National Security

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Government take very seriously the need to be prepared for all the threats we face across a whole range of public policy concerns, whether national security matters or those related to the environment, and other issues as well. I am sure that I and colleagues across government will always look at all proposals designed to help us be more resilient as a nation, and I know the Prime Minister will have more to say on this in due course.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

It is abundantly clear to me that if the attack on the home of my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) had been properly investigated, instead of brushed aside in some combination of incompetence and political bias, Ann Widdecombe would still be alive today. Instead, she was brutally murdered because of two-tier Britain. Let that sink in to everyone in this place. Why did it take the death of Ann Widdecombe for people to begin at least to wake up to what is happening in this country?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I appreciate that the circumstances of Ann Widdecombe’s murder and also the additional information that has come to light are very distressing, and I have offered sympathy and support from this Dispatch Box before, and I do so again. But I do not think that the distressing nature of these events justifies the charge that the right hon. Member makes, and I do reject that charge. He, as a former Minister, knows how these things work. The Independent Office for Police Conduct is investigating. It is independent of Government and of the police. It will go where the facts take it on the additional incident that is being investigated in relation to the property of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), and it is important that it is able to get on with the job. It is also important that we do not pre-empt the findings of that IOPC investigation. It is working swiftly and will have answers for us quickly, and I know those answers will be debated in this Chamber, but it is important that we do not make findings of fact before the facts are known.

Dover and Portsmouth: Protests

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

There are of course very difficult issues of people who are fleeing war and conflict, and I say to the shadow Home Secretary and everyone else here that we in this country have an honourable tradition of being a place of safety, which must continue. The issue we have seen in recent years is that, when the Conservatives were in power, anybody who came in was not dealt with, was not turned around and was not returned. So the criminal gangs understood that when people come to this country, nothing happens and they get to stay here forever, regardless, and they make money from that vulnerability. So we are trying to improve the system, and improving the system is not a lack of compassion; it is exactly the opposite.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

The sight of the Government escorting illegal migrants into Portsmouth harbour, the home of the Royal Navy, was a national humiliation. Sometimes I wonder whether Members of this House have no appreciation of the level of anger there is in the country at the rapes, the murders and the billions being wasted that should be being spent on the British people. Will the Minister put the Royal Navy in the channel today to escort those illegals to France? As Reform proved on Saturday, that is operationally, legally and now diplomatically possible. It is a matter of political will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, can you please keep your answers short, and will Back Benchers please make sure their questions are short too?

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

Like many right hon. and hon. Members, I have fond memories, in both childhood and adulthood, of Blackpool. I am glad to see the Metropole back on the journey to its proper purpose, because I know that it is a crucial part of the golden mile. I am not sure that it is within my ministerial remit to direct refurbishments of hotels. Nevertheless, I want it to be the best possible asset for my hon. Friend’s community, and I have offered to come with him to help promote the local economy to ensure that it is.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

I thank the Home Secretary and welcome the Government’s decision to proscribe the IRGC. Many of us campaigned for this and, in fact, were sanctioned by Iran for doing so. Far too many of our previous Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries bought the fallacious argument that doing so would prevent diplomatic relations with Iran. Now that the Home Secretary has chosen to do this, how will she enforce it so that we quickly stamp out all the activities of this terrible organisation from our country and ensure that it never takes root again?

Death of Ann Widdecombe

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

I join colleagues across the House in paying tribute to Ann, a woman who was brave, principled, kind and generous. I, like many others, will miss her enormously—even though on my first morning as a Member of Parliament, when I was the youngest MP, I met her in Westminster Hall and she asked me whether I was here on work experience. [Laughter.] I think I have eventually shed my MP nappies.

The Home Secretary is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the Home Office. She is not powerless and no one would pretend so. Would she agree that it was unwise of the Government to heavily reduce the security offered to the former Member for Clacton, given all we know about the particular danger that is posed to him and his family? Does she agree that, frankly, it should not have taken the murder of Ann for him to be offered a meeting with the committee, and that many will conclude—perhaps unfairly, but none the less—that it is only because of the political views of the former Member for Clacton that he is placed in this position? Will she use her power as Home Secretary to make sure the security that he and his family need is put in place immediately?

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered.

Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.

Police Leadership Commission Report

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The national police service will set consistent standards and ensure that we have a national workforce strategy setting out exactly how many different people we need and in what roles. The report shows multiple areas where forces have a compliance culture and risk aversion—people do not want to speak out for fear of consequences, and there is a resistance to new ideas. All those things suggest a culture in which people are not being trained, supported or allowed to do the fundamental job that we ask them to do, which is to cut crime and keep people safe. The national police service will be able to set those standards at a national level and ensure that there is consistency across all the forces, rather than the current inconsistent approach.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

A white man on a night out in Birmingham is assaulted by two black men. The police intervene and arrest the white man—the victim—and allow the two black lads to flee the scene. They then call the victim a “dick” and hit his head against a police car while they are sticking him in it. They then misrepresent what happened at the event, saying that it was a fight, when it was actually an assault. They say that absolutely nothing is wrong. The footage then goes viral, as ever, and the police are forced to change their tune—footage that the police actually tried to suppress.

I have three simple questions for the Policing Minister. One, does she consider this to be another appalling incident of two-tier policing? Two, will she haul the acting chief constable of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Jenrick, one question is normally enough, and I have given you the privilege of two. I call the Minister.

[Robert Jenrick]

I was the only person to raise it. Millions of—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr Jenrick, you know better.

Murder of Henry Nowak

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her powerful contribution as Henry’s Member of Parliament, and I give her the assurance that she seeks in relation to the IOPC investigation. That investigation is continuing at pace, and I know that the family are being engaged with. If there are any concerns about the process, I invite her to let me know immediately. I will personally ensure that any concerns are dealt with, so that the family can have confidence in the IOPC process. This Government have acknowledged the epidemic of knife crime in our country and our imperative to act on it. That is why we have our landmark commitment to halve knife crime over a decade and have launched the knife crime action plan, which is a resourced package of measures designed to deal with the scourge of knife crime.

I give my hon. Friend reassurance, exactly as I said in my statement, that we will leave no stone unturned in dealing with knife crime. We do so in the name of all victims of knife crime, including Henry. Their loss must not be in vain, and we must learn the lessons that will prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

When Henry lay on the floor, he warned that he had been stabbed four times and he said that he could not breathe nine times, yet the officer chose to cuff him, rather than treat him. That officer should be in court, being prosecuted for a total dereliction of duty, but the bigger question is this: why do officers behave in this way? Is it because they have been taught repeatedly to elevate perceptions of ethnic minority communities over the safety of white British people? That sickness contributed to the killings by Rudakubana, by Calocane in Nottingham, and now by Digwa. It is a sickness rooted in the anti-racism agenda. Will the Home Secretary root it out? Will she return to equality before the law for all? Will she say that when it comes to public safety, white lives matter just as much as anyone else’s?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I do not think this is a moment to pit white Britons against non-white Britons; this is a moment to reflect on a horrific tragedy. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the IOPC is investigating the conduct of those police officers. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Member of this House to seek to pre-empt an independent investigation into the potential misconduct of police officers. That IOPC investigation will look at individual conduct, but also at the wider lessons that can be learned from this case. I will personally ensure that all lessons are learned and acted upon.

It is a fundamental principle—not just of the British criminal justice system, but of who and what we are as a country—that we are all equal before the law of our land. That applies regardless of the colour of one’s skin, and regardless of whether someone is a non-white Brit whose family arrived here 50 years ago or 10 years ago, or whether they are a white Brit whose family have been here for 300 years or more. We are all equal before the law of our land, and we should all support that principle but not use it to pit our citizens against one another. That is not what this moment demands.

Child Sexual Offender Data

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the lead petitioner, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), for helping to organise the debate.

Thousands of young girls had their childhoods stolen from them in the most evil way imaginable. These are obscene crimes, and it is hard to think of more depraved acts than those committed by the men involved. I have struggled at times, as many have, to read the court transcripts that have been put into the public domain. Every time, my mind has turned to my own girls, as I have thought about them and what could have happened to any of the children we know and love. It is truly hard to comprehend. This is also not in the past tense; it is almost certainly still happening in communities across our country.

I would like to praise, thank and honour those girls—those women—who have chosen to speak out as whistleblowers and to campaign, and who have done so to this very day. They will never get their childhoods back, and the scars will never fully heal, if at all, but their bravery is truly extraordinary.

I would like to pay tribute to those Members of Parliament who have raised this issue. Many would say it is too few, and many would say it is too late, but there have been Members of Parliament on all sides of the House who have done so—including the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), as well as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who was here a few moments ago. In each of those cases, they were often attacked, insulted, denigrated and accused of being xenophobic or racist, when they were actually right. They were doing what is our duty as Members of Parliament: shining a light on the great social injustices facing our country.

I would like to pay tribute to Adam Wren, who is the director of Open Justice. He is campaigning for transparency in our legal system, and his work to uncover and publish court transcripts propelled this issue back into the national conversation last year. It was only when many people read extracts from those court transcripts that they really understood what had actually happened, and that “grooming gangs” was a euphemism that did not come close to capturing what was really going on and the appalling crimes that were happening.

Of course, I would like to thank all those who signed the petition, including those in my Newark constituency. That has led to this debate and, given the unanimous view expressed by Members in the House today, I hope it leads to action by the Government, which would be supported by everybody across this Chamber.

In March 2024, I tabled new clause 39 to the Criminal Justice Bill, which would have mandated that an annual report be laid before Parliament on the nationality and visa or asylum status of every offender convicted in England and Wales in the previous 12 months. It attracted cross-party support, but the then Conservative Government opposed it. Last year, I tabled a similar provision, again with cross-party support, but it too failed, this time because of opposition from the present Government. I hope that this petition can be the catalyst to make it third time lucky, and that we ensure that this issue is settled once and for all. The statutory requirement suggested in this instance relates specifically to child sexual offenders and gang-based crime. Naturally, I support it, and I see no good reason why it should not be applied to all crimes.

As the petition argues, once the Government routinely publish the data, it will show offender demographics, which will allow policies that target the right people. It should give people the confidence to talk about these appalling crimes without fearing the backlash from spurious accusations of racism or xenophobia—accusations that so many have faced.

[Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)]

No person of any colour, creed, religion or community, or in any position of power, should be allowed to get away with heinous crimes and using sex as a weapon. When the right hon. Member talks about there being nowhere to hide, does he stretch that out to anyone in a position of power, no matter who they are, not being allowed to get away with these things, and to nobody turning a blind eye to anybody using sex as a weapon?

[Robert Jenrick]

Of course. I want equality before the law. No one, from the most exalted figure in this land to the lowest, should be free from scrutiny, accountability and, ultimately, the full force of the law.

Above all, we should publish this data because it would give the Government of the day incontrovertible evidence and the rationale to make the necessary changes. That would include our immigration system, because, at its heart, our immigration system should have one abiding objective above all others, whether economic or social: it should put the safety of the British people first. If the data shows that men from certain countries are disproportionately likely to commit sexual crimes against young girls here in our country, any responsible Government would suspend visas immediately and design a different system that protects women and girls in this country.

Right now, as we have heard throughout the debate, there is an unwillingness across councils, the police and prosecutions to report and act upon the truth. The facts about crime are covered up because of a toxic combination of bureaucratic inertia and weak leaders who pussyfoot around the truth. They refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their illusion of Britain as a harmonious, well-integrated country or that confounds their glib statements that diversity is our strength. It is not always the case, as we have seen.

In 2012, an audit by the Children’s Commissioner on grooming found that ethnicity was recorded in 79% of cases. By 2025, Baroness Casey found that ethnicity data was recorded in only a third of cases. More broadly, Ministry of Justice data shows that the police and courts are collecting less data on the ethnicity of criminals, including those who commit child sex abuse, than at any time in the past 15 years, so the problem is getting worse—much worse.

The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), ordered officials to publish the nationalities of foreign offenders awaiting deportation. That is obviously welcome, but it is a tiny proportion of the issue, and even that we are still awaiting. The only solution to guarantee transparency is to make public authorities duty-bound by the law of the land to report the truth. So of course we should all support the petition.

But I want to go further. First, we must release the court transcripts—unredacted—and change the entire climate in our criminal justice system, so that court transcripts of any case are easily available to everyone, from journalists to Members of Parliament to campaigners. The current system is unsustainable and completely absurd in an age of AI, when these transcripts could be made available in an affordable way.

Secondly, we need to release every email, memo and record held by central Government, local councils and police forces relating to grooming gangs as soon as possible. How ridiculous that everything being released today—the WhatsApp messages, text messages and so on, which are admittedly about serious errors of judgment and are related to appalling crimes in and of themselves— about the paedophile friend, Peter Mandelson, is attracting this extraordinary furore in the House of Commons Chamber and the media, yet these documents, relating to thousands and thousands of girls in each and every one of our constituencies, are being withheld. Let us get them into the public domain and use transparency to drive change.

Thirdly, we should increase the funding of the National Crime Agency to go after the perpetrators and the public officials who are obviously complicit. Fourthly, we should lock up the perpetrators, with mandatory whole-life sentences. The current sentences handed down to some of these perpetrators are insults to the victims. This is not a new thing, and it is not the fault of this Government; it is a long-standing failure of our criminal justice system. I started, perhaps too late, to pay an interest in this a year or so ago and was stunned at the pathetic short sentences being handed down by judges.

Let me give one example that I came across in Bradford Crown court. A judge handed out a six-and-a-half-year sentence to a man who drugged a 13-year-old girl and then raped her at least twice, queuing up with other men to rape her. The young girl obviously lives with the scars today; in fact, she later became addicted to drugs and alcohol as a coping mechanism. Six and a half years for that! Imagine if that was your daughter—or anyone, frankly, in this country. He would probably have been out on licence in four years had the sentence not been increased after I and others referred it to the Attorney General and ultimately the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. Let us change the law and make these individuals—these vile perpetrators—serve the rest of their lives in prison. That is the least the victims deserve.

Lastly, we should strip citizenship from dual citizens and deport them—deport them far away from these shores. If countries will not take them back, as some do not wish to, why on earth are our constituents paying millions of pounds in foreign aid to those countries? Why on earth is the Home Office issuing thousands of visas to them so that their citizens can come here for business, as students or for pleasure? No! We should use every lever of the British state to get these vile individuals out of our country and protect our women and girls.

None of those things will be enough for the victims, whose childhoods were stolen from them and for whom the scarring will never fade. What possibly could be? But this proposal will move us a step closer to correcting this injustice and, above all, to preventing future ones.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

May I first add my tributes to Tony Lloyd? He did such wonderful work in policing, as well as in this place.

What a farce. Today and yesterday have been more days of Tory chaos and carnage. We have a Prime Minister with no grip, while the British taxpayer is continually forced to pay the price. Former Tory Cabinet Ministers and deputy chairs from all sides have been queueing up to tell us it is a bad Bill. They say it will not work, it will not protect our borders, it will not comply with international law and it is fatally flawed. The only thing that the Tories all seem to agree on is that the scheme is failing and the law will not solve it. The Prime Minister is failing, too, and they know it.

We have a failing Rwanda scheme that is costing Britain £400 million, that sent more Home Secretaries than asylum seekers to Kigali and that will only apply to less than 1% of those arriving in the UK. This is the third Tory law on channel crossings in two years. It will get through tonight, just like the previous two Bills did—even though they failed. Just like the last two, it is a total con on the British people. This chaos leaves the Prime Minister’s authority in tatters. He is in office but not in power. No one agrees with him on his policy, and the real weakness is that he does not even agree with it himself. The Prime Minister is so weak that he has lost control of the asylum system, lost control of our borders and lost any control of the Tory party.

Sixty Tory MPs have voted against the Government, two deputy chairs were sacked, a Home Secretary and Immigration Minister have formerly been lost, and Cabinet Ministers have been briefing openly that they do not support the Bill. The Home Secretary himself thinks it is “batshit”, the Prime Minister tried to cancel it and yet is so weak that they are still going ahead.

Under the Tories, we have seen border security weakened while criminal gangs take hold, because they have not taken the action that we need. The backlogs soar; the budget bust. Criminal smuggler convictions have dropped by 30%, and returns have halved. That is instead of the practical plans that Labour set out to set up the new returns and enforcement unit to stop the Home Office from just losing thousands of people that it cannot keep track of, to stop the halving of the returns unit, to set up the new security powers to go after the criminal gangs and stop the 30% drop in criminal gang smuggler convictions, and to have the additional cross-border police unit that we could be investing in if we were not spending so much money on this failing Rwanda scheme.

Four hundred million pounds of taxpayers’ money is going to Rwanda, all without a single person being sent. That is all in addition to the Government’s whopping multibillion-pound hotel bill. Of course, if they get flights off, it will probably cost another £10 million to £20 million for every 100 people they actually manage to send. President Kagame made an astonishing intervention this afternoon. He said that he is happy for the scheme to be scrapped and may be offering to refund the money. Think what we could do with £400 million—that is more than a third of the budget of the National Crime Agency.

The Kigali Government have clarified the position this afternoon—and it is even worse. They said:

“Under the terms of the agreement, Rwanda has no obligation to return any of the funds paid…if no migrants come to Rwanda under the scheme, and the UK government wishes to request a refund of the portion of the funding allocated to support…we will consider this request.

Unbelievable. The Government signed a deal and a whole series of cheques to send hundreds of millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money to Rwanda for a scheme that they were warned would not work, might be unlawful, would not work as a deterrent, would be unenforceable and would be at high risk of fraud. They signed it because they do not give a damn about taxpayers’ money. Now they want to pass the Bill and spend even more taxpayers’ money on this failing scheme.

The scheme is likely to cover less than 1% of the people who arrived in the country last year. More than 90,000 people applied for asylum, and the Court of Appeal said that Rwanda had capacity for only 100 people. The Immigration Minister admitted that it is just a few hundred, and not any time soon. If the Government ever finally implement the Illegal Migration Act 2023, that will immediately create a list of 35,000 people the Home Secretary is supposed to send immediately to Rwanda. At this rate, it will take the Government 100 years to implement their own failing policy.

To be honest, it is probably even worse than that, because they cannot even find most of the 5,000 people they put on the initial Rwanda list. It is totally unbelievable: in the space of about 18 months, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have literally lost 4,200 people they planned to send to Rwanda. I bet the Prime Minister wishes he could lose a few of those Home Secretaries he managed to send.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

rose—

[Yvette Cooper]

The Prime Minister did also lose his Immigration Minister as part of the chaos of the last few weeks and months—I give way to the former Immigration Minister.

[Robert Jenrick]

If the shadow Home Secretary does not like the Rwanda policy, why did she brief The Times over the Christmas holidays that she was in favour of an offshore processing scheme, which everyone knows is more expensive than a scheme like Rwanda and has far less deterrent effect? It seems that everything she does not like is her plan, except she did not have the guts to put her name to it, so she briefed The Times anonymously.

[Yvette Cooper]

Nice try with total nonsense from the former Immigration Minister, who has a history of making things up. It is not clear that there is anything on the planet more expensive per person than the Government’s Rwanda scheme: £400 million to send nobody to Rwanda and to totally fail. I give the former Immigration Minister credit for exposing the Government and the Prime Minister’s real plan—in his words, to try and get a few “symbolic flights” off before a general election, with a small number of people on them.

Not to worry about handing over a small fortune to another country, or the fact that all this focus on one small, failing scheme means that the Government are failing to go after the gangs. They have lost thousands of people the Home Office should be tracking. Not to worry that this new law is so badly drawn up that, frankly, the Government may be ordered by the courts to bring people back, at further huge cost to the British taxpayer, turning the whole thing into an even bigger farce.

This is not a workable policy; it is a massive, costly con. The Government are trying to con voters and con their own party, but everyone can see through it. A £400 million Rwanda scheme for a few hundred people is like the emperor’s new clothes. The Prime Minister and his Immigration Ministers have been desperately spinning the invisible thread, but we can all see through it. The Home Secretary is wandering naked around this Chamber, waving a little treaty as a fig leaf to hide his modesty behind. I admit, he does not have much modesty to hide.

There are things that the Home Secretary and I agree on. We agree on working with France. We agree on the deal with Albania. We agree on the importance of stopping dangerous boat crossings that are undermining border security and putting lives at risk. I think he probably agrees with us about the failings of the policy he is trying to defend today. We need stronger border security and a properly controlled and managed asylum system so that the UK does its bit to help those fleeing persecution and conflict, and those who have no right to be here are returned. We need Labour’s plan for the new security powers, the new cross-border police, the new security agreement, the new returns and enforcement unit, the clearing of the backlog, the ending of hotel use, and keeping track of the thousands of people the Home Secretary has lost.

The Government will get their law through tonight—the third new law in two years; the third Home Secretary to visit Rwanda with a cheque book; the third bilateral agreement with Rwanda. Tory Back Benchers have been saying that it should be three strikes and you’re out. We are now on three, six, nine strikes, and they have not even got to first base, because every time they bring forward a new law, it makes things worse. The first new law failed because its main provisions are now suspended. The second new law failed with the main provisions not even implemented.

Forgive us for not believing a word the Government say, and for voting against a third failing Bill today. The only difference now is that none of their Back Benchers believes them, either. Broken promises on clearing the backlog, on ending hotel use, on stopping the boats and on returning people who come. It is chaos—failing on smuggler gangs, failing on returns and failing to get a grip. Britain deserves better than this Tory asylum chaos.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

The decision to leave office is always a difficult one. The decision to disagree with the Prime Minister—someone I want to support in good times and bad—is always a difficult one, but politicians are sent here to make difficult decisions. No one is forced to be a Minister. With high office comes responsibility, and no responsibility is greater than protecting our borders and securing us from untold damage as a result of mass illegal migration.

We have made huge progress as a country over the last year as a result of the work that the former Home Secretary—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman)—the Prime Minister and I have done, and I wish my right hon. Friend the new Home Secretary and his Ministers all the best in taking that work forward. Our record stands among the best of any European country. We have, as my right hon. Friend said, reduced the number of small boat arrivals to our country by one third. That compares with a one-third increase across Europe, and an almost 100% increase on Europe’s southern border in Italy, so the plan that the Prime Minister set out a year ago is working. It is the most comprehensive plan of any European country.

We have just heard from the Opposition that they have no plan at all. They said that even if the Rwanda scheme was working and having the deterrent effect we all want, they would still scrap it, because ultimately they do not believe in border security and they cannot be trusted to protect our borders. But this problem is not going away. It is going to be one of the defining issues of the 21st century. There are millions of people on the move—some are fleeing climate change and persecution, while others are economic migrants understandably in search of a better life. It is a great compliment to our country that so many want to come here, but it is not sustainable.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.

We have to secure our borders, which means that all the good work that we have done over the course of the last year—the Albania deal, the asylum backlog work, and the deals with Bulgaria, France, Italy and others—is not enough. We are not going to stop the boats purely through that work. We have to interject the strongest possible deterrent, and the best deterrent—the only deterrent—that we can use in the course of the next 12 months is the Rwanda deal. That is why it is so critical that we get it up and running.

I genuinely believe, having immersed myself in this issue for 14 months, that this is a good policy, that it can work and that it will help our country to fight back against this great scourge. In my job, I have seen the consequences of that every day. I have gone with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) to meet her constituents whose homes have been broken into and whose lives have been ruined by illegal migrants. I have spent time with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Sir Conor Burns) and read about his constituent who was murdered by an asylum seeker, who posed as a child and then killed somebody on the streets of Bournemouth. I have worked with almost every Member of this House on their determination to close asylum hotels. Even the greatest advocates for open borders change their minds when there is an asylum hotel in their constituency. Hypocrisy is all over this issue.

That is why we have to fix this problem. When I said “whatever it takes”, I meant it, and I honestly believe that that view is shared by all of us on this side of the House and many good colleagues on the other side as well. To do that, we have to make sure that this policy works. This is a good-faith disagreement—there are good people on both sides of the House, and certainly within my party, who have disagreements about how we can make the policy work—but my point of view is this: untold damage is being done to our country and this issue will be with us for years, if not decades, to come. If we do not operationalise this policy correctly, we will see the numbers rise for many years to come. If, God forbid, there was a Labour Government, there would be a decade of small boat arrivals. I want to stop that.

To my mind, there are two big flaws with this Bill. First, as I have said to many who have asked me, including on the media, it does not address the question of individual claims. If I have learnt anything in this job, it is that those seeking to frustrate their removal from our country will stop at nothing. The small-boat-chasing law firms and legal representatives will help them to fight, each and every way. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. Even the best-meant things the country has done in recent years, such as our world-leading modern slavery laws, are abused. Some 70% of the people we are seeking to remove put in a modern slavery claim at the eleventh hour.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will not give way at the moment.

This is proven to be correct every time, so why would we not put into the Bill a provision that says that those people cannot bring forward individual claims?

[Clive Efford]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will give way in a moment.

First, such a provision would bring legal certainty; secondly, there are operational reasons for it. I have met no one who really understands the operationalisation of the policy who does not believe such a provision is crucial. Those advisers have told me time and again that the scheme will be seriously impeded. People will put in claims and go to court. The upper tier tribunal, which is already under pressure, will be overwhelmed. Our detention capacity—just a few thousand spaces—will be full. In a single week in August, 2,000 beds in our detention facilities could be filled. Those arrivals will go on to our streets. They will abscond, as they always do, never to be seen again, and the scheme will be brought into quick disrepute. I do not want to see that happen. I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

The right hon. Gentleman casts aspersions on Labour’s approach to this issue. He is in the presence of two former Immigration Ministers: myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). At the end of the last Labour Government, there was one person being returned every eight minutes. I know from my own caseload that people who have reached the end of the line are still dribbling around the system, even though, as others have raised, they want to leave the country. What was the right hon. Gentleman’s record after 14 months as an Immigration Minister?

[Robert Jenrick]

There has been a tenfold increase in the pace of asylum decision making, so we have absolutely transformed the decision-making system. We have massively increased the number of returns—the hon. Lady is on rocky ground on this one, I am afraid—as 22,000 people have been returned. The difference between our side of the House and hers is that we have the guts and the determination to fix this problem once and for all, which means interjecting the strongest possible deterrent. Were there a Labour Government, I would worry for this country, because we would see a massive increase in the number of small boat arrivals, and the people smugglers would be celebrating. That is why it is so important to Conservative Members that we—

[Clive Efford]

rose—

[Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

With all due respect, I will not give way, because I only have a few minutes left.

We need to use the time that we have left in government before the general election. Of course, I hope we win the next general election, but the public are watching us. They expect us to fix this problem, so why would we not put into the Bill all the strongest protections at our disposal?

On the second important thing that needs to change in the Bill, it is inevitable, in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, that the Strasbourg Court will impose further rule 39 interim measures. That is, after all, what bedevilled the flight arranged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) a year or so ago. We have to stop that. It is a matter of sovereignty for our country that Ministers, acting on the instructions of Parliament, do not allow the flights to be delayed.

The provision in the Bill is sophistry. It is the express policy of the Government that rule 39 injunctions are binding and that to ignore them would be a breach of international law. We are being asked to vote for a provision that it would be illegal to use. I do not want to be in the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham, whose determination I do not doubt, was in. I do not want my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my successors as Immigration Minister to be in that position. We as a House are giving them a hard deal and doing them a disservice if we allow the Bill to continue in that way. They must have the full power of Parliament to ignore those rule 39 injunctions and get those flights in the air.

There are things that others will contribute, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on his work drawing out some of the other challenges with the Bill, so I will close with this. This is not a bad Bill, but it is not the best Bill. I want the Bill to work. The test of this policy is not, “Is it the strongest Bill that we have done?”, or, “Is it a good compromise?” It is: “Will it work?” That is all the public care about. They do not care about Rwanda as a scheme; they care about stopping the boats, and we are sent here to do that for them. I will never elevate contested notions of international law over the interests of my constituents or vital national interests such as national security and border security. The Bill could be so much better. Let us make it better. Let us make it work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Oh, thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry; I could not hear you with all the excitement.

Unusually, the aim of this Bill is set out in clause 1, which is

“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.

That is an aim with which I am sure not a single hon. Member could disagree. Illegal migration is possibly one of the greatest scourges of our age. It is evil, it is internationally organised and it is socially and economically damaging to this country. The Rwanda scheme is an inventive and innovative plan. It establishes, or aims to establish, an effective deterrent to illegal migrants—to make them think twice about making that perilous crossing across the channel. Unfortunately, it foundered on the rocks of the Supreme Court last month, when the Court held that Rwanda could not be considered a safe country, because there were substantial grounds to believe that migrants would face the risk of refoulement, or of being transferred to their country of origin or a third country. The treaty that the Government have concluded does provide reassurance in that regard. It addresses the problem identified by the Court by making specific provision that no relocated individual may be removed from Rwanda other than to the United Kingdom.

Given the dualist nature of our constitution, the treaty needs to be complemented by domestic legislation, and this Bill is that legislation. It is critical that the Bill should function as the Government intend, which is to facilitate the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda without legal impediment. The question is: does it do so effectively? The Bill has been described as

“the toughest piece of…migration legislation ever put forward by a UK Government”,

and there is no doubt that it does toughen the current regime. However, it is debatable whether it is sufficiently watertight to amount to a significant deterrent to the boats by facilitating the flights to Rwanda.

The Bill has been considered by the legal panel of the European Research Group, and I commend its report to hon. Members. It notes that significant amendments to the Bill are required to improve it, but it expresses concern that those amendments may well be outside the scope of the Bill. One of the most significant problems is that the Bill contains no restrictions on legal challenges against removal to Rwanda on any grounds other than that Rwanda is not a safe country, and that clearly reflects the fact that the Bill is a direct response to the judgment of the Supreme Court last month. If the Bill does successfully block challenges based on arguments that Rwanda is not safe—the treaty certainly helps in that regard—it is likely that those advising illegal migrants will focus more on pursuing challenges of another kind.

We should consider clause 4, which specifically provides that legal challenges to removal may be made if arguments are put forward that Rwanda is not a safe country for individual migrants based on compelling evidence relating to their personal circumstances. The opportunities for the abuse of that provision are obvious. Migrants may well be advised by people smugglers or by unscrupulous lawyers, because there are some, that they should oppose removal to Rwanda on spurious grounds such as a non-existent mental health condition, a fear of flying or whatever. Given that as many as 500 illegal migrants, at the height of the summer, arrive on these shores every day—

[Robert Jenrick]

Twelve hundred.

[Mr Jones]

I stand corrected by someone who knows about it. In that case, it is not difficult to envisage a situation in which tribunals and courts may be overwhelmed. I believe that this Bill requires amendment, and I am inviting my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to say, when he winds up this evening, that the Government are open to amendments. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has to say about scope, but I want the Minister to engage with colleagues to see if this Bill may be made better.

At the moment, numerous deficiencies have been identified in the report of the so-called star chamber which I believe will render this Bill inoperable and ineffective. The last thing we want to do as a House is expend a lot of time and a lot of agony to put in place a Bill that does not result in the flights to Rwanda and the deterrence that we need to illegal migrants. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will respond positively to the suggestion when he winds up. I know that a lot of colleagues will listen carefully to what he has to say, and I think they will welcome what may well be regarded as a change of tone on the part of the Government.

Refugee Family Reunion Routes: Sudan

Robert Jenrick Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this Adjournment debate. We share his deep concern about the situation in Sudan and all those affected by it, including those seeking refugee status in the United Kingdom or other safe countries. The Government remain committed to upholding the principle of family reunion by providing a safe and legal route to bring families together through the refugee family reunion policy.

The family reunion route allows individuals with protection status in the UK to sponsor their partner or children to stay with or join them here, provided they formed part of a family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin to seek protection. While we sympathise greatly with the situation in which many individuals in Sudan find themselves, we do not intend to prioritise refugee family reunion applications from those impacted by the Sudanese conflict, as there are many other individuals in the queue who will be facing broadly comparable situations elsewhere in the world. We want to treat all individuals facing such situations in the same manner and ensure that, where appropriate, they can be supported to a life in the UK in accordance with our rules.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I would not necessarily say that people seeking to come here from Sudan because they are in danger there should be prioritised ahead of others who face similar risks elsewhere—a point that the Minister fairly makes—but does the Home Office make any consideration or assessment of risk at all? There are people who apply for refugee family reunion, quite rightly and fairly, who do not face any imminent risk because they are in a relatively safe third country. Surely the fact that people are facing real danger is an added reason to give priority to their family reunion applications. That should be something that the Department considers.

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I am happy to take up with my officials. Our policy is one of non-discrimination, so individuals are treated equally, regardless of their country of origin. Obviously, there are a number of places in the world with great danger and we do not choose to rank them in order of priority. However, I can see some merit in what he is saying, so I am happy to give that consideration.

It is important to note that the UK has a very strong record of supporting refugees. Since 2015, we have resettled over half a million people seeking safety, which is among the most generous offerings in our country’s history. The UK ranks highly among other developed countries in that regard. We continue to welcome refugees through our existing global resettlement schemes, including the UK resettlement scheme itself, community sponsorship and the mandate resettlement scheme. Since 2015, we have issued 49,000 family reunion visas to family members of those with protection status, with over half of those visas for children. That figure demonstrates our commitment to refugee family reunion.

We have welcomed Sudanese nationals through both our UK resettlement scheme and the community sponsorship scheme in 2022 and 2023. Between 2015 and 2023, 6,500 Sudanese nationals have been granted visas under refugee family reunion. In the year to September 2023, 618 Sudanese nationals were granted visas under refugee family reunion. The UK is making a significant commitment, although of course the need is very great, as the hon. Gentleman says, due to the situation in Sudan.

We will continue to consider our approach to refugee family reunion in the round rather than on a crisis-by-crisis basis. The UK has no plan at the moment to introduce a designated resettlement scheme for Sudanese refugees. As a general rule, it is important that the UK does not treat migration as the first lever that we pull to try to help people in grave situations in the world.

Generally speaking, the greatest impact that the UK can make, whether that is in Sudan or in other crisis situations, is by using our full diplomatic muscle and our development aid to support people in the region, which is, in fact, the place where the majority of refugees find themselves. Indeed, that happens with respect to the Sudanese situation, where hundreds of thousands of individuals are being supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other organisations in the immediate environs of Sudan. The UK is proud to be supporting those efforts to help those individuals.

I wish to turn more specifically to some of the very valid questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. First, he raised the question of those fleeing conflict zones who find it difficult to provide documents for family reunion purposes. We recognise that this is a challenge for those fleeing their homes and their home countries. Although the onus is on the applicant to show that the relationship is genuine, there are no specific requirements to provide certain types of evidence. We recognise that documentary evidence may not always be available, particularly in countries where there is no functioning administrative authority to issue a passport, a marriage certificate, or a birth certificate. Decision makers should take into consideration evidence from a range of sources, including information provided by their UK family sponsor. Each decision is considered on the balance of probabilities to identify whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the individuals are related as claimed.

It is important to prevent abuse of the refugee family reunion policy and to safeguard applicants by carefully reviewing their applications where fraudulent documents are submitted, or where there is evidence that the sponsor obtained leave by deception.

With more specific regard to the situation in Sudan, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the visa application centre in Khartoum is closed until further notice. As a result, any passports remaining there are having to be held in secure storage. We are committed to doing everything we can to support people who find themselves affected by that closure and to reopen the centre as soon as it is safe to do so for our staff and their contractors. There are other visa application centres in the wider vicinity of Sudan. I appreciate that the distances are long, and that the journeys can be arduous and, at times, unsafe. We do have visa centres in Cairo and Jeddah, and many people have made use of those in the time since the crisis began.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Even among the cases that I spoke about, one or two individuals had made it into a neighbouring country—unfortunately one had made it to South Sudan where there is also not a visa application centre—but surely, particularly in the case of children, it is too much to ask them to make a dangerous journey such as that to supply biometric information. There should be some sort of presumption against the need to provide biometric information, or at least a willingness to consider deferring it before the Home Office even looks at the application.

[Robert Jenrick]

In most cases, unfortunately, individuals will have to make a journey to leave Sudan, as it is very unlikely that they will fly directly from Sudan. Most of the cases that I have been made aware of as Immigration Minister are of individuals who have made the journey to Cairo or to Jeddah or other neighbouring countries.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I will reply directly on the biometrics point, which is an important question. Fundamentally, we believe that biometrics are extremely important, because we want to protect the UK’s national security and the safety of our citizens here. Although, of course, we all want to see the best in individuals coming here, particularly in young people and children, there are individuals whom we would not want to enter the United Kingdom. As such, biometrics, in the form of facial image and fingerprints, underpin our immigration system. However, we make exceptions for individuals who find themselves in the most difficult situations.

We published guidance in May 2023, which sets out our approach to handling applicants who claim that it is unsafe to travel from Sudan to a visa application centre in another country to enrol their biometrics—he referred to that situation in his speech. The guidance sets out the circumstances under which UK Visas and Immigration will either predetermine an application or defer the requirement to enrol biometric information until the applicant arrives in the UK, when the applicant has demonstrated their circumstances to be exceptional. In most cases, we require biometrics to be taken as part of the application so that we can conduct the checks on a person’s identity and suitability to come to the UK. It is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to satisfy the decision maker about their identity.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman can take some comfort from the fact that the guidance gives that flexibility. I hear that he feels that it is being applied too onerously and in a way that is insufficiently sensitive to the situation in Sudan. I am happy to take that away, speak to my officials and, if he has further examples, to put those in front of them so that we can make sure that the guidance is being applied fairly.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful that the Minister is open to having a discussion about this issue. He is right that, ultimately, all these kids will probably have to leave for a neighbouring country for onward travel. However, it is one thing to ask them to leave in the certainty that they will be allowed into the United Kingdom; it is another to ask them to leave and provide biometric information on the off-chance that they might be allowed in at some future point.

One compromise might be to consider the family reunion application without the biometric information; if it is granted, then tell them to come to a neighbouring country and provide the biometric information there. Will the Minister take that away and think about it?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will be happy to look into that and come back to the hon. Gentleman. We both agree that biometrics are important. We want to ensure that they are compromised only in the most exceptional circumstances so that we can protect national security, but it is important that we show a degree of discretion when people—young people, in particular—find themselves in the hardest of situations. I will be happy to look into the issue and write to him.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned processing time for family reunion applications, and I want to address that directly. In general, UKVI is operating well and is meeting its service standards in all, or almost all, visa categories, but there are delays with respect to family reunion—a point that he and other Members have raised in the past. We acknowledge the need to dedicate more resource to support the safe and legal routes and are reviewing processes to streamline decision making to make it more efficient for applicants.

We recognise that the family members of those with protection status in the UK are particularly vulnerable. When the out-of-country decision making team receives a request for prioritisation from an applicant or their representative, that will be assessed to determine whether the application should be prioritised. As I said in answer to the hon. Gentleman’s previous comment, we do not prioritise in a blanket way because of nationality, but we do give priority to cases involving particularly vulnerable individuals.

Examples of grounds for prioritisation may include applicants or sponsors who have serious medical conditions or terminal illnesses. The list of grounds for prioritisation is non-exhaustive; managers undertake a holistic consideration of the applicant’s circumstances when considering a request for prioritisation. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost of refugee family reunion. It is free—no fee it levied, although he did raise some of the allied costs that go with it. We make sure that the route is free for obvious reasons.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about child sponsors. The family reunion policy is intended to allow those granted protection status in the UK to sponsor, pre-flight, immediate family members to join them here. We must avoid creating an incentive for people, particularly children, to leave their families and risk very dangerous journeys, hoping that relatives will be able to join them later. We do, unfortunately, come across examples of that, including through the small boats route, which is among the most perilous of journeys that a child could make.

There are other provisions in the immigration rules that cater for extended family members and, where a valid application does not meet the criteria within our rules, including child sponsors, we consider whether there are compelling compassionate factors that warrant a granting outside the rules. We believe that were children allowed to sponsor parents, that would create a real risk of an incentive for more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk very hazardous journeys to the UK. That plays into the hands of criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people, and goes against all our safeguarding responsibilities and instincts. Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees apart from their parents, but in considering any policy we have to think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily into harm’s way.

Finally, I will answer the broader question about refugee resettlement. We have a proud record as a country, having offered half a million people a safe and legal route into the UK. We understand that the scale of disruption and situations around the world mean that so many people find themselves in grave need. Our approach has to be considered very carefully, but we want to continue to work with international organisations, such as the ones that the hon. Member referenced. We have a good relationship with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees through our global resettlement scheme, and earlier in the year, through the Illegal Migration Act 2023, we legislated so that we can introduce further schemes in the future.

I recently launched a consultation in which we asked every local authority in the whole of the United Kingdom to give us their capacity to take refugees on such schemes over the course of the year to come. That consultation is open and I encourage the hon. Member to talk to his local authority and see whether it is taking part in it. We will carefully consider the responses, and if they suggest that there is further capacity across the UK, that will lead us either to extend existing schemes or to create new ones so that the UK can play an even greater and more generous role in the years ahead in helping more people from places such as Sudan to come to the UK.

I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate, and all our colleagues tonight who have listened or contributed. I fully understand the interest in the subject, given the great concern that everyone feels about the situation in Sudan. I hope that I have set out our record and the work that we are doing, and given him some assurances that he and I can work closely together to learn from his experiences, and his evident sincere concern about the issue, to ensure that the scheme is operating as well as it can.

Question put and agreed to.