Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I would start by saying that I share the hon. Lady’s spirit on that, and I believe that the British public do too. Whether it is regarding Syrian refugees, Homes for Ukraine, the Afghan resettlement scheme, or British nationals overseas, the British public meet the moment when people need shelter, and show extraordinary capacity for compassion. But there has to be a limit on that, exactly as she says. I can assure her that we will break the pull factors, so that those who do not have a legitimate claim—more than half of those assessed do not have a legitimate reason—will no longer have a reason to come. In the meantime, in exactly the spirit of what she said regarding public confidence, we have removed £1 billion of spending from this area for exactly that reason.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The UK is spending a fifth of its official development assistance budget on hotel bills. Some of that money was previously used to prevent conflict and to help refugees find refuge in their own regions. I served with an Army training regiment at Crowborough, one of the two sites, and I consider that if it was good enough for us, it is good enough for some of the refugees who are seeking asylum. But can the Minister assure the House that this move to use decommissioned barracks will cost taxpayers less than hotels currently do?

[Alex Norris]

The reality is that the unit cost per night is broadly similar. The point is that we have to reduce the number of people in that accommodation. That is how we get value for the taxpayer and how we will not need the accommodations at all.

Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison.

I can entirely understand where the petitioners are coming from. After all, hotels are holiday accommodation, and for most people, the idea of spending a few days a year in a hotel is desirable—if probably unaffordable as things are at the moment—so I can completely understand people’s anger and outrage at the taxpayer paying for others to stay in hotels. However, I want to point out that the issues of asylum seeking have been conflated with other migration—migration supported by visas. I also want to talk about how alternatives to hotel accommodation might be found.

A September 2025 Reuters report concluded that the UK media frames immigration overwhelmingly through the lens of illegality and crisis, giving disproportionate attention to small-boat crossings relative to their scale. Legal migration is routinely lumped into that same narrative, and the distinction is blurred. We can see that very well from the numbers. In the year ending March 2025, the UK issued 875,000 visas for work, study and family purposes—legal migration. Subtract from that number those leaving, and net migration is 431,000, which is a large figure. In the same period, there were around 44,000 irregular arrivals, largely on small boats. Arrivals that were not supported by a visa therefore made up about 5% of all new arrivals and 10% of net migration.

On migration supported by visas, 260,000 people who were born outside the UK work as doctors, nurses and care workers in our health and social care system. Without legal migration supported by visas, our hospitals, care homes and even some farms would simply grind to a halt.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point; we desperately need people to come and work in our national health service and care sector. Does he agree that the case for legally working migrants and refugees who genuinely need asylum, perhaps from Syria or Afghanistan, and the case for our communities, who want stability, have been undermined by the staggering incompetence of the asylum system? Waiting times for decisions have gone up to more than a year, or more like a year and a half in nearly two thirds of all cases. That incompetence is stirring division and disbelief, and it needs to be addressed urgently.

[Richard Foord]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government have to speed up decisions, cut backlogs and return those asylum seekers who are unsuccessful in their applications and have no right to stay, and they must that so swiftly.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. The Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) created this crisis in small boat crossings. Before the botched Brexit deal, we had, in effect, a returns agreement with every other EU nation under the Dublin system, as our hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) said. Now this Government, like the last, are struggling to manage a rise in small boat crossings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must urgently negotiate more returns agreements with other EU countries?

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for talking about Europe, because our European neighbours are contending with exactly the same problems as us in this respect. The longer asylum seekers are drawn to the UK, the longer they are drawn into the European Union, so it is in our common interest to address this issue. I will talk a bit more about the EU and its member states later in my speech.

Pundits are blurring the two issues, and while people say that immigration is wrecking the economy, the truth is quite the reverse. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, higher legal net migration is expected to raise our total GDP by around 1.5% by 2028-29, while GDP per capita is likely to be raised by 0.8%.

Migrants arriving with visas tend to arrive in their prime working years, paying more in taxes than they take out in services. According to the Migration Advisory Committee, in 2022-23, the average skilled migrant made a net contribution of around £16,300 to the UK public finances in their first year in the UK. Legal migration is a cornerstone of our economy, and because of our ageing population, it will continue to be so for years to come.

I will now address migration through irregular routes, which is the focus of this debate, and in particular the use of immigration hotels. In May 2025, the Government noted that they would spend £2.2 billion this financial year on migrant hotels. That is an eye-watering sum, but it is part of the £1.28 trillion—or more than £1,200 billion—that the Government spend each year, so we are talking about less than 0.2% of public spending. None the less, £2.2 billion is an enormous sum of money.

The UK counts these domestic refugee costs as official development assistance, and the House of Commons Library reported that in 2024, one fifth of all foreign aid was spent domestically on hotels. That makes me really angry. I am angrier, perhaps, than any of the petitioners on this point, because when we spend that money here in the UK, we do not use it to its full effect or achieve its full purchasing power.

Let us think about what official development assistance has achieved for us in recent years. Between 2013 and 2019, the UK committed £400 million to the eradication of polio and helped to vaccinate millions of children, leading to Africa being declared polio-free in 2020. These sorts of things are partly benevolent, but they are also in Britain’s interests. During the 2014 to 2016 Ebola outbreak, the UK provided £427 million in aid to Sierra Leone to address it. Had it arrived on these shores, we would certainly have had to spend so much more on addressing this absolutely appalling disease.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is Liberal Democrat policy that asylum costs should not come out of the foreign aid budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I am of the view that asylum hotels should not be paid for by the foreign aid budget. This country has an international development budget that has fallen from 0.7%—when my party was in government with the hon. Gentleman’s—to 0.3% today, which is honestly a great pity. That is not helping us to prevent conflict and deal with the problem at source.

From 2014 to 2015, we had the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which was set up by the coalition Government. It brought 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees, including survivors of torture and violence, to the UK, but in a way that was safe and legal. Those people were assessed for their suitability by the UN high commissioner for refugees. We are talking about women and children at risk, as well as those in severe medical need and survivors of torture. Those were people who did not try to get to the UK through Europe, because they were assessed for their vulnerability in the region, in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

Let us remember the vulnerable three-year-old refugee, Alan Kurdi, whose fragile body washed up on a beach, with waves lapping into his dead face. A lot of people had a lot of sympathy at that time for taking asylum seekers who were in genuine need through a safe and legal route. Today, we need to think about deterring illegal ways of approaching the UK, and Britain should work with neighbouring countries and look to collaborate on proposing a third country where failed asylum seekers may be processed overseas, such as one in south-east Europe. That is something that EU member states are looking into at the moment. Unsuccessful applicants could appeal from third countries, rather than from within the UK or EU, as is happening right now. We should work with our European partners so that we can find a continent-wide solution, because the UK will not be able to solve this alone.

While such schemes may act as an incentive for people to apply from their own region, we also need to think about a deterrent. I was wholly opposed to the Rwanda scheme, which was brought forward by the Conservative Government at a cost of £700 million and then scrapped. More could be made of the fact that people are coming to a pretty appalling end in the English channel. The Migration Observatory reports that 73 people were confirmed to have drowned in the English channel while attempting small boat crossings in 2024. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution recalled rescuing children with chemical burns from leaked petrol, and others so frozen that they could not walk because they had spent 30 hours at sea. A Home Affairs Committee report found in 2022 that smugglers deceive migrants and downplay the risks and danger. More could be made of that.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Order. I have not imposed a time limit, but the hon. Gentleman has been going on considerably longer than other colleagues. He may wish to reflect on that.

[Richard Foord]

Thank you, Dr Murrison; I will conclude.

Legal migration builds our economy, and it staffs our hospitals and care homes. Crossings by people who do not have a visa are damaging trust in Government. A builder put it quite simply to me in recent months when he said that the last Government promised to stop the boats, but the opposite happened, and he had lost faith in Government as a result. We need to stop these dangerous crossings and restore order to a broken asylum system. That means investing in safe and legal routes and working with our European allies and partners on shared solutions, communicating the truth about the dangers of crossing the channel to those who would try to do so. If we do that, we can protect our borders and values, while upholding the compassionate and common-sense country that we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord]

I think the Minister is either misunderstanding or mischaracterising my contribution, but will he please comment on the potential return hubs for failed asylum seekers?

[Alex Norris]

I would certainly never seek to mischaracterise the hon. Gentleman. I cannot commit to never misunderstanding him, but I certainly would never mischaracterise him. I understood that he had asked why there is so much focus on this cohort within the wider migration figures. If I am wrong, I apologise without reservation. On return hubs, he will have seen what the Prime Minister said, and that is the Government’s position on that matter.

Any system that involves multiple tens of thousands of people entering the channel and making an incredibly dangerous journey, any system in which tens of thousands of people are living in hotels, any system that leads net migration in this country to reach 900,000, any system in which people must wait and wait for a letter about their future—I have had conversations with people in that situation, and they are often people who have left the most desperate situations—is a broken system. Of course the Government of the day, whether in the borders Bill or the immigration White Paper, will seek to tackle those things. We must not defend a status quo that works for neither the British people nor the individuals who are reliant on it for sanctuary and safety.

This has been a robust and very important debate. I hope that those who signed the petitions in considerable numbers will have had the chance to watch the debate and seen that Parliament has taken their views seriously and had a thoughtful and constructive debate on them. This is a hugely important issue for the Government of the day. We have been working in overdrive since the general election to fix the chronic problems that we inherited. We will keep doing so, and along the way we will end the use of hotels once and for all.

Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

With great respect, and I do not mean to be flippant, I think it is a rather unfortunate use of “sledgehammer”, given previous events. No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I think the actions of the Government have been necessary and proportionate for the reasons I explained earlier. I worry that there are a number of people who seek to express support for an organisation who do not fully understand the activities that that organisation has engaged in in recent times.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Mr Justice Chamberlain granted the judicial review on the basis that the Home Secretary had not consulted Palestine Action before proscribing it. The judge ruled that it was “reasonably arguable” that there was a duty to consult Palestine Action before proscribing it, as reported in The Guardian. If organisations meet a high standard and a high threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act, why should there be a duty to consult that organisation before proscribing it?

Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because Baroness Casey pointed out how many of her recommendations hinge on there being a good child protection authority, and that work is being done by Department for Education colleagues. I have been involved, along with Alexis Jay, and I have ensured that she has been in meetings with them. The authority will evolve, because what we do not want to do, contrary to the views of some in the House, is to wait forever to set it up or to try to get it exactly right first time when it is a complicated thing. It will evolve along the way, but all those involved in the inquiry, across both local and national bodies, will have the opportunity to feed in their views about what it needs to look like.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am wholly supportive of this Government-commissioned report into group-based child sexual exploitation, but the Government must not be distracted from the places where child sexual abuse occurs most frequently. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that 90% of young people who have been sexually abused said that the perpetrator was someone they knew. Around a third of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by young people under the age of 18, and the NSPCC says that in relation to sibling sexual abuse:

“The number of children affected by this hidden harm is far greater than is acknowledged by…policymakers”.

Is the Minister certain that the Government will not be distracted from abuse within schools and within families?

[Jess Phillips]

I praise the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because familial abuse and child exploitation not by groups but by families or peer groups are, I am afraid to say, not uncommon. I know that from my years of experience. Those victims feel as if their voices are being marginalised. This piece of work that we have announced today is part of a much broader child abuse body that sits within the Home Office and works on all those things. The recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse keep us on that track, but we must not lose sight of all the abuse, especially that happening among young people against other young people and online.

Borders and Asylum

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. She is absolutely right to say that any comprehensive and effective approach—internationally, not just here in the UK—must consider the causes and drivers of mass migration: people fleeing persecution and conflict, and the economic migration issues that have caused significant challenges. The Foreign Secretary and I have set up a joint migration team to work closely on some of those issues, and he has also made issues around migration a key priority for the Foreign Office. This is clearly an important cross-Government issue on which we are working together.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

When Labour was in opposition, it attacked the Conservatives on the small number of asylum seekers who had been removed to Rwanda as part of the Tory deterrent. Now that the Conservatives are in opposition, they are attacking Labour for the small number of asylum seekers who will be removed to France as part of the Labour deterrent. Does the Home Secretary accept that, in order for a deterrent to work, people considering that dangerous crossing need to know that it may be in vain?

[Yvette Cooper]

We have established the agreement with France as a pilot agreement, and we want to develop and expand it. It allows us to detain people immediately on arrival at Western Jet Foil in Dover in order then to be returned. The first cases have been referred to France, and we expect the first returns to start during the course of this month. As well as the impact of undermining the criminal business model of the gangs—the deterrence that the hon. Gentleman talks about—there is the important principle that people arriving illegally on dangerous boats having paid criminal gangs should be returned, but the UK should do its bit, in a controlled and managed way alongside other countries, for those who apply through legal routes and go through proper security checks.

Victims of Terrorism: State Support

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, and I say a special thank you to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for bringing this motion forward. He and I talked beforehand, and it is very clear what he wants to achieve—indeed, it is the same reason why we are all here; we want to achieve it as well. As others have said, we have commemorated this week the anniversary of the London bombings. What a timely debate this is. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of what happened to his constituent and his constituent’s friend. Although I was not in London at that time, I remember vividly the killings, the murders, and the victims and the destruction that took place. It is a timely debate to remember those who suffer the impact long after the headlines change.

I declare an interest as someone who has known the devastation of loss due to terrorism. I represent Northern Ireland—that is no secret; the accent gives it away, although to be fair to the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, his accent would be perhaps similar through his family connections. The reason I am making this speech here is the murder of my cousin Kenneth Smyth on 10 December 1971. He was a sergeant—

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; I understand why he might need to take a moment to compose himself. This debate is an opportunity for those of us whose friends and family have served in the armed forces or security organisations and lost their lives to pay tribute to them. Although today is about the victims of terrorism, we also think about those who run towards danger and face down terrorism where victims cannot.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for that. Yes—it is very real for us. I think of my cousin, 54 years ago, and even today, 54 years later, it is still as real for my family and myself. It is something that I do not think I will ever forget. Those here in the Public Gallery today will know the same agony, pain and suffering that we have. We suffer every day because of it. My pain is no more than anybody else’s—definitely not.

I think of those who carry on the fight; I think of my cousin, Shelley, who will always push for justice for the murder of her brother. They say that time heals all things, but I believe that the heart retains a special memory, and that that will never dim for so many people. I commend my cousin Shelley for all that she does, and all the others in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and across the whole of Northern Ireland for what they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) for securing a debate on this subject, and pay tribute to all Members who have spoken. The hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) told the story of Christian; we have heard heart-rending stories about the experiences of real victims, who are with us today.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to think first about the victims of the 7/7 bombings in London, which we marked this week. We remember those 52 lives taken as well as the hundreds injured and the thousands who are the friends and families of those people. We also reflect on other attacks here in the UK. The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about the Manchester Arena bombing and its effect on him and his constituents. We should also reflect on the Westminster bridge attack, the London bridge attack, the Borough market attack and many more.

We should also think about British citizens who have fallen victim to terrorism overseas, whether at the Bataclan theatre in Paris, the Sousse beach massacre in Tunisia, or the Bali bombing, for which there is a memorial that I walk past when going along King Charles Street. There are so many—too many to mention.

So often, survivors and bereaved families demonstrate extraordinary resilience, but they need more by way of support from the state. They deserve more than just our admiration. Support must mean trauma counselling. Dare I say it, trauma is a word that has become overused in recent years, but it has no more apt application than on this subject. Support must mean long-term care and access to justice, including legal representation during inquests and coroner proceedings.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is not tailored to terrorism victims and does not fully recognise their needs. It is also subject to strict criteria and time limits for applications. We have seen some developments in recent years, including the Ministry of Justice’s 2020 proposals called for a stand-alone scheme for victims of domestic and overseas terrorism designed to improve awareness of and access to support.

It is unacceptable that victims of terrorism and bereaved families should not automatically be eligible for legal aid. When the state is involved in an inquest, whether due to policing, shortcomings in security or broader systemic issues, public bodies attend with full legal teams funded at the public expense; meanwhile, families have to navigate the justice system alone. I therefore regret that the 2023 Ministry of Justice review of legal aid for inquests rejected automatic non-means- tested legal aid for bereaved families after state- related deaths, including terrorism. That was a missed opportunity.

The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned what other countries do. France does this better: victims of terrorism and their families there are automatically entitled to legal representation paid for by the state. We also need to rethink how we structure financial protection against terrorism in this country. Today, terrorism insurance is seen as an add-on, an afterthought or, worse, an opportunity for excessive profit. In France, terrorism coverage is automatically included in property insurance policies—it is not treated as a luxury—whereas in the UK it is applied unevenly. I have constituents who are freeholders in the relative safety of Devon who are having to purchase very costly schemes, yet there is no requirement for insurance in places where we might see a higher risk of terrorism. We also have to address survivors’ longer-term needs in respect of mental health care and social support, and education for trauma-affected children.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out that PC Keith Palmer fell just yards from here, showing enormous bravery in seeking to protect the democracy that we hold dear. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke movingly about the terrorist attack that led to the loss of his cousin, who was plainly very much loved. The term “victim” can suggest somebody who is helpless, but that is not entirely the case because, thankfully, some people are very much prepared to step into the line of danger. I think of my friend Captain Rob Carnegie, who was not directly a victim of terrorists but died on the Brecons while training to fight terrorists.

Today, the Intelligence and Security Committee has published a report on Iran. This is also an opportunity to consider incidents of terrorism that have been averted. The Secret Intelligence Service website points out that, along with MI5 and GCHQ, it has protected London during the 2012 Olympics, enabled the disruption of the AQ Khan network that was proliferating nuclear technology to countries of concern, and helped to encourage the disbanding of the weapons of mass destruction programme in Libya.

The Liberal Democrats are encouraged by the Government’s March 2025 commitment to new and strengthened support for the victims and survivors of terrorism, and we urge them to do more. The recent Home Office report rightly highlighted the need to reduce bureaucracy, provide clearer guidance and address the unique needs of victims, especially children and young people. We must ensure that the new 24/7 support hub is not just well intentioned but well resourced. The Liberal Democrats believe in compassion backed by action, which means the Government should guarantee automatic legal aid for victims and bereaved families at inquests, fully fund and empower the 24/7 support hub, and provide long-term mental health care and practical support for victims of terrorism.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Casey Report

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I appreciate how sensitive the topic is, but longer questions mean that fewer colleagues will get in. Shorter answers from the Secretary of State will help as well.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

At one of my surgeries, I heard from a civil servant who had gathered evidence for the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse across the whole of England. They described themselves as being

“left emotionally and physically drained”

after collecting evidence, only for the Government not to act on it. I welcome this Government’s acceptance of the 12 Casey review findings, but will the Secretary of State assure my constituent and other civil servants that there will be no delay in implementing the findings of the IICSA?

[Yvette Cooper]

I can assure the hon. Member that we are taking forward the recommendations already. The Minister for Safeguarding updated the House on all the IICSA recommendations before Easter. Some require legislation, including legislation that is passing through the House at the moment. We will have further discussions on those issues later this week. We are already able to take forward some of the issues, and we will continue to update the House on the progress of the recommendations.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Between the announcement of the Rwanda scheme and its ending, 85,000 people came across in small boats.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Last month we learned that overseas development assistance would be cut from 0.5% to 0.3% of gross national income. Some of us assumed that this saving would be found in the closure of so-called asylum hotels, but now we learn that the Government will continue to hire hotels for many years to come despite the broken contract. The Minister says that she wants to minimise the effect on the ODA budget, but how much of it will remain?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I understand that, ahead of the reductions that were announced, 20% is currently spent on housing asylum seekers in this country. Clearly, if we can get the system running faster from start to finish and we can get people through it faster, we can reduce those costs.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We need to take forward the work on the inquiry, with victims and survivors, on a continuing basis. I would also highlight that there are some areas that will need to go well beyond the independent inquiry, such as the way in which online abuse and online grooming are accelerating. Gangs and organised networks are operating online and then drawing young people offline for physical abuse, as well as for sharing terrible images. That is a massive and growing crime, and I am really worried about it. We are going to need much stronger action. Whether it is through social media companies taking more responsibility or having stronger measures online, we will need more action.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Alexis Jay’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has not been fully implemented. The inquiry recommended legislating to force tech firms to take stronger action on online abuse material. Since then, this House has passed the Online Safety Act 2023, and Ofcom set out its implementation plans last October, but how can the Government ensure that tech companies take stronger action on online abuse?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the Online Safety Act, which took longer to come into force than I would have wished, but it is now being implemented. That means new measures will come into place in the spring, with further measures and requirements in the summer. We will also come forward with further measures on online exploitation and abuse, and we will set them out in due course.

Migration and Border Security

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We have been very clear about the importance of working with other countries, both on tackling gangs and on addressing some of the wider issues that we face. We have always said that we will look at anything that works, and we will look at practical measures. We have recognised that different approaches are being taken by different countries. The Italy-Albania agreement, for example, provides for a fast-track returns arrangement, enabling those from predominantly safe countries to be moved to Albania. We think it is possible to introduce similar fast-track arrangements that have not been properly in place in this country for a long time, and we should be considering those as well.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

More than 210,000 Ukrainians have been hosted in the UK since Russia’s full-scale invasion, which is a testament to the generosity of British hosts, but the millions of Ukrainians who have left Ukraine for Europe are just a fraction of the number who might flee across Europe if Russia were successful in breaking through and occupying all of Ukraine. Does the Secretary of State consider it to be in the UK’s own national interest that we confiscate all Russia’s frozen assets, offer the proceeds to the defence of Ukraine and prevent further displacement?

[Yvette Cooper]

As the hon. Member will know, we strongly support Ukraine, given what it has had to endure and go through. We continue to condemn the Putin Government for the things that they have done and the impact that they are having on Ukraine, and we will continue to support Ukraine in every way possible.