Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I commend those who have signed the two petitions that bring this debate to Westminster Hall. In my constituency, 461 residents signed the petition to shut down the migrant hotels and deport illegal migrants, and 871 residents signed the petition to stop financial support for asylum seekers. That shows how fed up my residents, and people across the country, are with this issue. Make no mistake: it is the biggest issue facing this country at the moment. We talk about our proud history of accommodating and looking after asylum seekers—and that is true—but this is different. We are now facing an invasion, a national security issue and a national emergency.

The current cost to the taxpayer of housing asylum seekers in hotels is estimated to be £6 million a day. That figure is probably way below what it actually costs us. It is well publicised that asylum seekers in these hotels are receiving not only free accommodation, but free food in three meals a day, free pocket money, free cinema tickets, free—in my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby—driving lessons, free mobile phones and free anything else.

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

I shall not. We have all seen pictures of asylum seekers hanging out of windows, laughing at the peaceful protests below. This leaves a sour taste in the mouth of the British taxpayer. We know that other European countries are laughing at us with our ridiculously generous asylum policy, and waving asylum seekers through to our shores.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

I will not. We know that the Americans are despairing at our asylum seeker policies, and are watching our country being overrun. The only people who do not seem concerned are the Government. How does this make us look to the world, and how does it make our loyal British citizens feel? Well, I will tell hon. Members: it makes us look weak. It makes us look like we do not put the British people first, and that has to change. The British people have had enough of seeing their hard-earned money being spent on people who have no right to be here. Financial assistance to these illegal migrants must stop. All illegal migrants currently in this country need to be deported. That is the starting principle of Reform policy.

[Mr Charters]

Is the hon. Lady courageous enough to give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

I will.

[Mr Charters]

Reform UK has mooted the idea of using British overseas territories as part of its asylum processing plans. Would the hon. Lady use this occasion to rule out any asylum processing ever taking place in the Falklands or Gibraltar as part of Reform UK’s policies?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I will not rule out any possible policy.

[Apsana Begum]

On that point, will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I am going to continue; I have given way once. Anyone who has come to this country illegally will never be entitled to claim asylum here again.

[Carla Denyer]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

I will make a bit of progress. The immediate action needs to be that all these hotels are closed to illegal migrants, and that they are moved out of the community into holding centres to be processed and sent home. The conditions in which they are held in these processing centres will be humane but not luxurious. There will be no free tickets to theme parks and no free trips out into the community.

I had an asylum hotel—the Daresbury hotel—in my constituency. My campaign in the recent by-election saw the hotel eventually shut down, but the implications of shutting the hotels are that these illegal migrants are dispersed in houses of multiple occupancy in our communities. In Runcorn, we have approximately 900 illegal migrants in 80 HMOs that we know about. Once in those HMOs, they are lost to the authorities, yet still live free at the taxpayers’ expense.

[Tony Vaughan]

From the logic of what the hon. Lady is saying, we would detain everybody—we would put the 102,000 people currently in asylum accommodation in a detention centre. Does she accept that that will cost around £47 billion, which is not credible at all?

[Sarah Pochin]

I accept that we have to start doing something radical that sends a message, will stop people coming to this country, and will stop the pull factors that send people to our shores.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I am going to continue. We have to stop the incentives to come to this country. We need to protect the public, particularly women and girls, from these sexually active young men currently free to roam our streets.

[Seamus Logan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

No, I am nearly finished. We need to prioritise our own citizens and stop this betrayal of our culture and our country. To finish, I would like to make this observation. The Home Office has just put out a contract to tender for asylum support and accommodation services to run from 2029 to 2036, so clearly, the Government have no plans to stop these hotels and are, in fact, facilitating them. The Minister can shake his head, but it is there online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia]

As I will come to later in my remarks, I am for reducing and speeding up the whole processing system and for finding more appropriate places than hotels—there are a multitude of those, and I am sure the Minister will set out where we get to on that. The point is that we should all agree that we need to have a fair system. It needs to be fast and to deal with genuine asylum seekers. Unfortunately, we currently have a broken system.

Returning to what the previous Conservative Government were apparently trying to do with their Rwanda system, they never gave us or themselves a chance to see that one through. They knew perfectly well that it was not working out and they got themselves into all kinds of knots.

We hear calls for leaving conventions. People blamed the European Union, but we left the European Union with a hard Brexit and immigration has gone up, so they go and find something else: the European convention on human rights. When that does not work, what is next? The refugee convention. While we are throwing all those rights out the door, it will be, “Well, we don’t need any of that stuff. Who cares about freedom from torture? Who cares about these rights for all of us in this country?” Talking about so-called outdated laws is not the solution. We need far more practical solutions. The answer is to co-operate with our neighbours. This is not a British problem; this is a European and a worldwide problem. If we treat it as a British problem, we will never, ever get the solution.

Other Members in this room seek to weaponise this issue for their own ends. It suits them to scaremonger about what is happening, I attempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) to ask where her evidence was for all that she said. Those of us who try to look at the facts are dealing with fake news. Some people online on social media will not look at mainstream media or trust journalists who look for second sources, but will happily share a faked video. That is what is happening now: fearmongering and scaremongering from parties like Reform that thrive on division and hate. Give me evidence—that is all I ask. I want genuine evidence, not the fake news that we get on social media, with all the fake videos out there.

I welcome the much more sensible and practical approach of this Government. The British people are a practical and pragmatic people who believe in fairness, as do this Labour Government. That is why I welcome the beginning of the returns agreement with our neighbour France. France has a major issue with illegal migration and asylum as well. So does Germany. So does Malta, the country I was born in. People say that we live on a small island; Malta is a small island, much smaller than here. This is not just a British problem. We have to work together to find solutions, rather than running away from rules and clubs just because we do not like them and will not play that game.

The agreement with France signals a more constructive approach. What is needed is co-operation, because we have a shared responsibility. Of course, that initiative is not a silver bullet, but it is a practical step forward, unlike using our overseas territories to host people. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby did not rule out the use of the Falklands. Islands that we fought so hard for in 1982, against Argentine invasion, are now apparently going to be used for dispersal. She did not rule it out when she was asked to do so—it is under consideration.

[Sarah Pochin]

Now he is twisting things.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Lady, if she wishes. By working with our European partners and other countries we can better manage arrivals, reduce pressure on local services and ensure that those seeking asylum are treated with fairness and dignity. Co-operation must be more than simply operational, however; it means tackling the criminal networks that exploit vulnerable people and ensuring that our asylum system is efficient and humane.

Our communities want clarity. They want to know that the system is working, not just for those who come here in search of safety, but for our local communities. That starts with policies that build on partnership, not posturing. While I will always bang the drum for safer and stronger border management, I do not want us to turn our backs on those in need or give up on the multicultural Britain we know and love.

Britain has long been a place of refuge and opportunity. We have heard about the 250,000 Belgians this country gave refuge to in the first world war, the Windrush generation and the frontline workers who kept our NHS going during the pandemic. Immigrants have always played a vital role in shaping our country for better. We have a legal and a moral responsibility to support those fleeing persecution. That means building an asylum system that is fair, efficient and humane, and one that does not leave people waiting in limbo for years.

At the same time, we must be firm where it matters. If someone comes to this country and breaks our laws, they should be removed. That is not about prejudice; it is about protecting the integrity of our system and the safety of our communities. It is something that those who come here legally, and contribute greatly, wholeheartedly support—fairness matters to us all. That balanced approach must guide us.

We need to move away from the use of hotels, which were never designed for long-term accommodation. We must continue the work of clearing the backlog so that decisions are made swiftly and fairly. We must deepen our partnerships with international allies to address the drivers of migration, which affect all countries, at their source. With that in mind, I ask the Minister how and when local authorities will be notified that hotels in their area are being returned to public use, and what support will be provided to ensure a smooth transition for both our local communities and all those applying for asylum?

Knife Crime

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for securing this important debate.

I will speak about some of my experiences as a magistrate for 20 years in Cheshire. I am sure many think of Cheshire as a sleepy county, but statistics show that knife crime increased there by 7% year on year from March 2024 to March 2025, which may surprise some. I will take time to look into that with my chief constable.

Over my 20 years in court, I heard so many reasons—in fact, excuses—for why defendants might have been carrying knives at the time of the incident or when the police caught up with them. Those ranged from “I forgot it was in my pocket” to “I needed it for work”—that was always a standard one, no matter what they actually did for work. Today, there is a mandatory six-month custodial sentence for anyone caught carrying a knife in the community, but the fact is that magistrates often do not enforce it after listening to and accepting the mitigating factors put forward by the solicitor on behalf of the defendant. Sometimes, a suspended sentence might be given, but the point is that this is soft justice, and I have seen it time and again.

The courts must get tougher on doing what they say they will do—doing what we ask them to do—and enforce that custodial sentence, because only by enforcing the custodial sentence will the message start to get through. I would say that the mandatory six-month sentence is not currently a deterrent, because people are not afraid of going to court. That is an issue for people like us who set policy.

[Warinder Juss]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

I will make a little progress, if that is all right.

My only observation about stop and search is that it has an effect, and I believe very strongly that stop and search needs to be brought back with absolutely zero tolerance. We need to support the police in putting aside any worry about being accused of being racist or of targeting particular groups in particular communities, because these policies work in taking knives off the street.

[Dawn Butler]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Pochin]

Let me make a little progress, sorry.

The other point about stop and search is that the police, and indeed politicians, should not congratulate themselves on how many knives are found through stop and search; we and the police should congratulate ourselves on how many knives are not found when stop and search is used to its maximum power, because that is the measure of success.

I now come on to the point about why so many young men carry knives, and it is generally young men who carry knives. Again, over the years of my experience, I have seen the fear that young men often have—sadly, sometimes when they are going to school. People have said to me that they felt threatened at school, so they took knives into school. Of course, this also affects older men out in the community. There is a difference between these two groups, and it is a problem for magistrates. There is a difference between a young man, a youth, saying that they were frightened to go into school without a knife, and an older man going to a pub with a knife in his pocket.

This is an interesting issue for magistrates, because magistrates need to have some insight into people’s lives. We have heard talk this morning about role models and that type of thing. It is a huge problem that we never see the parents when these young men are in court.

The other thing is the problem of drug gangs and county lines, which we deal with all the time as magistrates. That culture on our streets is feeding this knife crime, and it is not just in cities any more. It is all over the counties, with young people—and they are often very young—carrying knives because they are drug runners.

[Dawn Butler]

I, too, was a magistrate and heard lots of cases. The hon. Member might be coming to domestic violence, as there is a lot of knife crime in the home.

However, I do not quite get the hon. Lady’s thread with regard to the police searching people and not finding knives. In August 2024, the police had a 10% success rate with stop and search. In August 2025, there was a 25% success rate. The difference was that the later stop-and-search operation was data-led and intelligence-led. Do we want to go forwards or backwards? That is the question.

[Sarah Pochin]

My point is that if stop and search is working, we will eventually get to a point where knives are found less often. That is the measure of success.

We as politicians need to give our courts and our police the power to have a zero-tolerance approach to stop and search. The police need to have the confidence to carry out stop and search without fear of criticism. They need to be given funding to carry out thorough intelligence work on drug gangs, and they are doing an incredible job on the county lines operations that are now overtaking our society. However, they need to be given more funding for that work. The courts also need to be given the funding and resource to enact swift justice.

Clearly, we also need education in schools and the community initiatives we have talked about. All of this is important, all of this is a package, but it starts at the top. It starts with us.

[Warinder Juss]

Of course, it is the job of the state system to act as a deterrent, so I understand the hon. Lady’s point.

I sit on the Justice Committee, and I have visited prisons and spoken to young people. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not think they will be sentenced to a long period in prison if they commit a crime—that is not in their minds. Does the hon. Lady agree that our focus should be on enabling the people who are likely to commit knife crimes to make the right choices in life? That is what we should focus on, rather than trying to get the message across that if they commit a crime, they will end up in jail. We need to be enabling our youth, our young people, to make the right choices in life.

[Sarah Pochin]

Clearly, at the moment, the threat of a custodial sentence is not the deterrent that it has to be, which is an important point. The Sentencing Bill, which will have its next stage on Tuesday, will take away the power of magistrates courts to hand down custodial sentences of less than 12 months. That is a big issue, but I will talk about it on Tuesday.

Finally, it is important for all of us, as politicians, to remember that David Amess was brutally stabbed and killed four years ago today. What we have talked about this morning does not touch on the extremists and the nutcases who are out there in society, and from whom we are all under threat. I acknowledge that today is the four-year anniversary, and I urge everyone to take the utmost care when we are out in our communities.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Absolutely—I am very happy to give that assurance. I know that my hon. Friend has been raising these issues for some time, so I am happy to do that.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

While migrant hotels cost the British taxpayer billions, migrants are now being moved into houses in multiple occupation, taking houses from local people and causing misery for neighbours. Can the right hon. Lady tell the House how many migrants have been moved into HMOs? What is the cost to the British taxpayer?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we inherited a huge backlog of claims for asylum. One of the important parts of dealing with the backlog is processing those claims and determining whether people have an asylum claim that can be successful; if it is not, they should then be returned. That is the whole purpose of closing the hotels, as we will speed up the processing of the applications.

Crime and Policing Bill

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Due to medical advancements, we can save the life of a foetus at 21 weeks, yet we can legally terminate a foetus at 24 weeks. I shall be voting against all the amendments relating to the decriminalisation of abortion. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should actually be reducing the window in which it is possible to have an abortion, so that the law reflects the realities of modern medicine?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree. Let me move to new clause 20. I am dealing with very narrow legal points, and it might be of interest to the House that the KC concludes that the new clause

“would render the 24-week time limit obsolete in respect of the prosecution of women who undertake termination of pregnancy in typical circumstances.”

He explains that

“the NC20 amendment would repeal the abortion law offences”,

including those relating to a “late abortion”. In other words, new clause 20 would fully repeal all existing laws that prohibit abortion in any circumstances, at any gestation, both in relation to a woman undergoing an abortion, and abortion providers or clinicians performing abortions.

In the second iteration of her new clause, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has added a measure that seeks to amend the Abortion Act 1967, to create the impression that a time limit would remain. However, the Abortion Act only provides exemptions against prosecution under the laws that new clause 20 would repeal, so those offences would no longer remain under new clause 20. Since the Abortion Act itself contains no penalties or offences, and neither would the proposed new clause introduce any, adding a mere mention of an ongoing time limit in the Act would be toothless and utterly meaningless under the law. New clause 20 would de facto have the effect of fully decriminalising abortion up to full term for both women and abortion providers.

Hon. Members do not need to take my word for it. It is not often that they will hear me agree with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the UK’s leading abortion provider, but its assessment of new clause 20 concludes that it would

“largely render the Abortion Act 1967 obsolete”

and

“create a regulatory lacuna around abortion provision and access.”

There is one additional angle that Members need to be aware of. On new clause 20, the legal opinion finds that

“the effect of the amendment is that a woman who terminated her pregnancy solely on the basis that she believed the child to be female would face no criminal sanction in connection with that reason, or at all.”

Similarly, on new clause 1 the opinion confirms that

“it would not be illegal for a woman to carry out her own abortion at home, solely on the basis that the foetus is female.”

These amendments are not pro-woman; they would introduce sex-selective abortion.

Sex-selective abortion is already happening in this country. Back in 2012, a Telegraph investigation found that doctors at UK clinics were agreeing to terminate foetuses because they were either male or female. A BBC investigation in 2018 found that non-invasive prenatal tests were being widely used to determine a baby’s sex early in pregnancy, leading to pressure imposed on some women to have sex-selective abortions. That evidence led the Labour party to urge a ban on such tests being used to determine the sex of babies in the womb. A report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics similarly found that several websites were privately offering tests to determine the sex of a baby, and the council warned that the increasing prevalence of private testing may be encouraging sex-selective abortions. Passing new clause 1 or new clause 20 would likely make the situation worse. In conclusion, what we are faced with is an extreme set of amendments going way beyond what public dominion demands, and way beyond what is happening in any other country in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I convey all thoughts to the family of the victim in this awful stabbing case, and all of those affected across the community. My hon. Friend is right to raise the deep concerns that exist about the number of young people getting drawn into serious violence—we are seeing this across the board. That is why the Young Futures prevention programme is so important, and why we need to work to prevent this by strengthening the law on child criminal exploitation.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

As I speak, there is a removal van outside the illegal immigrant hotel in my constituency—let us hope they are moving them out, not moving more in. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents that these illegal immigrants are not being dispersed in the community, being housed in houses in multiple occupation owned by private landlords, and will she advise me on where they will be housed?

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Sarah Pochin Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I start by saying how delighted I am that my colleagues have dragged themselves out of the pub to join me for my maiden speech? I am so proud to be in this place; I feel so privileged to be here. I hope that I will make a good contribution to the business of this place, with my background of 20 years of public service as a magistrate and a borough councillor.

I thank all the voters of Runcorn and Helsby who put their trust in me. It certainly was an historic night—one that I will never forget. We had a recount at about 3 o’clock in the morning, and the result finally came through at about 6 o’clock—and there were six votes in it, so I think six is probably my lucky number from now on. We certainly put Runcorn and Helsby on the map. It is the closest ever parliamentary by-election result. There was lots of drama and it made for some great headlines the next day—well, great headlines for us, anyway.

I thank and pay tribute to my predecessor, Mike Amesbury. In 2020 he won a ballot to introduce a Bill of his choice. He chose to focus on the cost of living crisis by limiting the cost of school uniforms. His Bill gathered cross-party support and became the Education (Guidance about Cost of School Uniforms) Act 2021.

I, too, will focus on the cost of living. During the campaign, it was raised with me endlessly on the doorstep by voters who feel let down by this Government—voters who have lost their winter fuel allowance, who have had their disability benefit slashed or who have seen their energy costs go through the roof when they were promised that their bills would go down.

It is very important that I make my maiden speech today. There were a few raised eyebrows, as I have been here less than a week, but the Bill is important because it is so relevant to what I believe in. There are over 900 illegal immigrants—that we know about—living in Runcorn. Some 400 of them are housed in an asylum hotel—the Daresbury Park hotel, which was, incidentally, to be shut down by the Government during the election campaign, but is, of course, still open—while the remaining 500 or so are housed in houses of multiple occupancy in the community. The recent Government announcement encouraging private landlords to give up their properties to house illegal immigrants in order to get a five-year guarantee of rent and all the property maintenance paid for will only make that situation worse. We will end up with British tenants being evicted, rents being forced up and the already limited housing supply getting worse.

The problem for communities in places such as Runcorn is that those houses of multiple occupancy often have 15 to 20 young men in them. Families living nearby have to put up with antisocial behaviour through the night, drug dealing, people coming and going, and noise. I saw the CCTV throughout the campaign; I have heard the stories. People are frightened to go out. They will certainly not let their children play out on the pavements when there are such houses on their street. We know that these HMOs are breeding grounds for organised crime gangs, whether they are involved in drugs or people trafficking, or whether they are grooming gangs—something that was recently downplayed by the Leader of the House. Tackling sexual violence against women and the abuse of women and promoting the safety of women and children are things I will champion, not deny.

I hope that my background in the justice system will give substance to my contributions on subjects that are close to my heart, such as the current state of our prisons and the daily threat that our brave prison officers—men and women—face at work. Over the last couple of days, there was yet another example of what they are facing in the news. I will also be a strong voice against the prosecutions of our Northern Ireland veterans, who were so brave on our behalf in the troubles. I will be brave, as they were for us, and I will stand up for what is right and fair.

My constituency was formed in the boundary changes last year by five other constituencies lending areas to its geography. Not only is it new; it is diverse. It is home to some of the wealthiest and to some of the poorest. It is home to a beautiful and vibrant market town, Frodsham, and to Runcorn old town, which is in decline and in desperate need of investment. It has beautiful, leafy villages and housing estates battling drug crime and antisocial behaviour. I have lots of wonderful businesses in the constituency, ranging from the chemical industry and the farming industry right through to the science park.

There are many challenges ahead and the problems I am going to take on, on behalf of my constituents, include the drastic shortage of housing and the desperate need for investment and regeneration in the old town. The standard of education in the five secondary schools is at best average and at worst way below average. Somebody needs to highlight these issues. We have an incinerator that churns out toxic waste, and an investigation into the health implications is ongoing. And then we have the white elephant that is the net zero project, with carbon capture and storage, and an extensive solar panel farm right across the middle of the constituency. I will challenge the people who have put those policies in place; I will speak for the people who have for so long lacked the representation they deserve. This constituency has huge potential; it has hard-working people who just want fairness and I will be their voice.

To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) for his vision, his commitment and his conviction, which have brought a new voice to this Chamber. I will stand up for what is right, and I say to all my colleagues in this House that they will find me fair, principled and here to serve my constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked many times over the last 10 days whether I am overwhelmed by recent events and by being in this place. I am not overwhelmed; I am deeply respectful of this place, I am humbled by this place, but I am ready for this place.

[Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow that eloquent and impassioned maiden speech by our new colleague, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I can tell that we will be hearing a lot more from her in this House, and while I am sure that her colleagues are pleased to have their number back up to five, I think we can all understand that her lucky number is six.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support provided to my office by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project. I would like to make a couple of points about the amendments, drawing on the evidence we heard in Committee.

The purpose of this legislation is to stop the small boat crossings in the channel. They are too dangerous and too many vulnerable people die in the attempt. They represent a lack of grip on the immigration system, because it should be the Government who decide who comes into this country, not people smugglers. The previous approach manifestly failed. That is because the Rwanda scheme meant we could never reduce demand enough. As Dr Walsh from the Migration Observatory told us in our evidence sessions, demand for crossing the channel is essentially inelastic and we will never get it down enough. Deterrence alone therefore will not work. If we want proof, we should consider that of all the asylum seekers in the system, those who went to Rwanda represent one 4,000th of 1%. Rather than tackle demand, we should tackle supply. We need to make it harder to get in boats and to organise crossings, and we need to disrupt the supply chain that drives this multimillion-pound industry and seize the phones of those making the crossing.

On new clause 3 on safe routes, let us be clear that there is absolutely a wider case to be made for safe routes and there is a national obligation to help where we can, but let us also be clear that safe routes already exist at significant scale. Some 500,000 people sought sanctuary in the UK through them over the last few years. We must be clear, too, that given the vast numbers of people in the asylum system just now, no one can argue that Britain does not have enough refugees. Most importantly, safe routes fall into the same logical trap as the Rwanda scheme, in that they aim to reduce demand rather than to tackle supply. Rwanda said, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you’ll be sent to Rwanda instead.” Safe routes say, “Don’t come because there’s a tiny chance you can come through safe routes instead.”

The purpose of the Bill is to reduce channel crossings. There are good arguments for safe routes on many levels, but having worked on migration policy for 15 years before coming here, I know we have to recognise that they will not play a role in reducing this cross-channel travel.