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 10 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
It has been settled Government policy—since last summer, in fact—that the qualifying period will rise from five years to 10 years. The Government are consulting on what transitional arrangements may be needed, and we will come forward with settled policy later this year.
That is rather desperate from the shadow Home Secretary. He knows that the position is exactly as was set out in the consultation, which was published by the Government. We consulted on transitional arrangements for those who are already in country, and it is settled policy that the qualifying period will rise from five to 10 years. The implementation of that is being consulted on, and we will have settled policy on that later this year.
First, the shadow Home Secretary knows that the issues in relation to Shabir Ahmed and his deportation from this country are exactly the same as those his Government faced when they were in power. There is both a legal challenge and a practical one. I will be dealing with the legal issues later today when we debate the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The Government’s work on the practical hurdles to deportation continue between me and the Foreign Secretary and others in government. On releases from prisons, it was the shadow Home Secretary’s Government who allowed the situation in our prisons to get to a dangerous level. We all but ran out of prison places under his Government; under this Government, we will never run out of prison places again.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The Government have passed new legislation to allow for the designation of the organisations that the Minister for Security referenced earlier, and that includes the IRGC. The designation tool means that it is now brought within the context of the National Security Act 2023, and I do expect that when our laws are broken, prosecutions will follow. He knows that we have had some success with National Security Act investigations; I expect that to continue.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It is with great sadness that I say those words. My thoughts today are with her family, her friends and all those who loved her. Ann Widdecombe dedicated her life to politics and public service. She was a fixture of our political life for nearly 40 years. She brought conviction to our politics, grounded in her profound Catholic faith. She was forthright in her opinions and argued courageously for the things she believed in. But, perhaps most of all, she brought an inimitable style to politics. She was forthright and fearless. As Lord Howard of Lympne can attest, she had a memorable turn of phrase. And she was joyful: she thought seriously about ideas but did not take herself too seriously, and that allowed her to reach beyond this place and charm the country at large. She was one of those rare politicians who was bigger than politics. There have been so many moving tributes in the past few days, reflecting Ann’s impact both within this place and beyond politics. But I think her outlook on life is best summed up by Ann herself. Sitting on Graham Norton’s sofa, she said: “We get one go this side of eternity—one go. Life is not a dress rehearsal. You take opportunities that you like, and you go for it.” Ann took her opportunities. She was the proud MP for Maidstone for 23 years—a champion of her constituents. She served the country in government, as Minister for employment and then Minister for prisons. She took politics out of these ancient walls and became a bona fide TV star. Her contribution to our politics and national life will never be forgotten. On Wednesday, Ann Widdecombe was murdered in her home. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing. Counter Terrorism Policing has now taken the lead in the investigation. As Laurence Taylor, the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing has said: “We now have new information and evidence that means Counter Terrorism Policing is leading the investigation... We are pursuing multiple lines of inquiry to establish the motivation for this attack.” The police now have a suspect in custody: a 28-year-old white British man. I can confirm to the House that this man was not known to Prevent. The police have cautioned against speculating about the case. That is the right thing to do for Ann’s family and friends. It is also vital that the police are given the space they need to carry out their work. For now, what matters most is supporting the investigation, so that we can see justice delivered for Ann and all who loved her. I urge anyone, with any information at all, to come forward immediately. I know this raises questions about the security of those in public life. I will not be the only one in the Chamber also thinking of two other beloved Members of this House: Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Politics is a calling for those of us here, but it should not be a dangerous one. It is incumbent on the House and the Government to work together to protect those who choose to serve. The Home Office and the police work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to provide practical advice and support directly to MPs. But we must always be vigilant and respond to changing threats. Security measures are kept under constant review to ensure that MPs can carry out their duties safely. The police intend to issue guidance to MPs soon, and they will be contacting parliamentarians in their constituencies to offer support. I also recently commissioned the former Lord Chancellor, Sir Robert Buckland, to review the lessons from Sir David Amess’s murder, including into required improvements to security for MPs working in their constituencies. I recognise the particular concern that the Reform UK party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I am happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the chair of RAVEC—the Royal and VIP Executive Committee—the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former Members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as to those who serve a party outside of this place. Today is a dark day in our political life, but we must also use it as an opportunity to celebrate Ann Widdecombe’s memory. She was a unique figure in our politics: a distinctive and devoted public servant, the likes of whom we will rarely, if ever, see again. Ann had a profound faith. Her journey in this life has ended too soon, but may she now rest in eternal peace. I commend this statement to the House.
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for his remarks and memories of Ann Widdecombe and for his questions. He asked about the new information that has come to light and the progress on the Counter Terrorism Policing investigation. A statement has been put out by Counter Terrorism Policing. I believe it has been published online, but I will make sure that it is placed in the Library of the House as well. The main points to draw out from it are, as I said in my statement, the fact that new information and evidence means that Counter Terrorism Policing is now leading the investigation and pursuing multiple lines of inquiry in order to establish the motivation behind the attack. As soon as more information is available that can be shared without compromising any future trial, it will be shared. We take very seriously, as does Counter Terrorism Policing, the learnings from the summer of 2024. We definitely want to heed the call of Jonathan Hall KC and others about the timely release of information without compromising the ability to bring someone to justice, which is the main aim when such a horror of an attack happens. I would like to echo the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you personally for all your efforts to maintain the safety and security of parliamentarians. I know that it is something that you personally worry about and take a deep interest in. Given the fast-moving nature of this investigation, I do not want to say anything here that will prejudice the direction of travel. However, this murder raises a question about the security arrangements for not only sitting Members of Parliament but those who have left this place but nevertheless retain a public profile as a result of their political party membership or their political activities. Also, given the range of new political parties that are contesting the political and democratic space, there are questions about those who are not represented at all here in the House of Commons. To reassure you, Mr Speaker, I will look at those arrangements very closely and seek to work with you directly. My officials will engage with parties across the House and those outside of it to make sure that whatever changes are made are done so in a manner that covers the multiple range of threats that we see. There has been a step change in the security of parliamentarians over the last few years, but I think that that is a reflection of the multi-layered threats that our democracy faces and that active individuals in that democracy face. This is not something that we can ever take for granted or believe to be settled; it is something that we have to review continually, which we do. New questions have been raised, and I will make it my personal business to answer them. I will update the House in due course.
Given the sheer range of threats that have been made to the Mother of the House personally, it is a testament to her personal bravery that she has continued to be an active parliamentarian, but it should not take such levels of bravery just to be able to represent the people of your constituency. She is right that we must always ensure that our security arrangements can keep pace with the changing nature of threats. Let me assure the Mother of the House that the Government will do that. We work closely with the Parliamentary Security Department to ensure that that is the case so that all Members can make their contributions just as effectively and for just as long as she has.
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. He raised three specific issues. I am happy to discuss amendments to the Representation of the People Bill with him. He knows that the Home Office is not the lead Department on that Bill, but I am happy to have a discussion about any additional legislative measures that might be needed. Of course, the Electoral Commission has its own work to do, and it might be better for duties to be placed elsewhere, but, as I said, I will happily discuss that with him. Equally, on whether any further obligations or changes of policy in respect of the Home Office, or indeed the Parliamentary Security Department, are necessary, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member and other Members across the House. I do not wish to speak for you, Mr Speaker, but I think that all of us who are Members can attest to the fact that we are treated equally in this place by the Speaker and for the purposes of the Parliamentary Security Department when it comes to our safety on the estate and in our constituencies. That position is shared by the Government. There is equal treatment for all in work that we do on security for Members of Parliament. Specific work is undertaken by RAVEC—the executive committee for the protection of royalty and public figures—which is the independent body in the Home Office that looks at security arrangements for some of those in public life. That work is also fiercely independent. It has been the subject of legal proceedings previously, and I have always maintained the independence of that process, which is based on risk assessment and risk management.
My right hon. Friend is right to say that the climate in which we are operating in our national politics is unlike any that most of us have seen. Those of us who have been around for a while can see the big change that has occurred over the last decade or so. We must do more, as a Government and as a society, to know exactly what the boundaries are between passionate, contested, fierce debate of the kind that Ann Widdecombe herself engaged in, and behaviour that spills into threats and harassment of the kind that is designed to drive people out of public life. Getting that balance right is absolutely crucial. It is clear that there is more work for the Government to do, and there is more work to do across society, which includes social media platforms taking greater responsibility for the kinds of behaviours that are promoted on their platforms. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will be discussing with colleagues across Government how to ensure we are responding to all those challenges.
The right hon. Lady makes an important point on the consequences for the Prevent duty of the changing nature of the threat. It is essential that we retain a deradicalisation programme that is focused on ideology, but as she and those who are experts in these matters know, the range of threats and the links between ideology, mixed ideology, occasional ideology, mental health and other issues ask a bigger question about how the Prevent strategy will work in the future and how we deal with the threats that fall outside of that through wider and other societal programmes. I will look at the recommendations, which I will discuss with her Committee when I appear before it, I hope, very soon.
I absolutely give that assurance to my hon. Friend. I will pick up discussions with Mr Speaker and others on how we think about security for those who are no longer Members of this place, and the specific new circumstances that are raised by Ann Widdecombe’s murder. I am happy to work across parties, across this House and with the Speaker’s Conference.
The hon. Gentleman has made a very moving and affecting tribute to Ann Widdecombe. On Widders whisky, as a teetotal Muslim, I would never be able to partake of such a drink, but if there were a non-alcoholic version available I would happily imbibe. We will ensure that, as and when it is possible to share more information about the circumstances of the murder and the motivation, that is done in the appropriate way. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that at no point has anything been taken off the table in terms of the investigation. It is a live investigation and it is not unusual that in a fast-paced investigation, more information comes to light that changes the nature or the character of what the police are dealing with. I am reassured that Devon and Cornwall police have been working closely with Counter Terrorism Policing, and as soon as the additional information was made available, Counter Terrorism Policing took over, as is appropriate and the right thing to do.
We would not, of course, ever comment on the specific nature of the arrangements made for the security of Members of Parliament, either here on the estate or in their homes or constituencies. However, let me assure my hon. Friend that a number of measures are taken. For local policing, as well as working with the Parliamentary Security Department, there is an offer for all Members of Parliament, and there are specific risk assessments when there is something of concern relating to a particular individual. Let me reassure her that I think those arrangements are comprehensive; however, we should always ask ourselves whether they are enough and whether they are responding to the changing nature of threats or the spike in threat activity that we sometimes see. I assure her that I will of course be working closely with the Parliamentary Security Department and policing more broadly to ensure that these arrangements are as tight, robust and comprehensive as they need to be.
The right hon. Gentleman makes wise points about the safety of MPs’ home addresses, and in my work alongside Mr Speaker on lessons to be learned from the circumstances of Ann’s murder, I will ensure that we consider the privacy and security of home addresses.
My hon. Friend is right that we must ensure that people are not either driven out of politics or put off entering political life at all. It is incumbent on us all to work together to ensure that whenever we are asked about the downsides of public life, we are able to give a positive view, because that is the truth, rather than where we are today. I assure my hon. Friend that Counter Terrorism Policing has the resources it needs. I had an extensive discussion and briefing from the head of national Counter Terrorism Policing, and I will be kept updated on its progress. If it needs any more from us at the Home Office, we stand ready to offer greater assistance, but I am assured that at the moment it has everything it needs.
The right hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points. He is absolutely right: it is not just sad; now that we know more about the circumstances of this murder, it is a tragedy. More will obviously come to light in the fullness of time. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as a society and as a Government, we all have to do much more to hold social media companies to account for what is said and done through their platforms. Some progress has been made, but it feels like it takes a long time to get legislation through, and it is many years before any of it can be implemented. This is a fast-moving environment. We need to get the balance right: there is fierce and contested debate, and then there is behaviour that turns into threats, visceral abuse and harassment. It is incumbent on all of us to work together across the House to achieve the necessary balance and the necessary regulation of social media.
My hon. Friend makes some really important points. Just as joke candidates are a feature of British democracy, so is knocking on doors at election time and talking to people up and down the country. All of us have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that the unique features of British democracy are protected at all times. That has been the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), the former Security Minister and now the Defence Secretary, and has been taken over by the new Security Minister. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) that we will do everything we can to protect the norms by which our democracy is felt across the country and to ensure that the ways in which we all take part in it are protected. My hon. Friend mentioned potential amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, as have other Members. The Home Office is not the lead Department for the Bill, but I undertake to discuss this issue with colleagues in Government and ensure that we respond on specific amendments, or at least on a body of work, to ensure that any additional amendments made to the Bill are capable of reflecting the nature of the challenge we face.
It is incredibly important that nobody indulges in speculation of any kind, and we should collectively call out those who do. People should exercise caution before they comment on this case—that is the right way to behave for those who wish to see justice done. We should all want the proper functioning of our criminal justice system, which requires careful handling of information. Wherever possible, we will step in to correct misinformation, as the police have done, but occasionally in these sorts of cases the police are constrained in what they can put out into the public domain, because they wish to protect proceedings that may follow. We all have to be vigilant and careful, and send out the right message from this House about our expectations.
I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the issues I will pick up, as I said in answer to a question from an Opposition Member a little earlier in this statement. I shall discuss this matter with colleagues on a cross-party basis, and I will speak with Mr Speaker and the House authorities about what more we can do in respect of specific details relating to the homes of Members and former Members of Parliament.
That was also a very moving tribute to someone of whom the hon. Gentleman was clearly very fond, and with whom he worked closely. He has dared to say that she was wrong; perhaps if we listen carefully, we can hear her saying something quite forceful in response. I take the security of all Members of Parliament very seriously, as I know Mr Speaker does. Considering what has happened to Ann Widdecombe, we must now live up to our responsibilities to former Members of Parliament as well, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take my duties in that regard very seriously. I do not want it to be the case that people are more likely to die a violent death if they are Members of this great House. This great House has great public servants in it from all over the country and from every party, and the public service of all Members of this House is something without which our country cannot do. It is incumbent on us all to protect that, for this generation and for generations to come.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we must all do more. I assure him that the Government will work closely with Mr Speaker and the Parliamentary Security Department to make sure that we are doing everything we can, but as I have said in answer to other questions, I think we as a society have to take a stronger position on the right boundary between contested debate and unacceptable behaviour and abuse online. We have more work to do in that space.
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and question, and assure her that I will be picking up a discussion with my colleagues across Government about how we do more on social media platforms and the behaviours that are promoted there, which we know are having a damaging impact on our democracy, as well as the safety and security of people involved in politics in different ways, including activists and elected representatives. Specifically, I will be discussing this matter with colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, as well as others. I will ensure that the House is updated soon after the summer recess.
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He will know that colleagues in DSIT are working carefully on the Online Safety Act 2023 and its further implementation, learning lessons from how it is being applied and thinking carefully about what might need to be done. It is clear that we need a much stronger and better policed boundary between what is acceptable in a democracy and behaviour that is challenging the very foundations of our democracy. I have undertaken to have that discussion with colleagues across government, and I will make sure that the House is updated on the programme of work that the Government intend to take forward. We must make sure that all our arrangements are as robust as possible, and that it is we, the people of this country, who decide the inheritance that we wish to leave for our children, not algorithms operated by a very small number of men who live abroad.
That was a very moving and funny set of memories from the right hon. Gentleman—very affecting. “Keep calm and carry on” are definitely words to live by, and we could all do with taking that lesson on board. Let me also echo the right hon. Gentleman’s best wishes for the police as they continue this investigation: Godspeed.
I have not seen all the comments that the right hon. and learned Lady refers to, but I have seen some of them, and they were deplorable and completely unacceptable. I know that an apology has been made in relation to comments that were made, I believe, on Sky News. I know that others have reacted with horror and anger at comments that were designed to denigrate Ann’s political views, and to deny her dignity in death. I share the right hon. and learned Lady’s absolute revulsion at such behaviour towards an elderly woman who has lost her life in very distressing and deeply tragic circumstances. It has no place in our politics or our national life, and I know that all Members of the House will agree with that. I urge everyone, wherever they may sit on the political spectrum, to exercise calm and careful judgment before hitting the send button on social media messages. A little time for reflection is often the best thing in these circumstances.
The right hon. Gentleman has shared with the House some lovely memories of his dear friend. As he was making his contribution, I thought I would follow what he said about Counter Terrorism Policing, and place on the record my gratitude for our counter-terrorism police across the country. We have a world-leading counter-terror policing operation in this country. We are very lucky to have them, and they do a great job keeping all of us safe. I know I speak on behalf of the whole House when I place those remarks on the record. The right hon. Gentleman is right, and many Members have made the point today about the unaccountability of social media platforms for their algorithms and for the type of content they host on their platforms. The Government have already done some work in this area, but I am sure we will have to go further. As I have committed before, I will make sure the House is updated in due course.
I think the right hon. Lady is absolutely right. When I was first elected in 2010, I used to run an open, first-come-first-served advice surgery, but that is no longer possible, and I have had to change that in the last few years. I still offer advice surgeries, but on terms that are very different from when I first became a Member of Parliament. That is a huge change, and it is entirely as a result of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. It is a tragedy because it does change the way we relate to our constituents. It is a very precious thing, and we must protect that connection between Members of Parliament and those they represent, and between councillors and those they represent as well. That is the work that the Government and the Parliamentary Security Department, Mr Speaker and all his team here in the House are determined to see through to make sure that, even if there are some changes in the way we relate to our constituents, we are still able to do so on terms that we would all recognise as good old British democracy at its best.
It is important that all Members of the House are careful and calm in the way we describe other Members of this House and the work done by other Members in this House. We have to imagine how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of that, and try to treat others the way we wish to be treated ourselves. I certainly want to make sure that I say from this Dispatch Box, for myself and for the Government, that any abuse or harassment by Members of Parliament of other Members of Parliament is unacceptable. We should all moderate our language. We have to get the right balance in this place between fierce and contested political debate, which happens on both the right and the left of the spectrum, and also make sure we do not slip into behaviours that increase threat to any of our colleagues. It is sometimes a difficult balance to strike in the heat of the moment or in the heat of a very polarised debate, but we still have a responsibility to show our best selves at work, as it were. I would always caution all Members, “Before you say anything quickly, just take a minute to reflect, and then think about what you’re about to say.” On specific threats, let me say to the hon. Gentleman that no, I am not aware of any. He knows that I would not ever comment on threats, or the arrangements in place for any Member or others in public life, only because to comment starts to affect the integrity of the overall system, but I will make sure that the leader of Reform UK is offered a meeting with the independent chair of RAVEC to discuss specific issues relating to risk assessment. If there are any other matters in relation to risk assessment, the police are monitoring that very carefully and will discuss, with all political parties in this House, any additional changes that they might wish to make.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I am not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances. Let me simply observe that, in the 10 months I have been in the Home Office, I have seen media reports in relation to various suggested risk assessments and risk mitigations. I have never commented to say whether something is true or false, simply because I believe that the principle of not commenting should not be breached, so as to protect the integrity of the system. The meeting has been offered. Let me assure him that RAVEC is and will always be fiercely independent. It must be, because the protection offered to people, and the level of protection and the tactics of protection that are offered, must never be based on a political assessment of who needs it, but on an independent operational assessment of what risk is and how it is best managed. That operational independence is incredibly important. I will always maintain it and protect it, and I know the Government as a whole will do so as well.
I join the hon. Lady in saying that it has been a very moving afternoon, hearing tributes to Ann Widdecombe from across the House, particularly from her former colleagues in the Conservative party and her colleagues in Reform UK, who are obviously personally affected. Once again, I offer my condolences to all of them on the loss of their friend and colleague. I take very seriously the wider risks to our democracy, including for local councillors. The hon. Lady has already referenced some of the steps that the Government have taken through our defending democracy taskforce and Operation Ford. I am sure that there will be further developments in this space. We are learning lessons from the taskforce’s work in relation to the most recent local elections, and the developing nature of the threats must be reflected in new arrangements as we move forward. We are very alive to the risks to those of us in this place, given what has happened to Jo Cox, to Sir David Amess and now to Ann Widdecombe. The security of parliamentarians gets a lot of attention, and this is perhaps the most high-profile Chamber—we are often referred to as “the mother of Parliaments”, so that is understandable—but this country also cannot do without the work of its local councillors, parish councillors and all the people who put in the hours to make their local area better, and this Government will stand by them too.
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Two years ago, when this Government took office, we inherited an asylum system in chaos. The Conservative Government had ceded control of our borders to criminal gangs and, as a result, between January 2021 and June 2024, 110,000 people arrived here by small boat, while a further 175,000 claimed asylum by other routes. As numbers soared, so did the cost to the taxpayer. In just a single year, spending on asylum support was £4.7 billion, including £9 million spent daily on housing people in 400 asylum hotels. In the last two years, this Government have begun the work of restoring order to our borders. That starts by taking the fight to the criminal gangs. In the last year, arrests of people smugglers were up 55%. Since taking office, we have disrupted organised immigration crime on 3,700 occasions—up by 46%. In partnership with French law enforcement, we have stopped 46,000 attempted channel crossings. We are now taking that partnership further with a new deal signed in April. This will fund increased patrols and intelligence operations, with a 53% increase in personnel on the French coast. The deal is already bearing fruit. In May, nearly two thirds of attempted small boat crossings were thwarted. Meanwhile, we have rebuilt a shattered asylum system. Decision making ground to a halt under the last Government; now, decisions are at a 24-year high. As a result, removals are now at their highest level in nearly a decade—up 41% on the same period prior to our taking office. We have now deported and removed nearly 10,000 foreign criminals. That is 36% more than the last Government achieved. We are also beginning to lighten the burden on local communities. This Government committed to ending the use of asylum hotels within this Parliament. Two years in, we have already emptied one in five, reducing the hotel population by 29% and cutting asylum costs by £1 billion.
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. He is absolutely right: we need to reduce the pressure in local communities as much as possible. He knows that dispersal accommodation has been part of the asylum accommodation estate for many years, including under the previous Government. Of course, the best way to reduce the need for asylum accommodation—the use of large sites, dispersal accommodation and other sites—is to reduce the inflow of people coming to the country on small boats in the channel. Once we get to grips with those numbers, we will see the biggest decrease in asylum accommodation, no matter what form it takes, and that is the work that this Government are taking forward.
Oh, the right hon. Gentleman tempts me with some attractive bait, but I will resist the temptation! I am sure that once the events of 20 July have taken place, all these matters shall become clearer still. This Government have taken some considerable steps forward, but we must do more: around 94,000 people remain in asylum accommodation at a total cost of £3.7 billion per year; while asylum claims fell by 12% last year, they remain close to historic highs; and with the criminal gangs still at work, people continue to die in the channel, with over 100 deaths since the start of 2024, including women and young children.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really shocking that we no longer seem to give huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel; in fact, they barely make the news. Most people do not realise that so many still lose their lives when crossing on small boats in the channel. That is why there is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a Government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, and how we ensure that we finish off this trade once and for all. The only people who really benefit from this trade, and from the huge risks that people place themselves under, are the criminal gangs themselves. That money is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it. This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact, but we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and unless we restore control, we will lose the British public’s support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public’s confidence, and thereby ensure that we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system—fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and towards those communities already here who bear the burden of support.
Indefinite leave to remain, and the Government’s proposals on earned settlement, will be settled policy later this year when the Government respond to the earned settlement consultation, in which we have said that we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the subject of the Bill.
I remind my hon. Friend that, as he knows, we have paused family reunification, and the Government have said that we will bring forward further proposals for our approach to that. We need to ensure that we have more parity of treatment between those who are ultimately recognised as refugees and other migrants who come to this country—and indeed British citizens who may marry from abroad but are subject to different rules that do not apply to their refugee counterparts. I think there is a need to bring some coherence to the family reunification system, and to ensure that we have an approach that is fair to all the sorts of people who make claims for family reunification. That is not the subject of the Bill, but it is something on which the Government will soon bring forward additional policy proposals. There is nothing fair about a system that is based on uncontrolled, unsafe and illegal routes into this country. The only people it serves are the people smugglers. Instead, a fair asylum system must be grounded in controlled, safe and legal asylum. For that reason, in the last few weeks I announced new routes for genuine refugees to build a new life here. These capped, safe and legal routes will soon allow communities, universities and businesses to sponsor refugees. The approach means that those in need of protection arrive with the consent of communities, and with the financial support of their sponsor and not the taxpayer. It is an approach to asylum that promotes integration within, and contribution to, this country.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When people arrive through controlled, safe routes, when we have made a decision to allow people to enter, and when we are in control and not the people-smuggling gangs, the inherent openness, tolerance and generosity of the British people is unlocked. People are willing to welcome those who are in need and who come to this country at our invitation and through a system that has broad public support. Those are the principles that will underpin this Government’s approach to the asylum system.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—yes, they can and they do. That is the difference with a safe and legal route that has buy-in from communities across the country, and that is the basis on which we will build a system for the future.
We have set out our proposals to open up a student refugee scheme and a community sponsorship scheme that will go live later in autumn this year, with the first arrivals coming in the autumn of the following year. Numbers on those schemes will grow. We will also make it possible for businesses to sponsor refugees to come to this country and provide them with work opportunities. I think that is the right way forward. It means that we will be able to accommodate different cohorts of refugees, where we believe we are able to offer a fresh start for people, and to make the best of the contribution that they are able to make to the country. I look forward to getting those routes open, and to welcoming the first arrivals. In Canada, local communities have long sponsored refugees, and 70% of those sponsored refugees have found work within a year. Here the story is very different. In the first year after being granted asylum, just a quarter of refugees are in work. That leaves them unable to contribute and build a life here, relying instead on the support of British taxpayers. This autumn we will begin to take applications for our new community sponsored and study routes. The first refugees will arrive in autumn 2027, and while numbers will start relatively small, it is my intention that they grow in scale as we restore order to our asylum system by reducing the numbers arriving by unsafe, illegal routes. The Bill is focused on how we reduce the numbers arriving unsafely and illegally in this country, and on reducing the burden placed on local communities.
I have already answered the point about proposals around indefinite leave to remain; I remind the right hon. and learned Lady, and the House, that it has been settled Government policy to increase the qualifying period from five years to 10 years since last summer—since before I was Home Secretary. In our earned settlement consultation, we have set out a series of proposals that we are consulting on. We are seeking views on the appropriate transitional arrangements that should be applied to that cohort. That is not what we are debating today, but if there is one thing I am sure of, it is that those arrangements will be the subject of intense debate in the weeks and months to come.