Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not purely a financial arrangement. We know that hotels have a profound social and economic impact on communities in this country. We believe that big military sites are better places to house asylum seekers. I appreciate that that is a point of difference, but the hon. Gentleman needs to know that when he advocates against our proposals to use larger military sites, he is saying yes to the use of hotels across the community. To say otherwise simply does not stand up—that is the choice. His view is very clear, as is ours.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I recently visited an asylum hotel in my constituency and have spoken separately with people living there and in the community surrounding the hotel. It is clear that ending the use of hotels for asylum seekers is in the best interests of not only asylum seekers, but the neighbouring community and the taxpayer. The Minister and I have had many conversations about this. Can he confirm when the Government will begin ending the use of asylum hotels in Bournemouth?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I can assure his constituents and hon. and right hon. colleagues that he persists with me on this issue on virtually a daily basis, including over the Christmas period, which was very welcome indeed. I could not be clearer: we do not want to see hotels in Bournemouth used for this purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, that is part of the wreckage that was left by the previous Government. We want that to change. I know that colleagues want information as soon as possible. I am asking them to be a little bit patient. It may not be too much longer before they start to hear news in this space.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

I repeat that the numbers have stayed relatively flat. I think that the hon. Member is imputing a motive to those individuals that has not yet been stood up by any of the data or the evidence. He will know that we are pursuing discussions in relation to a youth mobility scheme with our partners in Europe.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

T5.   Because of antisocial behaviour, including drug dealing and public injecting, Upper Charminster community action group has activated a community safety trigger, and this month we will have a case review. I thank the group and Queen’s Park councillor Sharon Carr-Brown for their focus on antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to tackle antisocial behaviour in Bournemouth and beyond?

[The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)]

Antisocial behaviour is a scourge that has gone untackled for too long. We are funding hotspot policing in our town centres and other areas in which antisocial behaviour is rife; that is having an impact. Our neighbourhood policing guarantee, which will mean 3,000 more police on our streets by next March, will have an impact. We are introducing respect orders, which will be a really useful tool to tackle prolific antisocial behaviour offenders. The message has to be loud and clear: we will not accept this behaviour, and the police are responding.

Police Reform

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I join the hon. Member in praising her local team. She is right to talk about staff. There are about 1,000 staff who support police and crime commissioners. We will work with them to transition—where they need to be transitioned, and where they carry out statutory functions that we need to continue—to local authorities. It is not by any means the case that they are all losing their jobs. It is very important to stress that the function continues as is for the next two years. We will continue to work with staff, and I will be talking to police and crime commissioners about the transition a lot, I suspect.

The hon. Member highlights one of the challenges of the move to the mayoral model: there is legislation going through Parliament, and some decisions are yet to be made. I am very happy to work with her on how things will work going forward, but we are very clear about the model that we want to introduce. Where there are moving parts, we will work as best we can to make sure that we get the right outcomes.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Having sat on a police and crime panel, let me say that I am thrilled to see the abolition of the police and crime commissioner model. This will save £20 million a year, which is the equivalent of an extra 320 special constables. In my area, the Liberal Democrat council is introducing pointless town councils, which raises local taxes. We as a Labour Government will bring down local taxes by abolishing the PCC role, which is very good news.

I want to put on record my thanks to Dave Sidwick, who has been an excellent police and crime commissioner. He is Conservative, and I am Labour, but it does not matter. We work together in service of the public, and that has yielded very good results. I must confess to having regularly experienced difficulties accessing my chief constable in Dorset. Could the Minister please set out what she thinks are reasonable expectations when it comes to a chief constable engaging with local Members of Parliament, particularly on important issues to do with policing and community safety?

[Sarah Jones]

I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy): it is incredibly important that chiefs have a good relationship with their local Member of Parliament. It is a two-way street; Members of Parliament bring a huge amount of insight, from all their conversations with constituents, about what is important to their local community and what its fears are, and about where crime is occurring. It is very important that police chiefs have that relationship with them, so that we can help each other to deliver better services.

Knife Crime

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry for his intervention. As always, he brings pertinent words of wisdom to the debate and I thank him for that.

There is a worrying trend as well. I read an article about children—my goodness, it is hard to take this in—as young as four years old taking knives or sharp objects into school. It is so bad that parents are calling for metal detectors or arches to be installed in schools. The hon. Member for Ashfield referred to that in his contribution. A freedom of information request highlighted that there were some 1,304 offences involving knives in 2024 at schools and sixth form colleges. Long ago are the days when our children were dropped at school to learn and integrate with their friends. Now some parents are terrified that their son or daughter may fall victim to a knife attack.

Concerns were also raised through the Netflix show “Adolescence”, which brought to light the dangers of social media in regard to knife crime among children. The key word here is “children”. These are not 16, 17 or 18-year-olds who have some capability to make the correct decision; they are young, impressionable people using knives to seriously hurt people or who feel that they have to protect themselves. We are worried about that scenario, so what do we do? I am not saying it is right, by the way. I am just saying that sometimes the reaction is, “I had better carry a knife.”

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

In Dorset, where I represent Bournemouth East, figures show 39 knife-related incidents per 100,000 people. That is more than half below the national average, but behind every statistic there is a story. I am thinking particularly of 18-year-old Cameron Hamilton, who was tragically killed. His grandmother Tracy, who I had the honour to meet, has set up an organisation called Changes Are Made. Does the hon. Member agree with the mission of that organisation—that we must put lives before knives? Would he also agree that no one should carry a knife, because the quickest way to destroy a life is to carry a knife?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member, who is a very assiduous MP, puts forward a viewpoint from his own constituency, which we all endorse, and I thank him for all that he does in his constituency to try to stop people carrying knives.

If we look further across the globe, we hear of knife incidents most days in newspapers or news headlines. The one that probably shocked us all was the case of Iryna Zarutska, who was stabbed three times from behind on a train in North Carolina. She was an innocent lady sitting on her own murdered by a disturbed person. And recently someone was stabbed at a Manchester synagogue—we had a statement yesterday in the Chamber about that. These instances are endless and the stats show the situation is not getting any better.

I hope there is more we can do—I think there is. There are ways to educate young people on the dangers of carrying knives, which is what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East referred to. We need to educate the children at a very early age that it is not wise to carry a knife. We need to take the angst away from the parents who have concerns as well and learn about the reasons why young people feel the need to carry a knife.

I am always very pleased to see the Minister in her place. Her ministership has changed, and I wish her well in her new role; I know that she will try to take forward the same excellence in her new role that she showed in the last one. I also look forward to the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). The Minister’s job is to ensure that we do more to protect people and give the harshest sentences to those convicted of knife crime.

Borders and Asylum

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Many of those disruptions are exactly about pursuing gangs, and there are more than 40 high-profile and high-value disruptions that the National Crime Agency itself has said are having a significant impact on degrading, undermining and stopping the criminal gangs. Some of the arrests that have been co-ordinated with France and Germany are also preventing criminal gang activity by, for instance, taking out the leaders of some of those gangs.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Is it any wonder that an Opposition Member described the shadow Home Secretary’s asylum policy as “silly”, given that it was a Conservative Government who failed to process claims, filled up hotels, left people in limbo and broke the bank in the process, just as they broke the bank when it came to everything that they touched? Opening asylum hotels did not happen on our watch, and we want to shut them. We want to save the public purse significant sums of money, and we want to get the system right. Will the Home Secretary tell the people of Bournemouth East, whom I represent, how she is speeding up the process of closing asylum hotels in Bournemouth and in Britain?

Crime and Policing Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Vickers]

He is not a toolmaker, no.

Tool theft is completely out of control, and I know the impact it has on people’s lives. Research from Direct Line shows that 45,000 tool thefts were reported to the police in a single year, amounting to one every 12 minutes. This country is built on the back of our tradesmen—they are the small businesses that make a huge contribution to our economy and literally build the world around us. Just imagine getting up at daft o’clock to go to work and earn a living, leaving the house only to find your van has been completely raided and all the tools stolen. The ability to work is stolen as well. The impact is huge: it is not only the cost of replacing the stolen tools, but days of lost work and disappointed customers, many of whom may have taken a day off work themselves. The issue is made worse still when tradesmen go to car boot sales only to see stolen equipment being sold in broad daylight, with no action taken by the authorities.

In recent months I have been campaigning alongside tradesmen for real action on this issue. Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) met tradesmen, businesses and the police to hear at first hand about the impact. We heard from campaigners, including the gas expert Shoaib Awan and Frankie from On The Tools, alongside affected businesses such as Checkatrade, Balfour Beatty and BT Openreach.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

If the Conservatives had won a 15th year in government, would they have started to tackle this epidemic?

Crime and Policing Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. There is a social and community cost that is difficult to evaluate. I am fortunate to have some fantastic volunteers and groups, including the Wombles group, that go out and litter pick. I do not mind going out and helping when I can. There is a great sense of a community coming together, but nothing is more frustrating than litter picking a street, walking back and finding that one of the tossers has just tossed some more litter out of their car.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I do not think the right hon. Member was pointing at her shadow Minister when she was accusing somebody of being a litter tosser—I think it was just a dramatic gesture, because nothing could be further from the truth.

Building on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), does the right hon. Member agree that when people see potholes unfilled, litter uncollected, overgrown verges and general disrepair—when they are walking through decline—they feel hopeless, not just about their communities, in which they take such pride, but about the ability of their council and elected officials to act on their most immediate priorities? Does she agree that when we restore pride in place by fixing these problems, we help to create a confidence that politics can deliver a better community?

[Wendy Morton]

That is an important point about pride in where we live and about hope. As I travel around the country, I often take a mental note of the number of potholes I drive across; there is a noticeable difference from one authority to another. I have to say that Walsall is quite good at the moment when it comes to filling potholes.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about litter and communities. My local authority of late has been successfully prosecuting some litterbugs. I have seen a couple of examples on social media just this week of individuals who have been treating the high street in Pelsall as their own personal litter bin, and the local authority has gone after them and fined them. That sends a strong message, but there is more we can do. Although much of this is about clearing up after these people, we also need deterrence to stop this happening. A lot of it is down to a lack of respect for the community and antisocial behaviour, for want of a better word, and it is a burden that we should not expect the taxpayer to keep shouldering. We have reached something of a tipping point, and we need to do something more than letting people walk away with a slap on the wrist.

Whether it is bin strikes, as we have seen in Birmingham, rural fly-tipping or littering, a lot of our communities feel absolutely fed up and overwhelmed, and they want action. I support the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister because, taken together, they form a serious and joined-up response that would help to protect and support not only our communities and those who want to keep them clean, but the local environment and wildlife too.

Similarly, it is often local farmers who face the burden of fly-tipping. When fly-tipping happens on their land, the cost of removing it falls to them. It hardly seems fair that they are left to foot the bill for waste that they did not create. Amendment 172, on clean-up costs, seeks to address that. I have heard time and again from frustrated landowners and farmers that the system often punishes the victims of fly-tipping, not the perpetrators.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo White]

USDAW was the first union I ever joined, and I very much support its campaign. I share the fear that shop workers have, because there is nothing they can do. They have to sit or stand and watch the crime happen, for fear of being assaulted or abused—that is the advice that USDAW and their management have given them. The law has to be strengthened to protect them. They have to go to work every day and face that fear, which creates inordinate stress. That is unacceptable.

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend is giving a powerful speech. In my constituency of Bournemouth East, I regularly talk to shop workers who are experiencing the scourge of shoplifting—no, wholesale looting—and they are being made to feel incredibly unsafe. I am thinking of the staff of Tesco in Tuckton, the Co-op on Seabourne Road and Tesco on the Grove in Southbourne. I am also thinking of the owner of a wine shop who has a hockey stick beside them, so that they can chase away shoplifters who try to take carts of wine bottles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very good news that our Labour Government are introducing a new offence of assaulting retail workers and ending the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting? Will she also commend the Co-op party, which, like USDAW, has campaigned so hard for this new law?

[Jo White]

I wholeheartedly agree. It is not just USDAW; the Co-op party has campaigned vociferously on this matter, too. It is so important, and I very much welcome the action this Government are taking. This has gone on for too long. People need to feel safe in the workplace, and this is the best step we can take towards that.

Shop workers in Worksop town centre also have to deal with an inordinate amount of antisocial behaviour. For example, I have been told about how young people come into Greggs, take food from the cabinets and throw it about. The shop workers there feel so fearful that they have not taken the covid screens down, because they do not want to be attacked. The intimidation they feel is not acceptable. I have visited an opticians where the management escort their staff out of the workplace to their cars on a regular basis. It was particularly bad last winter, when I spoke to staff and management there because I was so concerned. I have had meetings with the council and the police to tackle this issue.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to increasing neighbourhood policing, with more police in our town centres. Everybody tells me they want to see more police walking the streets so that they feel safe as they go into town and can make the choice about where they shop. I do not want people to think about their safety when they go into town centres in my constituency. It is a priority that they know where the police are, know them by their names and feel safe as they go into town. This Bill goes to the heart of many of the issues that have broken our country, and we are doing what we can to repair it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to start by aligning myself with, and commending the speeches of, my hon. Friends the Members for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues and was proud to listen to what they had to say today. And because of what they had to say today, I have less to say, which will allow more people to speak.

I have been sent here by my constituents to defend and further their right to safe and illegal abortion. My inbox has been inundated with messages from constituents who are concerned, and who want to be able to have safe and legal abortions. They want to be removed from the criminal justice system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, because we have situations where clinically vulnerable women, who have gone through some of the worst experiences that anybody can go through, will in some cases be arrested straight from the hospital ward, hurried to cells and made to feel unmitigated levels of shame and guilt, on top of the physical and mental traumas they have already experienced.

[Lola McEvoy]

My hon. Friend is articulating exactly the point, which is that very few women, if any at all, take the decision to have an abortion lightly. It is an incredibly difficult, painful and hard decision, which is physically and mentally very tough to deal with. Does he agree that that is the crux of what we are doing here: alleviating some of the pain that those women are having to go through?

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really powerful intervention. I completely agree. If in this place we can do one important thing today, which is to send a signal that we wish to alleviate that pain, then we should do it.

[Emily Darlington]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that it is impossible medically to determine whether somebody has had a miscarriage or has used abortion pills, so the cases these women do not have a scientific or medical basis, only suspicion? If we really wanted to protect the woman, we would make sure that she had the right advice and the right medical support throughout her pregnancy.

[Tom Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I do agree, and it takes me to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. She talked about how, over many years, women have been denied access to the healthcare, advice, guidance, childcare and other infrastructure that is so critical to a woman’s quality of life. We need to end that, full stop.

That takes me to another point, which relates to new clause 106. I listened to the mover of new clause 106, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and to those on the Opposition Benches making cases in support of it. I am afraid I do not agree. There is nothing in the clinical evidence available to support the new clause. As somebody who ran a domestic abuse and mental health charity for five years before I was elected, I am very painfully aware of the trauma and difficulties that women who have been domestically abused will go through, and I do not want them to feel, on top of that, shame and trauma about trying to access abortion services. It is important that we think about those people.

I forget who it was on the Liberal Democrat Benches, but they made a really important point about poorer people who are unable to access transport links to access clinics. There was a really important point about our infrastructures being broken down, such as bus connectivity. That is the legacy of the past 14 years, but it is a legacy we must none the less contend with or women will be impeded in their access to abortion services as a consequence.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the British Medical Association, who all know much more than we do about the issue, to vote firmly against new clause 106, because it makes women more vulnerable?

[Tom Hayes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with those bodies and I agree with him.

Finally, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) made an argument about a bogeyman of American politics somehow being conjured up by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. I represent Bournemouth East. In my constituency, we have BPAS Bournemouth, which was targeted by US Vice-President J.D. Vance when he made his point about buffer zones and abortion access. I have spoken with the people who work at that clinic since that speech was given, and they are scared. They want to support women’s reproductive rights and women’s health and safety, but staff members’ vehicles are being tampered with, and women seeking the clinic’s support are finding their access impeded. They want us to be sensitive in what we say and how we say it, because there are people across our constituencies who are deeply concerned for the welfare of women, and who look to us to send the right signal through how we conduct our politics.

I was a signatory to new clause 1 and new clause 20. I recognise that there will be a vote on new clause 1 first. I will vote in favour of it, and I call on all Members across this House to do the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have run out of time, so I will call the Front-Bench speakers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I am going to make a bit of progress.

The second amendment that we intend to put to a vote, new clause 14, concerns the Human Rights Act. The Government, through the Home Secretary in her statement and the Minister in her remarks a few moments ago, talked about tinkering with article 8, but the truth is that that will not make any meaningful difference.

It is worth reminding ourselves of the history of this. The European convention on human rights is an international treaty that we entered into—indeed, we helped to draft it—in 1950. In 1998 the Blair Government passed the Human Rights Act, which essentially incorporated the ECHR into domestic law. So UK courts, when making any immigration decisions, or indeed any other decisions, can use their interpretation of the ECHR when interpreting legislation passed by this House and to prevent the Government from taking a particular executive action that might include removing or deporting someone.

The Act empowered UK judges to use the ECHR however they saw fit. The problem with the ECHR is that it is not like a piece of domestic legislation such as the Bill we are considering, which is detailed and has everything precisely defined. The ECHR is vaguely worded. For example, article 3 is on freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and article 8 is on the right to a private and family life. There is nothing objectionable about those articles in themselves; the problem is that, over the years, judges have expanded their interpretation of them in ever more extraordinary ways, which defy common sense. Let me just give the House a couple of examples of such judgments.

A paedophile of Zimbabwean nationality quite rightly fell for deportation under section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. He should have been deported, but a UK judge—not a Strasbourg judge—said “No, no.” They said that, under their interpretation of the ECHR, that convicted paedophile might face “some hostility” if they were returned to Zimbabwe in a manner that breached their article 3 rights—not their article 8 rights—so they said that that convicted paedophile could stay here in the UK. What about the human rights of British children to be protected from paedophiles like that? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign offenders?

In another case, an Iraqi drug dealer rightly fell for deportation back to Iraq, but a judge found that he had become too westernised and therefore could not be returned to Iraq, his country of nationality and country of origin. Those are just two examples of thousands where domestic UK judges have stretched the definition of ECHR articles in a way that defies all common sense, and certainly goes far beyond anything the original framers of the ECHR had in mind when they signed up to it in 1950.

That is why, as a first step, we propose to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to all immigration matters so that domestic UK judges would no longer be able to apply their own creative and expansive interpretations of the ECHR when making immigration decisions; instead, they would have regard solely and exclusively to domestic legislation that we have passed in this House. That strikes me as a common-sense measure that would end the handing down of ridiculous judgments and enable the Government to ensure that people with no right to be here and dangerous foreign criminals could be removed. At the moment, judges are preventing that, using interpretations that completely defy common sense.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member is clearly concerned about child protection. Did he read the testimony of the Children’s Commissioner about the children who made their way to our country and went missing in the system? They were victims of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation—some of the most horrendous things that can happen. Does he regret the role of his Government in facilitating such abuse?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary is aware that time is running on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zöe Franklin]

I absolutely agree. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to vote for new 21 for all four reasons that, between us, my hon. Friend and I have stated.

[Tom Hayes]

So late in the day, with so much said, I am going to take a direction that differs from that taken by some of my colleagues. I want to talk about what border security means for us as a country.

The playwright James Graham says that our country is only the story that we tell about ourselves. With the Conservatives, we were told a story of hopelessness, despair and scapegoating. People were left to believe that we should be frightened by the challenges we face, frightened by our inability to meet them, and frightened by the setbacks that we face and what they say about who we are and where we are going. That is why it is so important for this Labour Government to be correcting that narrative. Getting a grip on our borders, closing asylum hotels, bringing the asylum bill down: those are the basics that people expect. They are what make people feel confident, not frightened—secure, not susceptible to those on the Opposition Benches who would peddle empty promises and, ultimately, let the British people down.

[Nick Timothy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Hayes]

No.

For me, border security sits alongside fixing potholes, tackling graffiti and fly-tipping, and stopping e-scooter and e-bike speeding. It is obviously more complicated—for one thing, it involves a great deal of international negotiation—but border security is security. It is vital for people’s safety and pride. It underpins so much. If people cannot rely on the basics, they cannot begin to enjoy everything else that life has to offer. If people cannot see pledges being kept, promises being delivered and things being improved where they live, they will not just lose trust; they will succumb to hopelessness. We must not allow the spirit of our people to break. We must get the basics right, and with the Bill we will do that.

We will secure our borders with this Bill and these amendments. We will have new powers on seizing electronic devices, a new law to protect life at sea, a new statutory border security command, tougher action on foreign national sex offenders, and the ending of asylum hotels that cost eye-watering sums. It is in our national interest to get our borders back under control against criminal smuggler gangs.

In order to understand the politics of where we are, I have been looking back at old debates, and Conservative Members may enjoy hearing what I am about to say. With our policies and politics on border security, as with much else, I feel that we could benefit from listening to a question that was put by the first Earl of Stockton in his maiden speech in the other place in 1985. He said:

“Should we just slowly and majestically sink…like a great ship—or shall we make a new determined and united effort… Let us do the latter and then historians of the future will not describe…the decline and fall of Britain but…the beginning of a new and glorious renaissance.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 1985; Vol. 459, c. 254.]

As the Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I want to work with all in this place who share the former Conservative Prime Minister’s moderation and determination to have a united effort to bring about a better Britain. That involves fixing the basics, such as border security. After all, it would be an absurdity for small boats to sink a bigger ship.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

The trafficking gangs that profit from the most vulnerable refugees do not care if the people on those boats live or die. It is obvious that we all want to see the end of this horrendous crime, but those who travel are not bad people; they are desperate. It is understandable that communities who see groups of mainly young men being economically inactive will be frustrated and angry, but asylum seekers are not responsible for people not getting a doctor’s appointment—it is the people who traffic them.

When I was the leader of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, I backed the Lift the Ban coalition and met an inspiring young man from Cameroon who had arrived here legitimately on a student visa. While he was here, his village was torched and his uncle killed. He could not return home, so he claimed asylum from where he was in the midlands. He was immediately relocated to a hotel in Bournemouth and refused the ability to work—something that he had done legitimately right up to that point. Letting him work would allow him to contribute to our community, instead of being a great drain on it.

I will speak to the Liberal Democrats’ new clauses 24 and 33, which relate to our work with international partners. As a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I recently learned more about the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 99 covers the prohibition of the transport of slaves, but it does not cover human trafficking. Around the world, our international partnerships are being hamstrung as a result, and I urge the Minister to look at how we could use Interpol as a route towards developing UNCLOS further.

Finally, I will speak against new clause 16, which would increase the minimum income for a spousal visa to £38,000. This would mean that the average police officer, research scientist or nurse outside London—in places such as Mid Dorset and North Poole—would not be able to get a visa for their spouse. I was pleased that the Government paused the proposal and left the threshold at £29,000, as I am concerned that we could see a brain drain among many British professionals who choose to leave the UK for their partners’ homes countries, where they will be welcome.

I want to speak about the armed forces personnel I have met both in the constituency and through the AFPS, particularly those coming from Commonwealth countries. They have answered our call to fight for our country, but they are forced to leave their spouses behind, as the lower threshold provided for them only applies after an extended period of service. Pushing that threshold up to £38,000 would take reunification out of their reach, too. The current threshold ensures that families who can support themselves can stay together, and I urge the Government to leave it where it is.

Modern Slavery Act 2015: 10th Anniversary

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Members who have spoken today, all of whom have given such powerful speeches. Just two days ago, it was 218 years since William Wilberforce cajoled this Parliament into leading the way on combating slavery. The Abolition of Slave Trade Act was passed, to a standing ovation, on 25 March 1807. The Act made it illegal to trade and enslave people across the then British empire. Twenty-six years later, another groundbreaking piece of legislation, the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, ended the use of enslaved labour. However, slavery clearly did not stop, which is why we are talking about it today.

Modern slavery is just that: a modern version of the slavery we have always known. Slavery is right here, right now. It does not belong to the distant past or to a far-away country. As we have heard, the majority of the people referred to the national referral mechanism are British, and they are often men or boys. As a Parliament, we have to recommit to tackling slavery.

As we have heard, modern slavery has spread its tentacles into so many aspects of our lives. It is estimated that there are 50 million victims of modern slavery worldwide, including 122,000 in our country—the size of the population of Blackpool or Cambridge—so we have to renew our leadership to tackle modern slavery. In my own constituency of Bournemouth East, there will be women working in nail bars who are enslaved. There will be men working on building sites who are enslaved. There will be mostly women working in people’s homes as domestic slaves, and there will be many other types of servitude going on. The figures that are reported are the tip of the iceberg. These people are hiding in plain sight, and we need to get the message out that modern slavery is a priority of this Government, this Parliament and this country.

In my professional life before becoming an MP, I supported victims of modern slavery by finding them and getting them to safety quickly. I was the chair of an anti-slavery network for five years, and I led a mental health, domestic abuse and homelessness charity that had run a modern slavery service—it pioneered an independent trauma advisory role that got support to around 50 victims and survivors of modern slavery. I worked alongside fantastic colleagues on a report into the nature and extent of modern slavery in Oxford, which used an interesting methodology, beyond the typical reporting of stats from the police force. It worked in a case-based way with providers of support, and found that 123 modern slavery crimes were recorded in the Thames valley area in the five-year period that the report looked at. However, after drawing in the voluntary sector, there were believed to be between 319 and 442 cases of modern slavery, showing that what is reported is not always a true reflection of what is happening, and that our third sector organisations and networks are so important in trying to tackle modern slavery and support victims.

It is worth saying that the need to tackle modern slavery has never been greater. Although this anniversary marks a decade since the Modern Slavery Act, it is also the case that we have seen a decade or more of austerity. I say that because some of the people who are enslaved will have grown up under austerity and seen their Sure Start centres and youth centres cut. They will have seen their schools being able to provide less and less, and seen insecure work, low pay and zero-hours contracts for their parents. They will be living in homes that have not been properly regulated. They have grown up with significant vulnerability. When people grow up with significant vulnerability, they are so susceptible to enslavement— I have seen it with my own eyes.

Given the Government’s agenda on renters reform, reforming employment rights and making sure that we have investment in our public services, my hope is that we will repair the fabric of society and our public services so that no young person has to fall victim to modern slavery. In my own part of the country, we have seen the number of cases reported to Dorset police going up over the last nine years. There were 65 in 2023 and 108 in 2024, so we clearly need to take action.

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring the voices of modern slavery victims into this debate. I want to talk about three cases in which my office has supported victims. In one case, a person was identified as a potential victim of human trafficking and entered into the national referral mechanism. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) said that it is quite a bland name for a bland service, and he could not have described it better. The NRM is broken and needs serious reform. This individual’s case has been given a “reasonable grounds” decision, but they are still awaiting a “conclusive grounds” decision. It is no wonder, given that we have such long waits for decisions.

[Mrs Russell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to extend the time limit for challenging “reasonable grounds” decisions? That limit has been reduced to 30 days, which is not long enough to get help from a legal aid lawyer, given the lack of legal aid funding.

[Tom Hayes]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Particularly in the short term, as the Government are working so hard to get a grip on that delay, that could be a really helpful temporary measure to remove some of the anxiety of victims and some of the difficulties that support services encounter in trying to get more and appropriate support for victims.

The individual I was just talking about was promised that they would be able to work, but they were instead forced to arrive on a visitor visa. After three months in the UK, they became homeless and experienced severe mental health issues, including depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, for which they are currently receiving medication. They owe a large sum of money, with interest, to the agent who facilitated their travel to the UK, and the agent has warned them not to return home. They have claimed asylum in the UK, but it is a life in limbo.

In a second case, a former constituent was trafficked into the UK while pregnant for forced prostitution. She has now been recognised as a victim of modern slavery and granted asylum. In a third and final case, another female constituent asked for help in seeking accommodation following her escape from an abusive marriage. She has been receiving support from the Liberty Project run by the Bournemouth Churches Housing Association, which provides a shelter for women escaping modern slavery in my constituency.

Why have I mentioned these three people? It is not merely because their voices deserve to be heard in this Parliament, but because all of us as MPs have had contact with victims and survivors of modern slavery. All of us know from first-hand experience about the pressures and difficulties in the system, and we bring that into how we try to improve the system. I think that is important for the public to know, because I do not think they often know about the casework aspects of what we do, and how it is so important in informing what we do when bringing forward legislative change.

I mentioned the Liberty Project run by BCHA, which is a fantastic organisation working across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. It provides safe house accommodation and frontline support to potential survivors through their reflection and recovery periods, and here I want to make a plea to the Minister. BCHA, like so many organisations, provides trauma-informed, person-centred approaches. It is so critical for such organisations to have the funds they need to walk alongside victims who have gone through the worst experience of their lives, so that they do not have a requirement to tick boxes, but can sit and listen to people and work with them to recover in the ways they need; to reach a point in their lives where they want to be, whether that is in work, training or education. I commend our third sector organisations for what they do, and I ask for additional Government support to prop them up. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is such a firm advocate for the third sector and for victim support, from her lifetime of working in the sector.

I want to talk about goods coming into our country that are infected with slavery, picking up on the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall). I may now refer to him as the “fresh and beautiful” Member, as that is how he described himself—you were not in the Chair for that reflection, Madam Deputy Speaker, which explains why you look so surprised.

Bournemouth airport in my constituency is one of two major airports in the UK—the other is Cardiff—where goods made by forced labour, particularly in China, are coming into our country, and we must get a grip of that. I commend Bournemouth’s Daily Echo for its reporting, which has shone a light on this, and the work of colleagues in this House and the other place in trying to expose this horrible activity. We need to stop goods infected with slavery from coming into our country, and I will be calling on the Government to do more on that.

Since coming into office nine months ago, the Government have done a fantastic amount of good work. I have mentioned the reforms to the rented sector, the reforms to employment rights and the investment in our public services, which will prop up vulnerable young lives and reduce vulnerability to enslavement. I commend the commitment to combating cuckooing as a specific offence, our commitment to introducing a stand-alone offence of child exploitation, and the creation of the Fair Work Agency through the Employment Rights Bill. I also commend the drive to eradicate the decisions backlog, which will come in time as we have hired 200 additional Home Office staff to process modern slavery cases. I am also particularly pleased that the modern slavery portfolio is held by the Minister for safeguarding and violence against women and girls.

I want to close by talking about a really important contributor to the fight against modern slavery: the Co-operative movement. I want to do that by going back in time. In 1864, Manchester was Cottonopolis: the biggest industrial city in the world based on cotton. Some 90% of the UK’s cotton came from the Confederacy and the US civil war was happening at that time. It was also in 1864 that the Lancashire famine was happening and people were dying on the streets of Manchester. But the weavers wrote to Abraham Lincoln to say that they were on his side and that they supported his fight against slavery. At the time, they were working one-day or two-day weeks. That is why in Manchester there is a square called Lincoln Square, by the John Dalton Library, with a statue of Abraham Lincoln. In 1864 he wrote back to the people of Manchester, thanking them for their

“heroism unknown in any age and any country”.

People in Manchester in 1864 bonded together to fight slavery, despite the cost to their own lives.

This country has been a compassionate and kind country, working hard in our communities and at Government and Parliament level to tackle modern slavery, but we are now at an inflection point. As we heard from colleagues, the world is more unstable, the risks of modern slavery are greater, and we need to tackle this issue with UK leadership on the world stage. I thank Baroness May, who 10 years ago did so much to lead the way. I commend the work of the Government, who I know are committed to leading the world on this matter too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) for securing the debate, and for all the work she did in government to give us the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we commemorate and build on today.

It means a lot to contribute to a debate on landmark legislation that affirmed our country’s commitment to eradicating this cruel and insidious crime. Slavery is one of the greatest affronts to the fundamental British principle of individual liberty: the principle that no human being should be enslaved. It is sad that we need to have a debate to remind ourselves of that: sad that some of my Nigerian ancestors might have thought debates on the nature and extent of slavery should never have had to happen again; sad that we are having them in the modern day; and sad that, as we have discussed, at least 120,000 people in the UK are victims and survivors of modern slavery.

It is hopeful that Parliament committed, via the 2015 Act and in many other ways, to confronting the shocking reality that slavery had not been consigned to the history books after all. It is hopeful that Parliament acknowledged its moral duty to protect those who are among the most vulnerable in our society; those who are coerced, manipulated and abused in conditions that no human should ever endure. It is hopeful that Parliament set out clear legal definitions, strengthened law enforcement capabilities, and demanded corporate supply chain transparency and action. It is hopeful that since the Act’s passage, many victims and survivors have been identified and supported, with great co-ordination between law enforcement agencies, NGOs, local authorities, the voluntary sector and more. It is hopeful that we have seen milestone convictions of traffickers, and that more survivors have been given a voice and a chance to rebuild their lives with dignity and hope.

We should be so proud of all those who have played a role in that hope: proud of politicians such as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands, Baroness May and many others; and proud of statutory authorities, such as Sussex Police in my patch and our local authorities—and of course their equivalents across the country—for the role they play in combating modern slavery. We should be proud of those civil servants who work across Government behind the scenes to make Britain a leader in the fight against modern slavery. I know one of those civil servants particularly well, and I will not embarrass or compromise her by naming her, but I know she is watching, and I hope that the likes of her know that their backstage efforts are just as critical as the work done by those who are front and centre.

I am also proud of our voluntary sector for their very direct role in helping victims and survivors of modern slavery to rebuild their lives with dignity and hope. In particular, I pay tribute to Eastbourne’s Bramber Bakehouse, led by the amazing Lucy Butt, which uses the medium of baking to empower women survivors of modern slavery to rebuild their confidence, develop their skills and take a step towards a more fulfilling future.

Most importantly, I pay tribute to the resilience of those victims and survivors of modern slavery whom this Act, and all of us gathered in this Chamber, along with many others who cannot be here, are committed to fighting for. I am particularly inspired to read about Aisha—that is not her real name—who Lucy and her team at Bramber Bakehouse have supported. Aisha is a survivor of human trafficking and subsequently lived in a safe house. She said of that time:

“Every day you just wait in the safe house. Days turn into months. You can’t work and it’s really isolating. I felt really sad. I had no purpose.”

When Bramber Bakehouse offered her a place on its programme alongside other women survivors, Aisha wanted to see the best in this but was deeply suspicious about why anybody would pay for her to get on a train to go and bake. Her support worker encouraged her to give it a go. She said:

“Getting the train felt like a big deal. I had to get ready, I had to be on time. I had my ticket. I suddenly felt independent and that I was getting away from it all. I had never baked before… I realised that I could do this. I could actually make something that looked and tasted amazing. It was therapy without therapy”.

Throughout the programme, Aisha spent time identifying her future goals and practising interviews, and in particular, she remembers discussing how to see her weaknesses as strengths. I am delighted to say that, several years on, Aisha has secured paid employment in a profession that she enjoys, and on the side she supports campaigning against modern slavery, giving a survivor’s perspective and campaigning for change. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to Aisha and everyone whose stories she represents.

A decade on from the passing of the Act, we owe it to the likes of Aisha to redouble our ambition to root out modern slavery and ask ourselves, is what we are doing now enough? Based on what every Member has said in this debate, we know in our heart of hearts that the answer to the question is no—what we are doing now is not enough, and we must do more.

In particular, the Liberal Democrats believe that we must reverse the challenges to modern slavery protections represented by the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which I know the Government are making progress on, and ensure that all legislation is compatible with the UK’s international law obligations, including the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. We must create more safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK, taking power out of the hands of the people smugglers who, as the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands said, go on to force so many of those who survive the dangerous crossings into lives of servitude.

We must ensure that county lines exploitation is properly recognised as a form of modern slavery. Before coming to this House, I dedicated my career to supporting young people who were involved in gangs and crime and saw this kind of stuff up close. According to Unseen, one in five people has never heard of county lines exploitation—

[Tom Hayes]

The hon. Member is making a really important point about county lines. Last week, I visited Vita Nova in Boscombe to see a performance about county lines, which has been taken into schools to raise children’s awareness about the risks and about what it looks like. Does he agree that we could be rolling out more education about what county lines is to schools, so that children are better prepared to resist it?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. It is critical that we educate children about the risk factors and what to look out for, and also educate the folks who are spending time supporting those children—whether they be parents, guardians, carers, teachers or others—to better identify this and then be able to tackle it before it escalates into something that is completely irreversible.

We must also ensure that our rightful pursuit of a low-carbon economy is not done on the backs of the slave labour of the Uyghurs. This echoes the powerful call of my constituent Dorit Oliver-Wolff, who survived the Holocaust. She has written to the Prime Minister, telling him how her father was sent to Siberia for slave labour and never returned. Dorit has since committed to spending her time saying, “Never again,” and we must fight to ensure that that is the case. This debate will help to get us there.

Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to see the shadow Home Secretary shoot himself in the foot, particularly when he brings a sawn-off shotgun to do the job. The Government are getting a grip on the issue of asylum hotels, and the Conservatives should be ashamed. We heard in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee how children were being targeted for organ harvesting and for sexual abuse and were going missing from the system. The Conservatives put Bills on the statute book that they never implemented, and I am pleased that this Government have committed to closing asylum hotels. They have given me the assurance that they will not be adding hotels in Bournemouth.

When the Conservatives on the Bill Committee defined a deterrent, they said it was about detaining and deporting. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives neither detained nor deported, so we should stop calling the Rwanda gimmick a deterrent?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

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

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Tom Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Vickers]

We would want to return foreign national offenders; that is really positive. But the number of people choosing to cross because of that deterrent effect went down by not 10% or 20%, but by more than 90%. More than 90% fewer people arrived from Albania in small boats. That is huge progress. If we can replicate that elsewhere, I will be a very happy boy because we would see a huge impact on those crossings across the piece.

New clause 27 is hellbent on repealing that backbone, oblivious to how crossings from Albanians were successfully slashed, while the Rwanda threat kept smugglers guessing. If the Liberal Democrats prevail, every bilateral deal will be on the chopping block. Imagine Albanian numbers roaring back to 12,000, with other current surges unchecked. That is not progress; it is sabotage—a reckless bid to unravel a system that is finally biting back at the chaos. Do the Liberal Democrats not want to be able to remove people from this country who have entered illegally? Do they believe that any national of a safe country should be able to seek asylum in the UK? Can Liberal Democrat Members explain why that would not create a massive pull factor and encourage people to cross the channel in small boats?

The Liberal Democrats are also seeking to repeal sections 15 to 17 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which specify that the Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of an EU member state inadmissible. Why would the Liberal Democrats believe that anyone from the EU needs to claim asylum here? Picture this scene, which is so utterly ridiculous that it strains the bounds of credulity: an EU citizen, perhaps some laid-back Amsterdamer, pedalling along the city’s picturesque canals one sunny afternoon, tulips nodding in the breeze, then suddenly deciding to chuck it all, hop on a ferry and pitch up on Dover’s pebbled shores, requesting asylum, as if the Netherlands’ orderly bike lanes and windmill-dotted horizons had morphed into a scene from—

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

We are witnessing some particularly theatrical prose, perhaps for the first time. Has Boris Johnson got a new job as the hon. Gentleman’s speechwriter?

[Matt Vickers]

His writing seems to be going quite well at the moment. I do not know that I have the cash for him.

What I have described is not asylum. We cannot pretend that the EU’s 27 nations and its vast tapestry of safe, stable and prosperous lands—we can take our pick of France, Italy, Spain, Sweden and so on, each a bastion of peace and plenty—somehow warrant the same desperate lifeline that we reserve for those fleeing real and genuine chaos. This is the same organisation that the Liberal Democrats supposedly want to build closer ties with. They also want the UK to grant asylum to people who come to this country having already been in a country where they have claimed and been granted asylum. Why are the Liberal Democrats encouraging people to cross the channel when they already have asylum or can claim asylum in a safe third country?

Just like the Labour Government, the Liberal Democrats want to remove sections of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 that allow local and public authorities to conduct an age assessment on an age-disputed person. As we discussed before when the SNP did not wish those who claim to be a child to be treated as an adult, every European country apart from ours uses scientific age assessment techniques such as an X-ray of the wrist. As we have said, there are also other methods. More than 50% of those claiming to be children were found to be adults after an age assessment in the quarter before the election. Without a scientific age assessment method, it is very hard to determine age. Given the horror stories in this area, why do Liberal Democrats want to put the people of this country at risk, and blindly allow unverified people into the UK?

Let us now talk about a nightmare unfolding right under our noses: one that the Liberal Democrats seem hellbent on making worse. In the first quarter of 2021 alone, 560 adults—grown men with stubble, receding hairlines and years behind them—had the gall to pose as kids, slipping through the cracks until scientific age checks, such as wrist X-rays and dental scans that every sensible European nation uses, caught them red handed and stopped them cold.

The Lib Dems’ new clause 27 would axe those checks and rip out the one tool keeping us from dumping people who are 25 years old or even older into classrooms alongside children. That is not some abstract risk. It has happened and it is real; it means men in their 20s sitting at desks meant for teens, all because we have let sentiment trump science. That would not protect children, but endanger them—a reckless gamble that would turn schools into hunting grounds and parents into nervous wrecks, all so the Lib Dems can pat themselves on the back for being compassionate. If they get their way, every classroom will have a question mark. How many 25-year-olds will slip through before the damage is done?

What do the Liberal Democrats believe should happen if the authorities believe a migrant who is claiming to be under 18 is actually an adult? Do they believe that such people should be placed in schools with schoolchildren? Again, it seems as though the Liberal Democrats want to strip the Government of any power to control who comes to the country. That would see net migration drastically increase.

The issue cuts deeper than policy, however; it is about what people expect, and the Liberal Democrats’ new clause pulls hard against that grain. Voters have signalled what they want loud and clear, with 68%—nearly seven in 10—backing tougher border controls in surveys: a call echoing from Dover to Folkestone, where residents live with the reality of arrivals day by day. That is not a passing opinion; it is a steady demand—rooted in years of debate, from the 2016 Brexit vote to the 2019 landslide—for a system that prioritises their say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

We believe that the right to remain in this country is a privilege, not a right. We also believe that to be able to stay in this country, a person must contribute to this country. As recent research by the Centre for Policy Studies has outlined, there is a risk that many of those coming to this country are either low-paid workers or have dependants who may or may not be working. Those individuals are likely to represent a long-term burden on the country’s finances rather than be net contributors. That sentiment has been reiterated by liberal publications such as The Economist, which only last week said in one of its leaders that

“governments must also learn from the policy mistakes that lend it credibility.”

[Tom Hayes]

It was remiss of me not to say earlier that I admire the hon. Gentleman’s tie—it is very nice. On the point he raises, I have said consistently that that particular report by the Centre for Policy Studies is flawed. As we move towards the Government’s new net migration White Paper, which will specify how we can bring labour into the country that is skilled only, rather than the low-wage labour that we saw under the previous Administration, there will not be that kind of burden in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I just mention that we have the upcoming immigration White Paper, in which we will set out our approach to the immigration system and how to support it to be better controlled and managed for the future. We are clear that net migration must come down. She will know that under the previous Government—to which she was a special adviser—between 2019 and 2024, net migration almost quadrupled. That was heavily driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment. A properly controlled and managed immigration system, alongside strong border security, is one of the foundations of the Government’s plan for change. It is extremely important to have a debate based on tackling those root causes and issues, rather than tinkering around the edges and having a scenario in which the partner of a British citizen, who subsequently falls ill and dies, has her ILR revoked. It is important to understand what the Opposition tabling such amendments means for people’s lives and fairness in our society.

[Tom Hayes]

Briefly, prompted by the Opposition, we are inching towards a more interesting debate, on how to assess the financial benefits and costs of migration, while grounding that in available and high-quality data. In 2021, in Australia, the Treasury undertook a fiscal assessment and has repeated that annually. I know, too, that the Migration Advisory Committee is looking to improve the quality of data, because over 14 years we have had such poor-quality data on which to make assessments. It is starting to look at different categories of workers in order to assess whether they are net contributors or net drags. That is a really positive step.

One of the reasons why we are relying on “best” or “only” reports is because we had a Government who could have improved the quality of the data to make managed assessments of what controlled immigration that benefits our economy would look like, but instead, unfortunately, we had the borders thrown open with no sense of what our economy ought to be or what the skills ought to be, which is regrettable. Will the Minister comment on the importance of the White Paper to drive forward the immigration system that we actually need, grounded in the data that we need?

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend highlights a crucial point about the importance of evidence-based policy and of good data, which was sorely lacking across the whole immigration system when we came into office. The utter chaos, with backlogs in every part of the system, put huge pressure on it and made it much harder to get information about where the backlogs were and who was in them in order to try to exert some control over the system and get that important data to inform future policy.

My hon. Friend is right to point to the Migration Advisory Committee, which continues to do important work to engage with stakeholders and to work across Government. That is an important part of the work that we are doing to use evidence in a much better way to inform how we link skills policy and visa policy. The work to restore order to our immigration system has been under way since we came into office. We will set out our approach, as he has intimated, in our upcoming immigration White Paper. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to explain why we will not support the amendment, and I respectfully suggest that the hon. Member for Stockton West may wish to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I think they are relevant; they are things that both the public and I are bothered about. They show the failings of the system and why people are so concerned about the way that it is going.

As a result, the judge allowed the father’s appeal against deportation as a breach of his right to family life under the European convention on human rights, citing the impact that his removal might have on his son. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile, who was convicted of assaulting three teenage boys, was delayed over claims that deportation would breach his human rights.

[Tom Hayes]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned more about the Human Rights Act or its application by judges?

[Matt Vickers]

I am concerned about the consequences of the Human Rights Act for cases such as this and its role therein.

[Tom Hayes]

I did not understand what the hon. Gentleman said. Is he concerned more about the judges’ application of the Human Rights Act or the Act itself?

[Matt Vickers]

I am concerned, in the context of this new clause, about what the Human Rights Act means for these immigration cases. That is why the new clause proposes to remove its impact and disapply it.

[Tom Hayes]

I am still not very clear—I apologise, maybe I ate too much at lunch. Does the hon. Gentleman have issues with the Human Rights Act such that he believes that we ought not to be applying it generally? Is this the first step towards its disapplication, or is he more concerned that, while the legislation is fine, we have in what seems a minority of cases judges who are not applying it correctly? Could he also tell me whether what he has here is a snapshot of cases that he is concerned about or the totality of cases that he is concerned about?

[Matt Vickers]

We have talked about the relevance of disapplying the Human Rights Act with regards to immigration and the impact that it is having on these cases. I think I have been clear, and the hon. Gentleman can read Hansard.

As I was saying, the man was jailed for five offences of sexual activity with a child but has been able to stay in Britain since 2011, owing to a protracted dispute over his asylum case. In 2012, the man, who cannot be named, was branded in court a “danger to the community” over his offences against boys aged between 13 and 15. He then applied for asylum by claiming that his life would be at risk were he to return to Sri Lanka, because he is gay. Since his initial application, his case has been through several court hearings, as judges have assessed whether deporting the 50-year-old would breach his human rights. Those are just three examples of how ever-expanding interpretations of the Human Rights Act have been increasingly frustrating the removal of those who objectively ought to be deported.

[Tom Hayes]

That was a helpful clarification to my earlier question about whether what the hon. Gentleman is citing represents a snapshot or the totality—he says that they are three of the total number. How many, in total, has he looked at that have caused him such alarm?

[Matt Vickers]

I think if we allowed first-tier tribunals to go public, we would see a lot more. These things undermine public confidence in the legal framework and the institutions that uphold them, and I think they are terribly wrong. One of these cases is one too many. They are happening in ever-increasing numbers; that is why we have tabled this new clause, and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote for it or otherwise.

Our new clause represents a first step to restore some common sense to immigration appeals. New clause 33 steps up to wrest back control from a judiciary that has wandered far from the reservation, turning the Human Rights Act into a sprawling, open-ended blank cheque for immigration status, a carte blanche that has left us all scratching our heads at the sheer audacity of it.

[Tom Hayes]

That is also a helpful clarification, because the hon. Gentleman’s concern is with the judiciary and its behaviours. Can I clarify what he has just said, exactly as I heard it: his concern is purely about the judge’s application of the Human Rights Act, and he himself is absolutely fine with the Act?

[Matt Vickers]

We allow our domestic courts to use it. We have created the framework and put it in place, and they do what they can with what is in front of them. I am concerned about the way in which it is applied, and we need to change that if we want to impact the outcomes of those cases and appeals.

Last year alone, we saw far too many appeals built on article 8, the right to a family life, flooding courts with ridiculously broad pleas. This Parliament is elected to decide the laws of the land. Judges are there to uphold that law, yet they have morphed into border gatekeepers, perched on high and second-guessing Home Office decisions with interpretations so elastic they would snap any thread of reason, and family life ballooning to mean whatever they fancy on any given day. The new clause yanks that power back to where it belongs: with MPs, who are answerable to the people who elect them.

New clause 33 is not just a legal tweak; it is a turbocharge for a deportation system bogged down by endless appeals, with removals stalled by Human Rights Act challenges. Each case drags on, costing tens of thousands of pounds per detainee in legal fees and housing, and clogging up detention centres that are already at capacity. Disapplying the Human Rights Act for immigration would fix the logjam, letting Ministers and officials act fast, deporting those our domestic legislation was created to deport and freeing up resources for border patrols and visa processing, which actually keep us secure.

New clause 33 would restore public safety—a lifeline for a priority that has been fraying at the edges and unravelling thread by thread, as dangerous individuals exploit Human Rights Act loopholes to cling to our soil like barnacles on a ship. In 2024 alone, thousands of foreign national offenders—thieves, drug peddlers and worse—languished in UK prisons, costing taxpayers millions to house. Nowhere near enough were bundled on to planes and removed, leaving thousands to stroll out post their sentence, free to roam our streets, because of Human Rights Act claims tying our hands and deviating from Parliament’s intended outcomes.

New clause 33 would cut through that mess. It would mean swift, no-nonsense removal of those who have shattered our laws—not endless hand-wringing debates over some nebulous right to stay that keeps them loitering in our towns. Public opinion, or the view of British law-abiding taxpayers, is clear—nearly three quarters call for foreign criminals to be removed—yet here we are. The current set-up lets threats fester when they should be gone. As the months go by, more of these bizarre judgments emerge, undermining public confidence in the entire system and our legal institutions.

Let us take a tour beyond our shores, because other nations are not fumbling in the dark; they are lighting the way, showing us that this is not some wild, radical leap but a steady, proven path that we would be daft not to tread. For starters, France increased its deportations by 27%, and is also seen to be deftly side-stepping ECHR interim measures, with domestic law overrides. Twenty-seven per cent. sent home—no faffing about with Strasbourg rule 39 edicts; just a clear-eyed focus on keeping France’s borders taut and its streets secure.

Then there is Australia, where the Migration Act does not blink. Rights claims bow to border control, and many are whisked out yearly with minimal fuss. The law, created by those elected to do so, determines who stays and who goes. These are not rogue states; they are democracies—proud and pragmatic, balancing security with sovereignty. New clause 33 strides right into that company. Parliament would lay down the law, not Strasbourg’s fleeting winds, echoing what has clicked abroad, from Paris to Perth.

I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on this proposal—in particular, whether she thinks that some of the recent examples of failed deportations are acceptable. We are apparently very familiar with chicken nugget-gate. If she agrees that some of these outcomes are unacceptable but does not feel that this approach is the way forwards, how will the Government end these cases, which are making a mockery of our justice system and undermining public confidence in our legal institutions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

I hope it was clear in my remarks, but for the avoidance of doubt or ambiguity I want to say that the Opposition do not criticise our judges. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West said, they are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents under which they operate. That is why the new clause seeks to change those rules—

[Tom Hayes]

With the greatest respect, a reading of the Hansard report of what the hon. Member for Stockton West said would be contrary to what the hon. Lady has just asserted. What the hon. Gentleman said could in no way, shape or form be described as complimentary to or supportive of judges. In fact, it was very undermining of judges.

[Katie Lam]

My hon. Friend clearly said that judges are doing the best they can with the rules and precedents that they have been set. I have described our judges as unaccountable to the public. That is not a criticism: it is a fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

The new clause maintains the Home Secretary’s ability to judge whether or not a country is being unco-operative. If it is unable to help, that is different from being unco-operative in the way that we would define it here.

[Tom Hayes]

A volume of information seems to be coming at us now, and it feels as though every 20 words, something absolutely absurd is said. It is a marked contrast with what has gone before. I see the hon. Member for Weald of Kent and the hon. Member for Stockton West standing there, but I hear the voices of other people in their party. It feels very peculiar.

I have a specific question. Quite apart from the fact that the Conservatives effectively decriminalised shoplifting, if an Albanian national is convicted of shoplifting but cannot be deported to Albania, is the hon. Lady saying that she would impose a visa penalty on Albania if it did not accept that shoplifting Albanian national, regardless of what that might do for the wider relationship between Albania and the UK in terms of deportations?

[Katie Lam]

I will happily come to the second question in a second, but I am a little confused. Is the hon Gentleman suggesting that I did not write my speech myself?

[Tom Hayes]

Yes, actually.

[Katie Lam]

In that case, I am happy to reassure him that I wrote every word.

The short answer to the question about Albania is yes. We think that would be completely appropriate. Why would Albania refuse to accept one of its own citizens that should, by our rules and our laws, be returned to that country? If it refuses to do so, we would absolutely consider that to an appropriate trigger for that response.

To continue what I was saying, new clause 40 amends section 70 of the Nationality and Borders Act, and it expands the Act to cover both nationals as well as citizens. We consider that it should be a basic and fundamental principle that we should be able to remove from this country those who break our rules. That is harder than it might sound, particularly when individuals are determined to lose their documents and obfuscate their identity and origin in every way they can. What we propose here will align other countries’ incentives with our own. It will create substantial pressure on other nations to co-operate with us to secure our border, and we strongly hope that the Government will consider adding it to the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam]

As I have set out already, there was never what we are talking about here, which is a formal cap set by Parliament in legislation. However, a number of aims and promises were given to the electorate over the years, and those promises were not kept.

Selective, limited and tailored to our needs—that is the immigration system that the British public have voted for time and again. If we are serious about delivering it, we must take steps to ensure that future Governments do not renege on their promises as previous Governments have. But this is not just about delivering the immigration system that the British people have voted for repeatedly; fundamentally, it is about public trust and accountability.

Put simply, a hard numerical cap on the number of visas issued each year would force Government and Parliament to have accountability for their immigration decisions. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too high, we should set the cap accordingly, to ensure that technical mistakes do not produce the kind of migration wave that we have seen over the past few years. If we believe that the overall level of immigration is too low, we should be willing to say that publicly, to explain our reasons and to defend our record. Either way, we must be transparent. That will not rebuild public trust in our political system overnight, but it will represent a significant step in the right direction.

[Tom Hayes]

In a previous sitting, the hon. Lady talked to the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire about humanitarian, and safe and legal routes. She highlighted the difficulty that humanitarian events often happen without warning or anticipation. Our country and others will respond as quickly as possible, and one response might be to open a safe and legal route. Do the Opposition new clauses take account of any possible scenarios, recognising that it is hard to anticipate them? Is there any flexibility in the numbers that she provides for the visa category that would support people coming in who are refugees and people in genuine need?

[Katie Lam]

As the hon. Gentleman can read in the new clause, the wording does not state that the caps have to be set and cannot be revised; it is more than possible to come back to Parliament to change them. If such a situation arises—he is totally right to say that many of them are emergencies and may have been unforeseeable—there is no reason why that case should not be made to the British public and the cap changed. We are talking here about the need for that case to be made to the British public and for there to be transparency.

Some Labour Members have mentioned my time at the Home Office, where I was a special adviser. I worked primarily on national security, not on legal migration, but it was very clear to me from what I could see of the problems that all my colleagues were facing that most of Government—most Departments, and the Minister may be experiencing this now—are geared for higher levels of migration. For example, it is helpful for the Department of Health and Social Care to have high volumes of health and social care visas issued, or for the Treasury, which issues gilts based on our overall GDP, to have as many people here as possible.

The purpose of the cap would be to bring those conversations out into the open. If those Departments and Ministers wished to justify to the public, to the British people, why those numbers needed to be higher, that conversation should be had where the British people can hear it.

[Tom Hayes]

New clause 40 mentions the Secretary of State making

“regulations specifying the total maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually”

within six months of the passing of this Bill. I assume that the hon. Lady is saying that a statement may be made providing for the annual cap per visa category, over, say, four or five years, and not that the Secretary of State would have to come back each year. Am I right or wrong in thinking that? Could she clarify that?

[Katie Lam]

The hon. Member asks a good question. I am not sure whether that would be explicitly decided on the face of the Bill; that could be something that the Home Office decided subsequently—whether it wished to set out future years or just the following one. In my initial response to the hon. Member, the point that I was trying to clarify was that that cap can, of course, be changed. Once it is set, it does not need to be set in stone for ever, but it is important that it exists and that the conversation about what it should be is had in front of the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 enable asylum seekers to obtain housing and funds to support themselves while they wait to find out whether they will get asylum. Their children can attend state schools and they are entitled to NHS care. We know that asylum seekers crossing the channel in small boats are often given bail and provided with asylum support. Those with no UK address will be allocated asylum housing, or placed in asylum hotels or accommodation centres. The National Audit Office has estimated that the cost of this to the taxpayer was around £4.7 billion in 2023-24.

[Tom Hayes]

Is it the Conservative party’s intention to build these detention centres, or accommodation centres, as part of its new immigration policy?

[Matt Vickers]

We have had many alternative means of accommodation, including hotels. Accommodation of asylum seekers in hotels is through the roof—it is up 29%, with 8,500 more people staying in them—but the situation I am describing applies more widely than any accommodation centre or hotel.

The £4.7 billion tab for 2023-24 covered beds, meals and NHS visits while the backlog ballooned.

[Matt Vickers]

The reality is that somebody is getting charged for it and paying for it, and at the moment that is the Great British public. There are ballooning costs. There are increasing numbers: illegal arrivals are up 28% since the election, there are 29% more people in hotels, and fewer of the people who arrive illegally are being removed. The number goes up, the cost continues to go up, and somebody has to pick up the tab. Making the person repay those costs once they are working—with, say, £10,000 over a decade—could claw back hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is not small change: it is classrooms built, potholes filled and nurses hired. Why are the Government content to let this sinkhole drain us dry when we could balance the books with a system that asks those who are successful to pay back some of these costs?

In his evidence, Tony Smith highlighted the knowledge that such support is available as a pull factor that encourages people to cross the channel. We share Tony Smith’s view that making it clear that the costs of asylum support and accommodation will be recovered once the applicant is economically active could help to disincentivise future crossings. That is why we have tabled new clause 37.

The proposed new clause would enable the Government to treat asylum support like a student loan, with asylum seekers able to pay back the cost of support when they are in paid employment. We believe that if someone’s asylum appeal is granted and they are allowed to remain in this country and they are able to work, they should be required to pay back to the state the costs of their maintenance, as and when they are able. State support is not a right.

[Tom Hayes]

This may be our last sitting day; I say this in hopes that it is. Over the last few sittings, having not known the hon. Member for Stockton West, I have grown in admiration for him, because he has had to defend very difficult things from the previous Government. It has felt like he is a goalkeeper standing in front of goal without any gloves on, and balls have been hit at him from every direction, so I do have admiration for him. But this is frankly absurd—it really is bonkers. Is this the hon. Member’s idea, or is it somebody else’s idea that he is having to make a case for? I really hope it is the latter.

[Matt Vickers]

To the hon. Gentleman’s electors and mine, these things come at huge cost. As we have set out, that money could be used by the people who pay in to the system, and have done for a very long time. We have drawn an analogy with student tuition fees and I think it is very relevant. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s well-hidden admiration in recent times, but I think this is the right thing to do, and I am well on board with it. State support is not a right, and if a person is able to contribute later by paying some of that back, we believe it is right for them to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

People arrive in this country out of fear of persecution. People come from the most awful, extreme circumstances. That is the bar that we put to asylum. We allow people to come here to claim asylum out of fear for their welfare, and if they are happy to pack their bags and pop back for a break, then that is on them. I believe, and I think the public would believe, that if someone comes here claiming fear of persecution in their country of origin then they should not be going back. It is not an opt-in or opt-out—it is not a holiday. If they are coming here out of fear of persecution in that country then they should not be going back.

We have tabled new clause 41 in order to address a loophole that people can and do exploit. The new clause would uphold British fairness—a value that welcomes those in need but rejects exploitation. As Members from across the House know, the United Kingdom has supported over 20,000 Afghans since 2021 through the Afghan relocations policy and over 200,000 Ukrainians since 2022 via visa schemes, alongside our Hong Kong friends with British national overseas visas, backed further by £4.7 billion in asylum costs in 2023-24. These commitments reflect our readiness to help those with genuine cases—those fleeing real danger who have ties to Britain. The value of fairness demands a fair system that is not abused.

[Tom Hayes]

What would happen in a scenario in which somebody from Hong Kong went back in order to attend the funeral of their mother or father?

[Matt Vickers]

We are talking about all sorts of circumstances, and I am sure that every one of these things would be pushed to the max, with lots of discussion and debate. The idea here is the principle that if someone cannot be in a country because it would be to their detriment and damage their wellbeing, then they should not be going back. If it is such a security threat that they need to come to the UK for asylum—

[Tom Hayes]

To clarify, if a lady goes back to Hong Kong and is willing to entertain the risk in order to briefly grieve with her family and to bury her mother or father, she would lose her right to safe haven in the United Kingdom. Is that right?

[Matt Vickers]

People who claim asylum arrive here from some of the most terrible, awful circumstances—their life is threatened and they are at real risk. If someone is at that level of risk, on the balance of probabilities, they would not be going back. If someone fears persecution in the way that many of the people who get asylum in this country do, then they would not be returning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Vickers]

I am talking about those circumstances. We have heard one extreme; at the other extreme, we have people claiming asylum at huge cost. That is not a cost to well-heeled people, in particular, but to British taxpayers, some of whom are struggling to get by, but are contributing to this country and this system, which pays out for various other things. We want to be generous. We want to support the people who need that help. It is the right thing to do and, I have just outlined, we have done that. But we cannot allow that generosity to be abused; we cannot allow people to pop off on holiday back to wherever they came from and then come back. That is the principle that is at stake here. People out there feel that it is very unfair that people pop back, and use asylum here as something hotel-like. That is the other extreme. That is the abuse that we are seeing, and that is what the new clause aims to end.

[Tom Hayes]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Hongkonger population would be very disheartened to hear what he is saying? Does he think it is right for him to stick to what he is saying? Would it not be better to show some sympathy to that particular population who are here?

[Matt Vickers]

I show lots of sympathy. It is right that we have put all these schemes in place, and it is right that we are supporting these people in the way we are. I also think a little bit about what the British people would think about what I am saying, and the abuse they are seeing of these schemes that allow people to pop back to other countries for various reasons. The hon. Gentleman has given one extreme; I have given the other. I think that is a principle that the British public would be on board with.