Immigration Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Wednesday 21st May 2025

(1 day, 20 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No.

There were 30,000 arrivals in the space of 20 weeks— not 220 or even 500 boats, but 670 boats. How did that happen? The Conservatives were all too busy fighting among themselves and crashing the economy to bother about protecting our borders.

Let us not forget the role that the shadow Home Secretary played in that little bit of Conservative party history. In the space of 20 weeks, he went from tech Minister to no ministerial role, to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to Paymaster General, to police Minister, but none of that was his most important role. We should remember—

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No. [Interruption.]

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am talking about 20-week periods, which feature in the Opposition’s motion. I am talking about what happened in a 20-week period, when—just to go back over it—the shadow Home Secretary went from tech Minister to not having a job, to being Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paymaster General, and then police Minister. The Conservatives brought the same chaos to government as they did to their immigration policy, over which they had control for 14 years.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No; I am going to make some of these points. We should all remember that the shadow Home Secretary was once credited as being the economic guru behind Liz Truss’s premiership. This is the man who helped Liz Truss to write her catastrophic mini-Budget, drive the country off a cliff and scupper her own premiership.

--- Later in debate ---
Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out the chaos that there was in 14 years of Conservative government and the shadow Home Secretary’s record in these areas—

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Let me finish the sentence. No, I will not give way.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out what the Conservatives’ record is, when they have come to the Chamber to try to lecture the Government about what to do with our immigration and migration policies, even though we are clearing up their mess.

This Government inherited a system in total chaos from the Conservatives, which was partially because of the chaos I have just mentioned—those 20 weeks between the Pincher visit to the Carlton Club and the Budget that was needed to clear up Liz Truss’s mess, when we had three Prime Ministers and four Home Secretaries. Can the Conservatives seriously pretend to the British people that while they were busy doing all that, they had a coherent migration policy that they can lecture us about? I do not think so.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the Minister give way?

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman now, because he stood up when I got to the end of a sentence.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

I am very grateful to the Minister; now that I know that formally, I look forward to being able to intervene in future.

I would be grateful for clarity on the Prime Minister’s policy. In 2020, he wrote a letter in which he defended migrants’ rights and made a positive case for immigration, yet in his recent speech he talked about crafting an “island of strangers”. Will the Minister provide clarity on which of the two the Prime Minister believes when it comes to immigration policy?

Angela Eagle Portrait Dame Angela Eagle
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

When we discuss migration policy, net migration and legal or illegal immigration, it is really important to remember that we are talking about human beings, that we should treat them as human beings and that all human beings have human rights. We should not perpetuate narratives that dehumanise people. Too often—

--- Later in debate ---
Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Pinkerton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, thank you. The hon. Gentleman’s party had nine years; I have less than nine minutes.

Meanwhile, the legal migration rules became so convoluted that even seasoned immigration lawyers needed to phone a friend. Skilled workers were welcomed one week and penalised the next. International students were encouraged to come and then punished for having families. The only thing consistent in Conservative policy was chaos.

All that was wrapped in a layer of chest-beating, slogan-touting nationalism. “Take back control,” they cried, as if chanting it loudly enough might somehow make it true. Yet control is not about standing on the shoreline like King Canute, barking orders at the tide. It is about building a system that actually works—one that treats people with dignity, balances compassion with pragmatism and delivers results instead of rhetoric. Instead, what did we get? An asylum system on its knees, trafficking gangs operating with near total impunity and, most tragically, lives lost in the channel. Just this Monday, 62 people were rescued after a small boat sank in the early hours. One person died; others were injured. That, of course, is not an anomaly. According to the BBC, over 12,500 have crossed the channel in small boats this year, and it is only May.

The Labour response so far has, I would argue, been muted ambition, vague promises and nervous tiptoeing around the institutional wreckage, as if managerial competence alone might magic away a decade of Conservative failures. The Liberal Democrats are clear that these crossings must stop, but unlike the Conservatives we do not confuse cruelty with competence.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Luke Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Pinkerton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No, I will not.

We believe in expanding safe and legal routes for refugees, including humanitarian travel permits offering vulnerable people a viable alternative to risking their life at sea.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Member give way?

Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Pinkerton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No.

We also believe that the real way to tackle the channel crisis is through stronger co-operation. That means working through Europol to dismantle trafficking networks, share intelligence, deliver joint enforcement and report progress back to Parliament every six months, as well as a statutory duty for the UK Border Security Commander to meet their Europol counterparts at least once every three months.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

Will the hon. Member give way?

Ben Obese-Jecty Portrait Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Member give way?

Al Pinkerton Portrait Dr Pinkerton
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

The Liberal Democrat spokesman spoke about numbers and safe and legal routes. Could he tell us how many routes he would open up and with which countries?

--- Later in debate ---
Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I thank the hon. Member for his clarification. I hate to break it to him, but article 8 will not do what he thinks it will, and tightening it will not solve the problem. The article that presents the biggest problems, actually, is article 3, which does not have caveats and cannot be tightened in the way that he suggests.

The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke of border security as national security. She was correct to do so, but just last week when told in this Chamber that terrorists come across the channel in small boats, her colleagues on the Government Benches laughed and jeered.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk made, as ever, a compelling economic and cultural case for control. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), who is not in her place, set out some of the worst problems with the current immigration system, but she was perhaps not entirely forthcoming in the way she shared the statistics. Far from Labour closing asylum hotels, there are 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when Labour came to power.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have aired our differing views on this topic over many weeks in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee. I am not sure either of us has done much to persuade the other, but I always enjoy his company.

Luke Evans Portrait Dr Evans
- Hansard - -

In 2020 the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—pledged as point 6 of his “Another future is possible” plan that the Yarl’s Wood detention centre would close. To my knowledge, as of today it is still open. Given my hon. Friend’s experience, is she aware that Yarl’s Wood will be closing? Has she heard the Government commit to closing it, and if so, when will that be?

Katie Lam Portrait Katie Lam
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I can only recommend that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath.

I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for mentioning what needs to be done on age assessments. The amendments we have tabled to the border security Bill would make much progress on that.

Last week the Prime Minister said that mass migration risked turning us into an “island of strangers”. He was absolutely right. He recognised, as we do, that fixing migration is the single most important thing that his Government could do to restore public trust in our politics, yet the plan that he presented—the Government’s migration White Paper—is not a plan to end mass migration or control our borders. It is a plan for more of the same.

Instead of a detailed programme, the Government’s White Paper offers more delays, more reviews, more consultations and more half-measures. Their plan to deport foreign criminals is subject to a consultation later this year. Their plan to reform the rules on settlement is subject to another consultation. When given the chance, they have voted against a hard cap on visas, against our plan to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from immigration cases, and against our plan to restrict long-term settlement to those who contribute enough to cover their costs. They are just not serious.

The Home Secretary estimates that their plan will cut migration by 50,000 people. In the context of hundreds of thousands a year, that is just not enough. The Government have no plan to remove the 1.2 million people here illegally and no real plan to restrict study or family visas, which made up 40% of all migration last year.

If we thought that the Government’s plans would genuinely end mass migration and control our borders, we would support them in a heartbeat. The need to do what is right for our country is bigger than any single party, politician or Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this Government have no plan, and they will go down as the latest Government who failed to fix mass migration. This is the most shameful betrayal of public trust in British politics, and it must end, but the Labour Government show no sign that they will do what needs to be done.