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
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
In a number of cases in my constituency, male perpetrators of domestic abuse have used their partners’ immigration status as a tool to control and abuse them. Those women feel unable to report crimes of any kind because they are worried about their own immigration status. What is the Home Office doing to protect women from that form of abuse?
I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that an announcement will be made this week. Two proposals have been put forward for reorganisation in Warwickshire; like my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), I put on record my support for the two-Warwickshire proposal, because it most accurately reflects how people consider services. Would she say that that the only people who seem to support the one-Warwickshire solution are the Reform administration in Warwickshire, which has failed to improve the situation regarding potholes, buses, SEND or children’s services, and that people in my constituency would therefore really welcome elections taking place in accordance with the schedule?
My constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth have been clear that Britain must secure its borders, enforce the rules and remove those with no right to remain here. They also recognise that Britain should continue to uphold our proud tradition of offering sanctuary to people genuinely fleeing war, persecution and violence. Those two principles do not conflict. A system that is firm, fair and fast is the only way to maintain public confidence. My constituents are angry about the fundamental unfairness in the current system at a time when they are having to tighten their belts ever more. Clause 23 tackles that unfairness head-on by giving the Secretary of State the power to require adults who have received asylum accommodation or financial support to make a contribution when they have sufficient means. Those who can afford to contribute should pay their fair share. That principle safeguards taxpayers’ money and creates a stronger incentive to come through safe and legal routes. The new capped routes for genuine refugees being introduced alongside the Bill are so important. Working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Government will establish controlled community sponsorship, study and work routes. The numbers will start small, because we have to restore confidence in the system. People arriving through those routes will have proper support in place, so that they can reach safety without dangerous journeys or people smugglers. My constituents are rightly concerned when serious foreign criminals are allowed to remain here by relying on a broad interpretation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, but the answer is not to leave the ECHR; the answer is to make the law clearer. Clauses 18 to 20 clearly define what constitutes family life and ensure that public safety and the prevention of crime come first. People in North Warwickshire and Bedworth are tired of politicians making promises on immigration without a credible plan to deliver them. They want border security, not slogans, and an asylum system that protects the vulnerable without being open to abuse. I am backing this landmark legislation because it will restore control of Britain’s borders and deliver an asylum system that is fair to the British taxpayer, compassionate to those genuinely seeking safety, and tough on those who seek to exploit our country and its generosity.
I welcome the 30 by 30 nature and climate plan, which responds to the crisis that we face and builds resilience and restoration. Following my youth environment conference in York, “Our Planet, Our Future”, it is clear that young people want to get involved, so in addition to setting up the youth climate and nature panel, will the Minister ensure greater accountability to young people across the country, through local panels that will hold local authorities to account for their actions?
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
12. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the British national overseas visa settlement route.
The Hong Kong community in Bracknell Forest has welcomed the announcement of the continuation of the five-year settlement route for BNO visa holders, as well as the expansion to adult children. However, real concerns remain around changes to language and income requirements, as well as concerns that Hongkongers prosecuted by the Chinese state under the national security law are seeing delays to accessing indefinite leave to remain status. Will the Minister set out when my constituents will be given clarity on these really important issues? It is right that we stand by the Hong Kong community, given our long and historic ties.
indicated dissent.
First, I thank the Home Secretary for listening to me and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), and for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), as well as all our constituents; she acted super quickly and seized this issue, to make sure that we could change the law to allow for the deportation of Shabir Ahmed. The Bill introduces a new power, personally applied by the Secretary of State, to allow offences like Ahmed’s to be classed as so serious that the offender loses protections under the Immigration Act 1971. Let us be clear: that Act was meant to give rights to law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth who came here to work hard and play by the rules; its drafters never intended for it to exempt vile sex offenders and grooming gang leaders from deportation. Shabir Ahmed’s release from prison this month was, for many, another painful reminder of the wicked crimes he committed. Ahmed, who lived in Oldham, was the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of the serial rape, exploitation and vile abuse of young white girls in Heywood, and was separately convicted of 30 rapes of a young Asian girl. All his victims were failed for years by the institutions that should have protected them. It is important for me to say that the people of Rochdale, whatever their racial background, are united in their disgust at paedophiles like Ahmed. It was this Labour Government who finally created a specific offence of grooming, which, unbelievably, did not exist before. The Government are also trialling the use of chemical castration for convicts in jails, which I personally would welcome being made compulsory for sex offenders like Ahmed. Ever since my election, I have pressed Ministers to pursue the deportation of every grooming gang member who can legally be removed from the UK. I know that this is just the start, and that even once the law is changed, Pakistan may still say that it will refuse to take back this man. Whatever diplomatic barriers exist must be challenged, and every possible avenue must be explored. The public interest is clear in this case; more broadly, the public interest is strengthened by this Bill. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights—the right to family life—has always been a qualified right, as the Home Secretary has pointed out. This means that judges are asked to strike a balance between those rights and the public interest. That is precisely why the Rochdale grooming gang members lost their appeals under human rights law. However, these bogus appeals happen far too often, and for many, it is a sick joke that paedophiles who have robbed children of their own right to family life depend on human rights to stay in this country. That is why I welcome the new provision in the Bill to require decision makers and courts—
T4. Pennine Domestic Abuse Partnership is a strong example of non-judgmental, trauma-informed support for victims of domestic abuse. For many women, it is the first point of contact; however, for others, the emergency services are the first to respond. Will the Minister clarify what steps can be taken to ensure that this non-judgmental, victim-centred approach is consistently reflected in the police’s engagement with victims?
7. What assessment her Department has made of the effectiveness of the high streets organised crime unit.
The criminals on the high street move quickly, but the Government response has tended to be too slow over many years. When will the current pilots finish, how will success be judged, and when will all towns in Britain be able to say that they benefit from what works?
rose—
Does my right hon. Friend think it would be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor or the Judicial Appointments Commission to have input into the first of each of these appointments, to ensure their independence is guaranteed?
I thank the Minister for her listening ear throughout this process. I know that she will make a bigger statement on Thursday, but while she is giving these matters consideration, may I make a last-ditch attempt to convince her to keep Burnley and Blackburn very separate? Will she prioritise devolution in Lancashire, so that we can have a mayor and enjoy the things that cities enjoy, such as cheaper buses and business investment?
It is great to hear my right hon. Friend supporting schemes like Homes for Ukraine. The reason we do not see Ukrainians crossing the channel on small boats is because, rightly, we have a safe and legal route. Why not expand those safe and legal routes to places like Sudan and Eritrea, because obviously if an asylum claim comes from those countries, at the very least they should be fast-tracked? That would help to clear up the backlog, so would she support that?
There is little evidence that the Bill will do what it claims and fix the most serious issues in our asylum system. In fact, experts say that it will divert focus and resources to a system that is unfair, unsafe and unworkable. There are many problems in the Bill, but for the sake of time I will focus on the independent immigration appeals authority. The Government say that to tackle the backlog they will replace the tribunal system, which is made up of judges, with a new system of adjudicators, who are not legally qualified but who are given power and responsibility to make what are, in many cases, life and death decisions. The Government claim that they will be independent, but they are appointed by the chief executive, who is appointed by the Secretary of State. That undermines the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, which are key cornerstones of our democracy. The Law Society says that it risks “more wrong decisions, more court challenges, higher costs and longer uncertainty.” Poor Home Office decision making drives the appeals backlog. In the last financial year, 39% of appeals were granted, and more than 10,000 were withdrawn because the Home Office abandoned its initial decision. Rather than building new expensive bodies, the Government should invest in the existing system and get asylum decisions right the first time. The Government could have brought forward a Bill containing evidence-based policies that would fix our broken asylum system—for example, a not-for-profit asylum accommodation system to improve living conditions and integration, genuinely safe routes that are not severely restricted and heavily capped, and fast tracking of obviously well-founded asylum cases such as those from war zones. Instead, I am ashamed to say that the Bill is a betrayal of our party’s values, and I cannot support it. I urge the Government to withdraw this Bill, and instead to work with sector organisations and experts to create an immigration and asylum system that is rooted in compassion, justice and human rights.
Yesterday, fire spread rapidly along the railway line in Walthamstow, with dry vegetation from the heatwave acting as kindling. Hundreds of residents had to be evacuated as an emergency and several lost their homes, which burned down. I pay tribute to the St Mary’s Welcome Centre, the Waltham Forest Islamic Association, the fire brigade, the police and the council staff who joined hundreds of residents in helping those affected by setting up emergency centres with food, water, fans and phone chargers, all at short notice. The honest truth is that this is not the first time Walthamstow has risen to the challenge to support our community when such a crisis has happened. What is the Minister doing to build climate resilience into local government planning? I fear that, whether from flooding or heatwaves, my community will face more of these incidents in future without that.
The case that the Home Secretary is making for this legislation is that the way in which appeals are being dealt with is unnecessarily slowing up and clogging up the system, because of the nature of the appeals being made. She has just argued that there is a quality control with the initial decisions that the Home Office is making. Looking at the figures, I see that that accounts for 40% of these appeals being overturned. Will she reflect again on the quality of initial Home Office decision making? Will bringing in a piece of legislation that will further complexify that decision-making process lead to better decisions being made the first time? For value for the public purse and the decency of how we treat refugees, surely that is where she should focus her efforts.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us his experience. Governments of all colours have always been angry about the European Court of Human Rights, because they are kept honest by having a court of human rights that can act to protect citizens when Governments make incorrect decisions about people’s basic fundamental liberties. If he wants a good example of why upholding international treaties matters, I suggest that he talk to our colleagues from Northern Ireland about the Good Friday agreement, which is rooted in the European Court of Human Rights. Before he argues that we should remove those protections in such a cavalier fashion, perhaps he might reflect on why people like Winston Churchill wanted to protect citizens from Governments who might make incorrect decisions, whether in the immigration system or about their fundamental human rights.
To have concerns about this Bill does not mean that we defend the status quo. It does not mean that we want the boats to continue, or that we do not want to see Shabir Ahmed deported, or that we do not recognise that claims are down, channel crossings are down, the number waiting for decisions is coming down and things are moving in the right direction. It means making the very simple case that the Bill could take us backwards, and could end up being more expensive for the taxpayer. I do not stand here raising concerns about this legislation because of my concerns about the approach to the ECHR and my belief in the importance of defending it as a fundamental part of our liberty, or because I am proud to live in a community that welcomes refugees and proud to have spent this morning talking to a refugee businessman. If we are going to tell stories about refugees, let us tell the whole story about the contribution that they make to our country. I stand here as someone speaking up for the taxpayer’s interest. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has just pointed out, the truth is that much of the backlog is a result of poor-quality decision making. That is where cost is mounting up for the British taxpayer. The idea that there are no lessons to be learned about how we can save money, when in two thirds of cases the appeals are accepted or the decisions are withdrawn by the Home Office, does not bear scrutiny. Frankly, it would be decent if the Home Office turned up at those first-tier tribunals in the first place, and it would probably improve decision making as well, because we know that that has been a problem. Our failure to go after the Eurodac data means that it is harder for us to deal with asylum claims between the UK and Europe. That is why Brexit has caused problems. Fundamentally, spending money on getting it right the first time would be the best way to give people confidence in our asylum system. Bringing in a new system that will add further complexity is only likely to add cost. We are creating a refugee system that will see us spending money on repeatedly asking people whether they are still victims of torture and whether there is still civil war in their country—testing and retesting these people for no apparent gain other than proving that we have a broken system. The Bill introduces a Diet Coke version of refugee status, the core protection visa, which will require refugees to be retested every two and a half years, potentially for 20 years. Think of the cost! The Refugee Council has estimated it to be about £1 billion. Then there are all the people that we are forgetting in this process. We have already talked about the madness of introducing a £10,000 debt for people on low incomes so that they are never able to sort themselves out properly in the UK if we do give them status. In the final seconds remaining to me, I want to refer to the overseas domestic workers in this country who are being exploited. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) spoke powerfully about the importance of not seeing everyone who comes here as a criminal, but recognising criminal behaviour. There are things that we could do so much better, which would save the British taxpayer money and restore confidence in the system, but I am sad to say that I do not think the Bill will take us in that direction.
I would like to understand the point about detention centres. How many places would be required, and over what period? How does the hon. Gentleman think that this is even feasible, given that the previous Government managed to build only one new prison in 14 years?
Migrants who come here to work in our national health service and in other crucial sectors are tremendously welcome and should be encouraged, but I have seen surprising cases in Chesterfield because of the number of familial applications that have accompanied the arrival of a single worker. Is it the Secretary of State’s perspective that the family visa regime is working as intended, or does she think it is ripe for reform?
As a former councillor on Chesterfield borough council—and given the excellent record that Labour has had there over the last 15 years—I think it will be a shame when the borough council ceases to exist and we move towards unitary authority status, but I have never met someone in a unitary authority who thought it would be better if we returned to a two-tier system, so I think that ultimately we are on the right route with this approach. Can my hon. Friend confirm that when she reaches her conclusions —of which none of us Labour Members representing Derbyshire are currently aware—she will be sticking strictly to the criteria that the Government originally laid out?
I welcome the Government’s statement. My hon. Friend the Minister is right to say that climate change drives nature loss and nature loss drives climate change—we must tackle them hand in hand. I met this week with Moors for the Future, who spoke about peatland and the importance of working with land managers. I have to say, they were very much more of the view of my hon. Friend than of the shadow Minister, who we just heard from. The Minister is right to talk about the importance of adaptation, which we need massively to improve, so will she tell us when the next iteration of the national adaptation plan will come out? The one under the previous Government was widely criticised, and we need to know more. A plan that looks only at adaptation will fail, as that must be secondary to mitigation. Finally, what more can we do in our approach? It is right to say that farmers are fundamental to success in improving our nature outcomes, and it is regrettable that this Government got off on such a bad foot with them. What can she tell us about how we can rebuild that relationship? Ultimately, we must work hand in hand with farmers and sustainable farming if we are going to achieve what we need for nature?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to the 1,744 people in Hartlepool who signed the petition. That is a significant number of my constituents, and their concerns deserve to be heard and taken seriously. Let me begin by saying something very clearly. The people of Hartlepool are entitled to be angry about immigration. They are entitled to expect secure borders. They are entitled to expect that those with no right to be in this country are removed. They are entitled to expect fairness in the asylum system and fairness for the communities that feel they have carried more than their fair share, and I share in those expectations. I have supported the Home Secretary’s measures to reduce illegal immigration, strengthen border security and increase returns, and I will continue to support this Home Secretary, including on the measures that will be laid before the House later today, which I hope this House will pass in full. The truth is that progress is being made. Net migration has fallen dramatically from the peak under the previous Government’s Boris wave: it is down 82%, delivering the reduction that was promised for years but never achieved. Indeed, the figures are now entering the tens of thousands that Conservative Administrations promised for so long. Small boat crossings are down 41% this year, while deportations of those arriving by small boat are up 16%. In Hartlepool, the number of asylum seekers living in dispersed accommodation has fallen by 14% since the general election. The new immigration and asylum legislation will further strengthen the powers available to remove those with no right to be here and deter those attempting to enter illegally. That is the serious work of Government. It requires law enforcement, international co-operation, proper returns agreements, faster decisions and a system that can distinguish between genuine asylum claimants and those who have no right to remain. I fully understand why people sign a petition like this. They see boat crossings in the channel. They see asylum accommodation in their communities. They see the pressure on housing, schools, public services and community cohesion. They feel that for far too long the broken system —broken by the Conservative party—has not worked, and they want action. They are right to expect it, but we also have a responsibility in this place to be honest. Offshore detention is something that I support in principle, but it is not a magic answer. It is expensive, it is legally complex and it does not remove the need for returns agreements, effective administration and tackling the criminal gangs who profit from human misery—but I reiterate that if we can make it work, in principle I support it. More importantly, the language we use matters. It affects how people view their neighbours, it affects how communities feel and it affects people’s lives. That brings me to a point that I want to make very clearly. A constituent, Jasvir Singh, came to see me a couple of weeks ago after experiencing repeated racial abuse in the community where he has lived and served for almost 30 years. He owns a local business and has paid his taxes; he has contributed to Hartlepool and built a life there. He has done exactly what we say we value, yet he came to see me because the rhetoric around immigration has made his life harder. Jasvir is not an illegal immigrant, and he is not a criminal; he has every right to be here and he is part of our community, yet a small minority accuse him of being an illegal immigrant, of having arrived on a small boat and of having no right to be here, and they do so for one reason alone: the colour of his skin. When politicians blur the line between voicing legitimate concern about illegal immigration and using language that encourages suspicion of people because of their background or their skin colour, it is people like Jasvir who pay the price. That is why the rhetoric we use matters. There is a line between wanting secure borders and stirring up hostility; there is a line between removing those with no right to remain and portraying whole communities as a threat; there is a line between legitimate concern and racist dog-whistle politics, and it is my view that that line has been crossed repeatedly by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). When that happens, the consequences are not confined to Westminster Hall. They are felt by people like Jasvir. They are felt by families in Hartlepool. They are felt by children who hear abuse on their way to school. Words spoken in this place do not stay here. They travel into communities and workplaces and on to social media. That does not mean that we should avoid the issue—quite the opposite. We must continue to reduce illegal immigration, we must continue to strengthen our borders, we must remove those with no right to remain and we must dismantle criminal gangs and restore public confidence, but we must do so in a way that is serious, lawful and above all decent. Hartlepool understands the pressure that the issue creates. One of my first actions on being elected as MP for Hartlepool was to meet Mears, the company responsible for asylum accommodation locally, because Hartlepool carries more than its fair share compared with neighbouring areas. I made clear that the system had to be fair, that responsibility could not simply fall on communities already facing significant challenges, and that local people deserved answers. Following those conversations, new asylum accommodation in Hartlepool was halted and numbers fell. I will continue to raise this issue with Ministers because fairness matters. Hartlepool is a proud and welcoming town that believes in fairness. Fairness means secure borders and removing those who have no right to be here, but it also means standing up for the people who belong here and ensuring they are not made to feel like strangers because of the colour of their skin or the sound of their name. That is the balance we need: strong borders, faster removals, proper enforcement, serious government and politics that does not make innocent people pay the price for failures in the immigration system. The people who signed this petition deserve answers, and my answer is this: I will continue to support firm action to reduce illegal immigration, I will support strengthening our borders and I will support practical measures that work, but I will not support rhetoric that puts my constituents at risk, I will not support language that turns legitimate concern into racial hostility, and I will not stay silent when people who have lived in, worked in and contributed to Hartlepool for decades are made to feel that they no longer belong. We can have secure borders without losing that most fundamental of British values: common decency. We can have firm immigration controls without attacking decent people based on their skin colour, and we can tell the truth about illegal immigration without turning on our neighbours. We will not import Trumpian politics into our country. That is not the British way.
I can say absolutely wholeheartedly that the Home Secretary retains my complete support for seeing this legislation through in full. Does she not agree that, as we take this action forward, it is important not just that the hotels are reduced, but that the dispersal accommodation that has overburdened communities, like mine in Hartlepool, is also reduced?
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for clearly and comprehensively articulating the key facets of the petition that has resulted in us all being here on this sunny afternoon. I am grateful to him, to the petitioners and to all other Members who have spoken. We have heard a wide range of views. I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced and the various points raised, and I will seek to respond to as many as possible in the time available. Before I get into the detail, I must do two things. First, I assert again this Government’s unshakeable commitment to tackling illegal immigration. I am sorry to have to remind Members of the situation we inherited, but it was so dire that, two years on, the legacy of past failures remains. When we took office, smuggling gangs saw this country’s borders as a soft target. The enforcement of basic rules had ground to a halt. The system was in disarray. We have worked hard since July 2024 to turn things around, and our efforts are having an impact. Over 44,000 channel crossings have been stopped in partnership with the French. Under our landmark returns agreement with France, those arriving can face immediate detention and removal. Removals and deportations of illegal migrants and foreign criminals have gone up, as have illegal working visits. We have more officers tackling organised immigration crime, and disruption of OIC is at record highs. Asylum costs, meanwhile, are down, as is the number of hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers. We are reducing the pull factors, and we will do whatever it takes to secure effective returns co-operation with our international partners. We will use every lever available to return those with no right to be in the UK. In November, we threatened visa penalties against Angola, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Within weeks, my Department had successfully negotiated new arrangements and it is now conducting returns on that basis. My message is clear: if foreign Governments refuse to accept the return of their citizens, they will face the consequences. That is just the start of our action. Countries that do not co-operate on returns cannot expect a normal visa relationship with the UK. We do all of that and more, because the Home Secretary has said from day one that we must do whatever it takes to restore order and control to our borders, but we also know that there is much more to do.
We must remember that the ECHR, which I will say more about later in my speech, underpins many of the exact returns agreements that we rely upon to deport and remove people.
It is an absolute fact that many of our returns agreements are underpinned by our membership of the ECHR. I will now make some progress. That is why we are embarking on the most significant set of asylum reforms in a generation. Under our plans, the UK will continue to play its part in helping the world’s most vulnerable people. However, to meet the challenges of today, we must address the fact that this country is more attractive to asylum seekers than other countries in Europe, so we are acting, including through the introduction of new legislation, to build a new fair but firm asylum model, based on contribution, integration and respect for UK laws. Of course, the reason I mention all that is that it goes to the heart of the problem that this petition seeks to answer, which is the arrival of illegal migrants and their continued presence in this country. We understand why people are frustrated after years of chaos and crisis. That is why we are taking concerted and decisive action to restore order and control. I will now move on to my second point, which is to address the specific thrust of this petition, namely that the Government should seek to establish offshore detention facilities for individuals who enter the UK illegally. We have been clear that we will continue to work with international partners to tackle the global challenge of irregular migration. However, interventions must work in practice, they must offer value for money and they must comply with the UK’s international obligations. The Government are doing whatever it takes to secure our borders, including the introduction of the most sweeping asylum reforms in a generation. The petition also refers to deportation, to which I would reply that more people with no right to be here are being removed from British soil under this Government than at any time in years. Since the election, we have removed or deported nearly 70,000 people who were here illegally. I turn now to some of the specific points made by Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made an absolutely fantastic contribution. I agree with him wholeheartedly that it is important that we get the rhetoric right and that it is our responsibility —the responsibility of all of us in this Chamber—to ensure that we do not pitch neighbour against neighbour. Unity is British; division is not. I turn to the contribution of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). She made a good point about visa overstayers; they do make up a large proportion of those who are here illegally. We have paused the health and social care route and we have also paused automatic family reunion. We are imposing stricter measures on universities to ensure that that route is not abused, and we have already seen the number of those who are seeking to claim asylum after signing up to a university drop significantly. But of course, we are looking to go further across the board on legal migration and overstayers. The hon. Member also talked about rapists and paedophiles. Everyone here agrees that if a rapist, a paedophile or a criminal has come to this country, they should not be here, and it is important that we make changes to the ECHR—a process that is ongoing at this time—to deport and remove those people.
The hon. Member’s party had 14 years to make changes, but they absolutely failed. We inherited their open borders and their broken system, but we are working hard behind the scenes, as we speak, to make the ECHR more fit for purpose. Let me move on to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who made very good points about the cost of some of these proposals. Everything that we do in the Home Office must be costed and must be affordable to the British taxpayer, and of course we have a duty to protect those who are fleeing war and persecution, which is one of the things that makes Britain so great. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) made a good point about the single dinghy having more individuals on it over the weekend. The reason is that we are attacking the supply chains and taking boats out of the supply chain, which means that more people are being forced on to these boats. We acknowledge that that is dangerous, which is why we are working hard with our international partners to stop these boat crossings. Disruptions of boat crossings are now at around 44,000.
I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate intervention. We took on her Government’s open borders. Over the last year, we have seen a reduction of around 41% in small boat crossings. It is not something that we celebrate, because we know that we are only seven months into the year, but we are working hard with our international partners. I have already given the stats on the number of disruptions. I will move on to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who I know has been a voice behind this petition in the media and on social media. I have never referred to anybody who cares about this topic as on the mad fringe or as a racist. It is about people’s own perceptions; it is for them to decide whether they are racist or mad-fringe. Having these concerns is absolutely valid, in general, but I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool that we must mind our rhetoric, because the public do listen to what we say in this place. I have not eaten much today, and the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth talked about some fine-sounding snacks being delivered by Deliveroo. He is absolutely right that we must crack down on that issue, and we are making efforts to do that. Arrests are up about 81% on illegal working, but that is by no means finished, and we will continue to work hard on it. I have talked about the ECHR already. The hon. Gentleman has produced a large book; he did say that he would not go into detail, but maybe there is some in there. I respect that sort of work going into policy development, but as I say, we have to make sure that we maintain our British values throughout.
I respect the intervention. I did say that I apologised for having to raise this again, but it is a fact that we inherited a completely broken system. It does take time to fix a broken system, and we are working hard to do so.
I am absolutely fed up of being lectured by the Opposition, who gave us this problem. It is like being lectured by the arsonist on putting out the fire. I will go absolutely no further with that. I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock). It is absolutely right that we must remove the pull factors. We have to ensure that there are deterrents for people looking to come over. When we came into the Home Office, the fact is that there was asylum shopping going on across Europe, because the offer that we gave to those seeking asylum was better than many others, so we have brought ourselves in line with the rest of Europe. That will make it less attractive to come here. We are also moving individuals out of hotels and into larger sites, removing one of the pull factors. I have already mentioned that immigration enforcement, when it comes to illegal working, is up 81%, which is removing another pull factor. But of course compassion is essential; that is what makes us great. Looking at safe and legal routes to be introduced in due course is another part of the solution. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) made a good point about our duty to help those who are fleeing persecution and war. Capped safe and legal routes will ensure that we do our bit to help people. He talked about decision making; the speed of our initial decision making is up 71%, and there is still further to go. We have reallocated and employed more caseworkers to ensure that we get through that, but our initial decision making is up.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw the start of the boat crossings crisis only after we left the EU; of course, the Dublin agreement provided some sort of deterrent. However, reopening the Brexit wound is not something I want to do, which is why we are looking at introducing more returns agreements, so that we can deport and remove more people.
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is now on the record. I would be keen to discuss why he thinks the numbers went up, and why we saw about 180,000 people cross after 2018. [Interruption.] Perhaps that is something to discuss outside this room. I will now move on to some broader points. I have tried to get around everybody who spoke; my apologies if I have missed anybody.
The Home Secretary made it clear at Home Office oral questions that the announcement on the five to 10 years absolutely stands. We opened a large consultation and had 200,000 responses that are still being worked through. Announcements on transition arrangements and so on will be made in due course—around the autumn, we expect. Let me move on to small boat arrivals more broadly. They are unacceptable, and we have made a commitment to restore order and control by making it less attractive to come here and easier to remove people. We have also been working with international partners, and we have seen small boat crossings go down 41% in the last year. In March, we extended the duty to deport foreign national offenders who have been given suspended sentences of 12 months or more. FNOs who have a prison sentence, a suspended sentence or a community order are referred for deportation. Foreign national offender removals are now up by 36%, and we will continue to remove those who should not be here. Progress is being made to end the use of hotels, which is something that we will achieve by the end of this Parliament. Hotel use is down from 213 in July 2024 to fewer than 170 today. Asylum support costs are down 15%. I have already covered illegal working a number of times in response to interventions. Small boat crossings are down, decisions are up, hotel use is down, deportations and removals are up, and net migration is down by 82%. This is not an overnight fix and there is no silver bullet, but two years in, this Government are heading in the right direction with a solutions-based approach, which includes safe and legal routes and increased deportations and removals. This does not have to sit anywhere on the political spectrum; it is about finding solutions, and that is what we are doing. I will conclude there, with thanks again to all who participated in today’s debate. I know that the strength of feeling around these issues is significant on all sides. This debate and the original petition are further evidence of that. Although we may disagree on how best to respond to the very significant challenges that this country faces from illegal migration, I think we are mostly united in believing that those challenges must be addressed if we are to be the strong, secure nation that the people we serve rightly demand. As I have set out, this Government are taking more and stronger action than any in recent memory to restore order and control to our borders. That is the task, and in that task we will be unrelenting.
This Government recognise the importance of a prompt announcement on visa numbers to enable the agriculture industry to plan and prepare. The Government are committed to supporting the UK horticulture sector, but it is important that the sector reduces its ongoing reliance on significant numbers of seasonal workers from overseas. We are engaging closely with the sector and other stakeholders, and will announce the number of seasonal worker visas available for 2027 shortly, in line with usual practice.
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. I will ensure that we work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—we already do—in engaging with the sector to ensure that the announcement on numbers is timely, as it needs to be, so that farmers can plan.