Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

None of the changes that I have talked about in the new clauses will impinge at all on the criteria currently used to determine whether somebody has a need for protection under the refugee convention. Clearly, in certain circumstances that includes the reality of religious persecution in the homeland. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

Government new clause 8 redefines how the UK interprets the phrase “a particularly serious crime” for the purpose of excluding refugees from the protection against refoulement. Under existing arrangements, anyone convicted of any offence that attracts a custodial sentence of 12 months or more will have committed a particularly serious crime for these purposes. Those arrangements remain unchanged, but new clause 8 goes further and will mean that a particularly serious crime will now include individuals who have received a conviction for a sexual offence listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Importantly for these cases, the fact that a particularly serious crime has been committed will be a presumption that can, obviously, be rebutted by the individual in question so that they get a fair hearing.

Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act lists the offences that automatically make an offender subject to notification requirements, meaning that they have to notify the police of personal details annually, or whenever their details change. Failure to do so is a criminal offence and the system is sometimes known as the sex offenders register. The Government recognise the devastating impact of sexual violence on victims in our communities and are fully committed to tackling sexual offences and halving violence against women and girls in a decade. To achieve that, a broad set of the right powers must be available for authorities to tackle sexual crimes, bring perpetrators to justice and manage sex offenders.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I accept the wisdom behind this new clause, but will the Minister go further and comment on new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? That new clause is designed to put an end to another mischief affecting the non-refoulement rules; it would ensure that primacy was given to the torture convention and the refugee convention, and that it was not possible for the European Court of Human Rights to interpret the European convention on human rights in such a way as to exclude those provisions.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his creativity in asking that question when I am talking about this particular Government new clause. I think we had a debate in Committee on the amendment in the name of the Father of the House, and I certainly intend to come on to it later in our proceedings—hopefully, when he is here.

As part of our efforts to halve violence against women and girls, it is important that the small number of asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the UK by committing sexual crimes, but they have undermined public confidence in the system. New clause 8 changes the law to deny refugee status to those convicted of the abhorrent crimes listed in schedule 3 to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, treating them with the seriousness they deserve and supporting our wider mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

--- Later in debate ---

No longer must people seeking asylum fall through the cracks of a system that does not provide them with the care and safety that they deserve. Let us ensure that every person who loses their life is counted, remembered and mourned and that we do everything in our power to prevent anyone else from dying because of this inhumane system.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

May I speak briefly to new clause 39, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He is unfortunately not able to present this argument himself, because he is attending a meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and he asked if I would speak briefly in support of his new clause. I hope that I can encourage the Minister to expand a bit on whether the Government think that this is rather a good way of ensuring that the worst abuses in the courts system are avoided.

Essentially, my right hon. Friend’s new clause would give precedence to the non-refoulement arrangements in the refugee convention and in the UN convention against torture, but it would not allow the European convention on human rights and the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights to extend beyond those provisions. That is very important, because fundamental to English law is the principle of equity. If people come here with clean hands and seek justice and our support, we should be keen to encourage that, but if people come here and abuse our hospitality or have already committed offences, we should get rid of them quickly. That is not very easy at the moment, because of how the courts interpret the European convention on human rights.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to new clause 14. The problem I have with it is that it does not go far enough. It talks about getting rid of or disapplying the Human Rights Act, but of only disapplying the interim arrangements of the European Court of Human Rights. We need to go much further than that, and I am slightly reluctant to be enthusiastic about the new clause.

One provision that I am very enthusiastic about, and which I am disappointed that the official Opposition will not call a Division on, is new clause 15. The shadow Home Secretary’s explanatory statement says:

“This new clause would prevent a foreign national who is convicted of any offence from remaining in the UK, as well as anyone who has been charged with”—

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is an issue of democracy here? Successive Governments and Ministers have said that they want to toughen up the regime, but that is undermined by activist judges. That is a further reason to support the new clauses that he mentions.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. If one wants a current example, there was a headline in The Daily Telegraph on 1 May that read, “Migrant spared prison after punching female officer”. [Interruption.] This was a fact—it was a court case in Poole in Dorset, not far from my constituency. A small-boat migrant who repeatedly punched two female police officers was spared jail. That is completely laughable, and on that I have the support of David Sidwick, Dorset’s excellent police and crime commissioner, who is trying to take this issue further. When people who have come here seeking our help and assistance abuse the system, and we indulge their presence, that brings the whole system into disrepute. I hope that the Minister will get much tougher on this issue, but sadly, the Bill seems to weaken the offence regime under immigration law, rather than strengthening it, as we should.

[Phil Brickell]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, because for far too long, criminal smuggling gangs have operated with virtual impunity, ruthlessly exploiting men, women and children and putting their lives at risk for profit. That is why I am encouraged to see a Government being honest with me and my constituents. No more gimmicks. No more wasting £700 million on unworkable and fantastical Rwanda schemes. They are just giving our law enforcement bodies the tools and resourcing that they need to intervene earlier and act faster.

The Bill contains new offences targeting those who supply or handle boat parts used in crossings, with up to 14 years behind bars for those found guilty. It allows for the seizing of electronic devices, such as phones and laptops, to help gather evidence and disrupt operations, and creates a new interim serious crime prevention order, which allows immediate restrictions on travel, communications and finances, so that we can stop criminals in their tracks before they escalate their activity. I am particularly pleased about the £150 million going into the new Border Security Command, and further National Crime Agency officers working across Europe—including, importantly, through Europol. It is not rocket science, but the National Crime Agency has said that these measures will give it what it needs to disrupt smuggling networks and dismantle their business model.

Just as importantly, the Bill will put a stop to the Conservative party’s attempts to make us turn our back on the world. The fantastic trade deals that we concluded just last week with India and the US are vital recognition that putting Britain back on the global stage and tackling the gangs that are smuggling people into our country can go hand in hand. Crime does not respect borders, so it is quite right that we are prioritising strong international partners. I particularly welcome the new joint action plan with Germany and, through the Calais Group and the G7, the alignment of efforts across Europe to shut down smuggling groups, seize key equipment and bring gang leaders to justice.

New clauses 6 and 7 set reasonable timelines for first-tier tribunal appeal determinations. Those are important clarifications, given the damage done to trust in our immigration system by interminable proceedings and delays. Those new clauses will cut the asylum backlog and drastically save money for taxpayers. New clause 8 will, I hope, improve our approach to persons convicted of serious sexual offences, which my constituents have grave concerns about. It is right that foreign nationals who commit sex offences should not be able to claim refugee status in the UK.

The UK is a welcoming and open nation, and we need a sensible, fair and caring immigration system to support our key industries. I am pleased that the Government are making moves towards that, and I will be pleased to support the Bill tonight.

Knife Crime: Children and Young People

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree, and I will mention later the interventions to try to get people in a more collegiate and embracing atmosphere. Role models are a valid issue. Sadly, my speech is already long, but I would have loved to cover that in more detail, because it is a huge part of the reason why young men are drawn into this type of violent world.

Scoreboard videos are inextricably linked to drill music, which is a genre but also the medium by which various groups-cum-gangs are able to taunt their “opps”—the catalyst for multiple stabbings, often fatal. The line between gang and group is blurred to the point of irrelevance. Meanwhile, the media either does not know or does not care. Inner-city black youths are, consciously or unconsciously, expendable and interchangeable, overrepresented in statistics as both victim and perpetrator. The soft bigotry of low expectations makes black culture ripe for exploitation as a cheap way to appear edgy, irrespective of the upstream impact. Large media corporations, even the BBC, play their part in the creation of this milieu, leaning into it and giving it validation. The cynical valorisation of the most detrimental aspects of urban black culture and the celebration of criminality via musicians is one of the most toxic overarching influences in pushing this issue into the mainstream.

Irving Adjei, aka Headie One, went to prison three times as a teenager, including for dealing crack cocaine and heroin. In June 2019, Adjei was arrested for possession of a knife following a stop and search. While on bail, Adjei completed his UK tour, released his album, which reached No. 5 in the UK charts, appeared on Stormzy’s album “Heavy Is the Head”, played Glastonbury and was featured on BBC Radio 1. He was used in an advertising campaign for JD Sports alongside heavyweight champion Anthony Joshua, and fronted an advertising campaign for Adidas that December. That is the same Adidas that ran its “No More Red” knife crime awareness campaign alongside Arsenal FC just a couple of miles down the road shortly after that, but it is also happy to run an advertising campaign with a rapper on bail for possession of a knife. The hypocrisy of brands such as Adidas is off the scale.

Less than a month after launching the Adidas promo, Adjei was sentenced to six months for possession of that knife and went to prison for a fourth time. He was released that April. Six months later, his single was No. 2 in the charts, he had praise lavished upon him by The Times, and he has never looked back. How does that convince anyone that there is any penalty whatsoever for carrying a knife? If anything, it has been an asset for someone like him because of the edginess that I referred to.

In September 2019, The Guardian published a piece about UK drill rappers OFB, who hail from the same Broadwater Farm estate in Tottenham as Irving Adjei. It stated that the drill group OFB is

“trying to move the genre beyond the violence for which it has been demonised”.

The interview was with two of the three in the group: Bandokay aka Kemani Duggan—the son of Mark Duggan —and Double Lz. It casually mentions that the third, 17-year-old SJ, is “not around today”. Several months later it transpired that SJ, aka Jayden O’Neill-Crichlow, was “not around today” because he was on remand for his part in the murder of Kamali Gabbidon-Lynck seven months previously.

O’Neill-Crichlow was one of five young men, four of whom were teenagers, who received lengthy sentences of 20 years-plus after they arrived on Wood Green High Street on a Friday night armed with machetes, a handgun and a shotgun. They shot at Gabbidon-Lynck, missed and hit a packed Nando’s restaurant, and chased him down the street, eventually cornering him in a hair salon where he was shot and brutally hacked to death. For his part in the murder, O’Neill-Crichlow was sentenced to 21 years. I remember this because it happened 300 metres from my home.

I challenged the author of the piece about why it was appropriate to write a puff piece about a group who had one member on remand for murder. He cited that it was an editorial decision by The Guardian. Last year, Kemani Duggan was sentenced to five years in prison for possession of a Tokarev pistol and .22 calibre ammunition, with intent to cause fear of violence—the violence for which drill music has been “demonised”. That is precisely the type of irresponsible media valorisation that illustrates my point.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing to the House this horrific catalogue of embarrassing incidents—embarrassing to Members of this House and previous Administrations, because we have been asleep on the job. The legal authorities were able to stamp down on last summer’s riots in Southport so effectively by taking tough measures; does he agree that that is called for now? Talk about reducing the incidence of knife crime by half over 10 years is totally inadequate. Immediate action is needed to make an example of this type of crime and deter others from participating.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree. The law simply does not act as a deterrent to many of these people. They are far more scared of their immediate surroundings and the danger posed to them in everyday life than they are of being arrested by a police officer, knowing full well that they are unlikely to go to prison unless they have done something as heinous as some of the acts that I have described.

Ciaran Thapar, the author of the piece that I just described, appeared before the Youth Select Committee last December in his new role as director of public affairs and communications at the Youth Endowment Fund. There, he explained how drill was an outlet for those involved to express the trauma that they have experienced in their lives. Adverse childhood experiences are a key part of fuelling the likelihood of vulnerable individuals becoming involved in knife crime. There is a broader question here about immigration, particularly from countries where experiences of trauma, brutality and war are contributing factors in youth behaviours within multicultural inner-city communities. The Youth Endowment Fund does important work on knife crime, and its toolkit is often cited as a key resource in providing the tools required to reach children.

Last week I spoke to Sharon Ward, the serious violence duty co-ordinator in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, covering my constituency of Huntingdon. The serious violence duty was introduced by the previous Government in January 2023, and requires local agencies to share data and information to help identify the root causes of serious violence occurring locally. When I spoke to Sharon about this in depth, she explained that they use a multi-agency public health approach, addressing the underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood that an individual will become a victim or perpetrator of violence in the first place.

The most vulnerable time for children and young people is from 3 pm to 6 pm, as well as later in the evening from 10 pm until 2 am. Diversionary activity is key to reducing those vulnerabilities. Sharon outlined how the path to becoming involved in violence is a slippery slope, where participation in antisocial behaviour is linked progression to more violent crime. I am sure that the subject of funding for youth services and cuts under the previous Government will be raised. I have focused on less discussed aspects of this wider issue in my speech; however, the part played by youth workers in reaching children and young people who are vulnerable and at risk of embarking on the wrong path is well-documented.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough currently have 41 interventions funded by the serious violence duty. They range from sport-based interventions to mentoring and relationship building, but all are designed to help those assessed as vulnerable. We must also be mindful that it is not simply about children from certain backgrounds—children from all backgrounds are vulnerable to exploitation by gangs. Those children do not realise that they are being exploited because of the way that they are being groomed—they are given new trainers, a PlayStation game or a bike by an older person they look up to or are fearful of, seemingly with no strings attached. Then they are on the hook and owe them at best a favour, or at worst a debt.

Licensing Hours Extension Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point about ensuring that those who work in hospitality are well protected and that getting them home is an important part of employers’ duty to keep their workforce safe. In the past, licensing hours have been relaxed for high-profile royal events, such as His Majesty the King’s coronation, Her Late Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday and her platinum jubilee, as well as the royal weddings in 2018 and 2011. Licensing hours have also been extended for sporting events, including the FIFA world cup 2014, the Euro 2020 final and the Euro 2024 semi-final and final. When the Government have proposed extensions to licensing hours, they have received cross-party support in both Houses and have been passed unopposed.

As we have heard, the Licensing Act specifies that any order is subject to the affirmative procedure and needs to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it comes into force. The Bill proposes to amend the Licensing Act so that these orders are subject to the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative procedure. That will enable extensions to be implemented at short notice if necessary, including when Parliament is in recess. The current arrangements means that fast-paced extensions are simply not always possible. That is problematic in the context of sporting events, as the participation of national teams in the later stages of competitions is uncertain until the last moment.

I will provide an example to illustrate that. In 2021, the England men’s team made it through to the final of the delayed Euro 2020 tournament. With the help of the usual channels, the previous Government managed to push an order through Parliament in the three days between the semi-final and the final. To emphasise my earlier point, I note there was complete agreement across the House for the measure. In the summer of 2023, the England women’s team equally commendably reached the final of the world cup. However, that tournament took place in the summer when Parliament was in recess, so it was sadly not possible to extend licensing hours for the match. The Bill will rectify this issue and ensure that licensing hours can be extended at short notice when necessary, including when Parliament is in recess.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the Minister not share my concern that this is a Bill of very limited ambition? Considering what she has said, surely there is a strong case for deregulating this whole area and for getting Parliament and the Government out of hospitality businesses’ hair.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The measures before us are simple and straightforward, and the debate shows there is widespread agreement in the House about them. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, in this case, not cause any problems to the Bill going forward.

The Bill will rectify the issues we have been discussing and streamline the parliamentary process, but it does not seek to alter the fundamental content of the Licensing Act 2003. However, the Government fully intend to plan ahead, so that wherever possible licensing hour extension orders in England and Wales can be brought in with time for full public consultation. The power in section 172 of the Licensing Act has, rightly, been used sparingly, and there is no intention to change the frequency with which the relevant powers are invoked.

As the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention, it is important that I make clear that the police have generally been supportive of extensions for royal events, and that there have been no major increases in crime and disorder attributable to temporary extended drinking hours. However, the police have previously expressed some concerns about licensing extensions relating to sporting events, namely football. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the police have the opportunity to put forward their views, and we will always give due weight to any concerns raised before pressing ahead with an extension of licensing hours.

The Government recognise the importance of providing the police with ample time to put in place additional policing measures that may be necessary to minimise any potential increase in crime and disorder as a result of any temporary licensing hours extension. To that end, the Government remain firmly committed to continuing to plan in advance, wherever possible.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham for bringing forward the legislation and those who have spoken in support of it. It is a simple measure that will free up parliamentary time, help the Government to continue to support businesses and local authorities, and allow for celebrations of important events in the life of the nation. The Government fully support the Bill, and it is very important to get it passed before last orders.

Police Reform

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Yes, I can. I pay tribute to Cleveland police, which has made great progress in recent times.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will the Minister include references to fraud in her White Paper? Action Fraud, which would be more accurately described as “Inaction Fraud,” is presiding over a complete failure to do anything, particularly about fraud against online retailers. Can we ensure that action is taken to help victims of fraud?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend Lord Hanson, the Lords Minister, is looking at this. I gently point out that, in relation to fraud, we are having to deal with our inheritance from the previous Administration. We will now look at some of the problems with Action Fraud that they did not deal with.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Let us be clear: immigration is important to our country and has been through the generations, with people coming to this country to start some of our biggest businesses or to work in a public services, but it also needs to be properly controlled and managed, so that the system is fair and so that rules are properly respected and enforced. The issue of illegal migration trebling over the last five years has, I think, reflected some fundamental failures around skills and fundamental failures around the way the economy works. It is important that those are addressed, and that we do not just shrug our shoulders and turn our backs. We believe in having a properly controlled and managed system, and that is the right way to deal with this.

Similarly, turning to asylum, it has always been the case that this country has done its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, and we must continue to do so, but we must also have a properly managed and controlled system. We raised yesterday the shocking scale of the £700 million spent sending four volunteers—just four volunteers—to Rwanda. The decisions on the asylum hotel amnesty that the Conservatives have in effect been operating are actually even worse and have cost even more money. I know that the shadow Home Secretary has said that he does not recognise those figures, but I wonder if he actually ever asked for them. I would say to him that it was one of the first things I asked for, because I am sick and tired of seeing Governments just waste money with careless policies when they have never actually worked out how much they are going to cost.

The Conservatives’ policy under the Illegal Migration Act 2023—with the combination of sections 9 and 30 —was to have everybody enter the asylum hotel system or the asylum accommodation system, and never to take any decisions on those cases. There is a shocking cost to the taxpayer of up to £30 billion over the next few years on asylum accommodation and support. It also means that the rules just are not being respected and enforced. It is deeply damaging and undermines the credibility of the asylum system, but it also leaves the taxpayer paying the price.

Yes, the King’s Speech does bring forward new legislation on borders, asylum and immigration. That will include bringing forward new counter-terror powers, including enhanced search powers and aggressive financial orders for organised immigration crime, and we are recruiting new cross-border police officers, investigators and prosecutors, as well as a new border commander. This is part of a major upgrade in law enforcement, working with cross-border police stationed across Europe to be able to tackle, disrupt and dismantle the actions of criminal gangs before they reach the French coast.

Finally, let me turn to national security, because when it comes to defending our nation against extremists and terrorists, against state challenges and hostile threats, or against those who try to undermine our democracy and values, I hope this House will always be ready to come together. I pay tribute to the police and the intelligence and security services, which work unseen to keep us safe. In that spirit, I hope the whole House will be ready to support Martyn’s law, drawn up by the tireless Figen Murray in memory of her son Martyn Hett, so that we learn the lessons from the terrible Manchester attack, when children and their parents who went out for a special night never came home and lives could have been saved. That, I hope, is the moment to end on, because we will debate, argue and have differences of view, but in this House, at the very heart of our democracy, we can also come together to keep communities safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. Unfortunately, there will have to be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, although those making a maiden speech are exempt from that. I call Debbie Abrahams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am absolutely convinced that under a Labour Government we will see these changes.

I think it is important that we put on the record where we are at the moment. We need to ensure that the right to adequate social protection and social security is in place, and we know that is not the case at the moment. We must do better not just in changing the culture of the Department for Work and Pensions, but in recognising the extra costs, the fear and the poverty disabled people face and feel, because otherwise I fear that we will be seeing more deaths of disabled claimants.

Similarly, while I support the measures in the King’s Speech to improve our lives, that cannot happen soon enough for the nearly one in two children living in poverty across Oldham. Children living in poverty now will be affected by the experience for the rest of their lives. There is evidence that living in poverty changes the wiring of their brains. Many will not reach their first birthday. Shamefully, we have the worst infant mortality rate in northern Europe. There is no law of nature that decrees that children from poor families have to die at more than twice the rate of children in rich families. I welcome that the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions have established the child poverty taskforce to deliver the cross-Government child poverty strategy, and I look forward to it reporting in the early autumn. We cannot forget the 1.6 million children across the UK with special educational needs. SEND education is in crisis and that cannot continue.

This Labour Government are a Government for everyone, and the King’s Speech is a starting point on that. I look forward to working with the Government to deliver the change that all our country needs.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Andrew Snowden to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Dr Beccy Cooper to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Mark Ferguson to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson). That was a tour de force around his constituency and I am absolutely certain that he will be a passionate advocate on behalf of his constituents. The only thing we missed was the opportunity for him to sing, but when we get the all-party music group together, we will give him that opportunity and the House will be able to revel in his talents on that front.

I am delighted that the Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to select our amendment on the two-child benefit cap for a vote this evening. It is absolutely right that this House should make a decision on this pressing issue. This is the early test for Labour Members. It is an early test for their commitment to take on the scourge of child poverty across the United Kingdom. We have just had new figures from the House of Commons Library, and they are absolutely shocking. I am not going to pick on the new Labour Members because they are all new and they are all finding their feet, but what this does to our nation is utterly appalling. We know that 87,100 children in Scotland are impacted by this cap.

I do not know if any of the Labour Members in the Chamber represent Glasgow constituencies, but let’s just have a look at Glasgow, where 4,500 households are being impacted by this two-child benefit cap. This is the first big test for Labour Members. We know that Scottish Labour opposes this cap. We have heard its leader talk passionately about making sure it is done away with. Labour Members have got to vote tonight to show that. This is an early challenge for the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who now represent Scottish constituencies.

This is a very much changed House, and I congratulate the Labour Government on their quite stunning victory. I also want to congratulate my new Labour colleagues on their victories across Scotland. I really hope they enjoy being an MP and the experience that this offers in this House, representing our wonderful nation on these green Benches, but they will know from the bitter experience of 2015 that tides come in and tides go out. The only thing that seems to be constant in Scottish politics is that there will always be a Member of Parliament from the Scottish National party representing Perthshire in Scotland, and I want to thank the people of Perth and Kinross-shire for returning me for a record seventh time in 23 years. I promise that I will serve them as I have served all my constituents in the past 23 years on these Benches.

Immigration is the subject of the day, and this is important. This is big stuff. It is really important that the Government get this right, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard so far. I am not really sure and certain that Labour really knows what it wants to do when it comes to immigration. I have heard lots of tough talk, with strong language on deportations, enforcement and getting people out of this country. What I want to hear about is the experience of these people who come to our country in appalling destitution and poverty, who have lived through some of the most unimaginable experiences, who are real living beings and who do not want the scapegoating language that has been deployed in the past. Think about them! Explain to us the safe and legal routes by which people can get to this country. Open up a way for citizenship to be acquired. Let’s be creative, for goodness’ sake. Let’s have some of these asylum seekers working. Why is it right that they have been left unattended for so long?

Surely a new Labour Government could start to get into that sort of territory, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard thus far from the Labour party. We do not want a Tory hostile environment to be replaced by a Labour hostile environment. We need to see a better understanding and empathy about the plight of people who are leaving war zones devastated and traumatised by what has happened to them. What we want to hear is a proper, thought-out, pragmatic approach to immigration that finally acknowledges the value of immigration and that has humanity and common decency at its core. That is not too much to ask from a Labour Government.

This is a priority for us in Scotland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom whose population is predicted to fall—by 2033 our population will be starting to decline. We will have a smaller base of working people who are expected to support a non-active, ageing population, which raises a whole series of issues and difficulties for us, particularly economic issues, and this has to be addressed.

We also have to make sure that our public services are staffed. Such is their current situation and condition that, if every school leaver in Scotland went into social care next year, there still would not be enough people to fill the places required. We need to hear a solution, and we are starting to get there. During the general election campaign, I was encouraged that the parties were actually talking about a Scottish visa, which is the Rolls-Royce gold standard we require. It happens in nations across the world without issue and without difficulty, so it could happen here. The nations of the United Kingdom have their own political jurisdictions, and they even have their own tax codes to ensure that it can happen.

We have done it before. I was a Member of this House when the previous Labour Government delivered the Fresh Talent initiative, and it worked. I cheered them on when it was delivered, and it is something this Government could do. If Scottish Labour Members want to go to the Home Office to demand a solution to our very real difficulties and problems, we will hold their jackets and cheer them on, but they must do something, because this is a pressing issue for the Scottish economy.

I gently say to Conservative Members that over the last couple of years we have heard such a degree of rubbish from them. They tried to tell us that people would not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, because apparently they are put off by our lower council tax, our lower house prices, our free tuition and our free prescription charges. Most of all, they said that people would not come to Scotland because we had asked them to pay just a few more pounds of income tax. Well, that fox is well and truly shot, as National Records of Scotland has shown that there is net migration into Scotland, so let us not hear any more about that rubbish.

I end with a plea to our Scottish colleagues. We want to work with them to ensure that we get Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It is now up to them. They have the power and the responsibility. They can make these changes to sort out our immigration and, for goodness’ sake, they should back us in the Lobby tonight so that we can do something about child poverty in Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Andy MacNae to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I tabled an amendment to the Humble Address that read:

“At end add ‘and submits that the Government should immediately recognise the state of Palestine.’”

The wording was confirmed by me to the Table Office at 4.40 pm yesterday. It was co-signed by the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr Hussain), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s intention to challenge the ruling of Mr Speaker when he selected the amendments to be voted on tonight? What is his point of order?

[Ayoub Khan]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is the fact that the amendment was not tabled despite being submitted to the Table Office on time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I do not think that would have made any difference to Mr Speaker’s decision about which amendments the House will be voting on later. However, his point is noted.

I call Nigel Farage to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Lola McEvoy to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

Before calling the next speaker, I have to announce that we will have to reduce the time limit for speeches by all those other than maiden speakers to five minutes.