more than coastline, countryside and being part of our county’s history. Some of the most advanced technology in the world is being developed and built here. In fact, often when out near Warton and Freckleton we can hear the jet fighters taking off from the site where they are constructed. While I was out on the election battlefield, campaigning every day, it felt strangely reassuring to hear the incredible noise as the fighter jets powered overhead—to be honest, I needed all the back-up I could get in the battle to keep Fylde blue this time.

From the defence sector to farming and agriculture, tourism and hospitality, the care sector and others, there is a strong local economy. However, to build on that, to create more opportunities for young people and to better connect our businesses and those seeking opportunities across Lancashire and beyond, we need to improve infrastructure and public transport. I am grateful to the work that my predecessor as the Member for Fylde did to secure millions in extra funding. Working with the Government, local councils and other partners, he was critical in securing the £27 million that enabled the M55 to Heyhouses link road to be constructed, and it has recently been opened.

A few months earlier, the £150 million Windy Harbour to Skippool bypass opened, an important link road for the people across Poulton-le-Fylde. The boundary review brought this historic market town of Poulton in Wyre to the constituency of Fylde. I therefore also place on the record my thanks to the former Member for Wyre and Preston North, and former Defence Secretary, the right hon. Ben Wallace, and not only for the role he played in securing the funding for that major project, but for his unwavering work as Secretary of State for Defence in such critical, unpredictable and dangerous times. The global leadership he demonstrated in galvanising the international response to Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is a legacy that he should be incredibly proud of.

Going back to Fylde, we need to focus on continuing to improve the existing road network, as well as expanding it. Equally as importantly, we need to secure investment for the rail network, and I will be campaigning hard for a passing loop on the south Fylde line to improve the regularity and reliability of services.

I would also like to talk about an important personal area of work that I will undertake as a Member of this House. I would not be here today—I would not have survived the journey to this moment—without the support, encouragement and love of my wife, Caroline. We have been each other’s strength through good times and difficult ones, and the fact that Caroline has always had the strength to support me in such magnitude when she has had her own battles to fight is testament to the person she is. Caroline, like thousands across this country, lives with what is often known as an invisible disability. It means that she has often concealed just how sick and in pain she is. She has had to explain why she is in hospital when just weeks earlier she may have been visibly well to everyone, and therefore suffering in silence.

I want to champion the work of Crohn’s & Colitis UK, and other charities and organisations that support and advocate for those with disabilities that are not visible, and to help remove the stigma, indifference and even hostility that they receive, for example when needing to use facilities marked as for disabled people. The hurt and humiliation that can cause only adds to the incredible difficulty of living with these conditions, and we must do much more to raise awareness.

To conclude, Fylde is a place where some of the most advanced fighter jets in the world are built, and it is at the cutting edge of artificial intelligence and other technology, but it is also a place where towns from Lytham to Kirkham, and villages from Staining to Singleton, still crown the young rose queens each year and hold galas and parades, and a place where people take pride in looking after the countryside and preserving our heritage. I intend to spend my time in this House fighting for Fylde—yes, for the investment in our future, but also the preservation of our history, our coastline and our countryside.