Migration and Border Security

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with the Home Secretary that the failure of the last Government to control immigration was unconscionable, and our new leader has rightly apologised for our failure. Some of us on the Back Benches warned the Government at the time, but there we are—that is the past. Looking to the future, I agree that we all want to return illegal migrants to where they came from, but will the Home Secretary list the countries that human rights lawyers say are so unsafe that people cannot be returned to them? What is the deterrent for people from those countries if we do not have an offshoring policy?

[Yvette Cooper]

Obviously, each individual case needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It has been agreed through the courts that, for example, some people could be safely returned to Iraq, but the process, or the bureaucracy, is extremely slow. Many people are currently in the immigration enforcement system. The previous system was just not following up and taking action, which is why we have been able to increase the returns substantially in a short period. Of course, each case has to be looked at on its merits, but we can do substantially more to ensure that the rules are properly respected and enforced.

Immigration and Home Affairs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), who I am delighted to see back in this place, and all the new Members who have made fantastic maiden speeches in this debate. It is a huge honour to be re-elected to represent my community in Liverpool West Derby, and to continue to serve in the place I grew up, especially under a Labour Government.

It is fantastic to welcome into my constituency the new wards of Page Moss, Swanside and Old Swan. It has been a real pleasure meeting my new constituents, who do so much for our communities. I look forward to working with Jan and her team at Swanside Community Centre, Rhiannon and her team at The Gate Community Centre, and Kate and her fantastic team at The Joseph Lappin Centre.

I am delighted that we now have a Labour Government with an historic mandate for change from the British public—a mandate to end the destruction of working-class communities; to end the decimation of public services; and to end austerity and create opportunity for all, lifting millions of people out of poverty. We must boldly seize this opportunity to deliver on the trust placed in us.

On behalf of so many families in my constituency, I will continue to campaign for the right to food to be enshrined in UK law, so that everyone is legally protected from the scourge of hunger and we can end the obscene growth of food banks since 2010, which was caused by political choices. As a proud trade unionist, I am delighted that the Government will legislate for a new deal for working people. I have seen the human cost of fire and rehire with my brother, who was a victim of the British Gas cull, and many constituents have written to me about their experiences. As a former trade union organiser with Unite, I know the difference trade unions can make in the workplace, improving terms and conditions and transforming lives and the economy.

I welcome the Bills that will bring rail services into public ownership and at last allow communities to take their bus services back into public ownership. I look forward to working with the metro mayor to achieve that. I am also delighted to see the return of the football governance Bill, which I was proud to scrutinise in Committee during the previous Parliament. Giving football supporters a real voice in shaping the beautiful game is vital to securing its future and continued success.

A shameful legacy of the previous Government and their austerity agenda is that 43% of children in Liverpool West Derby are now living in poverty. The reason I am in Parliament is to ensure that those children and others like them are given a chance to thrive and live their best life under a Government who support them, rather than consigning them to a life of limited opportunities from an early age. That is why I wholly support the removal of the two-child cap on benefits, which would immediately lift 100,000 children out of poverty.

Finally, I welcome the inclusion of a Hillsborough law in the King’s Speech. Shamefully, no one has been held accountable for the unlawful killing of 97 people and the injuries and enduring trauma suffered at Hillsborough, despite the 2016 verdict of the longest inquest in this country’s history. I pay tribute to all families, survivors, campaigners and legal experts such as Pete Weatherby, Elkan Abrahamson and Debbie Coles, who have fought for a change to the law to ensure that the pain and suffering of the Hillsborough families and survivors is not repeated, and that there is a fit and lasting legacy. I also pay tribute to the many Members and former Members of this place who have fought across parties for that law.

Many people would benefit from a Hillsborough law. I have had the privilege of hearing directly from people affected by a range of scandals and tragedies, including the Post Office Horizon scandal, Grenfell, covid-19, the “Truth About Zane” campaign, nuclear test veterans, the Manchester arena bombing, the infected blood scandal and hormone pregnancy tests. What is clear in those cases and many more is that the Hillsborough playbook has been used time and again by public servants and institutions. They are still allowed to withhold the truth, lie about their actions and blame victims for their own failures and mistakes. That is why a full Hillsborough law is urgently needed, including a legal duty of candour on all public bodies and parity of legal representation to ensure that the scales of justice are rebalanced.

The 97 who were unlawfully killed at Hillsborough, their families and survivors, and indeed all who have suffered such a fate at the hands of the state, deserve nothing less than the legacy of a Hillsborough law implemented in full. That would begin to end the culture of state cover-ups that has shamed our nation for far too long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

For his maiden speech, I call Richard Tice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

Good beer indeed. There is the extraordinary engineering feature of a lattice of ditches, dykes, drains, rivers and havens that ensure that the farmland is productive.

At the eastern end of this great constituency is sunny Skegness, where millions go for their holidays every year—the home of the first Butlin’s, in 1936—and where the fourth longest pier in the country was built in the late 1880s. It is an extraordinary and remarkable town. It has the benefit of producing what I think is possibly the best value, most delicious and greatest portions of ice cream, to which I am very partial.

If we head west from Skegness, over the farmland, we reach the historic market town of Boston. It has the tallest parish church tower in England—known as “the Stump”—built over 500 years ago. A couple of hundred years ago, Boston was the largest trading port outside London. Of course, it was Bostonians who, in 1630, left the Isle of Wight for north America, where they established Boston, Massachusetts. It is a remarkable constituency that I am proud to represent.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr Matt Warman, who was the MP for nine years. His legacy is in healthcare in particular. We are building at the moment a £40 million accident and emergency facility—he played a role in that. He saved a children’s unit from closing, and he had a significant role in securing the diagnostics care unit that is under construction. Those are great achievements.

There is a reason I overturned the largest ever Conservative majority in the country. Despite the Jolly Fisherman being the symbol of Skegness, my constituents are not feeling very jolly at the moment. Seven out of 10 of them voted to leave the European Union. They trusted the previous Government—they took them at their word—but they now feel a sense of political betrayal in a number of areas.

The first people who are not very jolly are the fishermen themselves, who feel that various bureaucrats including the Environment Agency, Natural England and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities are acting so as to try to suppress or destroy this great industry for our seafaring nation, one that produces food and generates great revenues. In addition, bureaucrats are making the issue of flooding a serious problem in my constituency. Thousands of homes have been flooded, and with a failure to properly maintain sea level defences, tens of thousands of homes are at risk, again because of bureaucracy and inertia. Another reason why my constituents are really quite grumpy is that the stupid net zero policies will result in hundreds of massive, ugly pylons blighting the environment and countryside of my constituency, as well as solar farms planned on incredibly productive agricultural farmland. It is absolute idiocy.

Then, of course, there is another big issue that is making my constituents very grumpy indeed. One of the slogans for leaving the European Union was to take back control. The previous Government promised it; do you remember that slogan? It was about money, laws and borders—yes, borders. It was about controlling immigration and having smart immigration—working, integrating and speaking the language—which we should all agree is a great thing. Instead, the previous Government opened the doors to mass immigration, with significant consequences for towns such as Boston and other towns up and down the country.

I will give Members an example. Every morning in the centre of Boston, dozens and dozens of east Europeans arrive in the marketplace with nothing to do. They have been hoofed out of the houses in multiple occupation where they are hot-bedding—two or three shifts a day on the same mattresses—because of mass, uncontrolled immigration. They have got nothing to do, and they have been aided and abetted in coming to the UK by false promises made by morally bankrupt businesses, which are helping them to get national insurance numbers for overseas persons under a scheme that we thought had closed.

We thought the EU settlement scheme had closed, but it turns out that it has not. If someone fibs about how much time they have spent here before 2020, they can still apply, so many are still arriving, and they are not integrating. They are not learning the language, and regrettably, it creates an intimidating atmosphere in the centre of the town—I know this goes on elsewhere. The implication is most seriously felt by women who work in the town centre, who feel unsafe leaving their place of work, and by constituents who do not want to go into the centre of this great market town at night because they fear, frankly, that it is not safe. When they go there at night, there is no chance of seeing any police whatsoever—I have been there on a number of occasions. What those people will see is drug dealers in the centre of the marketplace, plying their hideous, vile trade night in and night out. That is completely unacceptable.

During the election campaign, I went to numerous houses; for example, there was one where seven people were living in a house with two bedrooms. It was a Bulgarian family, and only one member of that family spoke any English at all. They said, “We’re here to claim benefits—your health benefits and housing benefits. We would prefer it in Bulgaria, but we want to take your benefits and then send the money home.” That is what is going on up and down the country, and it is completely unacceptable. [Interruption.] There is muttering—the truth hurts. The establishment do not want to talk about this, do they?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

Order. The convention is that during maiden speeches, everybody keeps very quiet. Whatever you think of what is being said, for a maiden speech, keep quiet.

[Richard Tice]

I repeat that smart immigration—working, integrating, speaking the language—is a great thing, but there are serious consequences of uncontrolled mass immigration.

As Member of Parliament for this great constituency, my objectives are to attract more business and more investment. The great port of Boston needs to grow and expand, and we want more infrastructure—for example, a new bypass around Boston itself. With these things, my constituency of Boston and Skegness can be great once again.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Jo White to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I believe that tributes have not yet been paid to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for his fantastic maiden speech—I apologise if I did not notice that. I want to put on the record what a wonderful speech he gave, particularly his personal story, his campaigning for those who have suffered child loss and his work for the north. I hope that we have seen a future Minister for the north in him.

I thank my constituents for returning me to the re-formed Runneymede and Weybridge constituency. Since then, several people have asked me, “Ben, you’ve been a Back Bencher in the party of government, and now you’re a Back Bencher in opposition. How’s your job going to change?” I said, “Actually, the main job won’t change that much.” I am here to support the Government to succeed. I want them to succeed—we all need them to succeed. I do not want the Labour party in power, but I want the Government to succeed. I am here to hold the Government to account and to work with them to ensure that things go well.

My mission continues to keep Runnymede and Weybridge moving—something that I am sure my constituents were sick of hearing during my re-election campaign. I look forward to continuing to deliver for people locally. I am proud to represent Runnymede and Weybridge constituents. One of the best things about the area I live in and am proud to represent is our wonderful communities. Under the boundary changes, we have taken in Cobham, Downside, Oxshott and Stoke D’Abernon, which have fantastic local communities.

If hon. Members will indulge me, I want to talk about one of our community champions, Councillor Charu Sood, who sadly is very poorly with cancer and is undergoing treatment in hospital. Charu is a councillor for St George’s Hill and is the embodiment of a local community champion. In the years since her election in 2018, she has achieved a huge amount: setting up Weybridge in Bloom and Sew Weybridge, which prepared personal protective equipment during the crisis, supporting Ukrainian refugees and raising funds for various charities. She is an amazing community champion, and I pay tribute to her and wish her well in her ongoing treatment.

In the two minutes I have left, I would like to talk about amendment (g), which stands in my name, to the motion on His Majesty’s most Gracious Speech. Sadly, my amendment was not picked for a vote, but I see it as the first stage in the battle against the Government’s awful policy to tax education. Like many people across the UK, and in Runnymede and Weybridge, where one in five children are educated in the independent sector, as a family we have also chosen independent education for our children, so I declare a financial interest as part of this campaign.

I have spoken to many independent schools in my patch, which have told me that 5% to 10% of kids will move back to the state sector as a result of the policy. Most parents who send their kids to independent schools are not the mega-rich magnates characterised by the Government, but, like all parents, people who make difficult budgeting decisions on how to spend their money.

The policy of taxing education, which we have never done before and never should, will only put more pressure on the state sector. There will be more disruption for the kids who are forced to move out—disruption that the covid generation of children just do not need. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at the challenges, the problems and the fact that a lot of children with special educational needs in independent education do not have education, health and care plans, and are thus saving the Government money, and think again about this awful policy. I will hold them to account, as will many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Nesil Caliskan to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

This morning we woke to the horrifying confirmation that violence against women and girls in the UK is endemic. The national policing statement detailed that there are 3,000 offences recorded each day, but let us remember, that will be the tip of the iceberg. For example, 83% of women do not come forward to report rape to the police, and many offences will not even be recognised as such by the victims because of the deep-seated misogyny in this country. The system, as it currently stands, fails women and girls. What we need now is root and branch change.

In March 2023, the now Prime Minister promised to halve violence against women and girls if Labour won office. He said he would put domestic abuse specialists in police control rooms and set up dedicated courts for rape trials. I am proud that in the King’s Speech the Prime Minister is living up to his promises. In my Government’s proposed Bills, I was reassured to see specific measures to tackle misogyny, from teaching children about healthy relationships and consent, to putting rape victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.

Until now, rape conviction rates have been appallingly low. A total of 68,387 rapes were recorded by the police in 2023, but, by the end of that year, charges had been just 2.6%, and the average wait time for rape cases to get to court was 839 days. That should shame us all. I am hopeful that the plans to introduce specialist rape courts to fast-track cases will make the change and I support them.

On that note, I wish to take a moment to thank the victims and survivors, as well as the past and present Victims’ Commissioners, for the hard work that they have done in campaigning to make these necessary changes. I thank my Government for acting on my campaign to stop registered sex offenders from changing their names. And I greatly look forward to working with those on the Front Bench to close all legal loopholes that allow dangerous sex offenders to slip through the net.

Following many years of fighting alongside inspirational survivors, including Della and the Safeguarding Alliance, I am optimistic that we are finally nearly there with Della’s law.

Now I turn to a topic that needs all of our attention—child protection. Safeguarding should start with every parent and every child having access to a Sure Start. Unfortunately, most people are not automatically born to be a good parent, but Sure Start can give them the support and encouragement that they need to become one.

Early intervention is always the best and cheapest solution. I urge the Government to rebuild this inspirational offer, after the Tories tried to demolish it one centre at a time. I welcome the Home Secretary’s plan to introduce a statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation”. This is something that I have been campaigning on for many years and could never understand why the previous Government resisted it. Until now, there have been multiple definitions, resulting in a confused and fragmented response by authorities. Between 2022 and 2023, more than 14,000 children were identified as at risk of, or a victim of, child criminal exploitation. I hope to work with the Government to ensure that the new statutory definition is in line with international standards of child trafficking, not just an extension of the adult definition. For too long, we have seen the abuse of child victims being misinterpreted as “choice”. A child can never “consent” to their abuse or exploitation.

I wish to end where I started, with Labour’s commitments to halve violence against women and girls. I urge my Government to seize this moment and to be bold and ambitious. We owe women and girls more than just lip service. They deserve real, tangible action. I stand ready to assist as a friendly critic, but also as a helping hand.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Shockat Adam to make his maiden speech.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) who spoke on a subject on which we can all agree—safeguarding our women and children. There have been many excellent contributions today, and it is an honour to follow each and every one of them.

In my short time in this House, it has become abundantly clear to me that the most important person is you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your desire to keep speeches and contributions short, and that that is the best way for me to curry favour with you. With that in mind, I shall make my maiden speech.

I arrived in this country as a toddler from the heart of Africa to the heart of the midlands—Leicester. That city nurtured, schooled and shaped me. It would be fair to say that, no matter where I am in the world, there is a corner of a foreign field that is forever Leicester. The vibrancy, the diversity and, occasionally, the complete rawness of the city were the backdrop of my upbringing.

I remember very well as a child those free, small, cold bottles of milk that I used to get at school—I remember very well when it was stolen from me as well. I remember embarking on my life journey with friends from all different creeds, colours, religions and no religion, and we made a life for ourselves in this amazing country. I remember also moments of racism. One that comes to mind was with my late mother. We were in a park and were set upon by a group of people who hurled abuse and foul things, including language and objects, in our direction. But those incidents were superseded by kindness, love and understanding from the great people of this country.

As the youngest child by a distance, I was often referred to by my family members as the mistake, but my mother always referred to me as a miracle, and ever since then I began to believe it. My mother, who did not get the opportunity of a formal education in her lifetime, ensured all her children made the most of what this country had to offer. It was this mother who, when I suggested when I grew a bit older that I wanted to study history at university, looked at me as if I was about to become history, so, like a dutiful child, I did optometry at university.

And that brings me to here. I have checked the archives, and it appears I am only the second optometrist to have ever become an MP. So, I hope I can bring a little of my professional skills to help the House to focus on what matters and not be myopic in our decision making. With laser-like reflections, I believe we can bring 20/20 vision to matters before us and not make a real spectacle of ourselves. But the serious point is this: with better usage of optometrists, our GP services and our pharmaceutical colleagues, we can ease the burden on secondary care in our hospitals. We all need to work joined up and together.

As we are on the topic of health, at this juncture I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor Jon Ashworth, a shadow Health Secretary for more than five years before latterly taking on the shadow Paymaster role. He had the honour before me of representing the wonderful Leicester South constituency. In his maiden speech in 2011, he said it perfectly:

“I am privileged to represent a constituency of huge diversity, vibrancy and tolerance, and while we must never be complacent, our communities generally live harmoniously together. We are part of a city renowned across the world for welcoming incomers. Families have come from across the globe to make their home in Leicester South…Our diversity”—

ethnicity—

“enriches our cultural, social and civic life, and contributes immensely to our economy, too.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 200-201.]

He represented Leicester South with distinction for 13 years and I hope I can live up to the reputation he earned as a dedicated champion for our city.

Talking of champions, Leicester is the city of champions —another miracle. I am from the city that defied all the odds in the 2015-16 season when Leicester City became premier league champions, proving again that miracles can happen. I have been a diehard fan ever since I was a child, when one of our favourite sons, Gary Lineker, was still on the bench. We have the Tigers for our rugby force and the Foxes for the cricket, whilst the Riders are usually top of the court in basketball, and in Mark Selby we have a snooker world champion. But on a serious note, we must invest in sports facilities, not only to continue this rich tradition but to give our youth opportunities to improve their physical and mental wellbeing and occupy their time in positive pursuits. Too many of my young constituents told me they have nothing to do, and we must give them that opportunity.

Young people also bear the brunt of the housing crisis, and in Leicester we face overcrowding and waiting lists of over six years—worse than some London boroughs. We urgently need more affordable homes.

Leicester—another miracle—is where we found the remains of the last Plantagenet king. The bones of Richard III had been lying undisturbed for over 500 years until they were discovered under a car park in 2012. Please do come and visit him at our beautiful cathedral. We are a friendly bunch, regardless of what you may have read and heard about us. To quote Shakespeare,

“My heart is ten times lighter than my looks.”

My city is a united city. We celebrate all religious festivals—Christmas, Diwali, Vaisakhi, even the Caribbean carnival—with equal vigour, and have lived in harmony for over half a century. However, in recent years fractures have appeared, sown by those who wish to divide us, often by weaponising language. I understand that our isle has finite resources, but we must always have infinite empathy, infinite sympathy and an infinite vocabulary to build bridges, not to destroy them. In the words of the great Muslim Sufi poet Rumi, “We must raise our words, not our voices. It is rain that brings forth flowers, not thunder.”

During my campaign, I was humbled: I thought I knew my city, but I really did not. Within my city there was an underbelly, a shadow, a city within a city. While I used to speak about people who had a conflict between eating and heating, during my campaign I met them. Food banks at 11 o’clock on a Tuesday morning had over 80 people queuing, and I was told that was one of the quietest days they had ever had. We must tackle the cost of living crisis and reduce the wealth inequality in our country. It is not ethical or sustainable for any civilised nation to go on that way.

One poignant incident from my campaigning was when I knocked at a house and a lady peered through a partially opened door. I could not see her whole face, but saw enough to see a life of sadness and tragedy. She explained that she had had a relatively successful life, but something had happened a work—a little bit of bullying—and she went into a depression cycle and never really recovered. She said to me, “I will vote for you if you can do one of two things.” What did she ask me? She said, “If you could just plant me a tree so I can see it, that would make me smile, and if you could get me a fountain so I can see some water trickling, I’ll vote for you forever.”

It is important to remember that it is the simplest things that people want and that make the biggest difference to their lives. They want someone to speak up for them in these corridors of power, to speak about the injustices in the world, to give a voice to those who do not have one, who have no might, authority or power—whether that is the forgotten in Yemen, the victims of conflict in Sudan, or the victims of the ongoing devastation in Palestine—regardless of where they are in the world. I will always endeavour to speak truth to power and demand that this new Government take action for the poor and dispossessed, not just the powerful.

Finally, if my campaign ever had a catchphrase, it would be the Chinese proverb that says, “The best time to plant a tree was 25 years ago, in order to enjoy its beauty, its shade and its fruit, but the next best time is today.” We must plant that seed of unity, equality and justice now to ensure that our future generations can enjoy the fruits of friendship, fairness and peace.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Brian Leishman to make his maiden speech.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam); I am sure many of us will find him a very hard act to follow. I congratulate all the hon. Members who have made their opening contributions to this Chamber. I have listened intently and been impressed by their passionate delivery and the personal content they have shared.

From the outset of my speech, I would like to thank my family for the encouragement and strength they have given me on my journey to this place. Without their unwavering support, I would not have become a local councillor and then an MP. It is with gratitude, and with enormous pride at being elected as the first ever Member of Parliament for Alloa and Grangemouth, that I take my turn to address the Chamber.

I also take this opportunity to highlight my respect for all the candidates who were on the ballot paper. I admire anyone who wants to dedicate themselves to public service, and I pay special tribute to Mr John Nicolson. Those hon. Members who were re-elected to this place a few weeks ago will all know that Mr Nicholson’s sartorial elegance was matched by his trademark eloquence in this Chamber and in representing the constituents he served with great distinction.

With the Forth running through Alloa and Grangemouth, many people on both sides of the river felt it was not a natural constituency, but when we look at the communities and towns that make it up, our new constituency makes perfect sense.

Clackmannanshire, being the smallest county in Scotland, is affectionately known as “the wee county,” but be under no illusion: although it is small in size, it is mighty in its industrial heritage. Industry is a tradition that stretches right across our constituency. Alva and Tillicoultry were the home of luxury woollen mills. Both run along the foot of the impressive and beautiful local hills, as does Menstrie, the westernmost village of the three, which is synonymous with yeast manufacturing —vital, of course, for one of Scotland’s national drinks. Indeed, alcohol production has been a fixture in Alloa for decades, and it was once regarded as Scotland’s brewery town, but sadly nowadays only a few remain.

Crossing the Forth, we leave Scotland’s brewery town behind and come to Grangemouth, which was once known as Scotland’s boom town. The Grangemouth refinery started operating in 1924. This being the centenary year means that it should really be a time of great celebration, but it has been announced that refining oil in Grangemouth is to stop—possibly as soon as May 2025. What happens next to the Grangemouth refinery will reverberate around all our constituencies. Oil will be part of the energy mix for years to come—that is a fact—but we also know that we need to accelerate the cleaner, greener energy industries that will combat climate issues, lower our bills, increase national security and reindustrialise communities.

The term “just transition” has entered the modern lexicon, but many people I spoke with while out campaigning did not know what it actually means. It simply means moving from one industry to another without leaving workers and their communities behind to deal with devastating economic and social consequences. Historically, many workers in Alloa and Grangemouth have been victims of deindustrialisation and so-called market forces in a system that has valued profits over people and created a society of gross inequality.

We are at a crossroads. We know what will happen if Grangemouth stops refining before a new industrial cluster is ready. It would mean that hundreds of workers lose their jobs, workers and families have to leave their communities in search of work, and the pubs, cafés and shops of Grangemouth all lose custom. Allowing a gap between ceasing refining and the new greener energies being operational is as unfair as it is unpalatable. Grangemouth cannot go from being boom town to ghost town. In the past few weeks, my Government colleagues have engaged with the union, the companies involved with the refinery and the Scottish Government, and we are committed to exhausting all possibilities of making Grangemouth the site that we all need it to be.

My constituency is called Alloa and Grangemouth, but it is also my honour to represent Larbert, Stenhousemuir and many surrounding villages across both the Falkirk and Clackmannanshire council areas. As a football fan, it would be remiss of me not to mention one of Sauchie’s favourite sons: multiple European cup winner, Scottish internationalist and respected pundit Alan Hansen. I know that the House will join me in expressing relief at his recovery from a recent health scare. It would also be remiss of me not to congratulate Stenhousemuir football club—the Warriors—on their league championship win last season. I am very much looking forward to the Alloa and Grangemouth constituency derby between Alloa Athletic and Stenhousemuir FC in league one next year.

On the subject of sport, before coming to this place I was a golf professional. It might not seem it at first, but being a golf professional has transferable skills for being an MP. The building of relationships, the creation of rapport, serving people and trying to improve things for them are skills that will stand me in good stead in this place—also, working in golf for 23 years has got me used to dealing with Tories. Working in golf was fantastic: it took me to places that I would never have been and allowed me to speak with people I would never have met. We truly are richer when we encounter people from other parts of the world and learn about their culture and customs. That applies not just when we go to different places; it also benefits us here in Britain when we welcome people into our communities.

Our communities need action that improves people’s lives and gives them not just hope but the route out of struggle. Rest assured, I will work with local businesses, charities and third-sector organisations in my constituency, and with UK Government colleagues and counterparts from the Scottish Government, to deliver the change that people need. I know that my voice carries the necessary weight to bring about that change—not because of who I am, but because of the position I hold. The people of Alloa and Grangemouth have given me the responsibility to use my voice, and I intend to do so for the benefit of everyone from every community across the constituency that I am so proud to represent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Max Wilkinson to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

I call Sir Ashley Fox to make his maiden speech.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on his excellent maiden speech, and I am pleased to follow him.

It is a great honour to be elected to this House to serve the people of Bridgwater. I thank them for putting their trust in me. Bridgwater is a most diverse constituency. It combines the three historic towns of North Petherton, Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, and Bridgwater itself. The constituency runs from the coastal villages of Berrow and Brean in the north to the villages of Nether Stowey and Enmore in the foothills of the Quantocks in the west and Middlezoy and Othery on the Somerset levels in the east.

The battle of Sedgemoor was fought near Westonzoyland in 1685. It was the end of Monmouth’s rebellion and we should all be grateful that it was the last battle fought on English soil.

Bridgwater was one of the original boroughs to send elected Members to this House in 1295, although it is not an unbroken record. In the 1868 general election the two Liberal candidates defeated the two Conservative candidates by just 44 votes. Such was the evidence of bribery and corruption—on both sides, I must add—that the two MPs were unseated and the borough disenfranchised. A royal commission later found that over £1,500, more than £200,000 in today’s money, had been spent on bribes. Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that I have paid particular care to my election expenses.

Bridgwater has a radical tradition. One of our most famous sons is Admiral Robert Blake, regarded by many as the father of the Royal Navy. He represented both Bridgwater and Taunton in this House in the 17th century and fought on the side of Parliament in the civil war. Another of my radical predecessors is Vernon Bartlett, who won the seat in the 1938 by-election in what at the time was a remarkable defeat of the Conservative Government. He stood as an independent progressive, endorsed by both the Labour and Liberal parties, opposed to the Munich agreement. In this country, we often credit Winston Churchill for his opposition to the policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany, but it is less remembered that the Labour party under Attlee, Bevin and Dalton was the strongest opponent of that disastrous policy. I am sure that all Members, but especially Labour Members, will be mindful of their party’s proud history of opposing appeasement as this Government decide how to support Ukraine and how best to deter future Russian aggression in Europe.

I pay tribute to my predecessors from the two former constituencies that make up the new seat of Bridgwater. James Heappey is the former Member for Wells. He stood down at the last election, and he is well liked and respected in Burnham and Highbridge. He served with distinction at the Ministry of Defence. He was also a kind and helpful colleague when I was selected as a candidate, and I thank him for his service.

Ian Liddell-Grainger represented Bridgwater and West Somerset for 23 years and is remembered for the support he gave our rural communities following the terrible flooding in Somerset during the winter of 2013-14. Ian visited the affected areas every week and persuaded David Cameron to visit Somerset to witness the devastation for himself. It has not been forgotten that the former Prime Minister turned up without wellington boots. Ian led the campaign for a barrage over the River Parrett, which is now in the early stages of construction. I will continue his work to ensure we dredge our rivers and maintain our defences, so that we minimise the threat of flooding.

I also want to mention Tom King, now Lord King, who represented Bridgwater for 31 years, until 2001. It is a mark of the respect and affection in which he is held that his name was mentioned so many times on the doorstep during my campaign. Tom also wrote a helpful endorsement saying why people should vote for me, which only goes to show how wise he is.

Bridgwater is an industrial town. It has many small businesses, and I will do all I can to support them. We need to encourage entrepreneurial spirit, because that is how we create prosperity for all our citizens. We welcome thousands of tourists every year to enjoy our beautiful Somerset coastline. I want to encourage those tourists to spend longer in Somerset, to visit more of our beautiful countryside and to consume more of the excellent produce from our farmers and growers. Bridgwater is also the home of the Guy Fawkes carnival, the UK’s oldest carnival, and one of the largest illuminated carnival processions in Europe. Hundreds of volunteers work tirelessly to create this fantastic spectacle and to raise thousands of pounds for charity.

Much has been achieved for Bridgwater and for Somerset over the past 14 years. Hinkley Point C is being constructed and will provide secure and low-carbon energy to the whole region for generations. The electricity it produces will power Gravity, the smart campus where Agratas will build one of Europe’s largest gigafactories. These two projects will provide jobs and opportunities for years to come. The town of Bridgwater was awarded £23 million under the previous Government’s town deal initiative. That will fund many important local projects, including restoring our historic docks and refurbishing the arts centre and the town hall theatre, but there is more to do.

I will work with our new police and crime commissioner to tackle the antisocial behaviour that affects our towns. I will campaign to protect Pawlett Hams and stop it being turned into an unwanted salt marsh by the Environment Agency. I will keep the promise I made during the campaign to Aaron Reid, the headteacher of Haygrove school It is one of the top-performing schools in Somerset, but also one of three schools in England built by Caledonian Modular and now condemned as unsafe. The last Government promised to rebuild Haygrove, and I trust that the new Government will honour that promise. I will support the school as we work with the council and the new Government to find a solution that benefits the pupils and staff of Haygrove.

I am proud to have been elected by the people of Bridgwater. I will serve them faithfully and to the best of my ability.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Edward Leigh)]

To make his maiden speech, I call Richard Baker.

Assisted Dying

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, particularly because she raises a very valid point about the cost of that option for those who can afford to travel, and the discrepancy that there is in our healthcare system.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

That was a perfectly valid intervention, but surely one way to approach this problem is for us to get much better palliative care in place throughout the country. Everybody should be entitled to a dignified death. On this point, under the law of double effect, it is perfectly proper for a qualified doctor to relieve pain with very large amounts of morphine as long as his or her primary purpose is not to kill the patient.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I really value that intervention, because two thirds of palliative care in the United Kingdom is actually funded by charities. It is a postcode lottery. Excellent palliative care is what I would hope to have, but I would like to have the choice to have assisted dying and palliative care. I will go on to discuss that further in my speech.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

As usual, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) talks a lot of good sense.

I am uniquely badly affected in my constituency. As a result of our inability to control illegal migration, the Government want to put 2,000 illegal migrants into RAF Scampton, which our local social services simply cannot cope with, and would probably atrophy £300 million-worth of investments. My constituents are not focused on whether we have Rwanda or not Rwanda; they just want the boats to be stopped, or at least severely mitigated. We have heard many criticisms and good knockabout stuff from the Opposition, but the only solutions that anybody in the world has come up with to stop illegal migration are either with pushback, which is uniquely difficult in the channel, or with offshoring, and nothing works. Therefore we have to do something.

The world is in such a parlous state that there is no end to the misery and the number of people who want to come here. I hear that we should speed up asylum applications. That is all very well, but the more we speed them up, the more people will come. I hear that we should do more on the beaches of France. I understand that—I do not understand why the French cannot do more—but that will not stop them. The only thing that will work is what the Government are trying to do.

It is all so unfair. This morning, I mentioned the case of Maira Shahbaz, who was raped and abducted in Pakistan, and who is still waiting to get here. She is a genuine asylum seeker. So many genuine asylum seekers cannot get here, because illegal migrants are abusing the system. There is nothing wrong with them individually; they are all nice young men who just want a job. However, if somebody breaks into your house and decides to steal your stuff, the police turn up, remove them and arrest them. We are in an absurd situation where people are entering this country illegally. Run by criminal gangs, they are jumping the queue, putting their lives at risk, and we are doing nothing about it. The public are just appalled. They cannot understand what is going on. They do not understand why we are putting people up in comfortable hotels, or in comfortable former airmen’s rooms. They do not know what is going on. They are paying for all of this and they want it to stop.

I hear all these different groups in the Conservative party. A House divided is a House that will be destroyed. We must work together; there is no other solution. I hear all the different voices that are going on, so I will just say that the Society of Conservative Lawyers and the Policy Exchange—not left-wing groups—think that this Bill will work. The Government think that it will work. The ERG has some doubts, but we have to work together to try to get this Bill through. Let us get it through Parliament as quickly as possible, get it through the Lords and try to stop the boats.

We can legislate all we want to ignore the ECHR, including rule 39 interim measures, but even if we did so, we would very soon face a final judgment from the Strasbourg Court, by which everyone agrees we would be bound. That is the legal situation. The only way that we can remove the Strasbourg Court is by leaving the ECHR. That may well happen, but the Government do not have a mandate to do so at the moment. They cannot get it through Parliament; it is a matter, I suspect, for the next manifesto. Meanwhile, this Bill probably goes just about as far as we can go. I am sorry, but we must be realistic: this is all we can get through Parliament.

As both the Society of Conservative Lawyers and Policy Exchange have said, a Bill would not be workable if it did not allow for narrow claims for individual circumstances. Even the report of the ERG’s star chamber seems to accept that there should be some possibility of claims in cases of bad faith. The key question is whether our system can process and dismiss those spurious claims quickly enough. Under the arrangements we have for removal to Albania, illegal migrants have even wider avenues for claims, but they have still led to a 90% fall in small boats arrivals from Albania.

The Bill is roughly in the right ballpark, but I hope that before the Committee stage the Government will consider whether clause 4 can be tightened further and whether they can share further evidence of the ability to process and deal with spurious claims. It is a question of will. In 1939, when we were facing a world war and a crisis, overnight we exported—

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will give way very quickly, yes.

[Karl Turner]

What does the hon. Gentleman think of the reciprocal arrangement for the Rwandan Government to send asylum seekers to this country?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Of course none of us like any of that, but we have to get the Bill past the courts. We have to get it through Parliament. We have to be realistic. The Supreme Court has opined that there is a risk—I would say a vanishingly small one—that failed asylum seekers might be sent back to Iraq or Syria. Therefore, in order to get the Bill through Parliament and past the Supreme Court, the Government have had to make that concession. We do not like it, but that is the real world.

Politics is about reality. Therefore, this Bill must go through and be dealt with as quickly as possible. The onus on the Government now is to ensure that we can speed up the removal cases. It would be ludicrous if many hundreds of migrants, having come here illegally, were allowed to delay matters for up to a year by going to a tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. The whole scheme will be bogged down and we will look completely ridiculous as a Government.

In order to survive and have a hope of winning the general election, the Government must also sort out the problem of legal migration. We cannot have a situation where 700,000 people are pouring into this country every year. We must pay care staff a proper salary so that we can get more of our own people working in that sector. We must deal with illegal migration, deal with legal migration and, by the way, build some more houses for our own people.

If we start working together as a party, if we stop making personal attacks on each other, if we stop questioning one another’s good faith, the Conservative party has a chance—because what has Labour got to offer? No solutions at all. If Labour gets into power it will never sort out this problem. The only hope is this Government and this Conservative party.

Legal Migration

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on taking a thoroughly common-sense view in raising the threshold to £38,000—and I say that as a senior citizen member of the New Conservatives—but the Home Secretary said in his statement:

“Those coming on health and social care visa routes will be exempt, so we can continue to bring in the healthcare workers on which our care sector and NHS rely.”

What does that phrase mean? Will such action not drive a coach and horses through this measure? Surely the solution is for the care sector to pay proper wages.

[James Cleverly]

We have recognised the recruitment challenge for domestic workers in the health and social care system, and we have made it clear on a number of occasions that we will not allow those extremely important public services, on which we rely, to be without the staff that they need. What we want to do is bring in the people who are employed in those sectors, but not the dependants whom they have typically brought with them. That will enable us to lower the headline numbers, which we have committed ourselves to doing, while protecting the health and social care sector, which we have also committed ourselves to doing.

Net Migration Figures

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The right hon. Gentleman obviously missed our announcement earlier in the year where we added various fishing occupations to the shortage occupation list. That was as a result of a very helpful meeting I had with other colleagues from across the House, which he did not come to.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister will know that some of us have been banging on about this ever since he took office, saying that we should increase the level of work visas to average UK earnings. We have not done that because Ministers are worried that the care home sector will fall over, but if we did insist on people coming to this country earning a proper wage, would there not be a sort of virtuous circle? The care home sector would have to pay proper wages—after all, what is more important than looking after our elderly population?—and we could get more people off benefits because there would be decent jobs for them to go to. It is ridiculous that the care home sector is handing out visas like sweeties and employing people, for starvation wages of £20,000 a year, from all over the world. So, more power to the Minister’s elbow. We know he is on the right side. He just has to persuade the Prime Minister now.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and agree with everything he says. It is absolutely critical that we get a handle on this issue. The points he makes about social care are entirely valid. It is not sensible that our social care sector is reliant on importing foreign labour from overseas, including their dependants who then have to be housed, have access to public services and be supported on the NHS. We need to take a more sensible, sustainable attitude to how we pay and look after people in such an important career.

Illegal Immigration

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I will take the opportunity to go back to my old school and get their congratulations directly at some point. Of course, I will let the hon. Gentleman know that I will be treading on his hallowed turf.

The hon. Gentleman invites me to be distracted, but I refuse to be distracted: I will focus on what we need to do to achieve this policy. In their judgment, their lordships set out the route to operationalising the Rwanda plan, and I will focus on what they have told us will resolve the sticking points. There was much in the judgment to be welcomed, including all the elements about the fundamental soundness of the policy. We will focus on the thing that will unlock the operationalisation of the plan.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

How long will the Rwanda treaty take to get through? How long will it take to have the court case and the judgment, and have the whole thing crawled over again by human rights lawyers? Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend is a victim of our failure to stop the boats: he has Wethersfield in his constituency, as I have RAF Scampton in mine. He is a thoroughly nice chap, and I think that he feels my pain. Therefore, once the court case over Scampton is decided in the next week or two, whatever the result, will he meet me so that we can work together to get up to £300 million-worth of levelling up at Scampton?

[James Cleverly]

I am always delighted to meet my right hon. Friend. He will know, of course, that I am now in a position where I have to be careful about the commitments I make, certainly about RAF Wethersfield. I do not intend to abuse my position as Home Secretary, but I am absolutely committed to driving down the need for RAF Scampton and RAF Wethersfield, just as we have driven down the need for hotel accommodation. I am absolutely committed to that, but of course I will meet my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

The safety and wellbeing of asylum seekers in our care is of paramount importance at the Home Office. We expect high standards from all our providers, and we have robust governance frameworks in place to manage the service delivery of asylum accommodation. What we definitely do not do, and do not propose to do, is willingly accept thousands more illegal migrants into the UK from the EU, housed presumably in more hotels across the country, as Labour is proposing. I campaigned for Brexit to take back control of our borders, not for Labour to surrender our sovereignty to the EU.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

One of the justifications for using service accommodation such as RAF Scampton was that it was supposed to be cheaper, but we now know the figures: it is more expensive over two years, and over three years the savings are absolutely derisory. The figures are, frankly, being fiddled by overcapitalising the value of the base, and are not based on surveys. The Home Secretary’s officials are now ripping out services. The council has issued a stop order on it. I give notice that I will report the Home Office to the Comptroller and Auditor General for misapplying and wasting public money, because using the base will cost more than hotels. The base is Crown land, so the local authority cannot enter it. Does she accept that she would be acting illegally and is liable to be sued if her officials disobey the stop order?

[Suella Braverman]

I have had several discussions with my right hon. Friend about the proposed asylum accommodation at Scampton. I thank him for his very energetic campaigning on behalf of his constituents. I very much appreciate the challenges that this nationwide mission poses for us all. I do not agree with his assessment; we have assessed the proposal at Scampton to be value for money. Ultimately, it is not right that we continue to house tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, in towns and cities across the country, costing the taxpayer £6 million a day. That is why our work to roll out large sites is moving swiftly, and we propose to move asylum seekers on to them as soon as possible.

Illegal Migration Update

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. This is a very important statement, but we have the remaining stages of the Energy Bill later, which is not protected time. Many people wish to speak, so I urge colleagues to ask one short question of the Minister on matters for which he has responsibility, as opposed to matters for which he might not, so that he is able to give quick answers. Leading the way will be Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When the Prime Minister announced that he was imperilling £300 million- worth of levelling-up investment on RAF Scampton, he said he was going to lead by example by accepting migrants into Catterick camp in his constituency. Home Office officials have now informed us that that is not happening, so where is the leadership in that?

It gets worse. I was informed by West Lindsey District Council that, despite being told that the scheme was value for money and will have to be available for three years not two, the value for money is infinitesimal compared with hotels—it will not even save money for a few days on hotels. Will the Minister now drop this ridiculous scheme, which is derisory and will do nothing for deterrence, and sit down with me and West Lindsey District Council to work out a discreet location for illegal migrants in West Lindsey?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and our continued co-operation. We believe that this policy is in the national interest. It is right that those coming to this country are accommodated in decent but never luxurious accommodation, so that we do not create a pull factor to the UK. It is through delivering sites such as Scampton—which I appreciate have a serious impact on his constituents—that later this year I hope we will begin to close hotels in earnest and return those facilities to the general public for tourism, business and leisure, which I know is supported by Members across the House.

Illegal Migration Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I strongly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. This is an issue of the highest importance to the people we serve in this place. Of course there is a legitimate role for the other place in scrutinising legislation, but now is the time to move forward and pass this law to enable us to stop the boats.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted the remarks of Lord Clarke, who is not a particularly vicious right-wing creature. He said this Bill is entirely necessary and that we have to get on with it.

I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked at today’s remarks by Lord Heseltine.

Lord Clarke and Lord Heseltine seem to have come up with a sensible option. We should go ahead with this Bill. We have to have much better European co-operation and, really, we have to build a wall around Europe. [Interruption.] And we have to do much more—this is what the Opposition might like—in terms of a Marshall plan to try to remove the conditions of sheer misery that cause people to want to leave these countries in the first place.

[Robert Jenrick]

I read the remarks of the noble Lord Clarke, and I entirely agree with his point, which is that, having listened to the totality of the debate in the House of Lords, he had not heard a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. For that reason alone, it is important to support the Government.

I also agree with Lord Clarke’s broader point that this policy should not be the totality of our response to this challenge. Deterrence is an essential part of the plan, but we also need to work closely with our partners in Europe and further upstream. One initiative that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have sought to pursue in recent months is to ensure that the United Kingdom is a strategic partner to each and every country that shares our determination to tackle this issue, from Turkey and Tunisia to France and Belgium.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.

We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

The question of safe and legal routes is again a classic example of the Government saying to us that we can have jam tomorrow but not today. How is it that the high politics have to be in the Bill but the actual practical workable solutions, which will, to borrow the Minister’s three-word slogan, actually “stop the boats”, are somehow too difficult? They always have to be left—not because they are practically or administratively too difficult but because they do not fit the unpleasant political rhetoric and narrative on which the Government rely to speak to a base that, frankly, should be confronted and not appeased. That is why my party will vote against the Government motions to disagree and we urge their lordships to stick to their guns.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The Minister can relax; I am not going to bang on about RAF Scampton—not least because I have put in for the Adjournment debate on Thursday when I can deal with it in more detail. I just ask the House to accept that my constituents are, more than any others in the country, victims of this farce—this debacle—of trying to house 2,000 people in one place. That is not good for the people and it will overwhelm our social services.

There is now an argument to be had about the future of the House of Lords. There is no point in our having these endless debates about whether it should be elected or not. It should be a proper revising Chamber. When it is given a Bill such as this, its attitude should be, “How can we improve it? How can we make it work better? How can we remove these legal glitches, which will have unintended consequences?” It seems to me that so much of the debate in the House of Lords and so many of the amendments have just been designed to drive a coach and horses through the Bill and to give human rights lawyers even greater chances to develop ever more legal arguments to stop anybody from being deported.

I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. What is a bit of a mystery to me is that we went through this whole process last year. We had the ping-pong on the Nationality and Borders Bill. We got it through Parliament and were told that it would solve the problem—but we still have the same problem. I prophesise that, actually, this Bill will become law. The Labour party does not want to set a precedent for the unelected House of Lords to block legislation, so it will give in and the House of Lords will deliver the Bill. It will become an Act of Parliament, and I have a horrible feeling that, this time next year, we will be in exactly the same position. Can we rely on the Supreme Court to agree that people should be deported to Rwanda?

What are we going to do? Is it crueller to detain people as soon as they arrive or to do nothing and have a tragedy in the channel? Is it cruel to continue letting people smugglers get away with what they want? Of course, I have enormous sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says about children, but the trouble is that so many of these people who claim to be children are not children—they have to be assessed. One of the problems we face at Scampton is that there are so many of these people, 20% of the population coming into the camp, which means there will have to be an army of social workers to determine whether they are children.

I have enormous sympathy for persecuted LGBT people, but the truth is that the moment we create an exception saying that we cannot deport a person to an African country with a dodgy record on LGBT, everyone will claim to be LGBT—of course they will. I would do the same. If I were coming from Iraq, I would say I am a Christian. If I were coming from Syria, I would say I am gay. This is the problem we face. Every time we try to do anything, human rights lawyers drive a coach and horses through all our efforts.

So what are we going to do? I have said for two or three years now that the only solution—I suspect the Government will be dragged into this within a year—is to have a derogation, if necessary a temporary derogation during a national crisis, from the refugee convention, which prevents us from detaining people who claim to be asylum seekers. We will also have to have a derogation from the European convention on human rights.

I am a member of the Council of Europe, and I value the work of the Council of Europe, but the European Court of Human Rights is not a supreme court like our Supreme Court. It is not a supreme court like the American Supreme Court. It is a fundamentally political body, appointed on political grounds.

Until we have freedom of manoeuvre to have a real deterrent that tells the world, “If you land illegally on our shores, you will be detained and, ultimately, you will either have to go back where you came from or be deported,” we will never stop this problem. It is all right for the Labour party to talk about safe and legal routes, and about what it will try to do, but we all know that that did not work for the Dublin convention and it will not work if Labour takes power. President Macron will not suddenly change his mind. He will not take anyone back. We will be in this exact position in 15 months’ time if there is a Labour Government, and I predict that, if there is a Labour Government, they will simply leave this Act on the statute book pretty well unamended.

My constituency is a victim of all this, so what is the House going to do? This is utterly debilitating. We cannot go on like this. Please, can we have a plan?

[Caroline Lucas]

It is sadly not a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Talking about leaving or having derogations from human rights law is exactly what is wrong with the Government’s approach to this issue and what is wrong with this vile Bill.

With overwhelming support from across the political spectrum, and backed by Conservative peers and by religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other place is absolutely right to have inflicted a string of defeats on this vile, illegal Bill.

Lords amendment 1B, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, should be easy for any decent Government to accept, because it simply asks for compliance with the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our democracy. But the Government are attacking that foundation, forced to admit on the face of this immoral Bill that they are unable to say it is compatible with the 1950 European convention on human rights. By moving a motion to disagree to Lords amendment 1B, the Government are seeking to deny UK judges the right to interpret this law and to check it against compliance with the UK’s obligations under no fewer than five international conventions that we should be defending, not undermining.

The Minister in the other place tried to argue that a previous version of this amendment was trying to incorporate international law into domestic law and that, in doing so, it was an unacceptable change to our legal framework. I do not think that that is what the previous version did, but, for the avoidance of doubt, in this version Lords amendment 1B is explicit in calling for the interpretation of international law to ensure compliance with our international obligations. Indeed, Ministers will be aware of the contribution from Lord Hope, who served as deputy president of the Supreme Court and last week said that this amendment is a

“pure interpretation provision…entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions….it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1817.]

Adhering to the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, and other international laws we have signed up to should be non-negotiable. What a terrible state of affairs it is that the Government want to vote down an amendment seeking compliance with the rule of law.

The Government’s argument is that stripping vulnerable people of asylum and other human rights will stop other vulnerable people falling into the hands of the people traffickers. That is both morally bankrupt and utterly bogus. It is morally bankrupt because human rights are not earned or contingent on a person’s conduct or character, or on whether upholding those rights might affect someone else’s actions. Human rights are attached to a person by virtue of their humanity. Vulnerable people, including children, are being punished because of presumed future actions of adults. Furthermore, by disagreeing with Lords amendment 1B, Ministers face the charge of hypocrisy, as they disrespect international law and undermine migrants’ rights at a time of unprecedented international turmoil. Just last week, the Prime Minister was at a NATO summit absolutely saying that we need to uphold international law against the grotesque breaches by Putin in Ukraine. Yes, we do need to do that, but let us have a little moral consistency.

As well as being immoral, the Government’s argument about a deterrent effect is bogus and unevidenced. The Home Office’s own impact assessment, published just last month, is peppered with caveats about how undeliverable this policy is. It includes an admission that:

“The delivery plan is still being developed.”

The lack of evidence on deterrence in that document is glaring. It says that the Bill is “novel and untested”, so we do not know what impact it will have on deterrence. As I said earlier, a raft of children’s charities have pointed out that once routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. Beyond that, there is a strong evidence to show that it is the precisely the hostility towards refuges exemplified by this Bill and the Government’s rejection of Lords amendments to it that fuels the grim and terrible trade in small boats that they claim they are against.

So any Member who votes to block the Lords amendments should admit that in doing so, they degrade the rule of law, dehumanise vulnerable refugees, attack our modern slavery laws, put LGBT refugees at grave risk, and that their approach will lead to the unconscionable mass detention and treatment of children, with no stated time limit to that detention—it is sickening. I will be voting to uphold the Lords amendments, because this Bill shames and degrades our country, our democracy and this House.