Shabana Mahmood
Main Page: Shabana Mahmood (Labour - Birmingham Ladywood)Department Debates - View all Shabana Mahmood's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSmall boat returns under this Government are at a record high, and our Immigration and Asylum Bill will help us to remove people faster than ever before. This Government are dealing with the small boats crisis left by the previous Government. Small boat crossings are down, and removals are at record highs.
If small boat crossings were down by enough, the Government would not have to stand up asylum camps at places such as Ministry of Defence Bicester site A, which is just over the Oxfordshire border from my constituency. With 85,000 small boat crossings since the general election, the situation is at crisis point. MOD Bicester site A does not even offer value to the taxpayer; new modelling shows that over three years, the cost would come in at £385 per person per night—nearly double that of the equivalent asylum hotels. Will the Home Secretary actually get on and deport those who have come to our country illegally, rather than using sites like MOD Bicester site A?
Under this Government, small boat returns have increased. This is a crisis that began on the Conservative Government’s watch and got worse under the Conservative party; this Government are fixing the mess that they left behind.
We inherited a situation in which gangs were profiting from our out-of-control borders and hotel operators were ripping us off, making the most of a backlog that had built up far too high. We have taken some welcome steps, but it is clear that more needs to be done. Returning people with no right to be here is a crucial part of that. How can we step up the processing of cases, and form closer links with other countries, so that we get strong returns agreements and finally get the costs of this out-of-control system down?
My hon. Friend is right that we need to maximise the numbers we are returning from this country. He will know that asylum-related returns are at their highest level since 2010. This Government have made excellent progress on getting returns up and back to levels seen in previous years, and we will make more progress.
Some people, including the Prime Minister, argue that the small boats crisis was caused by our leaving the EU. It started in 2018. In the two years before Brexit, only 289 small boat people were sent back under agreements. What is the solution? The only solution, surely, is to detain and deport. As the Home Secretary will not leave the European convention on human rights, will she at least consider creating return hubs in a distant Council of Europe country, so that we can have a genuine deterrent?
The Father of the House will know that there is a distinction between the rules of the European Union and the European convention on human rights. The ECHR is not an EU instrument, although most EU countries are signed up to it. We have discussed the ECHR across the Dispatch Boxes before, and he knows our view, which I think is the right view, about simply leaving the ECHR, as his party has suggested it would. That is not something his party ever did when it was in office, and that is because it would put at risk all sorts of other agreements that we have with other countries—agreements that we depend on. We have been able to make more progress on returns as a Government while remaining within the ECHR, and we will continue that going forward.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
As a Portsmouth MP, I know how important it is that people living in ports along the south coast have confidence in our border security. Will the Minister outline the progress this Government are making in tackling dangerous small boat crossings and the criminal gangs behind them, and reassure my constituents that we will continue to take action? Will she also thank all the emergency services that have helped in this situation?
Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to all our partners in Portsmouth—the local authority, the police and all others—for their co-operation in dealing with the crossings launched from further west in France, which are coming into Portsmouth and seeking to come elsewhere, too. We are seeing a displacement of activity; the gangs have seen that the law enforcement response in the north of France has been stepped up, so they are now trying other routes and tactics. I assure my hon. Friend, the people of Portsmouth and everybody else that this Government will chase down those gang members, using every sinew, and will ensure that we get the number of crossings down further. I fully recognise the pressures in her community.
We heard the Home Secretary make the claim that her changes to indefinite leave to remain would somehow act as a disincentive to people who sought to arrive in the UK on small boats, but she has failed to convince her Back Benchers and some of her Cabinet colleagues. Who has the upper hand on this in Cabinet, and would changes to ILR make a scintilla of a difference to people coming on small boats?
It is absolutely right for a Government seeking a system based on order, control and the principles of fairness and contribution to look at both the legal and illegal migration systems. We inherited an almighty mess from the Conservatives, and we are resolving all the issues. As the hon. Member well knows, the policy on indefinite leave to remain will be settled in due course. We had a consultation, we have considered the responses, and the Government will have more to say on this in the not-too-distant future.
Up to June this year, the returns rate was 35% higher than it had been in the 12 months previously. Does the Home Secretary agree that this is in part due to the improved co-operative relationships that this Government have managed to forge with other countries around the world? Should that not give our constituents greater confidence that this Government take the issue of small boat crossings seriously?
My hon. Friend is right: not only are small boat returns up and asylum-related returns at their highest level since 2010, but in our first two years in office, this Government have managed to get returns of foreign offenders up 41% from the last two years of the Conservative Government. That is because, in addition to all the other work we are doing, we are also unlocking greater returns co-operation with countries of origin, so that we can more smoothly return people from this country. Appeals reform is also absolutely crucial, and is something that this Government are pursuing.
Ministers tell us that small boat arrivals are vetted, so we need not worry, but Mohammed Yaseen—who, as we all know, joined al-Qaeda at 16, was convicted as a Daesh terrorist in Germany, and, a British court was told, was a danger to the British people—was put by the Home Office not in a detention centre ready to be deported to Iraq, where the Iraqi people deserve to see him face trial and justice, but instead in a hostel in Windsor. He was free to roam British streets during daylight hours, along with too many of the 95% not yet deported. He is now back in prison, thanks to the newspapers. How can we have any confidence in the Government, when they allow a convicted Daesh member to be released on to our streets while his deportation is pending, and will the Home Secretary today give the commitment that he will be held in detention until he is on a plane, and that his ticket has been ordered?
The hon. Lady knows that given that there are outstanding issues to be considered in this case, I cannot comment on the facts. She should know that, as a principle, anyone who receives a sentence of 12 months or more and is a danger to our community will have their asylum claim rejected.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I have an excellent working relationship with EU partners, particularly with France, which has helped prevent over 50,000 crossings since the election. The EU asylum pact has yet to resolve the challenges of returns within Europe, and currently those returns are not happening at scale, so the pact is not a silver bullet.
Mr Reynolds
The Prime Minister has said that he wants access to the Eurodac database. How does the Government propose to negotiate that without breaching their EU red lines?
I am not going to conduct a negotiation with the European Union from this Dispatch Box. The hon. Member will know, as I have said to Liberal Democrat Members before, that we are of course always thinking about how we can work more collaboratively with our partners in Europe on law enforcement co-operation and data sharing. I am sure that will be the subject of much discussion at the UK-EU summit.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
Illegal immigration is by definition a cross-border phenomenon, which is why we are required to work with our friends and partners across borders. The Home Secretary has already talked about the 50,000-person reduction from France; we increasingly hear reports that for those in the camps in northern Calais, smugglers are hard to find. That is a far cry from the situation under the previous Government, who could not even decide if France was a friend or a foe. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is by working with our allies on international challenges that we can address the problems of illegal immigration, which is what the public are asking for?
My hon. Friend is right. That is why this Government have been working to reset our relationship with the European Union. Of course, our co-operation with France is central to our being able to deal with the challenge of the small boats, and I was pleased to make the recent deal with the French—the successor to the Sandhurst agreement. We have set aside money that we will spend only on measures that we know have an impact on small boat numbers, which are down by 43%.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and we are indeed flattered to see the Prime Minister discussing improved relations with the EU as a way to solve issues in the asylum system, but when the Government say that they will negotiate access to various agreements, including Eurodac, without dropping their red lines, they are engaging in Brexit delusion of the type we saw under the Conservatives. If we want useful co-operation on asylum and a good deal for taxpayers—because it will cost less if we are in the pact—we will have to join the EU migration and asylum pact, and that means dropping the Government’s red lines, doesn’t it?
The delusion here is the hon. Member assuming that the EU asylum pact is up and running, and that it is a silver bullet. He will know that across Europe, while there is greater co-operation on data sharing and so on, everyone wants to remove people from their country, but nobody wants to receive them. On returns under the pact for the countries that are in it, those returns are not happening at scale. He knows that was also the case under the Dublin regulation, of which we were part; in our last five years in it, we did not deport as many people as we managed to under our agreement with France.
Max Wilkinson
We await more on the agreement with France, and perhaps with Belgium and many other countries. It might just be simpler to have an agreement with the entire EU.
It grieves me to say this, but internal difficulties have arisen within the Labour party over migration. Cabinet members seem to be struggling to defend the Home Secretary’s position, and Government Back Benchers have a wide range of opinions. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has called for an “honest discussion” about EU freedom of movement. Will the Home Secretary back down and get behind the Prime Minister, who is open to freedom of movement, or will she stay loyal to her Back-Bench allies in the blue Labour faction, who are so hostile to it?
Honestly, what absolute piffle from the hon. Gentleman. He will know that the Prime Minister has been discussing having an open debate; that is not the same as settled policy, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. The Prime Minister has also observed that there were very significant issues with freedom of movement when we were in the EU. Having an honest debate means actually being honest about all aspects of the issue, not cherry-picking, as the Liberal Democrats so often do.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Since the general election, knife crime is down by 11%, knife homicides are down by 25% and knife-enabled robberies are down by 18%. That is huge progress, but we must do more. That is why I recently launched crackdowns in more than 230 of the areas most affected by knife crime. We will be tough on knife crime, through increased patrols, but also tough on the causes of knife crime, by undertaking prevention work to prevent these crimes.
John Grady
I am concerned about young people and knife crime in my home city of Glasgow. Victim Support Scotland has asked the Scottish Government to carry out a comprehensive review of why young people become involved in knife crime and how effective Scottish programmes are at preventing it. This is backed by my constituent, Neil McCrimmon, and his family. Their beloved son Kory was stabbed to death, and the family has campaigned with great courage against knife crime. I fully support Victim Support Scotland’s call for a comprehensive review. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she would support the Scottish Government, were they to carry out such a review?
My hon. Friend has told me how much he admires the family for their campaigning efforts. We know from our own work how powerful it is when those who have suffered because of knife crime join in the effort to tackle it. As he knows, policing is a devolved matter and the question of a review is therefore one for the Scottish Government, but this Government stand ready to support them where we can.
I thank the Home Secretary for her answers and for her commitment to trying to stop knife crime. One of the greatest ways of stopping knife crime across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to ensure that people cannot buy knives. What is she doing to ensure that access to knives, whether through sections of the media or industry, is stopped? If we stop the knives, we stop the crime.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is imperative that we get knives off our streets, and he will know that we have already taken 63,000 knives off our streets and banned ninja swords. We will make more progress, including on a consultation that we have recently carried out looking at a wider regime for the sale of knives, and we will update the House on that in due course.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Last December, Henry Nowak’s life was cut short in a horrific and senseless act of violence. My thoughts today are with Henry’s family and friends, who have shown extraordinary courage and dignity. Today I can announce an independent review, led by a former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Alex Chalk KC. It will investigate what was known about the perpetrator, including any missed opportunities to intervene. It will look at the Nowak family’s experience of the criminal justice system and whether they were supported in the manner they should have been.
Once the Independent Office for Police Conduct has concluded its investigation into the police response, the review will also consider the actions of the IOPC and, if necessary, the police. The full terms of reference have been published today, and an initial report will be submitted to me within five months. We must get to the truth of what happened before, during and after that awful night, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that no family suffers the same fate. We owe that to Henry and to all who loved him. They deserve answers, and this review will provide them.
Tom Rutland
Many of my constituents have raised the issue of antisocial behaviour and dangerous riding by people on e-bikes, particularly in Southwick, Shoreham and Lancing. What is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to crack down on such behaviour, which is blighting the lives of many people in my constituency?
My hon. Friend will know that we have made it easier for the police to seize e-bikes on the spot, and we have cut the timeframe for disposal to just seven days. Police forces are already making use of these powers so that dangerous and illegally used bikes can be taken off our streets. Where appropriate, they can also be destroyed.
In a speech in March, which I thought was rather good, the Home Secretary said that failure to implement her proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain in full would be “an affront” to British citizens, and would cost hard-working taxpayers £10 billion for care workers alone. Given how strongly she clearly feels about her policy, will she confirm to the House that she will implement her own plans in full, or are the Housing Secretary and the Energy Secretary now in charge of immigration policy?
I do not need notes from the shadow Home Secretary on any of my speeches; he can keep them to himself. Let me confirm for the House that settlement will be earned, not be automatic. He knows we have conducted a consultation on those proposals, and we will set out our policy in due course.
The Home Secretary is clearly not standing by her own plans.
Several times this year, the Home Secretary has used her power to prevent entry into the United Kingdom on the basis of individuals’ views, including people opposing mass migration. I recently asked her to prevent entry by Randa Abdel-Fattah, who planned talks around the anniversary of the 7 October massacre. Abdel-Fattah has glorified terrorism and said that massacre was “exhilarating”. Is it not shameful that the Home Secretary allowed this antisemitic supporter of terrorism into our country, where she likely radicalised our citizens?
As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, it is long-standing policy not to comment on individual cases. He often brings such individual cases to the Dispatch Box, so he should know that we cannot always go into all the specifics. He knows that all individuals who seek entry to the United Kingdom must meet the requirements of the immigration rules, and I will always enforce them as strongly as possible.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
When the Minister announced new refugee pathways in September, we were told that Afghan women and girls would be prioritised. I have since received correspondence that says there will be no prioritisation. Can we get clarity on what is correct?
I am surprised by the correspondence that the hon. Member has received. She is welcome to share that with me. That is absolutely not the case for the announcements made in September.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent, whether it is Kidsgrove or Tunstall, residents tell me that they are fed up with being terrorised by off-road bikes that tear through our parks and our streets. Will the Minister please reassure me that Staffordshire police will have the neighbourhood officers, the funding and the powers available to them to deal with those who are making life a misery for others?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Sally Rooney is a writer, not a terrorist, yet her books are being withdrawn from shelves up and down the country. Under a new Prime Minister, will this Government reverse course, or does the Home Secretary see any author she disagrees with as a terrorist?
The hon. Gentleman should be much more responsible about the way in which he makes his point in this Chamber. He will know that there is a world of difference between someone selling books and enjoying the fruits of their labour and saying that they will use that money to fund a proscribed organisation. The organisation was proscribed through a vote in this House; it is the subject of a legal case at the moment, but all of the appropriate legal safeguards and thresholds in law were followed.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Government give consideration to supporting police forces and integrated care boards to restore 24/7 independent domestic violence advisers across police stations, and perhaps emergency departments, too? Will they also consider mandatory trauma-informed training and supervision for Devon and Cornwall police?
There is wide consensus across the House on the need to tackle modern slavery. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 went a long way towards doing that, but fails to have any real teeth to stop slave-produced goods being sold in this country. The Immigration and Asylum Bill presents this House with an opportunity to give that Act some real teeth. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister sit down with me to discuss the options to give that Act teeth?
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important point. As he will know, our modern slavery arrangements are subject to strengthening in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which is currently going through this House. I would be happy to ensure that he can speak to either myself or one of my Ministers to discuss whether further changes need to be made.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s progress in reducing those perilous and often exploitative small boat crossings, but aside from the misplaced idea that asylum seekers have significant recourse to public funds or mainstream benefits, we must still be honest that a lot of human behaviour ultimately boils down to incentives. What consideration have Home Office Ministers given to the Danish model in terms of narrowing any incentive gap for migrants between coming here for work and doing so by other, irregular means?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Home Secretary talked positively about reducing the number of illegal migrants coming in by small boats. Could I ask her, though, what actual steps the Government are taking to thwart illegal migration to the United Kingdom across the open border from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?
The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that I discuss this issue regularly with my counterparts in the Republic of Ireland. We are committed to working closely together to ensure that we do not allow any illegal entry, either from the United Kingdom into the Republic or vice versa.