Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Matt Vickers and Gareth Snell

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Today’s remarks from Conservative Members have been clear—we understand the public’s frustration that more has not been done to reduce these numbers. They are too high, and they must be lowered. During the election campaign, Labour said that it wanted to smash the gangs, but since it took power, small boat crossings have risen by 28%. Before the election, we were closing hotels, yet now 6,000 more people are in hotels, and the number of people arriving in small boats and being removed is down. Conservative Members remain deeply concerned that this Bill and the Government’s approach would represent a backwards step. Rather than utilising every power available, they are focused on tweaking existing laws and stripping away powers that were previously put in place. That is not the approach that the UK needs; rather, we need legislation and a strategy that establishes powers to stop illegal migration for good.

I can already hear Labour Members criticising the last Government. We do not deny that numbers were far too high—quite the opposite—but it was the last Government who introduced a deterrent, one that was scrapped by the Labour party immediately upon taking office before it could even begin. The Leader of the Opposition has been abundantly clear that despite efforts made by the last Government, far more needed to be done to solve the problem.

The problem for the Government is that, despite their complaints about their predecessors, this legislation is unlikely to provide anything like a real solution. The immigration crisis is undoubtedly one of the biggest challenges we face as a country, and it requires bold action. If people believe that they can arrive here illegally and stay, they will continue to come in ever-increasing numbers. The cancelling of the deterrent was an act of national self-harm. The increase in small boat arrivals since the Labour party took office makes that clear for the whole House to see.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Matt Vickers]

I will give way to people who have been here throughout and have contributed to the debate.

Some of the changes in the Bill weaken rather than strengthen our ability to deal with the issue. Creating a route to British citizenship for those arriving here illegally—enticing more people to come—cannot be part of the solution. Weakening our ability to scientifically verify the age of those arriving, creating huge safeguarding risks in our education and care system, is also not part of the solution.

The National Crime Agency, and examples from Governments around the world, show that a deterrent must be in place, but this Bill does the opposite by removing the deterrent that is currently in law. It seems to stem from the misguided belief that arresting a small number of these heinous criminals will be enough to stop the crossings. Even though we would all like that to be the case, it is a vast oversimplification.

On deterrence to stop criminals, we all agree on the need to arrest the people behind these crimes, which is why, in 2023, there were 246 arrests of people smugglers and 86 arrests of small boat pilots—and I am still stunned that the Labour party opposed life sentences for people smugglers. We need measures that stop people boarding those boats in the first place, however, because failing to do so not only harms our country but fails those who endanger their lives by making that perilous journey.

Where legislation increases enforcement powers, enables further interventions and enhances data availability, we will welcome it. The experience of the enforcement authorities must be heard to ensure that they have the necessary powers. These sensible measures should not, however, be bundled into a Bill that simultaneously weakens the Secretary of State’s authority. The Home Secretary’s remarks failed to acknowledge the impact of the repeals. [Interruption.] She could have commenced them with the stroke of a pen. We must ask why this Bill repeals sensible provisions. It is stunning that the Government would prefer to weaken their powers rather than strengthen them.

Turning specifically to the repeals of previously passed legislation, I ask the Government what is wrong with the principle that if someone enters the UK illegally, they should never have a path to British citizenship. Why remove that provision? British citizenship is a special privilege, not something to be granted lightly. Those who enter our country illegally—breaking our laws—should not be offered a pathway to citizenship. Regularly granting citizenship to such individuals undermines the deterrent and sends the damaging message that breaking the law can lead to benefits. That harms the UK and endangers those who risk their lives to come here.

Additionally, the legislation repeals the Secretary of State’s ability to regulate consent for scientific age assessments where there are no reasonable grounds to withhold consent. That was a sensible step to prevent the abuse of the system. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary, but between 2016 and September 2022, around 8,000 asylum cases involved age disputes. In about half, the individuals were assessed to be adults. Removing that power again weakens our legal infrastructure. We have also suggested significant but appropriate changes to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship. Why should the right to stay not be dependent on someone’s willingness to contribute and obey the law?

Last week, the Brussels correspondent for The Times reported that the European Union is drafting plans to overhaul the post-war refugee convention in what may be one of the most significant shifts in migration policy for decades. That is a clear signal of a growing consensus across the western world that the legal structures and institutions that restrict the Government from doing what is best for our country, and that have been obstructive, are no longer fit for purpose in tackling this significant issue.

While EU countries look to put together a deterrent scheme similar to the one cancelled by the Government, we must ask what the Government are trying to achieve with this legislation. Rather than implementing the significant changes being seriously discussed in Europe, or those that have been effective in Australia, they are opting for limited interventions. They are focused on tweaks to the system while simultaneously reducing their own powers in other aspects of the legal framework. That is not the decisive leadership that we need from the Government of the United Kingdom; it is a weak approach stemming from weak leadership, and for that reason I urge the House to vote for the reasoned amendment. It would be far better for the Government to go away, return swiftly with the necessary legal changes, and adopt an approach that genuinely deters people from coming to this country illegally.

I remind Members that despite pledges to smash the gangs, as of yesterday crossings were up by nearly 28%. That demonstrates that, as we warned the Government, their plan is not working, and the reality is that there are no easy fixes to this problem. There are significant challenges in addressing the issues arising from channel crossings, but we do not believe that the appropriate response is to dismantle legislation that provides the Government with powers they could use for the benefit of the country. That would be capitulation, and a charter for illegal immigration. I say to the Government: bring forward a Bill that enhances the ability of enforcement agencies, rather than one that strips them of their powers. We need a solution that takes the transformative steps to reduce illegal migration significantly, and action that secures our country’s borders and stops these life-threatening crossings. It is wrong to tell the world that if someone comes here illegally they can become a British citizen. I urge Members to back the reasoned amendment.

Police Grant Report

Debate between Matt Vickers and Gareth Snell

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

Before engaging in the substance of the debate, I thank the brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs, police staff and volunteers who work tirelessly to protect the public. They work day and night to make our communities safer, and run towards danger while others run away. We recognise the huge sacrifices that they make, giving their time, their health, and in the most tragic cases, their life.

I know that MPs across the House recognise our responsibility to support the police in their work. I am therefore pleased that Members have expressed their concerns to the Minister about this settlement. The reality is that the funding settlement put forward by the Government is inadequate. Everyone in this Chamber who has spoken with their local police force knows that the settlement will not provide the necessary resources, particularly given the inflationary pressures.

Last week, when questioned by Nick Ferrari about the absurd tax raid on our police forces and the fact that her settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister said that she was

“not pretending that it isn’t…challenging for police forces”.

Today, however, she and her colleagues are attempting to present a different picture, understating the settlement’s impact on reducing police numbers, and the financial challenge that it poses to our police forces. Last week, she stated that PCCs and chief constables must make local decisions about the composition of their forces. Will she now acknowledge that her Government’s decisions have created that impossible position for police leaders? At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms; however, there is a sleight of hand. The cash increase is not enough to cover new financial pressures, the biggest of which have been created by the Government. The funding will not be sufficient to sustain police forces. Without further action, it will ultimately lead to reductions in officer numbers.

Since the funding settlement was announced, numerous PCCs, chief constables and representative bodies have warned the Government about the challenges that it will create. Why are police forces so concerned? The impact of this year’s funding must be assessed in the context of two key factors. The first is the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions. Some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay the Government’s own tax raid on our own police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Economic data has already shown the harm that the national insurance raid has inflicted on businesses and jobs, but it has also reduced the financial benefit that the police will receive from the settlement.

Since the Government chose to impose this tax nationwide, it is only right that the Home Office should fully cover the cost of the tax increase for police forces, but the Government now claim that the £230 million that covers their own tax hike somehow counts as a funding increase. It is not a funding increase; it just covers an extra cost that the Government have imposed on our hard-working police forces. Would that money not have been better spent on more police officers, investments in technology to improve efficiency—something that the Government claim to prioritise—or targeted interventions?

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister, like so many Conservative Members, was supportive of the health and social care levy, which was a larger and more wide-ranging increase in national insurance than anything proposed by this Government. I have just checked Hansard for the entire time that he has been a Member of this place, and not once did he speak out against that tax hike and not once has he referenced police funding, until today. What is it about being in opposition that makes him think he now has the moral high ground?

[Matt Vickers]

That is a false statement, actually—it is misleading. I have definitely mentioned police funding in the House before.