What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Does my right hon. Friend agree that these agreements have come about through partnership working with our European partners, and that this has been a central part of the negotiations? There is a unity of purpose among other European countries that want to tighten their borders and prevent people abusing the system.
I will be blunt: my constituents have lost faith in the asylum system. Under the previous Government, they watched borders slide out of control, criminal gangs profit and taxpayers face ever-rising costs while hotel use spiralled. Fairness collapsed and public trust collapsed with it. This Bill is how we earn that trust back. First, we need control at the border. A fair system needs a firm line. We must stop the boats, target the smugglers and strengthen the checks so we know who is coming, how and why. Secondly, we need swift decisions and final outcomes. Endless delays destroy confidence. Claims must be processed quickly. Appeals must be heard promptly by independent adjudicators, with decisions enforced. If someone qualifies, they receive protection without unnecessary delay; if they do not, departure should follow swiftly. Thirdly, fairness means contribution. Those granted protection should work, rebuild their lives, contribute to our society, and help to offset the costs associated with processing their claims. Responsibility must sit alongside rights, and contribution alongside compassion. Fourthly, protection must remain justified. Refugee status should be reviewed through a clear and streamlined process. If danger remains, protection continues. If circumstances change significantly, the system should respond accordingly. That is how we keep asylum credible. Fifthly, we need honesty about costs and communities. Hotels are a symptom of a system under strain. By reducing backlogs and speeding up decisions, we can lower costs and ensure that outcomes are delivered. If protected, people move into work; if not, they are removed. Every pound saved can be redirected towards border security and genuine protection. Sixthly, we need safe and legal routes. If we want people to choose safe routes, these routes must be real, reliable and fast. Clear criteria, rapid processing, UNHCR referrals and community sponsorship can provide a genuine alternative to dangerous crossings. The legal route must always be the better route. That is how the economic model of the people smugglers can be broken. Those constituents who have lost faith are right to want to control the borders and to want faster decisions, lower costs and rules that are enforced. We need control of the border, compassion where it counts, and contribution and consequences in equal measure. We cannot undo yesterday’s failures, but we can build a system that is fair and credible. That is why I support the Bill.
I think all of us in the Chamber accept that the immigration and asylum system is broken. All of us want an asylum system that is both firm and fair, in which the impact is managed both for those seeking asylum and coming here to build a better life for themselves and their families, and for the host communities, with integration managed in that process. Where there is clearly disagreement is on how on earth we fix a system that is so broken that there is not a single lever to pull to make all this mess right. We have an absolute crisis in our immigration system, as well as in our asylum system, and every debate is polarised. Unfortunately, when we come to this place, which is meant to be a place of evidence-based policymaking and exchanges that try to find a degree of common ground, at times it feels as though we are just parroting the social media posts that I see every morning when I dare to open X or Facebook. We need to be better than that. I think we can say that immigration has made a positive contribution to our country, but that there are strains of immigration in some parts of the country that have been managed so poorly the public consent for immigration is fraying. If we do not accept that principle, we will not win back public support. But we also have to accept that the tone of the debate means that every person coming to flee persecution and war is being cast somehow as a chancer—that they are here to try it on and are acting against our national interest. I do not think that that is in tune with British values. We have a long and proud history, certainly in a town such as Oldham, of supporting people fleeing persecution. We are, however, also a town that believes in fair play and contribution. On the other side, there are people in the system who are not living up to those values. They are trying to play the system through the appeals process and different claims, and are not contributing because when they arrive they break the laws of the land. If we on the Labour Benches are not willing to be honest about those tensions, how on earth can we build the middle ground? There is a lot of work to do to build trust and I have a great deal of confidence in the work the Home Secretary is doing. The evidence speaks for itself, and not just on asylum and immigration. This week, the figures on knife crime have come down again. It takes a lot of hard work—often quiet hard work—to get through these issues, but it is happening and we are just two years in, so I am optimistic that we can get a grip. But where I think the country, and certainly people in Oldham, want to see progress is on a tougher line on small boat crossings, because they do not believe that is playing fairly or playing by the rules if people are breaking them on day one. But people are aghast that there are no safe routes to support families fleeing persecution. Most fair-minded people look at the images of children fleeing war—we see it in Gaza, but also across the world—and think, “There but for the grace of God go I. If that was my child, what would I want in terms of sanctuary to give them a future and not leave them exposed to starvation or death?” This is where we are not quite getting the balance right, so I welcome the efforts being made to introduce safe routes. I want a fairer distribution of asylum seekers around the country. Under the previous Labour Government, we were so fearful of right-wing headlines about asylum seekers being housed in accommodation in London “living in a £1 million townhouse”—they would pick out a Camden townhouse as an example—that the Government responded by saying, “Where is accommodation cheapest?” So, of course, they came to towns such as Oldham, Rochdale and Stoke, where housing at that time was probably plentiful and very cheap. That is not the case today. In Oldham, there are 588 children living in temporary accommodation and over 100 of those households have been in temporary accommodation for over a year. Those housing pressures are felt by the whole community across Oldham. A fairer distribution of asylum seekers might win a bit more public support. On top of that, we are still waiting for the asylum hotel to close at some point. The Minister has been lobbied heavily on that. It is important to know, as a way of rebuilding public consent, that all parts of the country are playing their part and are taking their fair share. I appreciate the speed and the efforts being taken in the case of Shabir Ahmed. I do not think that anybody would look at the Rochdale grooming gang and Shabir Ahmed as its ringleader over a long period of time and think that he is anything other than evil and abhorrent. The way he sexually abused and exploited young girls in both Oldham and Rochdale shook the town. It was on a scale that we had not seen before. What really struck home was the complete lack of any empathy for the victims, his refusal to take any responsibility, and his laughing at the justice process that was holding him to account. When news came of his release back into the community—of course, we do not know where he is; it certainly is not in Oldham and Rochdale, because of the exclusion zones—it retraumatised the victims who have spent a long time trying to rebuild their lives. The fact is this: he has already been stripped of his British citizenship. He has no right to be here, bar the loophole in the Immigration Act 1971 that will now be closed thanks to the actions of our Home Secretary. That is not to say that we should rush to say the answer is always deportation, but in the case of a child rapist who has acted in such an abhorrent way, that must be the ultimate justice secured for the victims who were affected. I give credit for the work that is taking place, but pace is really important. The parole board rejected his early release on three separate occasions because of the risk he posed to victims and wider society. I do not believe that he is any safer today than he was 18 months ago when the parole board last looked at the terms of his licence conditions. As speed is of the essence, I ask Ministers, please, whether there are grounds in such cases to return people back to custody, pending deportation?
Even in rural areas like Cornwall, community schemes welcoming Syrian refugees are working very well. They show that community sponsorship schemes can work well across the country.
5. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.
High street crime and shoplifting remain key concerns for my constituents, who have seen some pretty awful examples. My local police have had some successes, and they are running local initiatives on high streets that are starting to deliver results. Given that there will be other such examples around the country, will the Home Secretary make sure that, as well as the national initiatives, we are gathering together localised initiatives and local successes, and sharing good practice, to make sure that we are bringing it all together as part of an attempt to clean up our high streets?
T3. Recently, I witnessed an attempted phone snatch outside one of my stations by three masked youths on electric bikes; fortunately, they were unsuccessful, but residents raised this as major concern at a community neighbourhood safety forum. Will my hon. Friend outline what progress we are making against tackling phone theft? Does she agree that the phone companies should do much more to ensure that criminals cannot profit from phone snatching?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing persecution, oppression and injustice. In my constituency, over a decade ago many Rohingya who were fleeing genocide made Bradford their home, and we welcomed them. Many of them were able to reunite with their families from refugee camps, who are now living with them in Bradford, and all of them are contributing very positively to Bradford and to this country. Under the Home Secretary’s changes, they would never have been able to reunite with their families, and they would not have done that. Does she think that is right and fair on them?
I join Members across the House in giving my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Ann Widdecombe. I never had the privilege of meeting her, but I certainly remember growing up and seeing her on the TV and thinking what an outspoken, strong woman she was and how she would not take no for an answer. I pay tribute to her. I do not want to speculate on the case or on what happened, but I place on record my concern about the fact that we see very frequently the media either photograph or broadcast identifiable details of Members’ or former Members’ homes. That is happening repeatedly to Members across this House, including members of the Cabinet, members of the shadow Cabinet and former Members. We have heard today about the risks that come with that. The former Member for Surrey Heath mentioned in a podcast fairly recently that the man who killed Sir David Amess had visited his home, using details that he had identified from the media. That is how serious this issue is. I know that the Speaker’s Conference has looked at this issue. Given the risks that exist and the new tools such as reverse image searching, which makes it easier to look at a media image and find out where a house is on Google Maps, will the Home Secretary urgently look at this issue with her colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the media regulators Ofcom and the Independent Press Standards Organisation?
20. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.
22. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.
Many seaside towns, like Rhyl and Colwyn Bay in my Clwyd North constituency, are working really hard to regenerate their high streets and attract investment. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the high streets organised crime unit will ensure that coastal towns facing issues with organised criminal activity receive the same support as larger urban centres?
15. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.
Many of my constituents want tougher action against the criminals who hide behind businesses such as rogue barber shops, vape shops and mini-marts, which are a blight on many high streets in my constituency. Can the Home Secretary update the House on what the Government are doing to tackle this type of offending, and get these dodgy shops closed once and for all?
I thank the Minister for her answers. She will know that local government reorganisation is one side of the coin, and devolution is the other. In places like Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, access to bus franchising, the adult skills agenda and spatial planning is the real victory that we look for. When the announcement comes this week on the new local authority boundaries, will she be able to give any insight on when decisions about strategic authorities will be made? When might there be the first elections for those, so that we can access the devolved powers that we desperately want?
It is quite something to listen to a shadow Secretary of State whose party oversaw a net migration increase of 2.5 million in four years, and who has the brass neck to lecture the party in government on how to clear up his mess. Does he think he has any credibility at all on this matter, or is this just about the Facebook clip that he will undoubtedly be pumping out on his social media this evening?
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for securing this urgent question. Local government reform is complex, involving more than 200 councils that deliver services to millions of residents right across the country. My hon. Friend the Minister is very capable, but local government is raising real concerns. Is she aware of the comments of the new chair of the Local Government Association, Councillor Eamonn O’Brien, who said that the LGA had “not previously taken a position on LGR”, but that it is “hearing from…councils…about real delivery concerns”? We have looked at this issue on the Select Committee, and have raised concerns about standards in the housing sector, ability to deliver measures, such as those rightly in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, and enforcement. The LGA raised six concerns. It said that the reforms were trying to do too much, too quickly, with too little. That poses a real challenge when it comes to the vital council services that residents need. Will the Minister ensure that the LGA’s concerns are heard across Government, and that reorganisation will never take resources away from the critical frontline services, including adult social care and children’s social care, that so many of our residents rely on?
I thank the Leader of the House for updating us on tomorrow’s business, and for the fact that this really important Bill is coming back to the House, but it does raise questions about the Representation of the People Bill, which has been delayed. This is a big Bill that includes key major reforms: enfranchising so many young people when trust in politics is at an all-time low; and provisions on tightening financial donations—it is fair to say that donations have been in the news for the past few weeks. Will he please ensure that the Bill will come back swiftly after the summer recess?
I join the many heartfelt tributes paid to Ann Widdecombe by Members across the House. I did not know her personally, but before I came to this place there were many names I always came across, and hers was definitely one of them. May her gentle soul rest in peace. Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to a group of students who were completing work experience and shadowing. One young girl asked me, “What are the downsides, and what do you not like about this role?” To be honest, it pained me to be honest and to say, “The death threats, and the abuse you get just because you are doing something you love and enjoy,” and we must be honest about the real-life threats faced by parliamentarians across the House, just for doing the job they enjoy. Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is good that counter-terrorism police are leading the investigation, and that they have all the necessary resources they need to carry out a full and thorough investigation? They will be dealing with many competing demands in our ever unstable world. Will she also look at the area mentioned by the Mother of House, namely misinformation that is spread online? I will declare an interest as I sit on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and we have looked at that area. I add my tributes and thanks to Mr Speaker for his work on that Committee and the Speaker’s Conference. Whenever I have raised issues, the parliamentary liaison and investigation team have taken them seriously, which I thank them for, and it is important that we do not deter people from standing for public office.
I welcome the Minister’s explicit statement last month that he wants to see the Cladhan hotel, which was opened by the Conservatives, closed. When any hotel closes, will he confirm that the vast majority of those being moved out will have their accommodation needs met within existing capacity?
In Falkirk, discussion of asylum policy has taken unprecedented command of our local debate. What has occurred in our community is an example of the failure of the past Government to provide solutions that work in the best interests of communities across the country, or the best interests of asylum seekers fleeing persecution and conflict, to put it mildly. The previous Government’s lack of control over the asylum system has almost destroyed public confidence in the system. The number of applicants rose from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands from 2020 onwards, which led to Ministers in a panicked state directing the acquisition of town-centre hotels for use as accommodation. They placed asylum seekers, who are unable to work, as Members have mentioned, into goldfish-bowl hotels across the country. They ground processing to a halt. They forgot about asylum seekers, and forgot, or simply did not care, about communities like Falkirk, which hosted them. We saw costs balloon, and we failed to stop the rise in the number of people coming through illegal routes. Under this Labour Government, on the other hand, Tory asylum hotels are down by over half since the peak of 400. Crossings came down 41% in one year, and claims came down by 12% in one year. We have also seen the grant rate fall from 45% in July 2024 to 39% today, enabling £1 billion a year to be saved in accommodation costs. Where the previous Government lost control, this Government have taken steps to restore it. The challenge that the Bill presents us with is finding a way to re-establish public confidence in an asylum system that many of my constituents have told me they are questioning. We cannot let the palpable anger—and there is anger out there, in certain corners of our community—irrevocably push us towards breaking the rights-based order that we have had for 80 years. We must demonstrate that we can control the asylum system without sacrificing our constituents’ rights, as many from opposition parties have suggested. The tone that the Government have used to communicate our record has caused, I will admit, reasonable concern in my constituency. There are concerns about the measures that we are considering today, and the measures that we have to acknowledge we are not considering today. I do not believe that we can deal with those concerns tonight by abandoning the essential objectives that the Bill seeks to pursue. If we vote against the Bill, we throw away an opportunity for asylum appeals reform. The backlog left by the Conservatives has been rapidly reduced, but many cases have been displaced into the appeals system. We must be quicker, imminently, to resolve appeals. If we vote against the Bill, we are throwing away a chance to build a system of controlled routes, which is the only sustainable solution to boat crossings, but one that requires the public to have confidence in the basic norm of an asylum system, which is being threatened. We also throw away a chance to align with our partners in the Council of Europe on article 8 interpretation, as we did in May in Chi inău, as we seek to resolve an international humanitarian crisis, instead of being pushed to the more extreme solutions that others offer. There are several areas where we could improve the Bill, and I will bring those up with Ministers in Committee. However, I will not be indulging Conservative Members, who broke my community’s confidence in the asylum system; I will support the Government in making a good faith attempt to resolve it.
I commend my right hon. Friend for how she has gone about reducing the use of asylum hotels in this country, after the shocking legacy left behind by 14 years of the last Government. She will know that these hotels have unfortunately become a source of right-wing intimidation and violence, affecting community cohesion and creating tension. Can she reassure me that as families are moved out of these hotels, particularly in Scotland, they are put in accommodation that is appropriate not only for them, but for the communities in which they are housed?
T6. On Friday I met members of Barnham parish council in my constituency and the headteacher of the adjacent primary school, Amy. They raised concerns about the proposed accommodation of large numbers of asylum seekers at RAF Barnham. They worry about community cohesion, particularly if large numbers of young men are to be transported into neighbouring towns and villages without access to supervised constructive activity. Will the Minister outline what material steps will be taken to address this problem?
I want to speak about something very simple: the difference between being put somewhere and being welcomed somewhere. When Russia invaded Ukraine, we welcomed Ukrainians into our home, as many here have done. The questions were practical: “Where is the nearest doctor?”, “How does the bus work?”. That is why I welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to named community sponsorship. The Government retain control over who enters and in what numbers, and the welcome will come from the community. Canada has a similar system, and we have seen that sponsorship works from Homes for Ukraine. More than 400 Ukrainians were welcomed into west Suffolk; the people of Suffolk are keen to help—they have proved it. I met the parish council and the headteacher at Barnham primary school. They are concerned about the use being made of the RAF Barnham base. That does not make these people uncaring. Their concern is about how this is being done. They deserve to be properly consulted. Named community sponsorship and asylum accommodation are not the same. One offers refugees a safe and legal route, while the other houses people as their asylum claims are decided. The question is simple: do we begin with a site and ask the community to accept it, or do we begin with a community and ask what it is willing to do to help? The second is a much better starting point. For sponsorship to work, communities need training, clear guidance and continuing support. The people of Suffolk do not need lessons in compassion—they have opened their homes—but they must be heard when they raise concerns about RAF Barnham. The Home Secretary’s reforms can combine control with sanctuary, but to achieve that, we must trust our communities and listen to them.
Two months ago my constituent, farmer Ian McKie, was subjected to a burglary in which his workshop was broken into and a quad bike was stolen. According to Mr McKie, such crime is happening more frequently and boldly in North Northumberland. What reassurance can the Minister give me about rural crime and the seriousness with which the Government are taking it?
Let us be straight: immigration is a good and necessary thing for our country. Successive waves of immigration over hundreds of years have helped make Britain the country we are, whether we are talking about the Huguenots fleeing French persecution in the 17th century, or the West Indians answering Britain’s call for workers in the aftermath of world war two. However, it is also true to say that preceding waves of immigration have been small compared with the size of the population, and the pace has been relatively slow. Today, many Brits hold two positions simultaneously. We want to be a generous, open and welcoming country, but we are also concerned about the lack of control that successive Governments have had over our borders. In the last five years, over 460,000 people have claimed asylum in the UK. A decade ago, that figure was 165,000, and the last Government allowed net legal migration of 2.5 million people in just four years. We must be in no doubt: if we fail to achieve a just and fair system, we will undermine public support for our asylum system, and there is a risk that the general population will turn away from our being the generous and compassionate country that most of us consider the UK to be. I could talk about many things in the Bill that I think are good and necessary, but I will talk about just one, which is the introduction of requirements for asylum seekers to contribute financially towards the costs of our asylum system, as long as doing so would not push them into destitution. When I was leading a homelessness charity before entering Parliament, we supported a young man called Mobarak, who was only 18. He had come to the UK from Sudan via Libya and Malta. When we asked him what he wanted to do, he was clear: “I want to be a plumber,” he said. Let us not deny people such as Mobarak the dignity that they deserve. Let us give them the chance to contribute to the society that has taken them in as soon as they can. Indeed, in my experience, what people who have been welcomed into this country as refugees most often want to do is make a contribution to the country that has welcomed them. I give my full support to much of what else the Government are doing to secure control of our borders, including community sponsorship schemes, through which they are creating the first ever safe and legal routes to this country. The Government are picking up the pieces of the mess that the previous Government made. The only way we can restore the bonds of solidarity and compassion between citizen and asylum seeker is by restoring trust that the system is fair, effective and based on contribution. That is what the Bill seeks to do, and I fully support it.
Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has laid statutory instruments to designate three bodies engaged in foreign power threat activity under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026. They are the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, who have publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities, and Persian language media; and Iran’s IRGC; and Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps. Designation will make it an offence to support, assist or obtain benefits from any of these organisations.
I extend my sincere condolences to the family following the tragic death of Hannah. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in line with legal confidentiality obligations, I can neither confirm nor deny whether a request for mutual legal assistance has been made or received. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on an investigation in another jurisdiction. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, if that is what he wishes.
T2. During a coffee morning on the Sherborne estate in Crewe, I spoke with several residents who described persistent and distressing levels of antisocial behaviour in our community, including having eggs thrown at their properties. Can the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that antisocial behaviour is dealt with robustly in places like the Sherborne estate?
The Minister’s statement will be welcomed by year 2 at St Michael’s community academy in Crewe, who I visited recently. I heard letters read aloud by the children, demonstrating their concern about the need to protect our environment and natural habitats. Will the Minister join me in congratulating those year 2 classes, and set out why the Government’s 30 by 30 delivery plan is so important for reversing decades of nature decline?
I do not know whether I am alone in this, but I am hearing the shadow Secretary of State glibly throw away 80 years of legislation on human rights—human rights that were forged in the aftermath of the Holocaust, of concentration camps, of the horrors of fascism. He stands there and talks glibly about throwing them out when they have protected hundreds of millions of people around the world. There is a clue. The reason they are called “human” rights is that this is the universal condition—we are all human beings—and the day we forget that in this place is the day we open a dark chapter in our country’s history.
Over the last two years, I have led the charge in asking for our asylum hotel to be closed. Last week, the final family and individuals left the hotel. Thousands have joined me in calling on Britannia to finally refurbish the Metropole hotel, which is a massive eyesore on our golden mile. Will the Minister join me and thousands of residents in Blackpool in calling on Britannia to put its hand in its pocket and finally restore this crown jewel on our seafront?
I join you, Mr Speaker, and other Lancastrian MPs waiting in apprehension for the announcement on Thursday. Blackpool has put forward its proposal for four unitary councils in Lancashire, based on us achieving the best possible outcomes for people in Blackpool after losing £1.8 billion under the previous Government. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the decisions until Thursday, but can she outline the situation with Lancashire and the mayoral pathway? We are falling so far behind Greater Manchester and Merseyside. We desperately need that investment today, so can we ensure that the train on that track keeps going?
A report by the National Audit Office in January 2025 said that there was a lack of buy-in from other Departments when it came to the previous violence against women and girls strategy. We know that if we are going to tackle violence against women in my constituency of Harlow and across the UK, we need to ensure that this is cross-party work and that Departments do not work in silos. What is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that that is the case?
As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, Harlow is full of some incredibly beautiful areas of natural beauty, from Hatfield forest and Harlow town park to Parndon Wood nature reserve. I am determined that these beautiful areas will be protected not just for this generation but for generations to come, which is why I am concerned when I hear voices in this Chamber that deny the climate emergency. It is not just an emergency for the future; it is an emergency now. Will the Minister confirm that she will ensure that we do everything we can as a Labour Government to protect nature and the environment and to tackle climate change?
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is some scepticism among the public about refugees, but despite the fact that twice as many people came to this country from Ukraine as crossed in small boats, there has been no public outcry and there is no public unrest. Does the Minister agree that this is because the British public recognise and welcome refugees who come here fairly, in a legal way, and with proper support? What conclusions are the Government drawing from that as they create their new scheme around safe routes?
We always forget that people lose their lives in the channel—including last year, tragically, a young girl of four and a young man of 16 who had just tried to phone his parents. Does the Home Secretary agree that anyone with any humanitarian beliefs at all should be doing everything they can to stop cross-channel boats, and that it is incumbent on everyone that we do everything we can about that?
The Home Secretary is being very generous. The purpose of the Bill is to make the system more swift, but I am surprised to see that there is no component of mandatory reconsideration included in it. As we have seen in the Department for Work and Pensions, that has really made the system faster. We had a broadly similar system in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, which was replaced, and that did not make the system quicker. How will this situation be different from what we have had before?
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and I were in northern France together. Does she share my impression from that trip that the scale and complexity of the operations the French Government were undertaking was quite astonishing? Will she join me in welcoming the new iteration of the Sandhurst treaty? This may be stretching the bounds of bipartisanship too much, but does she agree that it is good to reset the relationship with our European friends and neighbours? In cross-border channels, when difficult issues arise, it is only through those joint working operations—now that we have left the European Union—that we can collectively tackle the small boats, which are as much of an issue for France as for the UK.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), who was the author of the mess that we are discussing clearing up; I am sure she will look forward to sharing her comments with Count Binface soon enough. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Government are absolutely right to be tackling the appeals process—as a supporter of humanitarian protection, I accept that it needs reform if it is to be resilient—but I will focus on part 4, which creates powers to recover the costs of asylum support. I am pleased that the Bill discusses the cost of asylum system, and I support the principle that refugees who go on to earn a lot should contribute back what they received from this country. I suspect that many of them would be happy to do so. However, let us be clear that those refugees are not responsible for the extraordinary costs of the asylum system. Since entering Parliament, I have been on a one-man mission to highlight the biggest public procurement scandal in Britain—a system causing untold damage but costing the taxpayer £15 billion. The real problem lies with the asylum contracts, signed by the previous Government and overseen by the right hon. and learned Member, with three private providers. The contracts generated eye-watering profits; a founder of one of the companies entered The Sunday Times rich list at taxpayer expense. When these companies come before the Home Affairs Committee, they refuse to answer even the most basic questions, while serious concerns about misconduct in their supply chains remain. I recognise that this Government inherited those contracts from the right hon. and learned Member and are roped into them for the foreseeable future. I support asking successful refugees to contribute, but that is a peripheral issue.