Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 3E, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 6D, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 10D, and Government motion to disagree.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Madam Deputy Speaker, here we are again—you were in the Chair the last time we considered this Bill. This House has now voted several times, including in our strong endorsement of the Bill on Second and Third Readings. We need to bring this process to a conclusion to get the Bill on to the statute book and to get the flights off the ground as soon as possible.

Lords amendment 1D says we should have “due regard for” the Children Act 1989, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but why stop there? Why not the Equality Act 2010, the Data Protection Act 2018 or any other Act? Why not list the whole statute book? The answer is because it is not necessary. Together, the treaty, the Bill and the evidence demonstrate that Rwanda is safe for relocated individuals and that the Government’s approach is tough but fair, is lawful, has justification and seeks to uphold our international obligations.

As I set out in our earlier debates, the Government respect the Supreme Court’s decision, and it was precisely to address the Supreme Court’s concerns that we brought forward the treaty with the Republic of Rwanda. We have also prepared an evidence pack on what has changed and how those concerns are being addressed.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I am struck by how reasonable Lord Hope’s amendment seems in setting up an independent body to assert that Rwanda is a safe place, as the Minister says. What could possibly be wrong with that?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will address that amendment in a few minutes, but there already is an independent body: the monitoring committee is part of the treaty. I am not speaking to that amendment at the moment, but I hope to allay some of the hon. Lady’s concerns in a few minutes’ time and then to see her in the voting Lobby.

Having considered the lengthy and extensive exchanges throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government now invite Parliament to agree with our assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have indeed been properly addressed and to enact the Bill accordingly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My party will support the Government, with the exception of one amendment. I have previously asked the Minister about freedom of religion or belief. We have that freedom in the United Kingdom, but some disquiet has been expressed to me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, about that freedom in Rwanda. People have repeatedly asked me this question, which I sincerely and graciously ask the Minister to answer. Is there the same freedom of religion or belief in Rwanda as we have in the United Kingdom?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that any two countries’ systems are the same. As I have previously said, those freedoms are in Rwanda’s constitution. He has previously asked me that question, and I have read out the precise wording. I endeavour to do so again before the end of this debate.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Many people share the Government’s ambition to stop the boats. Would these Lords amendments not muddle the legislation in a way that, once again, would leave us open to an unnecessary court challenge? Can he reassure us that, unamended, the Bill will do the job?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I know my right hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the Bill since the outset, and he is right. The amendments fall into two categories: those that are simply unnecessary and those that are worse than unnecessary. The second group are wrecking amendments deliberately designed to prevent the very things that the Bill was designed to do—namely, stopping the boats and getting the planes off the ground.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has previously accused me of repeating myself from time to time—heaven forfend—but he is right, because our approach is justified as a matter of parliamentary sovereignty and constitutional propriety. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) has even said that it is not unprecedented, and he is right. It also meets our international obligations.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I reciprocate the Minister’s comment because, in so far as I may have rather infelicitously suggested that he has repeated himself, I have to confess that I, too, have repeated myself. [Hon. Members: “No!] Yes, and I have done so for extremely good reasons.

My amendment, which I will not go into now, received huge support in this House but was not accepted by the Government. It still presents a serious question that has to be answered. Going back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, there will come a time when this Bill is passed, hopefully in the immediate future, after which it will receive Royal Assent. At that very moment, as sure as anything, a claim will be made straightaway by Matrix Chambers, or by one of the other doughty chambers or whoever. The question will then be what the Supreme Court is going to do about it. That is the subject to which I keep returning.

As the Minister knows only too well, when we said that we were concerned that the Bill will not work, it was not because we did not want it to work; it was the exact opposite. We want it to work, but given that the Opposition are still going on about international law, we need to be sure that the wording is clear and unambiguous so that the Court rules in the Government’s favour. If not, it is all over.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Once again, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a tendency to repeat himself from time to time, as he admits, but he is right to do so. He has previously mentioned paragraph 144 of the Supreme Court’s judgment, which I can cite in full:

“in any event, the principle of legality does not permit a court to disregard an unambiguous expression of Parliament’s intention such as that with which we are concerned in the present case.”

It has been our joint endeavour to ensure that this legislation is clear and unambiguous.

On the treaty’s implementation, I reiterate that clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and that the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all the necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

The monitoring committee, as I told the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification and response to any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting takes place in real time.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister ensure that the report is laid before Parliament so that we can review it?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The monitoring committee’s work is independent. Commitments have already been made that there will be an update in Parliament, which is one of the amendments in lieu that we agreed to last time. Today, the right thing to do is to push back on all these amendments, which are either unnecessary or wrecking.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I appreciate the tone and manner in which the Minister is approaching this difficult issue, but can he help on one matter? I understand his point that some amendments might have the effect of delaying the Bill, or might give rise to challenges and delay the policy objective, but I am troubled about why that should be thought to apply to Lords amendment 3E, proposed by Lord Hope of Craighead, who is a distinguished jurist and whose amendment is proposed in moderate and unpartisan terms. The rub of what will happen going forward is whether or not Rwanda is safe. Parliament can legislate, as a matter of sovereignty, to say that it is safe, but for the legislation to be effective we have to deal with the fact that we have chosen to make ourselves judges of fact, but facts may change. Given that we have put in place the mechanism, with the monitoring committee and enhanced arrangements, which are all to the Government’s credit, I struggle to see what is in the Hope amendment that undermines the operationality of the Bill, rather than helping it. If facts did change, would it not be helpful to have such a mechanism to enable us to review that, on an informed basis?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his engagement in the Chamber during previous debates and outside the Chamber. I hope over the next few minutes to persuade him as to why this specific amendment is in fact unnecessary. I share his respect for the noble Lord Hope, as should we all, but I respectfully disagree with him that this amendment is necessary. Let me explain why.

The implementation of these provisions will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee that we have been discussing. That role was enhanced by the treaty from that originally envisaged. The commitment from our friends and allies in Rwanda is evident given the progress that has already been made. Let me set out two or three concrete pieces of evidence to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).

On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. The complaints process has been set up. This, plus the wider assurances on the training process, which will ensure the quality of decision making and build capability in Rwanda’s asylum system, all reaffirm the fact that we have confidence in Rwanda’s commitment to delivering this partnership and in its status as a safe country.

As is evident from our numerous debates, Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised as generally safe and stable. A further piece of evidence is that Rwanda’s overall score in the World Justice Project’s rule of law index has increased consistently. It is the first in sub-Saharan Africa and 41st globally. In fact, it is higher than both Georgia and India, which this Parliament has in the recent past confirmed are safe countries. Those relocated to Rwanda will be given safety and extensive support, as detailed and set out in the treaty. I am grateful to all the officials in the Government of Rwanda who have been working so hard on this.

Lords amendment 6D, which I characterise as a wrecking amendment, would simply encourage illegal migrants to continue to frustrate the system through lengthy legal challenges in order to prevent their removal, running contrary to the core purpose of the Bill. The Bill strikes the appropriate balance of limiting unnecessary challenges that frustrate removal, while maintaining the principle of access to the courts. Taken as a whole, the limited availability of domestic remedies maintains the right constitutional balance—the balance that we have all been seeking in this Chamber—between Parliament being able to legislate as it deems necessary, and the powers of our courts to hold the Government to account.

Turning to the final Lords amendment, amendment 10D, I acknowledge, as I acknowledged during our previous exchanges, that this Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. I repeat: we will not let them down. Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 enables the Secretary of State to specify categories of persons to whom the duty to remove will not apply. Once the United Kingdom’s special forces Afghan relocations and assistance policy review, announced on 19 February, has concluded, the Government will consider how to revisit our immigration legislation and how it will apply to those who will be eligible as a result of the review.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is one thing to hear the Minister give the assurances he has given today, but the fact remains that we have been out of Afghanistan for some time now. There is considerable evidence that those who helped us, and put themselves in danger as a result, have not been able to get easy access to the United Kingdom and get immigration status. The Government have not dealt with the issue in the past, despite the fact that the difficulty that these people are facing has been made quite clear, so why should we believe their assurances that they will deal with it in the future? Therefore, this amendment is necessary.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The answer is that this Prime Minister has placed around his Cabinet table the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer)—a veterans’ Minister sitting at the highest level. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has served our country, as have many right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We will not let veterans down. That is the reassurance that has been given from this Dispatch Box and in the other place by the noble Lord Sharpe.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) expressed optimism on Monday. I confess that I too am an optimist. May I take this opportunity, perhaps in the optimistic hope that this might be my last opportunity during the passage of the Bill, to thank all the Bill team in the Home Office for their extraordinary work? It is a team effort, but may I praise one who has gone above and beyond, whose voice, I hope, recovers? She knows who I am talking about. I thank the parliamentary Clerks for their advice and assistance, not least in our marathon Reasons Committee sessions. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for always ensuring that I have been in order.

To conclude, we have made it abundantly clear that our priority is to stop the boats. We simply cannot stand by and allow people smugglers to control who enters our country and to see more lives being lost at sea. We have an obligation to the public and to those who are being exploited by criminal gangs to stop this vile trade and protect our borders. Letting this Bill pass now will send a clear signal that if people come to the United Kingdom illegally they will not be able to stay. I commend the motion to the House.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords in the other place for all the hard work they have done in trying to amend the Bill, which is quite frankly a sham and a con. I would like to highlight the restraint that they have exercised. Despite the deeply damaging nature of this legislation, in terms of its impact on our constitutional conventions and our adherence as a country to the rule of law, none of the amendments before us today seeks to wreck the Bill or the unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme the Bill seeks to enact. Not one of them would prevent flights to Rwanda from taking off or stop the Government flogging this dead horse of a policy. Instead, the amendments seek only to commit the Government to the promises they have already made about who will be sent to Rwanda, and to clarify the mechanisms that will underpin that process.

Ministers claim that there is tremendous and pressing urgency, but if that is the case why did the Government forgo the opportunity to use Monday 25 and Tuesday 26 March for debates and divisions on the Bill? Could it be because they needed extra time to scramble high and low for an airline that wanted to be associated with this unworkable, unaffordable and unlawful scheme? Or could it be because the Home Secretary is unable to decide who should be exempted from deportation to Rwanda? Indeed, it has been reported that, because of his dithering, the entire hare-brained scheme has been given a “red risk” rating in the Home Office.

That brings me to the permanent secretary’s comments at the Public Accounts Committee on Monday—namely that 40,000 asylum seekers are currently stuck in the truly Kafkaesque perma-backlog of inadmissible cases whose claims for asylum the Government are refusing to process. Forty thousand requires an awful lot of flights, given that the Government have not managed to get one flight off the ground and given what we know about the Rwandan Government’s capacity to process just a few hundred cases a year.

Therefore, given that a maximum of around 1% of the asylum seekers who are in the perma-backlog can be sent to Rwanda, what is the Minister’s plan for the remaining 99% who are stuck in this indefinite limbo of his Government’s own making? Is the plan to keep them in taxpayer-funded hotels, of which hundreds are still in operation, according to what the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border said on Monday, despite the Government’s boasts? Or, perhaps they will have an amnesty, which the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) warned about last year, and which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) warned about at that very Committee.

Well, we know what we would do: we would deliver our backlog clearance plan, surging the number of decision-makers to process claims quickly, and set up our new returns and enforcement unit with 1,000 new staff to remove those who have no right to be here.

It is quite frankly shocking that the number of foreign criminals removed has dropped by a staggering 27 % under the Conservatives, and also profoundly worrying that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has plummeted by 44 % in that time, with just 2%—2%!—of small boat crossers removed since 2018. What a sorry state of affairs.

Our new returns unit, together with our cross-border police units to go after the criminal smuggler gangs operating in the channel upstream—funded, of course, through redirecting the money that has been squandered on Rwanda—gives us a compelling and realistic plan. It is a plan that is based on hard graft, common sense and effective international co-operation, in stark contrast with the headline-chasing gimmicks, empty gestures and blank cheques that have come to define the way in which successive Conservative Governments have broken our asylum system and lost control of our borders.

The Government’s refusal to engage constructively with the other place on this Bill is deeply disappointing, given that their lordships have simply been fulfilling their constitutional duty to revise and improve the draft legislation that we convey to them. The noble Baroness Butler-Sloss received a tiny concession for her commendable attempts to stop the Government sending victims of modern slavery to Rwanda, but let us be clear: that concession was barely worth the paper that it was written on.

It is utterly shameful that Ministers are still refusing to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Browne. We owe a debt of honour and gratitude to the Afghans who so bravely fought alongside British troops, and the idea that we might send them to Rwanda is simply unconscionable. Lord Browne’s amendment is not only driven by a moral imperative; it is underpinned by our national interest and by military logic, for the simple and obvious reason that the ability of our armed forces to recruit local allies will be severely constrained if this Bill passes unamended.

Let me turn now to the other amendments before us today. It cannot be repeated often enough that adherence to the rule of law must remain at the heart of our constitutional conventions, and as a cornerstone of our liberal democratic values. It is therefore profoundly concerning that Ministers continue to refuse to recognise how important it is for Britain to abide by these principles, and to have this commitment in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Minister.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the leave of the House, I would like to make a few remarks; I fear that I do not have time to respond to each and every point that has been made, but I thank right hon. and hon. Members right across the House for the contributions they have made.

I want to pick up on one contribution, which is the intervention that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made on the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). The shadow Minister cannot actually say what Labour would do: he says that he has a plan, but all Labour can say it would do is exactly what the Government are already doing. It has said that it would scrap the Rwanda scheme even when it is up and running, but it has not found a deterrent. Worse than that, as my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) have also said previously, it is incumbent on anyone who disagrees with this policy to come up with their own solution to the problem of how we deal with people who enter the country with no legitimate, credible case for claiming asylum and who cannot be returned to their home country. As ever, answer came there none from the Labour party.

Letting this Bill now pass will enable us to send a clear signal: “If you enter this country illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be detained and swiftly returned to your home country or to a safe third country, namely Rwanda.” I urge this House to once again send a strong message back to the other place that these amendments are not necessary.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1D.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

4. What recent progress his Department has made on returning illegal migrants to their home country.

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

In 2023, we delivered a strong removal performance, with overall returns back to pre-covid levels. In total, 26,000 were returned, an increase of 74%, at an average of 500 removed every week last year.

[Henry Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Can he update the House on how his Department is prioritising the return of foreign national offenders to their home countries to keep the streets and communities of the United Kingdom safe?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the work that goes on in his constituency? As he knows, I visited Gatwick recently and saw for myself the good work of the Border Force team there. He will be pleased to know that removals of foreign national offenders were up last year by 27%. We are committed to the removal of foreign criminals and those with no right to be in the United Kingdom.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

On that point, I sadly see many asylum seekers in Newport who are stuck in limbo due to this Government’s incompetence. However, can I draw the Minister’s attention to the case of a man in Newport who lied about his name and country of origin and is a convicted sex offender who has breached the terms of his licence? The courts want him returned home. He wants to return home and will even pay for his flight, but for some unfathomable reason, the Home Office seem incapable of authorising or allowing that. It has been three years—why?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The removals increased last year. It is interesting to note that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to ensure they are preventing the deportation of foreign criminals. Those on the Government Benches are determined to see foreign criminals removed, and there was an increase in removals of 74% last year.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Under successive Conservative Governments since 2010, returns of failed asylum seekers have collapsed by 44%, and returns of foreign national offenders have fallen by almost 30% over the same period. For all the Government’s tough talk, only 2% of those arriving on small boats since 2018 have been returned anywhere, yet Ministers are still resisting Labour’s plan for a new returns and enforcement unit to ensure the swift removal of those with no right to be here. Meanwhile, over the weekend, more people crossed the channel in small boats than will be covered in the entire first year of the Government’s failing Rwanda scheme. Will the Minister stop the headline-chasing gimmicks and instead commit to setting out his plan for the 99% of people currently stuck in the asylum system who will never be sent to Rwanda?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The fact of the matter is that nearly 18,000 foreign national offenders were returned between January 2019 and December 2023. The fact of the matter is that Opposition Members, including the leader of the Labour party, have campaigned to prevent the deportation of foreign criminals, while Government Members welcome an increase of 74%, with an average of 500 people being removed every single week.

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of neighbourhood policing levels.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

12. What recent progress he has made with his French counterparts on tackling illegal migration.

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

Joint working with our French partners is crucial to stopping the boats. Thanks in no small part to that joint working, small boat crossings were down by 46% last year.

[Michael Fabricant]

My spies tell me that my hon. and learned Friend was in France just nine days ago. Were there any lessons to be learned from the French authorities about more co-operation that can go on to stop the boats even further?

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is right: I was in France nine days ago. Even while I was there, a boat was seized, but he is right to say that more needs to be done. Personnel, equipment and technology are key to breaking the business model of the criminal gangs. Having met the new Préfet du Nord, I am in no doubt that this is a joint mission.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

Will the Minister update the House on the number of illegal migrants who have crossed the channel and are currently being accommodated in hotels at the expense of the public purse? How does that compare with the number of UK nationals who are currently homeless or sleeping rough?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I can confirm that the Government have beaten our target of closing 50 hotels by the end of January, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to welcome.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

13. What progress his Department has made on closing asylum hotels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary fired the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration after losing confidence in him when he went public with his concerns. As the Home Office failed to publish 15 reports from the inspector despite an agreement that it would publish them within eight weeks of receipt, and with matters of border security at stake, is Mr David Neal actually a whistleblower?

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

As the right hon. Lady knows, Mr Neal’s appointment was terminated after he breached the terms of his appointment and lost the trust of the Home Secretary in relation to the reports that she mentions. As she would expect, reports and recommendations are always considered carefully by Ministers, and they will be published in due course.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

The slogan that was projected on to Big Ben last Wednesday was extreme and antisemitic. To many, it calls for the destruction of Israel and is seen as a genocidal statement. Decent people around the country—not just Jews—find that appalling. Does the Minister agree that there are criminal offences that could be used for prosecutions, and will he reiterate his calls for the police to prosecute those responsible?

Deportation of Foreign National Offenders

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for the way in which she conducts herself in this place and for the passion and common sense that she brought to this debate. This debate is topical and timely, and I pay tribute to her for her foresight in applying for it—many weeks ago, I am sure, yet the time is right. It is probably one of those debates where more time would be helpful. The British public rightly expect our immigration system to work for them. We serve the public and our constituents, and that includes having a firm approach to those who abuse our generosity.

Let me address some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. It is right that we as a country have a long and proud tradition of welcoming the stranger, of welcoming those who are in need, to our shores, but it is only fair that we ask for something simple in response, which is that they play by our rules and are law-abiding. I do not hesitate to say that fairness is at the heart of this debate. The Government are absolutely clear that foreign nationals who seek to take advantage of our generosity or abuse our hospitality by committing crimes should be deported.

Let me turn to the legal framework that underpins this, because that might answer one or two of my hon. Friend’s points. Essentially, two systems—two statutes—are used. The first is the UK Borders Act 2007, where a deportation order must be considered when a foreign national has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of more than 12 months. She mentioned the threshold of 12 months. There is a system under the Immigration Act 1971 whereby, if someone is sentenced to below 12 months, they can also be deported when it is conducive to the public good. We cannot go into the details of that now, but it is interesting to note that there is no definition of that and therefore there is great flexibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) knows. Suitable discretion is given to the Home Secretary in those circumstances.

As this debate has shown, however, circumstances arise where people seek to prevent deportation. There are some good reasons for that: for example, an offender might need to stay here to face the consequences of a court case. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend, the former Home Secretary, for majoring on the victims of crime, who are absolutely at the heart of this issue. That is why it is right that some foreign national offenders stay here for the first part of their sentence at least. But it is also right to say that there are legal challenges, late appeals and re-documentation barriers intended to frustrate the deportation process.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) tempts me to go down the ECHR line and to address that. It is right to say that we have international obligations under not just the ECHR, but the refugee convention, and that because of those obligations, some deportations have not been able to take place. However, the Government are determined to do everything we can to ensure that foreign criminals are deported, making our communities safer. Perhaps there will be another time when we can debate the niceties of articles 8 and 3 in more detail.

Let me come to the statistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch mentioned. We removed more than 16,500 foreign national offenders between January 2019 and September 2023. There was a dip, and she is right to challenge me on that point. It was not just because of covid but, at about that time, there was a dip. She will be pleased to know—as will you, Mr Gray, and others in the Chamber—that, since then, the returns of FNOs have been increasing. They went up by 19% in the past 12 months. That is a good start, but I am determined to take her point seriously and to take that further.

The hon. Member for Strangford asked me whether this is a priority of the Government. Yes, it is, and he will hopefully be reassured in that regard by the increase of 19% in the past 12 months. He and others may also be reassured to hear what we have done in the past two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will know better than most about the Nationality and Borders Act, although my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch knows it well. Legislation was introduced to increase the relevant period to ensure that we can remove more foreign national offenders, and do so earlier. That is good for the taxpayer and in regard to the space in our prison estate, and it is fairer to society.

It is also right to say that the Nationalities and Borders Act was opposed by Labour. The Labour party so often opposes—every single measure that is brought in to tighten our borders is opposed by Labour. I will come back to that point and others that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made. The measures under that Act were taken to make it easier and quicker to remove foreign offenders. We have also increased the number of caseworkers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will know how important that is to make sure that we can carve through the numbers and prioritise those we need to remove.

Let me come back to the infamous letter of February 2020 that so many right hon. and hon. Members mentioned. When the shadow Minister stood up and attempted to criticise the Government for the robust actions that they have been taking in this regard, in his wide-ranging speech—it ranged far beyond what one might consider to be the strict and narrow confines of this particular debate—he exposed the fact that Labour have voted time and again against every single measure that the Government have introduced to strengthen our borders. And not only that; the Leader of the Opposition signed a letter calling for criminals and foreign offenders not to be deported.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will also know about another such instance. In December 2020, another charter flight to Jamaica was due to remove murderers and those convicted of attempted rape, burglaries and the supply of class A drugs. Despite lobbying, campaigns and pressure to make sure that the flight did not leave, it did leave safely. It is with some cheek, dare I say it, that the shadow Minister stands up and complains about the Conservative Government’s actions, when the leader of his party is signing letters asking for foreign national offenders to stay in this country.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch for bringing this matter to the Chamber’s attention. I encourage her to repeat her attempt: may we have another debate on this subject, because it is so timely? We perhaps need more time and more opportunities for others to contribute. I will sum up this debate by saying that this is a matter of fairness. Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality and commit crimes in our country will be caught, they will be punished, and, where appropriate, they will be removed.

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

If Rachel Maclean wishes to do so, she has one minute to wind up.

Knife and Sword Ban

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government and to speak about our record on fighting crime, including our work to get weapons off the streets and stop them falling into the wrong hands, which is having a real impact.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said, we should remember what this debate is all about. He is absolutely right that it is not about party politics, point scoring, cheap jibes or sound bites, because the truth is that serious violence and knife crime leave the same trail of misery and devastation in their wake, regardless of the constituency we represent. The tragic reality is that many of us—in fact, far too many—on both sides of this House will have had the humbling experience of sitting with the loved ones of victims of crime whose lives have been cut short in the most tragic ways. There is little one can say in those circumstances that will ease the pain of losing a son, daughter, brother or sister. It is incumbent upon us all—by “us”, I mean the Government and the police, but also each and every one of us here who contributes to public life—to strain every sinew to stop others suffering as they have.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I have also been in the situation in the past month of having to write to the mother of a 21-year-old young man who was stabbed to death at Strawberry Hill station in my constituency last month. Understandably, parents, teenagers and other young people are raising concerns with me about how we can tackle this huge increase. In London alone, as the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire will know, we have seen an increase of almost a fifth in knife crime since 2022. If we are to ban all these weapons, we need good intelligence-led community policing, but in London since 2015 we have seen our police community support officers cut by a third. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents that we will see an uplift in police officers, including in places such as Richmond upon Thames, which are often deprioritised because they are seen as safe areas? No area is immune from knife crime.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last point. Given the representatives in the Chamber, I think a lot will be said in the debate, and rightly so, in relation to crime and knife crime in London, including by her. It is right to say that every time somebody picks up a knife or another dangerous weapon, there is the potential for bloodshed, and every time somebody arms themselves, whether for protection or with violent intent, they risk ruining not only others’ lives but their own life. That has been brought home time and again in the most devastating fashion in recent days, weeks and months. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends mourning such devastating losses. It is any parent’s worst nightmare.

That the victims are so often young people with their whole lives ahead of them makes it all the more unbearable. In our shock and our grief, we must remain steadfast in our conviction that we can get knives and other dangerous weapons off our streets and that we can prevent young people from getting drawn into violent crime in the first place.

In the spirit of the intervention that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) made on the shadow Minister, I would like to reflect on a debate before the recess led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). During that debate, in which there was cross-party support, my right hon. Friend mentioned the Knife Angel in Aldridge-Brownhills, in the borough of Walsall. She also mentioned a campaign by the Brindley family, and the Brindley Foundation that was set up to bring about positive social action as a result of a tragedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) made powerful interventions during that debate.

It is right to look at the numbers and the latest data. The latest data on hospital admissions of under-25s following an assault with a sharp object show a 25% reduction since December 2019. That is a good indicator—the most reliable indicator for serious youth violence. My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister will in due course mention the crime survey, which shows that violent crime has reduced by 51% since 2010. It is also right to say that nationally homicide has fallen, but it is obvious that data on a chart provides no comfort for victims’ families, and that any incident of serious violence or knife crime is one too many. That is why the Government are continually looking at what more we can do to protect our citizens—especially children and young people—and drive those numbers down further.

The police are on the frontline in this effort. Forces up and down the country are aware that this is an issue of significant public concern, and they are firmly committed to tackling it. It is right that I, as a Dorset Member of Parliament, mention our police and crime commissioner David Sidwick, and I pay tribute to him, the work he is doing and the crime plan that he has put together for Dorset.

Thanks to our recruitment drive, which has delivered the promised 20,000 extra officers, we have significantly bolstered the police across England and Wales. With every additional officer, the ability of forces to crack down on weapons carrying and violence is strengthened. That includes through the natural deterrence that flows from an increased police presence. There is the added benefit of reassurance to all our communities, who are clear that they want to see more officers on the beat.

Of course, it is about not just how many police officers there are, but what forces do with the resources and powers given to them. The Government have consistently and publicly backed the police to take the toughest possible stance when it comes to addressing serious violence, knife crime and weapons carrying. That includes supporting the use of stop and search, which is a crucial tool. Since 2019, the police have removed 120,000 knives and dangerous weapons through stop and search surrender programmes and other targeted action.

On that specific subject, every knife seized through stop and search is a potential life saved. In the year 2022-23, stop and search resulted in about 74,000 arrests and removed over 15,000 weapons and firearms from our streets. The significance of stop and search should not be downplayed, because every knife or weapon seized is a potential life saved.

[Mark Pritchard]

On criminal sanctions, the motion tabled by the Opposition—they will have to forgive me—is too generic, too sweeping and perhaps too adversarial. On criminal liability for the senior management of websites that indirectly sell illegal knives online, however, what is the Government’s current thinking—unless, perhaps, the Minister does not want to tell me—vis-à-vis the Criminal Justice Bill, on which I know he is working closely with the shadow Minister?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The Criminal Justice Bill is passing through Parliament, having had its Committee stage. I do not want to steal the thunder of the Policing Minister, who will wind up the debate on behalf of the Government, but I encourage my right hon. Friend to be here for that.

In the round, we have some of the toughest knife crime laws in the world. For example, it is illegal to carry any fixed-bladed knife in public without a good reason, with such an offence carrying a maximum sentence of four years in prison. The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 strengthened the law on the sale and delivery of knives to under-18s.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

On tougher sentences—I know that the Government are bringing in very tough sentences for knife crime—does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it is not just about tough sentences? Knife crime is due to a number of factors, including socioeconomic factors, gang activity, the county lines drug trade, which affects us in Hastings and Rye, and social media influence. Does he agree that building trust between communities and law enforcement is as important as effective community policing and tough sentences, and that as part of that building of trust, raising awareness about knife crime and educating young people about the risks can deter them from carrying weapons?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will turn directly to violence reduction units, which will help to address some of those points.

The fact is, where gaps or loopholes are identified, we have shown time and again that we will do what is necessary, and we will always put the law-abiding majority first. My right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill, which is the latest illustration of our unwavering commitment to that mission. It will give the police more powers to seize dangerous weapons, create a new offence of possession of a bladed weapon with an intent to harm, and increase sentences for those who import, manufacture or sell dangerous weapons to under 18s.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) mentioned, as well as tough enforcement, an emphasis must be placed on prevention. It goes without saying that the best thing we can do to make all our communities safe is to stop these crimes from happening in the first place. May I mention and develop my point on violence reduction units, which bring together communities and local partners to tackle the underlying causes of violence in the first place? She will be interested to hear that violence reduction units identify young people in danger of following the wrong path, bringing together key partners from local authorities, the police, health, communities and beyond to better understand the local drivers of violence and provide intensive support through mentoring programmes and the like. I know that she and other hon. Members—across the House, I hope—will support the work going on there.

In addition, we have supported the police in their implementation of the Grip hotspot patrols programme. Taken together, these initiatives have prevented more than 3,200 hospital admissions for any violent injury since funding began in 2019. This shows the real-world impact that our approach is having as we strive relentlessly to break the deadly cycle of violence that robs young people of a future and destroys families.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

The Minister is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the best thing we can do is to put police stations on our high streets, such as in Maltby, Dinnington and Swallownest in Rother Valley? I am sure he is aware that the Labour police and crime commissioner has underspent his budget this year to the tune of £3.5 million—money that could have been used to reopen police stations and get them going. Does the Minister back my campaign to use that underspent money to get police stations on our high streets?

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his community; I know he will continue to champion this important issue and continue his campaign. I look forward to his further contributions, and I am grateful to him for raising that point. It is right that through the concerted efforts of the Government, police and partners, we have shown that this threat can be addressed, but we will not stop there.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for responding to this immensely important debate, but may I press him on the specific issues in the motion? Will the Government launch a new consultation on including ninja swords in the ban on online knife sales? If he agreed to that today, we would make a significant step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

The right hon. Lady will know from my response that I referred to previously that the police have told us the greatest risk is the criminal use of zombie-style knives and machetes. That is action that is already being taken, but we will, of course, keep the matter under review. We will not stop there: we will continue to think of the victims and their families, and reaffirm our commitment to getting weapons and knives off our streets. We can and must stop knife crime and make our communities safer. That is what this Government will work tirelessly to achieve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T4. The British people welcome people who come to this country to work and contribute to our economy. But those who abuse our hospitality, commit violent offences and are then sent to prison need to be deported at the end of their sentences. Will my right hon. and learned Friend update the House on how many were deported last year, and what action he will take to ensure that foreign nationals who are violent offenders are automatically deported when they leave prison?

[The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

We are clear that foreign criminals should be deported wherever possible, and we will continue to do so, in stark contrast to the calls to stop the deportation of foreign national criminals from the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that foreign national offender returns have increased by 19% in the last 12 months.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

T2. My constituents often have to wait months to elicit a response for their asylum or Home Office queries. Given the Conservative Government’s persistent failure to effectively manage the asylum system, resulting in a backlog of almost 100,000 cases and the excessive use of expensive hotels, does the Home Secretary not feel that now is the time to adopt Labour’s comprehensive plan, which would end the use of expensive hotels within 12 months and significantly reduce the backlog?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

I first want to join the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in sending my sincere condolences to the friends and family of the person who died on the Bibby Stockholm. May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome to me? I have received warm messages of congratulation from many colleagues on both sides of the House on taking on this role, and I am sure that at least some of them were genuine and that they meant it.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for his work in this role and personally. I should like to say, within the privacy of this Chamber, how sorry I was to see him resign, how I welcomed and respected the work that he has done in this role, and how I look forward to working constructively with him in the future. I agree with him that there is a disagreement between us, but it is a good faith disagreement. I also agree with his point about the need for legal certainty and I commit to working with him on that very point.

I want to take the central thrust of the Bill and tackle head-on the point that the hon. Member for Aberavon has made. The point of this Bill is to address the concerns that the Supreme Court set out on 15 November. It is right to say that I respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. Members would expect me to say nothing less as a former Law Officer. It is because we respect that judgment that we have looked at it so carefully and that we have responded not just with this Bill but with the internationally binding treaty that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary secured in Kigali last week. That seems to have escaped the notice of many Opposition Members. This Bill was subsequently tabled and we are debating it here on Second Reading. This builds on the memorandum of understanding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) secured all those years ago. I will come back to her speech later; I was very grateful for her contribution.

I will now pick up some of the threads of the debate. We heard in some of the contributions what I would phrase as the moral case, or the compassionate case, for stopping the boats. We heard that it is a moral imperative to stop these modern-day slavers and smash these criminal gangs that are trying to push vulnerable people across the busiest shipping lane in the world, where people have lost their lives. On this side of the House, we are determined to take action. We are determined to smash the gangs and the modern-day slavery.

And some have raised the monetary cost, asking, “How much is this costing us?” I ask, what about the human cost? What about the human misery to which the slavers are driving people? There is nothing compassionate about an open-borders policy, and we have heard too much of that today and in previous weeks and months.

On the strength of the Bill and the legitimate concern, which many Conservative Members have raised, that spurious claims may be made—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, specifically on the point about spurious claims.

[Pete Wishart]

Can the Minister tell the House how many people will be deported to Rwanda next year?

[Michael Tomlinson]

It will start off in the hundreds and scale up into the thousands. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Whenever he speaks, I always think he has a smile behind the grimace and the stare. I always enjoy his speeches, and I always enjoy hearing him being heckled from this side of the House.

Conservative Members are anxious about spurious claims; about people asserting that they are unwell and unfit to fly, when the contrary is the case. Those who are making the crossing in small boats are not unwell; they are fit, young men. Some 84% of those making the crossings are male, and 77% of those are aged between 18 and 39. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends when they say they want to make this work and make it legally tight. That is absolutely right, and I want to join them in that endeavour.

[Sir William Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

How could I refuse?

[Sir William Cash]

I wish to be a little formal about this. Will my hon. and learned Friend seek a ruling from Mr Speaker that the Bill’s long title and scope may be amended, to ensure that amendments may be tabled and selected, at least by the Government and even by Back Benchers, as on previous occasions?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I say directly to my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with him on this. I will come back to his specific points, and I hope I will address his very concern, perhaps in response to the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, my hon. Friends the Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and others spoke powerfully and directly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham rightly talked about the UNHCR and the EU. How galling it was to see that, the very day after the UNHCR advocated in the Supreme Court that Rwanda is not safe, the UNHCR itself sent 168 refugees to Rwanda as part of hundreds and thousands under a scheme that is already up and running, and supported and backed by the EU to the tune of millions of euros. We need to hear more of that, so I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised a specific point that I want to address head-on. This Bill will apply in full in Northern Ireland, in the same way that it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is explicit, it is on the face of the Bill and will always be the case, reflecting that immigration policy is a UK-wide matter. I want to be particularly clear that nothing in the Windsor framework or the trade and co-operation agreement affects that. Where people have raised concern is on the rights chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which I want to be clear does not affect any clause in this Bill in any way.

I think I have time to address the specific concern that the hon. Member for Strangford raised. It is important to be clear that the 2005 procedural directive is not within the annexes of the Windsor framework.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing those points as clearly as he did. He will acknowledge that although he has addressed them in his closing remarks this evening, the Home Office published legal advice yesterday that did not touch on any of those points. May I ask him to take steps in the coming days to go further and update that legal advice in a way that encompasses the points he has just raised, in order to assuage the concerns of the House this evening?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I give the hon. Gentleman this commitment: I will continue to work with him on the points that he has raised? I need to be careful about legal advice, as a former Law Officer. What has been published is a Government legal position statement, and that is different from legal advice. He will understand the differences in relation to that position. He has heard what I have said, and I was grateful to him for welcoming the points I made in response to the specific concerns raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) mentioned the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which gave me flashbacks to my grilling by that illustrious Committee, when I was sitting alongside my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in my former role as Solicitor General. We followed that very report mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Turning to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), I make the simple point that I cannot address each and every one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North here. However, I know she is looking forward to asking me some specific questions tomorrow afternoon when I attend her Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and Delivery.

We then had from a former Law Officer-fest, as we had the pleasure of hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who now chairs the Justice Committee, and from my illustrious predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). I am pleased to say that I am now a former Law Officer as well. We therefore have a joint endeavour and interest in making sure that this legislation works.

I have mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham and her important point about Rwanda and the rather patronising tone sometimes raised by Opposition Members when it comes to our international partners who have signed up to an internationally binding legal treaty with this country.

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome the immigration Minister to his place. Is he aware that while he has been speaking the New Conservatives, the European Research Group, the Northern Research Group, the Conservative Growth Group and the Common Sense Group have all said that they cannot support the Bill and are going to abstain tonight? Does he accept that this looks like the Prime Minister’s breakfast meeting was a total failure? And does he accept that this is just complete civil war in the Conservative party?

[Michael Tomlinson]

The answer is: no, no and no. [Interruption.] I am here; I have been in the Chamber.

Turning to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns), I thank my constituency neighbour for his delivery of a powerful and compassionate speech, as he always gives. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked me to work with him, to be open-minded and to look at ways to make the Bill more effective. In contrast to my response to the previous intervention, my answer is: yes, yes and yes. He and I have worked together before and I commit to continuing to work again with him during the rest of the passage of this Bill.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

Forgive me, but I will not.

In the time I have left, I will refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I hope will continue to work with me on this Bill. I listened carefully to what he had to say. I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who is a member of the Home Affairs Committee and spoke with great authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) spoke clearly about her position, the direct impact on her constituency and the imperative of ensuring we stop the boats. My notes about the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) say that he was “on fire.” I am grateful for his contribution; those who missed it should go and watch it on playback.

My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) made a powerful, measured and careful speech, and I was grateful for his earlier intervention. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for his contribution, particularly and sincerely for mentioning our late colleague James Brokenshire and his able work in this area.

There was common sense from my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman); I thank him for his contribution. There were attempts to shout down my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) while he was speaking. He stood up, as he often does in the Chamber, in the face of that barrage. He talks openly about his faith. I respect him sincerely for the way he does that and for the way he conducts his business in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has the distinction of serving on not one but two Select Committees. Not only does he do that, but he does it with distinction and diligence, and I always like listening to his speeches. He had the temerity to suggest that lawyers may, from time to time, disagree with each other—what an outrageous suggestion. I am only sorry that there were not more lawyers in the Chamber to hear that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) made an outstanding speech. More people should have been in the Chamber to hear the inescapable, inestimable and irresistible logic of his compelling speech. As one of my predecessors, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for his work in this area and for pointing out what has already happened since the Supreme Court judgment—namely, the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) gave us actual numbers, not just percentages, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) took us on a tour du monde. It is not just our country that faces these challenges; this is a global challenge of our time.

Let me end by saying that I have sat through more than six hours of this six and a half hour debate. I heard every single speech from the Government Benches and most speeches from the Opposition Benches. I heard every single speech made from the Labour Front Bench, and what was missing was a plan. Labour has no plan. There was intervention after intervention, but where was the plan? There was chuntering from a sedentary position by the Home Secretary, asking “Where is the plan?” Answer came there none. There was a verbal vacuum—not even a cut-and-paste solution. There was no plan whatsoever. Contrast that with the clear determination of all those on the Government side of the Chamber to stop the boats. Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Fire Safety Bill (Second sitting)

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Andy Slaughter]

I applaud the hon. Member for St Albans for bringing the matter to the Committee’s attention, although the new clause may not quite be the way to deal with the issue in law. I say that because although Government have made funds available in a drip by drip way—it is quite a substantial amount of money, so perhaps drip by drip is the wrong phrase—it is an inadequate sum to deal with the necessary remediation.

The way in which the funding relating to ACM and other types of cladding has been announced to social landlords and then private landlords has not only created some degree of confusion, but meant that there are huge gaps in terms of accessibility to funds to leaseholders and freeholders for carrying out remediation work. Therefore, landlords—not the worst landlords, necessarily; in some ways, it could be the better ones—are seeking to deal with remediation works in relation to blocks that do not fall within the fairly restrictive criteria that the Government have set. They are saying, “Yes, we will remove cladding, or do other works, but it isn’t covered by the Government’s building funds at the moment. We will therefore look, with section 20 notices or in other ways, for leaseholders to carry the costs.”

We are right to draw attention to this point, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. He has been reading out his ministerial brief, which is all to the good because we need to put it on the record, but it would be quite good for him to respond to some of the points spontaneously made by Opposition Members.

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)]

My hon. Friend has done both

[Andy Slaughter]

I say that because, in the previous debate, there were issues to do with the speed at which the process is going, and I do not think the Minister responded to my points about that nor to those about the qualifications of assessors. If he intends to resist the new clause, which I suspect he probably is, he needs to deal with the issue of leaseholders who, faced with the prospect of bills, cannot then be advised “Go to the Government funds”, because such funds are not available for those purposes.

Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

The offences all meet the threshold for deportation set under the 2007 Act by the Government the right hon. Lady was a member of. Their cases, including whether there are ECHR rights that apply, have been considered by the courts. We are clear that they have committed serious offences or been persistent offenders, who qualify under the Home Secretary’s legal duty. This is within the law, and, as we say, it is about criminality, not nationality.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Is not the point that there is a difference between foreign nationals who come to this country, who make a contribution and who are law abiding and those who are serious or persistent offenders? Can my hon. Friend confirm that the offences committed by those on the flight include manslaughter, rape, drug dealing and robbery? These are serious and persistent offenders.

[Kevin Foster]

Yes, these are all serious or persistent offenders. The offences committed by those on board include rape of minors, rape of adults and serious drugs offences. That is why we are required to issue a deportation notice.

Public Services

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), but I cannot agree with what she had to say. Indeed, when I look at the positive measures in the Queen’s Speech, it is the news on schools and school funding that shines out and gives me real hope forthe future of our country and, indeed, for children in Cheltenham.

I am sure that the House can agree that education is probably the single most powerful tool to drive social mobility. That is certainly essential in Cheltenham, because there is a misapprehension about the place I represent. It may be that hon. Members take the view, perhaps after heading down to the incredibly successful Cheltenham literature festival, that it is a land of unalloyed affluence, but nothing could be further from the truth. Of the 18 wards that I represent, the income per capita in three of them is in the bottom decile not just in Gloucestershire, not just in the south-west, not just in England, but across the entire United Kingdom. This Government realise that schools and education can do the most valuable job of bridging that gap.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Contrary to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that schools and education have been put front and centre? I can quote from the Queen’s Speech for the hon. Lady:

“My Ministers will ensure that all young people have access to an excellent education, unlocking their full potential and preparing them for the world of work.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2019; Vol. 800, c. 2.]

The Conservatives are putting education front and centre.

[Alex Chalk]

That is absolutely right because the Government did put education front and centre, and it was rather telling that the hon. Lady did not quote from the Queen’s Speech. I must also take issue with her suggestion that standards are going down when the opposite is the case. How wrong it is not to pay tribute to the fact that 160,000 more six-year-olds are on track to achieve good literacy scores than in 2012. We should be applauding that, not denigrating it. It is certainly the case in Cheltenham where, year after year, our brilliant teachers and headteachers, supported by their governors, are delivering improved literacy, numeracy, A-levels, GCSEs and so on.

The reason I am so pleased with the Queen’s Speech is that the settlement proposed within it addresses two running sores, the first of which is fair funding. Under the decades-old unfair funding formula—generated, I believe, in the 1990s—schools in Cheltenham were treated wholly unfairly compared with schools in London, Liverpool or Manchester by dint of the fact that Cheltenham sits within the rural county of Gloucestershire, and it was stipulated that we should receive less funding per pupil. The logic went, “Well, of course, these affluent rural counties simply do not have the same social problems.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Cheltenham has its fair share of social problems and challenges, and it was a completely unsustainable injustice that my constituents should have been short changed in that way.

If we strip aside the bluster, what has actually happened? In 2015, when I was elected, secondary schools in my constituency, because of the unfair funding formula to which I have referred, received a little under £4,200 per pupil. If this Queen’s Speech is passed, they will receive a minimum of £5,000 per pupil, and schools such as Pittville School and All Saints’ Academy will receive considerably more. By the way, all that comes before one adds on money for low prior attainment, English as an additional language and so on. All that is a significant improvement, and it has been difficult for people like me to listen to hon. Members—often on the Labour Benches, but not exclusively—complain about the fact that funding per pupil in their urban constituencies was due to go up from £5,500 to £5,600. We were on £4,200 in Cheltenham, and it is this Queen’s Speech and this Government that are addressing that to bring funding justice to my constituents. We should not downplay that; we should celebrate it.

The second issue that the Queen’s Speech addresses is the problem of special educational needs and disability funding. For reasons that are poorly understood, schools and teachers in my constituency have done an extraordinary job in dealing with an unexplained surge in pupil complexity. Whether it is Belmont School, which is meant to deal with moderate learning difficulties, or Bettridge School, which is meant to deal with severe learning difficulties, the truth is that they are having to address need that is far beyond that which existed only 15 years ago. Mainstream schools are having to hold on by their fingertips to children who, in the past, would have gone into special schools, because they recognise that putting those children into a different educational setting could put intolerable pressure on special schools. The schools are doing a magnificent job.

The reasons for the change, as I said, are poorly understood. Some say it has to do with family issues, and some say—this is a difficult point to make, and I do not know whether there is any truth to it—that, because of the marvels of modern medicine, some children are surviving childbirth who might not have done so in past. Thank goodness that is the case, but it is potentially having a knock-on impact. The fact is that schools in Cheltenham are dealing with it.

I finish with an anecdote. I met a teacher at a school that deals with moderate learning difficulties. He has been a teacher for some 20 years and he told me that, when he first became a teacher, the pupil-teacher ratio was in the order of 16:1. In other words there were more teachers per pupil, but that modest increase was there to address the needs that existed. Now he says it is simply impossible because of the level of complexity that exists.

The Ridge Academy in my constituency deals with children with emotional and behavioural needs, and the complexity that is now being presented requires that additional resource. What is this Queen’s Speech doing? It is increasing the funding available in Gloucestershire from £60 million to £66 million, a 10% increase. That is an enormous increase, and it means that schools in my constituency can look forward to the future with confidence and that teachers who have done such a heroic job of continuing to go to work, knowing they may face a volatile situation, can do so with the confidence of knowing there is space available in the budget for the additional resources and the additional staff to keep the children safe, and to keep the teachers safe, too.

Of course there is more to do, and of course I would like more funding and all sorts of additional things, but this Queen’s Speech sets Cheltenham schools and Gloucestershire schools on a better path. If this House truly believes in social mobility and in ensuring that people go as far as their talents will take them, we have to make sure that the most powerful lever of social mobility is properly supported. That lever is in our schools, and it is this Government who are supporting them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this Queen’s Speech debate and to follow the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). I listened to her very carefully, particularly to her comments on vulnerable children and those in care. I want to mention Home for Good in my speech. I encourage her to look at that charitable organisation, which is doing so much good work in this space.

Opposition Members have asked whether we should be having a Queen’s Speech, in contrast to calls from Labour Front Benchers, who have been asking for one for at least a year, since July 2018, and almost weekly since May 2019. We finally give them what they want and they still find cause to complain.

Of course, they could have put all this to rest by agreeing to a general election, which would have fallen this week. The Leader of the Opposition has called for that not just weekly or monthly but for years, yet when he has the opportunity to vote for one he ducks it. Perhaps in this sense only he is like St Augustine of Hippo: Lord give me a general election, but not yet. But here we are. They may have a chance to vote for one in the next few days.

There are several excellent measures in the Queen’s Speech, but two in particular caught my eye. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education is in his place, because, as several hon. Members have, I will devote the first part of my speech to education . Given that the theme of today’s debate is public services, it is an apt place to start.

It is hard to overstate the importance of education when it comes to opportunity, life chances and the next generation. One of the most enjoyable parts of being an MP, for me, is visiting schools and when schools visit Parliament. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that Mr Speaker is proud of the education centre in this place, and rightly so. Several schools in my constituency come back year on year and find it a source of education as well as fun.

The fact is, however, that historically Dorset and Poole have been significantly underfunded. In contrast to what the shadow Education Secretary said, when Labour was in power, both Dorset and Poole were among the lowest funded areas in the whole of the country, yet Labour, when it had the opportunity to do something about it, failed to do anything at all. We have begun to right that wrong with the new funding formula. In particular, I say to the Secretary of State that I welcome the requirement on local authorities to pass on the minimum per-pupil funding levels to schools as the first step towards a hard national funding formula. That, in particular, will be welcome in my constituency.

It is not just about funding of course; it is about standards, as other hon. Members have mentioned. I welcome the fact that in the international literacy rankings, for example, our country is improving. Ofsted is hugely important. It is about levelling up. It is the ambition of Conservative Members that all our schools be levelled up to the best, rather than the best being dragged down.

The 12% increase in funding for special educational needs and disability is hugely welcome, but I should like to hear from the Secretary of State whether it will be bedded down for future years, because I know that that would help schools not just in my constituency but throughout the country.

Let me now turn to the issue of families. In the House of Commons the word “family” is barely uttered—it is hardly ever cited as either a potential contributor to poverty or a solution to it—and when Members do raise the issue they often do so apologetically or are dismissed and shouted down. The fact is, however, that ours is a country in which family breakdown falls disproportionately on poorer children, and that inequality should be taken just as seriously as any other injustice that Members seek to address in this place. I hugely support a measure—the divorce, dissolution and separation Bill—which will encourage couples to undergo counselling that may help to prevent their divorce. It will also seek to address conflicts within the families of divorcing couples, which is hugely important.

I have mentioned vulnerable children, and I will do so again. I will be encouraging Ministers to look at the fostering and adoption charity Home for Good, and, in particular, at its new five-star campaign, which is all about securing the very best care for our children so that they can be truly looked after. It is not about five-star hotels, but about five-star care.

Finally, I turn to Brexit. It would be impossible, especially today, to fail to mention the subject. It is often said in this place that repetition is not a novel phenomenon, but over the past three and a half years we have heard the same speech from the same characters sitting in the same places. Those who were in favour of Brexit are still in favour of Brexit, and those who were against Brexit are still against Brexit. However, there was a referendum. The issue has been resolved. There was a vote, and that vote must be followed. Not everyone in my constituency voted to leave, but I have been contacted by so many who voted to remain, who respect the result, and who say that we need to get on with it. We are in an addled state. We are in a state in which we cannot move on from the subject of Brexit. It seems that there are those in this place who are opposed to no deal, are opposed to voting for a deal, and are determined to ensure that we remain.

Today’s debate has shown us how many other things we can and should be discussing, but we need to get Brexit done in order to discuss them properly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). I have great respect for her and for her work to speak up for some of the most vulnerable people not only in her constituency but across the country.

I rise to speak very much in favour of this Queen’s Speech. I have been listening closely to the debate, and I am slightly puzzled by some Opposition Members’ complaining as though this Queen’s Speech is, somehow, a pre-election announcement from the Government when, of course, they could have stopped that happening. They twice had the opportunity to vote for an election, and we would then not have had a Queen’s Speech until after that election. I am still puzzled by why they did not take that opportunity.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The election would have been on either the Monday or the Tuesday of this week, and there would have been no Queen’s Speech this week. If the Opposition had their way, they could well have been in power.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes the point well that the Opposition had every opportunity to ensure that the Queen’s Speech was presented by whichever party won the election and formed the Government. It suggests Opposition Members did not support an election because they were not confident that it would be them presenting the Queen’s Speech.

I support the Queen’s Speech, and I welcome the many Bills that have been announced. Its overall theme sets out the Government’s agenda that, once we leave the European Union, they are determined to level up across the country and address some of the regional inequalities that have long existed in our country. I represent the great constituency of St Austell and Newquay, and there will be few places in the country where that message is more warmly welcomed than in Cornwall because, for decades, the people of Cornwall have often felt a very long way from Westminster, not just geographically and physically but even in the thoughts of our leaders and our Governments.

Cornwall, as well as being an incredible place that contributes to our nation through food production and in so many other ways, faces a number of unique challenges that genuinely no other part of the country faces. A peninsula on the edge of the country, with a very rural and sparse population, a growing elderly population and 600 miles of coast to look after, the challenges we face in Cornwall are unique.

Successive Governments have rarely given Cornwall what it really needs to address those specific challenges, but in this Prime Minister and the agenda he has laid out for this Government we see an opportunity to address the underfunding issues we have had and to level up the investment in Cornwall for which we have been waiting for so long.

We need funding for our police: Devon and Cornwall police currently receive 15% below the national average per head of population funding despite facing many unique challenges.

We need funding for our schools: historically, and for a very long time, Cornish schools have been underfunded. Although he is not now in his place, I very much welcomed the Secretary of State for Education coming to Cornwall just last week and announcing extra funding for Cornish schools. That will begin to level up and address underfunding. We need funding for our NHS and very much welcome the Government’s commitment of £450 million towards a new hospital in Cornwall.

The Government are starting to address the underfunding issues, but it is not just in our public services that we want to level up; we want to level up in our economy as well. Just this August, the Prime Minister came to Cornwall, and we were all so encouraged by his words:

“Cornwall has incredible potential.”

He said:

“My ambition for Cornwall and for the whole country is levelling up.”

He continued:

“We will ensure that Cornwall does in no circumstances have less money coming in from all resources, so, whether it’s UK funding or wherever, there will be the cash to support infrastructure, technology and education.”

And he also said:

“We want to see a very dynamic Cornish economy. We want people to have the confidence not just to improve their lives here but to invest in business here and have babies here as well.”

Those words were hugely welcome, because we want Cornwall no longer to be considered the poor part of the UK, and actually to play its part in contributing to the national economy. We are ambitious: one of the announcements in the Queen’s Speech that we very much welcomed was that of a national space strategy. I am sure many Members will not be surprised to hear that we are right ready to start to launch satellites into space from Spaceport Cornwall at Newquay airport, and we really welcome the Government’s ongoing support.

We welcome the announcements on the environment and the Government’s commitment to continuing to improve our environmental credentials and to introducing a new regulator. Cornwall is already playing a significant part, but it is keen to continue to play a part. Just this week, we announced funding for a second geothermal drill in Cornwall. In the near future, that will start to produce geothermal energy—another source of renewable energy.

We continue to pursue lithium extraction, which will secure a UK domestic supply of one of the most important metals for renewable energies, enabling the production of batteries for storage and electric vehicles. Cornwall is ready to fulfil its potential. We need the Government to continue to invest and support the Cornish economy.

Finally, on the shared prosperity fund, we were encouraged when the Prime Minister recently made clear on the BBC his commitment to the inclusion in the shared prosperity fund of a dedicated fund for Cornwall that will be comparable to the money that we would have received through the European Union—I say through the European Union and not from the European Union, because it is the UK taxpayers’ money that is given back to us. We really need to see measures on the shared prosperity fund come forward quickly so that we have that in place in the very near future. In that way, we can continue to support the Cornish economy so that we can fulfil our ambitions and play our part in the national economic growth.